Europe is the worst enemy of the US? You cannot be serious. Islamism, Russia, illegal immigrants . . . whatever, but surely not Europe! Are we not still together in NATO? Do we not conduct huge amounts of trade every day? Do we not share the same cultural roots, the same civilization, the same vision of the future? Did France not give the US her famous Statue of Liberty – “Liberty Enlightening the World?”
Not anymore. In a sense, Europe looks like a continent where American Democrats have been in power for 30 years, not only in the European states, but also at the level of the European Union. (Gatestone Institute, 20th July).
Wanted: US ambassadors in Europe
The Trump administration’s slow pace in appointing ambassadors, which has left major posts vacant around the world, is hampering the ability to carry out US policy. “Now is a bad time not to have an ambassador in Germany,” the top US Army commander in Europe said. (Politico) (FT 7/20)
Melanie Phillips writes on Brexit:
Good gracious! Someone tell me I’m not dreaming! A Eurocrat has spoken the truth about Britain’s negotiations with the EU.
In an article in The Times Hans-Olaf Henkel, a senior German politician who is deputy head of the European Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee, accuses the European Union’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier of trying to punish Britain by making a deliberate “mess” of key elements of Brexit.
You don’t say!
Mr. Henkel writes that the European parliament’s Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, was responsible in “no small part for the disaster of Brexit” and “now wants to punish the British, full stop.”
“He says he doesn’t want to, but I’m afraid he does. My impression is that Mr. Barnier wants to do the same. The reason is simple. They would seek to make sure that Brexit is such a catastrophe that no country dares to take the step of leaving the EU again.”
(“So just who is really messing up Brexit talks?” 7/20)
KING AND QUEEN OF SPAIN VISIT UK
The King and Queen of Spain were on a state visit to the United Kingdom last week. Predictably, the King brought up the question of Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory at the southern tip of Spain. It’s been under British rule for over three centuries, far longer than it ever belonged to Spain.
There’s an element of hypocrisy here.
Spain rules two enclaves in North Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, which are both claimed by Morocco. They are the only African territories still ruled by Europeans.
UNESCO is an Immoral, Anti-Semitic Organization - Decent Countries Should Leave
by Guy Millière • July 19, 2017 at 5:00 am
Although Europe claims to respect human rights and the rights of peoples, it has been a party to violating the most essential right of the Jewish people: the recognition of its existence for more than 3,000 years, and the anchoring of this existence to its sacred monuments. Worse, Europe does so in the name of a people fictitiously invented less than 50 years ago. No serious scholar can find any trace of a “Palestinian people” before the 1960s. Europe has apparently been all too happy to accept lies.
While claiming to fight terrorism, Europe complies with the demands of a terrorist movement that does not even bother to hide its terrorist nature. When Mahmoud Abbas speaks Arabic, he continually incites the murder of Jews. He recently repeated that he would not stop paying tried, convicted and imprisoned murderers of Jews, and still calls these murderers heroic “martyrs.” On all maps used by the Palestinian Authority and in Palestinian textbooks, Israel does not exist; it is called Palestine.
Europeans, imbued with a generic sense of guilt, began attributing all that is wrong in the world to Western civilization. Because they had colonized parts of the Muslim world, they failed to note that Muslim culture had, in fact, colonized Persia, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, Greece, Cyprus, the Balkans, North Africa, Southern Spain, and, more recently, northern Cyprus. (Gatestone Institute 7/20)
Turkey’s new school curriculum drops the theory of evolution and adds the concept of ” jihad as patriotic in spirit”. The move has fueled fears that populist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is subverting the republic’s secular foundations. (Independent)
a. A white Australian woman was shot dead by a policeman In Minneapolis over the weekend.
Headlines around the world announced that she was shot by an American cop.
The cop, it turns out, was a Somali immigrant, a Muslim named Mohammed Noor.
Was the fact that he is a Somali Muslim a factor? Possibly.
What was certainly a factor is that he is an immigrant from Somalia, one of the most violent countries in the Islamic world, a country famous for its mistreatment of women.
Once again, an innocent victim would still be alive if there were stricter controls on immigration.
b) I’m looking forward to going to see the movie “Dunkirk” which begins this weekend. The movie tells the true story of the 1940 evacuation from the French coastal town of Dunkirk of 330,000 British troops who were about to be captured by the German army.
USA Today gave it a good review. However, the reviewer fell victim to political incorrectness when he ended his review with these words: “… the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.” (“Dunkirk an immersive look at heroism,” 7/18).
It wasn’t until 1948 that non-whites started arriving in Britain in significant numbers; and women were not used in combat until fairly recently.
But how would a generation raised on political correctness possibly know that?
Note the following from a review of the movie “Atonement” (2007) which featured the evacuation from Dunkirk. The same problem perplexed the historical adviser to the movie.
“She said that as a historical advisor on Atonement (2007), there was a decision that had made her uneasy – the depiction of a black soldier appearing with Robbie (the main character) in Dunkirk. She asserts: “In fact, it was almost impossible for there to have been a black soldier in the British Expeditionary Force in France.” She suspects this was done “to reflect today’s multicultural society” and “gave a misleading impression of how Britain was at the time.” The film did prompt discussion.”
(Presenting the black past – how history must change the media,11/14/13).
With three young grandchildren in the house, including a baby that recently turned one year old, I’ve taken to watching silent movies on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). There’s no dialog to hear, so surrounding noise isn’t a problem.
I started by watching the 1925 version of “Ben Hur,” which many consider the best of the three versions. It certainly has the best chariot scene, made at a time when animal rights were not taken into consideration. (Not that I advocate hurting animals – it was just so REAL!)
Recently, I watched “Love” with Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, made the following year. The two actors were more famous than Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio are today.
The movie was an enactment of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.” The title was changed thanks to the tabloids. The gossip papers had revealed that, while making the film, Gilbert and Gabo had started their own relationship. This enabled the movie’s producers to put the following on marquees across America: “Garbo and Gilbert in Love.” The movie was a sensation, a bigger hit than anything Hollywood turns out nowadays.
It wasn’t only the title that was changed. Producers chose to make the movie with two alternative endings. They referred to one as the “Russian ending,” with Anna, as in the classic, killing herself in front of a train after an adulterous affair that led to her losing her son. Another ending was made for Americans, with Anna’s husband dying, thereby leaving her free to marry her lover, Vronsky, and keep her son. It was felt that American audiences couldn’t handle Anna’s death. The “American” version missed the whole point of the novel.
Interestingly, the Russian ending was shown in New York and on the West coast. It was only Mid-western sensibilities that they were concerned about.
If Hollywood can’t even get a novel right, why would we expect them to be accurate when it comes to non-fiction?
Another Russian “story” caused a problem for Hollywood a few years later, by which time sound had replaced the old silent movies. This movie dealt with “Rasputin and the Empress” (1932). It’s depiction of Prince Felix Yousoupov, the principal murderer of Rasputin, was so inaccurate it led to a major lawsuit; since then movies carry the words “all characters in this film are fictional,” or similar, to protect themselves from expensive lawsuits. Now, no attempt is made at accuracy.
I’ve yet to see a Hollywood movie depict the American Revolution with any degree of accuracy. In Hollywood, everything has to be black and white. Real life is rarely like that. The Revolution was not Americans against the king; the country was equally divided — one third rebelled against the crown, one third were loyal and the other third couldn’t spell “crown.” On the eve of Yorktown, 40% were loyalists, with support for the Patriots down to 30%.
Rather than the claim that the king was acting selfishly, it can be argued that the leaders of the Patriots were. They were heavily in debt to British banks, following a bad crop in 1773 – one way to get out from under the debt was to ditch the Crown. It’s not surprising that wealthy indebted landowners led the revolution – the only revolution in history where those rebelling were richer than those they rebelled against! This issue was finally resolved after the war when the belligerents got together in Paris.
I was thinking about this over the Fourth of July, when I read a review in The Economist by their American correspondent. He reviewed a book titled: “Scars of Independence: America’s violent birth,” by Holger Hoock of the University of Pittsburgh. Mr. Hoock “. . . concluded that selective amnesia took hold soon after the war, as victors told their version of history, and the British displayed their genius for forgetting defeats. In the republic’s earliest decades, stone monuments charging the British with “cold-blooded cruelty” rose on battle sites from Lexington, Massachusetts to Paoli, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile orators told Americans that their revolt had been unusually civilized: one public meeting in 1813 declared the revolution “untarnished with a single blood-speck of inhumanity.” (The American Revolution Revisited – a Nation Divided, Even at Birth)
I have an extensive library of books on the Revolution, all of which were written by Americans. The following quote from The Economist is an accurate observation:
“Browse through school history books, with names like “Liberty or Death!” and the struggle to throw off British rule is sanctified as a victory of American patriot-farmers and artisans against battle-hardened British redcoats and foreign mercenaries, defending ideals crafted by orators in periwigs. Yet go back to contemporary sources, and they called it what it also was: a brutal civil war.” (Economist review.)
6% of America’s population died in the Revolutionary War, as against 2% in the War Between the States eight decades later. (By 1861 the population was much higher, but the percentage gives an idea of the relative suffering of the people.)
Note the following: “At the war’s end, about one in 40 Americans went into permanent exile, the equivalent of some 8m people today.” (ibid.)
The Revolutionary War was a civil war. Most battles took place without the presence of British soldiers – brother fought brother, to death, with little mercy shown. Ironically, if the Revolutionary War had not taken place, the “Civil War” would never have happened – the imperial parliament in London abolished the slave trade in 1808 and slavery itself 25 years later. No battles were fought over the issue. Additionally, states’ rights would never have been a factor or cause for conflict. Canada was spared both civil wars.
So, what did Americans gain?
FACTS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY
Consider the following gleaned from a variety of books on the subject:
>>>American historian Gordon Wood, considered the foremost expert on the Revolution, wrote in his book: “The Radicalization of the American Revolution,” that England in the eighteenth century was the freest country in the world and that the colonists were even freer. The king was the guarantor of freedom – never again could a commoner like Oliver Cromwell take power and become a dictator. Celebrations for King George III’s coronation in 1762 were greater in the colonies than in England. So, what went wrong and why, then, did some Americans want more freedom?
>>>The French and Indian Wars were fought by Britain and the colonists to defend the latter against a French Catholic take-over. George Washington, serving “King and Country”, fired the first shots. The seven-year war left the British government with serious debts, which they tried to recoup by taxing the colonies. Americans did not want to pay for the war. Over two centuries later, Americans still do not like to pay for wars.
>>>Contrary to what is often thought today, all thirteen original colonies had a democratic form of government. All property-owning males could vote, with a 90% turnout at elections. After independence, there was no immediate widening of the franchise. In 1789, when the first election was held, only 6% of the population could vote. Both the United States and the United Kingdom extended the franchise during the nineteenth century and both gave women the vote after World War One. America lagged behind England in voting rights, not catching up until the Voting Rights Act of 1964.
>>>The Right to Vote and the Right to Bear Arms were in force before 1776. Indeed, the revolution would not have been possible without these rights.
>>>It has often been pointed out that the leaders of the Revolution were richer than the people they rebelled against.
>>>In 1772, the monumental Somerset Decision sent shock-waves through the American colonies. A slave had taken his owner to court. The court ruled that nobody in the British Isles could be owned by somebody else. If extended to the colonies, this would have ruined prosperous farmers who needed free labor.
Wikipedia has this to say on the subject: “Somerset v Stewart 98 ER 499 is a famous judgment of the English Court of King’s Bench in 1772, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales.”
>>>Rather than the claim that the king was acting selfishly, it can be argued that the leaders of the Patriots were. They were heavily in debt to British banks, following a bad crop in 1773.
>>> Paul Revere did not ride through Lexington, Massachusetts, shouting: “the British are coming.” This would have made no sense as everybody was British. It would be like somebody today, seeing the police approaching, would shout out the warning that the Americans are coming. Rather, Paul Revere warned that “the Regulars are coming,” a reference to full time professional troops.
>>>Geoffrey Wawro, a distinguished scholar of military history who teaches at the University of North Texas, led a discussion some years ago on “Global View” (History International Channel). The panel concluded that the separation of England and America weakened the English-speaking world considerably.
>>>By 1800, almost twenty years after independence, Americans were paying more in taxes than they had ever paid under colonial rule.
>>>As the Patriots called themselves the “Sons of Liberty,” the Tories referred to them as the “Sons of Anarchy.” Partly because of what happened a century earlier when England itself became a republic, many loyalists feared a total breakdown of law and order if the country became a republic, a country without a king. A Biblically literate population was aware of the warning at the end of the Book of Judges: “There was no king in Israel in those days; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 25:25). No king meant anarchy!
>>>Many of today’s super-patriots, those who celebrate the 4th of July most vigorously, ironically, would probably have been Tories in 1780. Conservatives don’t like change or uncertainty.
>>>This brings us back to the Russians. Newt Gingrich’s book “Yorktown” brings out that Catherine the Great of Russia offered to mediate between the British government and those rebelling against it. One idea proposed was that Americans would keep their unitary nation, but remain within the Empire. On the eve of the final Battle of Yorktown, this was acceptable to most Americans, including members of the Continental Congress. This would have resulted in America being more like Canada. It would, of course, also have meant there was no need for Canada – loyalists would have stayed where they were. Catherine’s mediation attempt got nowhere – the autocratic Russian Empress was hardly a credible mediator between two sides that both believed in democracy.
>>>The victory at Yorktown would not have happened without the French navy. After the battle, the situation was unclear. It wasn’t until the King asked parliament for more money to fight the rebellion that the war finally ended – parliament refused his request.
>>>Cut off from the empire’s trading system, the US struggled financially after independence. Even in the 1930’s, the nations of the British Empire recovered from the Great Depression quicker than the US. America was anxious to break into the imperial trading club without becoming a part of the empire.
The question remains: what did Americans gain from independence? One thing comes immediately to mind – that the new country was no longer bound by British treaties with the “Indians;” they could now expand westward.
Ironically, it was a British bank that financed the Louisiana Purchase and British investors who helped build the railways that opened up the West. So the Brits did their part to make the country expand anyway.
On the other hand, if those treaties had remained in effect, California may never have entered the Union and Hollywood might not exist – some would say, those are two very good reasons for remaining loyal to the Crown!
So, why did Americans revolt and why did the rebels (patriots) win?
Decades after the American Revolution, the Anglo-Israelite movement believed that the British Empire and the United States of America were the fulfillment of a prophecy in Genesis 48; that the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, would become a great company of nations (Ephraim; the British Empire and Commonwealth) and his brother would become a great single nation (Manasseh, the United States). As the “company of nations” (Genesis 48:19) was united by the Crown, the great single nation had to break away from the crown, which is exactly what the United States did. Note: ”He set Ephraim before Manasseh (verse 20)”. Britain was the world’s superpower before the United States. In relative terms, Britain was also greater than its successor. After the loss of the American colonies, the British went on to develop the greatest empire the world had ever seen.
In other words, God determined the outcome of the Revolutionary War in order to fulfill Bible prophecy.
Margaret Thatcher defined socialism as “equal shares of misery for all,” the best definition I’ve ever read of the economic theory and subsequent reality.
The following is a more matter-of-fact explanation that I got when I googled “socialism,” looking for the exact definition.
“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole;……
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.”
Basically, what it’s saying is that government controls everything and it’s a stepping-stone to communism. Keep in mind that Marxists believe that, when communism is achieved, everybody lives in paradise – although, of course, they don’t actually believe in paradise, heaven or any other nirvana.
The reality, of course, is that people actually live in hell.
The best example of communism today is North Korea, where everything is controlled by the government, even thoughts.
Another example is Cuba, where almost everything is controlled by the government.
China is not a very good example. Not any more. Whereas the government still controls every thought, the economy is more of a free for all. So long as you keep your mouth shut, you can be a millionaire!
Until the latest British election, many people thought socialism was dead. Mrs. Thatcher herself had rolled back socialism in the UK and helped the nations of Eastern Europe send the communists packing. But the latest election in the United Kingdom showed that socialism is alive and kicking – and may even be the next government.
Why the appeal? Because when people feel the inequities of capitalism, they naturally favor the opposite, thinking everything will be put right by the firm hand of government.
Somebody once said that “conservatives believe in the exploitation of man by man; while socialists believe the exact opposite!” Think about it before moving on!
Venezuela has been in the news a great deal over the last few days. There, an incompetent socialist government has destroyed the nation’s economy. An attempt was made by a member of the country’s military to overthrow the government. The sight of the helicopter flying over the capital city of Caracas brought back memories of a similar situation in Ghana almost 40 years ago.
Ghana is a case study in the failings of socialism, well-meant but a disaster.
Ghana got its independence from Great Britain in 1957. It was the first black African country to receive independence, first because it was the most promising, with the greatest number of highly educated citizens and the most money in the bank. Within four years, it was bankrupt and a dictatorship. Eventually, the military had to take over to save the country.
A second attempt was made at democracy, which also failed; the military then took over again. Whereas the politicians were generally well educated, military men were not well-versed in running an economy. Soon, there was a high rate of inflation and serious shortages. These led to a coup on June 4th, 1979, a coup my wife and I experienced first-hand.
The helicopter flying overhead, filmed by somebody on a balcony, reminded me of how Diane watched a similar scene during Ghana’s coup. In Ghana, the helicopter opened fire and she quickly went indoors. At the time, I was trying to get back to the house using side roads to avoid the fighting. At one point, I was held up at gunpoint by rebel soldiers who wanted to take my car.
The coup was successful. A new government came to power led by Flight Lt. J.J. Rawlings, an avowed socialist who was enamored by the way things were done in Eastern Europe. The people said the “J.J.” stood for “Junior Jesus.”
He immediately started setting things right, freezing the price of eggs at 8 cedis a dozen and controlling the price of beer, two priorities! The problem was that farmers could not produce eggs to sell at that price as chicken feed was too expensive; with beer, there was a shortage of hops. I thought that a national shortage of beer would lead to revolution fairly quickly, but I was wrong. Ghana remains the only African nation I know of that did not experience civil unrest when the beer ran out!
Serious shortages became a major problem. Supermarkets had next to nothing on their shelves. Basic commodities could only be obtained through barter – I remember bartering shirts for gasoline and toilet paper for rice!
As the economy went into freefall, so the government was made more oppressive. Foreigners were blamed for just about everything – in August, we were told to leave the country.
Elections had been scheduled before Rawlings took over. Under pressure, he allowed them to go ahead and a new, still socialist, government came to power, led by a nice man who was also an alcoholic. At least beer was now available!
Eventually, he was overthrown and J.J. was back, followed by even greater economic disaster. It wasn’t until Rawlings started to reverse socialism and encourage free enterprise that things started to improve.
Government control of the economy = disaster. Mrs. T got it right!
So why is socialism “in vogue” again? The rising gap between rich and poor is one answer; another is the youth vote – most young people have no memory of when Europe was largely socialist. As Winston Churchill once said: “If you’re not a socialist at 20, you’ve got no heart; if you’re still a socialist at 30, you’ve got no head”.
In I Samuel 8 we read an account of how Israel wanted a human leader like all the other nations around them. God warned the people that it would mean greater financial hardship, as government would constantly expand and the people would have to pay for it. The warning was of 10% taxation. Today, taxes run much higher.
10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men,[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
Don’t just assume that this only applies to kings and kingdoms. In the last century, new nations have come into existence, most of them with a president rather than a king. It turns out the kings were cheaper. Note the following from Ecclesiastes 10:16-17:
“Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child,
And your princes feast in the morning! 17 Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles,
And your princes feast at the proper time—
For strength and not for drunkenness!”
Elected politicians think they have an automatic right to take everybody else’s money and spend it how they want. Again, Margaret Thatcher put it well when she observed: “the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money!”
That’s exactly what Jeremy Corbyn of Britain’s Labour (socialist) party is promising the people – more taxes to help government expand.
That’s what Venezuela got with Hugo Chavez, the socialist president who presided over the collapse of the country’s economy. His successor, Nicolas Maduro, has not been able to improve things.
The great lesson here is: there’s a lot of evils in capitalism, but don’t think government will make things better!
Pauline Hanson is an Australian Member of Parliament. She has her own political party, “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party,” and often speaks out on immigration and related issues.
This week she spoke out on autism. Specifically, she is calling for autistic children to be separated from other children, so that the others are not held back in their education.
Our eldest grandson, Aubren, who is five, is autistic. I drive him to school most days and collect him from school seven hours later. Because of this, I interact with his teachers a great deal.
All are aware of his autism. Their approach is very different to Ms. Hanson’s.
About half of the pupils in his pre-kindergarten class do not have special needs. Those who do have special needs participate in everything. In addition, they have private sessions with speech therapists and others to help them keep up with the other children. From what I have seen, this works very well.
There could be a case for separating autistic children if it is found that they will benefit. What Ms. Hanson is suggesting is that autistic children be educated separately as their presence in the classroom is having a negative effect on non-autistic children. Again, I’ve not seen any evidence for this. And with so many children with autism, normal children need exposure to this to understand it, handle it, and see these children as potential friends, not objects of scorn and derision.
Nobody knows for sure what causes autism. There are plenty of theories. Some of these are put forward quite volubly by their adherents, but it remains the case that nobody knows for sure what causes the problem. What is known is that the number of autistic children is increasing. It is now one in 68.
The correct name for autism is Autism Spectral Disorder. There is a wide spectrum when it comes to autism. Many autistic children function well in different areas; but there are others, at the other end of the spectrum, who find it difficult to carry on a conversation, or indeed, speak at all. Communication is a major challenge for autistic children. So are emotions and affection. In addition, many autistic people need “sameness” – they do not adjust well to a different environment or any change to their routine. We are anxious about Aubren’s first day at kindergarten in August – new school, new teacher, new environment; he may bolt, trying to escape from it as it could be overwhelming for him. His teacher, Miss Sue, from the last school year has volunteered to regularly take him to his new school and new playground to familiarize him with his future environment. The right teachers make all the difference!
Aubren is a delightful boy. Everybody loves him. He plays well with other children. He’s affectionate and loving. I for one am very much against the idea that autistic children should be separated from other children of the same age. After all, when they finish school at 18, they are going to have to mix with others in the working world. Why not start now?
The news from England can be quite discouraging, with terrorism and Brexit dominating everything. Britain’s position on just about everything reminds me of a verse in the Old Testament about Ephraim. In Hosea 7:8 we read: “Ephraim compromises with the nations; he’s a half-baked cake.” (International Standard Version.) A half-baked cake is of no use to anybody.
Julius Caesar put it somewhat differently, when he described Britain as “perfidious Albion.” England is no longer ruled by those ancient Britons, having been taken over by Angles and Saxons shortly after the Romans left the country. Perhaps it’s the weather, which is very unpredictable.
Whatever the reason, Mrs. May is perfecting “compromise.” It’s been the British way all my lifetime.
Consider the following:
After a “terror” attack outside of a leading London mosque, she had the opportunity to boldly speak some badly needed truths. The attack was by a “lone wolf,” a man from Cardiff in Wales who was obviously upset about recent terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. He drove his car into a crowd outside of the mosque. Nothing can excuse this, but it provided Mrs. May with an opportunity to say that people are understandably scared after the recent terror attacks. Instead, she condemned “Islamophobia” and said the government was going to stamp it out. Islamophobia is a natural and reasonable response to Islamic terror – the only way to defeat Islamophobia is by Muslims themselves doing something about terrorism.
Also, was the driver of the car really a terrorist? He had no links to any terror organization, domestic or foreign. Describing him as a “terrorist” puts his act on a par with the real terror attacks that have taken place, when they are very different. His was motivated by a fear of Muslims.
Thirdly, Mrs. May is promising more security for mosques. There is no such protection for churches. What the prime minister is doing is inadvertently giving Islam a special status.
Today, there was yet more compromise, this time with the European Union, as Britain negotiates itself out of the 27-member organization.
Mrs. May announced this morning that 3 million people from other EU countries can remain in Britain after Brexit. Jean Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, responded with: “It’s not sufficient.” Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, was equally dismissive. Neither man was elected by the people. They are professional bureaucrats — with all the arrogance that comes with it.
The UK is going to find that compromise doesn’t work with the EU – or with Islam! Britain will keep on compromising with both, until another Winston Churchill arises – if there is one.
It’s surely a depressing time for the Queen. The multicultural dream she has spent decades developing seems to be crumbling. It’s not just Islamic terrorism. Even the fire at the 24-storey apartment block in London brought it out. Most of the residents were from other cultures with no understanding of the way Britain works. After an incident like this, there’s usually a government inquiry and then changes are made based on recommendations received.
On this occasion, residents were quick to protest and even riot, storming the local county offices who are responsible for building safety. Mrs. May had to quickly promise new accommodation in a luxury apartment block. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill.
It turned out the fire was started by a faulty fridge. It spread quickly because of the insulation used.
In view of all these problems, it’s not surprising that nobody in the royal family wants to be king, according to Prince Harry in an interview this week.
MEDIA BEWILDERED BY VOTE
I don’t know if the Queen has ever been to Georgia, a colony (now a state) named after her ancestor, George II, who reigned from 1727-1760.
Georgia was the center of attention this week due to a by-election in the 6th Congressional district.
As the election got nearer, TV news people were ecstatic at the prospect of a Democratic victory. It had to happen as Donald Trump is so unpopular! The election was even described as “a referendum on Trump.”
The party that represents the wealthy elite, the Democrats, spent more than eight times as much money contesting this seat, as the Republicans, now the party of the working man. In spite of this massive outlay of cash, the Democrats lost. If this truly was a referendum on Trump, he must be doing ok.
The BBC was totally discombobulated. Commentators kept repeating that the president has less than a 40% approval rating, so how could this possibly be the result? It won’t happen again when the mid-term elections take place in November next year, they assured viewers.
Haven’t they learned yet that polls are not reliable?
ISRAEL’S TICKING TIME BOMB
“The southern neighborhoods of Tel Aviv have been overrun in recent years. The number of African asylum-seekers and economic migrants now living there is approaching 100,000.
Some have been repatriated. But most remain in the country illegally.
Israel finds itself in a conundrum – how can it turn away or deport those in need considering the Jews’ own history? At the same time, how can the tiny nation of Israel absorb such numbers without taking a serious hit to its economy?
And time’s running out to find a solution.
According to Oved Hugi, a social activist from southern Tel Aviv, the “infiltrators’ birthrate stands at 10,000 per year. That means 50,000 children in five years, and that should cause the Prime Minister to lose sleep. South Tel Aviv is a ticking time bomb.” (Israel Today)
SAUDIS BETRAY REAL FEELINGS
On June 8, 2017, the Saudi national football team met the Australian national team for a match in Adelaide as part of the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualifiers. The match began with a minute of silence for the victims of the London Bridge terror attack on June 3, among whom were two Australians. However, while the members of the Australian team observed the minute of silence, the Saudi players appeared to ignore it and continued moving around the pitch. (MEMRI 6-21)
Why are people surprised, when Wahhabism is the official religion of Saudi Arabia? Wahhabis support violence against infidels (non-believers) and believe violence is justified to spread Islam.
Canadian sniper makes record kill shot A sniper with Canada’s elite special forces has shot and killed an Isis fighter in Iraq from a distance of 2.1 miles, shattering the world record for the longest confirmed kill shot previously held by a British sniper. The shot took 10 seconds to reach its target and the sniper would have had to consider distance, wind and the curvature of the earth when taking aim. (Globe and Mail)
Refugees in Germany to be jobless for years Up to three-quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to Aydan Özoğuz, the country’s commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration. The stark admission of the challenges Germany faces in integrating its huge migrant population comes as Angela Merkel seeks a fourth term as chancellor in elections in September. (FT)
I stayed up late a week ago to watch the British election results, broadcast live on BBC World’s television channel. It soon became clear that Theresa May’s ruling Conservatives were not doing well. Mrs. May had called an early election to strengthen her position prior to the start of Brexit talks with the European Union. Her gamble failed – she now finds herself leading a party that does not control over 50% of parliament. To stay in office, she has had to enter a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the pro-British faction from Northern Ireland.
This is already being misinterpreted by Sinn Fein, the anti-British, pro-republican faction from Northern Ireland; it could easily lead to further violence in the province.
There’s another threat to the coalition. Mrs. May also relies on the Scottish Conservatives, who did extremely well in the election, increasing their parliamentary representation from one to thirteen seats. Their leader, Ruth Davidson, who is married to her female partner, is a fervent supporter of same-sex marriage; while the Northern Irish conservatives are socially very traditional.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this all works out.
At the very least, it has weakened the government at a crucial time, as negotiations begin on Monday, with the most efficient and uncompromising bureaucracy on the face of the earth – the European Union.
An additional threat comes from the opposition Labour Party. A prominent voice in the party is calling for one million people to take to the streets to bring down Mrs. May. Sound familiar?
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” (Mark 3:25.)
EUROPEAN LEADERS CHILDLESS
Talking of Europe, note the following, sent by a friend in New Zealand:
• Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children.
• German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children.
• British prime minister Theresa May has no children.
• Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children.
• Holland’s Mark Rutte, has no children.
• Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, has no children.
• Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel, has no children.
• Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon has no children.
• Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has no children.
So a grossly disproportionate number of the people making decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal stake in that future.
Additionally, in the last few days, the Irish Republic has a new prime minister. He also has no children. The press has been full of the fact that he is the youngest prime minister ever. He is also half-Indian and gay, neither of which is an issue. (Serbia’s new prime minister is also gay, as is Luxembourg’s PM.)
At the very least, all the above are thinking short-term, wanting to win the next election. When Europe was dominated by kings, at the very least the leaders wanted to preserve their thrones for their descendants; this also meant ensuring the continuation of the nation-state. Both of these factors no longer apply.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Talking of kings, King Henry II got a mention in the US Congress a week ago. Henry died long before the United States ever existed as a nation – even before America was “discovered” by Christopher Columbus. He reigned from 1154-1189.
Note the following from Vanity Fair:
“The James Comey hearing has officially gone medieval. A little less than two hours into the former FBI director’s highly watched testimony, Comey dropped a reference to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury who was killed at the casual request of King Henry II in the year 1170. The reference popped up when Senator Angus King was questioning Comey, asking him about Donald Trump’s seemingly casual but firm request to have Comey drop the FBI’s Michael Flynn investigation. Though Trump did not demand outright that Comey drop the investigation, even his slightest requests come with an air of seriousness, King suggested.
“Do you take that as a directive?” King asked Comey of Trump’s question.
“Yes, yes,” Comey replied. “It rings in my ears as kind of ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’”
Henry II was a very significant monarch. James Comey learned a lesson from his reign. Today’s British people, who have experienced three terrorist attacks in less than three months, could learn something else. Note the following:
“Henry II, who is considered the father of the common law, promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181. This required all (male) British citizens between 15 and 40 to purchase and keep arms. The type of arms required varied with wealth; the wealthiest had to provide themselves with full armor, sword, dagger, and war horse, while even the poorest citizens, “the whole community of freemen,” must have leather armor, helmet and a lance. Twice a year all citizens were to be inspected by the king’s officials to insure that they possessed the necessary arms. Conversely, the English made it quite clear that the king was to be expected to depend exclusively upon his armed freemen. When rebellious barons forced John I to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, they inserted in its prohibitions a requirement that he “expel from the kingdom all foreign knights, crossbowmen, sergeants, and mercenaries, who have come with horses and weapons to the harm of the realm.” (Historical Basis of the Right to keep and bear arms, by David P. Hardy, 1982)
During the recent terror attacks in England, on each occasion, one armed citizen could have made a significant difference and saved lives. Medieval monarchs were very concerned that the people should be able to defend themselves against the French; today, the threat is Islamic extremists, but the principle remains the same.
Also note, in the quote above, that Henry’s second son, John, one of the worst monarchs in English history, was required by the people to “expel from the kingdom all foreign knights, crossbowmen, sergeants and mercenaries, who have come with horses and weapons to the harm of the realm.”
No prizes for guessing who should be expelled today!
It should be noted that King Henry did not introduce the right to bear arms; he simply restored an ancient right that went back to at least the reign of Alfred the Great, in the 9th century. The Vikings were one of the problems at that time. The threat changes, but a threat is always there.
With this in mind, I found the following interesting while studying this morning: “The story of David and Goliath is helpful since “five smooth stones” and a “sling” are the closest equivalent to a handgun we can find in the Bible. David seems to have been armed with his sling at all times. There was no way he could run home to get his sling when a lion or a bear was about to attack his flock. (1 Sam. 17:31-37, 41-54)
It’s possible that Jesus had the Old Testament case law in mind when He offered this injunction to His disciples: “But be sure of this, if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.” (Matt 24:43) (“Jesus, Guns and Self-defence – what does the Bible say?”)
Christians should, of course, strive to live peaceably with all men. (Romans 12:18) Jesus Christ said: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matt 5:9) He also told us to “turn the other cheek.” (vs. 38-39)
With terrorism, we are dealing with a totally different mind-set from Jesus Christ, a religious belief system that encourages and celebrates killing en masse. People have to be able to defend themselves. King Henry understood this. Today’s leaders in countries like the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada need to address the issue, enabling people to defend themselves from acts of barbarism. In contrast, Australia has just announced an amnesty calling on citizens to hand over illegal weapons.
THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON, 2017
The tragic apartment block fire in London dominated the news on Wednesday. 30 deaths have been confirmed, but scores of people are still missing. There were also over sixty injured. What started the fire is not known at this time, but a material used in construction appears to have helped the fire to quickly spread. The Daily Express said Thursday that EU environmental directives could be the cause.
Most of the people in the apartment block seemed to have been from other countries in Africa and Asia. Looking at the high-rise (24-storey) block of flats, as they are called in England, I wondered why people would leave their own countries to live in such an awful place.
My wife and I have spent many happy days in African villages. I can truthfully say that I would rather live in one of those than in a high-rise apartment block in London, or any other major city. Isaiah 5:8 warns against living too close to each other. “Woe unto them that join house to house.”
What attracts people to move to the West varies for each individual. One of the established reasons in the UK is the generous welfare benefits. Perhaps some of that money could be diverted to African villages to bring water and electricity to communities to improve their quality of life. Together with the abolition of welfare for new arrivals, this would go some way to help solve the immigration crisis.
On BBC World this morning, interviews with survivors of the fire revealed a lot of understandable anger. It’s also clear that many have an “entitlement mentality,” demanding that the government re-house them immediately, claiming that hotels are not good enough; they also dismissed Theresa May’s call for an independent inquiry – they want those responsible punished NOW.
Since writing the above, some residents and neighbors have stormed the local town hall, chanting their demands, blaming the fire on the Conservative government. There was no logic – just a mob mentality. Scary and a sign of things to come.
At the moment, the bar for taking extremists out of circulation is set ridiculously high. People known for their own extremism that reaches pre-terrorist levels should not be walking the streets when they have expressed support for Islamic State (ISIS) or tried to head to Syria or called for the destruction of Britain and other democracies or allied themselves to people already in prison. Their demand for free speech or freedom of belief must never be elevated above the rights of citizens to live safely in their own towns and cities. It is essential for parliament to lower the bar.
Is this to be the political landscape for the future, where groups of people demanding death and destruction are given the freedom of the streets whilst those wishing to hold a peaceful celebration are prevented from doing so?
To see extremist Islam as a “perversion” of Islam misses an important point. The politically correct insistence that radical versions of Islam somehow pervert an essentially peaceful and tolerant faith forces policy-makers and legislators, church leaders, rabbis, interfaith workers and the public at large to leave to one side an important reality. Flatly, Islam in its original and classic forms has everything to do with today’s radicals and the violence they commit. The Qur’an is explicit in its hatred for pagans, Jews and Christians. It calls for the fighting of holy war (jihad) to conquer the non-Muslim world, subdue it, and gradually bring it into the fold of Islam. Islam has been at war with Europe since the seventh century.
(“No tolerance for extremism, “ by Denis McMacEion, Gatestone Institute, 6/16).
An historic upheaval is taking place around the world as the US and UK, the two leading Anglo-Saxon powers, inadvertently separate from other nations.
It started a year ago with the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. One year later, the country is about to enter dialog with other EU nations, a divorce settlement that is going to have a lasting effect on both the UK and the EU.
The historic upheaval continued last week when President Trump ended an international trip with a NATO meeting in Sicily that made it clear the US will no longer guarantee the security and independence of other NATO countries if they are invaded by Russia. This effectively ends Clause 5 of the NATO Treaty that required all member nations to come to the aid of another member if attacked.
The only time Clause 5 has been invoked was on September 11th, 2001, in defense of the United States. Alliance members came to America’s aid.
A third development could end America’s leadership role in the world.
I posted a few weeks ago an article on the 70th anniversary of America’s replacing Britain as the world’s chief superpower and international policeman. The question I asked was: “Could 70 be it for the US?” (February 19th).
It looks increasingly likely that, indeed, 70 could be it!
I say this following President Trump’s announcement yesterday that the US is withdrawing from the Paris climate deal.
Climate change has certainly become politicized. It’s also true that it has cost jobs, in the US and other countries. But the fact is that 195 countries in the world signed the deal – the only two that didn’t were Syria and Nicaragua.
More is at stake than a simple climate deal to reduce carbon emissions.
What’s at stake here is America’s global leadership.
Next time the US goes to other nations and asks for help (Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 are two examples, the fight against ISIS more recently), it’s likely the country will be rebuffed.
The dispute within NATO also risks the US president losing the accolade “Leader of the Free World.” In recent days, Angela Merkel seems to be filling that role.
Jacob Hellbrunn, editor of the American magazine National Interest, asked in the May 28th issue, Is Trump Pushing Merkel to Create A German Superpower?
“Donald Trump entered office hoping that he could splinter the European Union. But what if his presidency has the effect of further unifying it —against America?
“. . . Until now, the core relationship in American foreign policy in Europe has been with Germany. That tie appears not simply to be fraying but on the verge of snapping. It will be no small irony if Trump has impelled Europe to transform itself into a unified great power.”
Two days later, the National Interest, in a separate article by Salvatore Babones, once again addressed the issue of Germany:
“Germany is not among America’s “closest and oldest allies.” That honor surely goes to the United Kingdom. And second, Merkel didn’t single out just the United States. She said that Europe can no longer rely on the United States or the UK for its security. In other words, Merkel wasn’t just declaring her independence from Donald Trump. She was declaring independence from Theresa May, too. But can Germany defend Europe itself? And even if it could, would Europe want it to? The most likely answer to both questions is “no.” (“Can Germany defend Europe on its own?”)
The last question and answer overlooks the possibility that the US may push the Europeans into standing on their own; and the only leader, in such a situation, is Germany. This likely development has been made more likely by Brexit, even though London says it is not turning its back on Europe. The outcome of Thursday’s election in the UK could be decisive here – a change of government, even a hung parliament where no party has enough votes to govern effectively, would seriously weaken Britain’s role relative to the EU.
Yesterday, it was France’s turn. Emmanuel Macron, the new President of France, took the unprecedented step of announcing France’s “disappointment” at Mr. Trump’s decision and inviting scientists from around the world to fight climate change from France. Paris was where the deal to fight climate change was signed in December 2015. The new French prime minister described Trump’s decision as “calamitous.” (It should be noted that this was the first time ever that a French president addressed the world in English from the Elysee Palace. It was clear to whom it was addressed.)
CBS’ Ben Tracy put it well this morning when he said: “The president (Trump) is fundamentally shifting alliances around the world” (CBS This Morning).
Note the following from a British newspaper Friday morning:
“One senior European NATO diplomat said: “Trump showed that we have fundamental differences about what NATO is for. NATO is designed to defend the territory of its members, not stop terrorism or immigration. We are heading in opposite directions.” (NATO joins forces in fight against ISIS – but it’s branded as POINTLESS in Germany” (Katie Mansfield, Daily Express, June 2nd).
Many Bible students know that another superpower will soon replace the United States as the world’s global leader. Some have felt that Donald Trump would reverse America’s fortunes by putting “America First” and strengthening America’s role in the world. At this point in time it seems more likely that he will speed up the rise of an alternative global power that will rival the United States of America. Revelation 13, 17 & 18, together with Daniel 2 & 7 describe this new superpower.
Fifty years ago, I became friends with a Muslim immigrant who had moved to the UK from India. At the time, there were very few Muslims in the area where I lived. I asked him what he could do as a Muslim in such a remote location. He said it was the duty of every Muslim to help spread Islam wherever he goes.
Salman Rushdie, the writer persecuted for his book “Satanic Verses” and a former Muslim, speaking in New York over ten years ago (and broadcast on C-Span), said: ‘When a Muslim moves from the Middle East to Detroit, he is not looking to take advantage of America’s freedoms to better himself; rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard to spread Islam to America.”
When you hear a Muslim spokesperson on a television news program, keep the above in mind.
Yesterday, Wednesday, approximately 36 hours after the Manchester suicide bombing and following press reports that the perpetrator worshipped at the local Didsbury mosque, a trustee of the mosque addressed the press, distancing his mosque from the bombing, while at the same time inviting members of the public to come and join them, taking the opportunity to proselityze.
“The doors of the centre are open to all – they are open to all. “Some media reports have reported that the bomber worked at the Manchester Islamic Centre – this is not true, he has never worked in this centre. “We are concerned about anti-Muslim acts ranging from verbal abuse to acts of criminal damage to mosques in the area and outside the area.”
As you can tell from the last sentence, he also took the opportunity to halt any anti-Muslim backlash that could follow the bombing that killed mostly young white girls attending a concert in the Manchester Arena.
The youngest was 8 years old. As this is unlikely to be the last suicide bombing, we need to ask why we can no longer protect our children.
The suicide bomber was the son of Libyan refugees who fled to England in the 1990’s.
An Australian Muslim psychiatrist born in Bangladesh, writing about the Manchester terror incident, called Wednesday for restrictions on Muslim immigrants into the West. His article appeared in The Spectator Australia. “Refugees have trouble integrating,” said Tanveer Ahmed.
The only solution to the problem of Islamic terror in western countries is to change immigration policies that have allowed this dangerous situation to develop over the last five decades.
The best commentary on the bombing was on the Gatestone Institute’s website. Note the following three paragraphs.
“After hearing of the Manchester terrorist attack, politicians once more communicated their by now old-routine of “shock” and “grief” at the predictable outcome of their own policies.
“Most dumbfounding of all, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was watching the developments in Manchester “with grief and horror” and that she found the attack “incomprehensible.”
“Every time a European leader publicly endorses Islam as a great faith, a “religion of peace,” or claims that violence in Islam is a “perversion of a great faith,” despite massive evidence to the contrary, they signal in the strongest way possible that with every devastating attack, the West is ripe for the taking.” (5/22/17 ‘Manchester: Europe still “Shocked! Shocked!”’ by Judith Bergman)
Ms. Bergman is absolutely correct in writing that Monday’s horror was the result of political decisions taken in recent decades, particularly when it comes to immigration. It’s almost fifty years since a famous British politician denounced the country’s immigration policies, saying the nation was “building up its own funeral pyre.” Enoch Powell, MP, had to resign his position in the Conservative party for, as is now clear, speaking the truth.
Jonathan Ive, Apple’s Chief Design Officer, sensing the changing public mood on immigration, said Thursday that immigrants are vital for the UK economy. This is meant to scare people into accepting more immigrants, some of whom will, inevitably, be Muslims; and some of those extremists. What he should have called for is a ban on all abortions. This will mean a higher birthrate and, in time, will provide those extra people for the British economy.
Immigration policy must change. The fact remains, following the attack by Salman Abedi, a British born Libyan, that if his parents had not been allowed into the UK, 22 ethnic English (those whose ancestors have lived there for centuries) would still be alive; and over sixty others would not be dealing with potentially life-changing injuries.
It’s no good just increasing the numbers of police and army personnel on the streets, or spending more on intelligence gathering – until something is done about immigration it will all be fruitless.
And talking of intelligence, Mrs. May was correct in her response to US intelligence releasing information from England to the New York Times. Intelligence services need to be very careful about betraying one another’s confidences. The arrangement between the US and UK dates back 75 years, to 1942. Australia, Canada and New Zealand were included more recently. These Anglophone nations need to be able to trust each other. After a face-to-face discussion with Theresa May earlier today, President Trump has promised to find the source of the leaks and punish those responsible.
One final thought on Britain and terrorism: the British have a history of compromising with terrorism, starting with Ireland a century ago and continuing until the Good Friday Agreement twenty years ago. After World War II, Jewish terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, an act that led to Britain withdrawing from the mandated territory; even though the British defeated the Mau Mau in Kenya, they gave the terrorists what they wanted; the same in Cyprus; in the 70’s they handed over Rhodesia to terrorists led by Robert Mugabe; and then worked on South Africa to hand over to Nelson Mandela, a terrorist leader who was responsible for the deaths of 200 people. The lesson repeatedly learned is that terrorism works!
This time, the British are fighting for their homeland, the United Kingdom – will they once again compromise with the forces of evil?
SOLVING CENTURIES-OLD PROBLEMS
Prior to visiting Jerusalem, Mr. Trump was in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home of one of its strictest sects, the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Wahhabis believe that all non-believers are infidels and enemies and they have a history of violence directed at non-Muslims. This includes September 11th, when 15 of the 19 hijackers had Saudi citizenship. Even the attack in Manchester has its origins in Wahhabism, by way of ISIS.
Saudis have helped finance terrorism around the world and continue to provide imams for taxpayer-funded chaplaincy programs in the US, as well as new mosques around the world. The “help” Saudi Arabia promised Germany when the latter took in over a million refugees, was to offer to build 200 new mosques.
But oil, as we all know, is very important and the Saudis happen to be one of the world’s biggest producers and the country that determines the price of the black gold.
Saudi Arabia is also of strategic importance and an avowed enemy of Iran. Their differences go back to the seventh century when Shia Islam broke away from the majority Sunni Islam. Today, Saudi Arabia backs Sunnis throughout the Middle East against Shia Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Some wealthy Saudis have even backed ISIS, an organization that supports Sunnis against the Shia.
With a visit to the world’s three main religious centers, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Vatican, President Trump is working on achieving a comprehensive Middle East peace, hoping to succeed where all his predecessors have failed.
He should remember the words of the Apostle Paul. In his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul looked ahead to the time prior to Christ’s Second Coming when there is much talk of world peace. “For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.” (I Thess. 5:3).
The US has the power and influence to impose a peace treaty on the Israelis and Palestinians – but it won’t last. The latter will ultimately not embrace peace until the country of Israel ceases to exist. How can you negotiate with people who are committed to your destruction?
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
A news item a few days ago revealed that attendance at Church of England services in the United Kingdom is increasing, after decades of decline. This is attributed partly to the rise of English nationalism, as evidenced by Brexit.
Whatever the reasons, it might eventually help the BBC.
On Monday’s 9am broadcast on BBC World News, Lyse Doucet, a BBC journalist from Canada, was standing in front of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem awaiting the arrival of President Trump and his wife. As the president was delayed, Lyse Doucet recapped on Mr. & Mrs. Trump’s visit to what she described as the most important Christian religious site in the world, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which witnessed the “death, burial and reconstruction of Jesus Christ”.
I think she meant “resurrection.”
Which brings me to Little Emily, a 5-year-old girl featured in our local newspaper two or three years ago. Her Baptist pastor was giving a sermon on Easter Sunday and asked the children what they knew about the resurrection. 5-year-old Emily raised her hand and kept saying: “I know! I know!”
So the pastor asked her to tell the congregation what she knew about the resurrection. Her reply made it into the local paper. “If you experience a resurrection lasting more than four hours, you need to go to the doctor.”
Reportedly, the pastor was unable to finish his sermon.
Maybe one day Emily could work for the BBC, as their Religious Affairs Correspondent!
"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened." — Sir Winston Churchill