Tag Archives: England

AMERICA’S GROWING DIVISIONS

trump-and-obama

On the same day as the Inaugural in Washington, The Gambia was in the midst of a major constitutional crisis.   Gambia is a slither of a country in west Africa.   Until the weekend, it was ruled by the same dictator for over twenty years.

A recent election gave victory to Mr. Adama Barrow, but President Yahya Jammeh refused to step down.

Neighboring countries in the region invaded to remove the former president and replace him with the new one.   Mr. Jammeh has now gone.

It’s different in America.   No coups or counter-coups were needed to remove President Obama.   Canadian and Mexican troops were not needed, either.

America has had smooth transfers of government for a very long time.   That is to America’s credit.

But some commentators, including some religious ones, are doing a disservice to the United States when they describe America as “unique” in this regard.   They also overlook an area of grave concern, deeply rooted in American history.

America’s peaceful changes of government are not unique.   England has had peaceful transfers of power since 1689, to name just one country.   Ed Morrow, CBS’s American wartime correspondent during World War II, marveled that, when faced with foreign invasion and possible extinction, the United Kingdom maintained a democratic system of government and people were free to criticize Winston Churchill.   He did not think America would fare so well when faced with similar threats.

It can truthfully be said that America is unique in one respect – it is the only presidential system in the world that always has peaceful transfers of power.   Others, like Gambia, have a bad history in this regard. It has taken over 50 years of independence for The Gambia to get a new elected Head of State – and the change was not peaceful.   Zimbabwe has had the same president for 38 years following its independence – there is no sign of change in the country, though people talk increasingly of “nature taking its course” – the president is well over 90 years of age.

So, credit to America.

But not so fast.

In 1860, the election was peaceful, but a few weeks later, fourteen southern states seceded from the Union.   Four years of civil war followed. 2% of the people were killed.

Go back even further, to 1775, and we see another civil war that claimed 6% of the people’s lives.   (The population was less then so the total number was less, but the impact was, arguably, greater.)   This war is known as the Revolutionary War or the American War of Independence.   It lasted seven years.

Both wars saw incredible divisions in America.   Both saw “brother against brother.”   Both were truly civil wars of the worst kind.   Is another civil war possible?   It is not out of the question.

Again, we are seeing great division in American society.   Roughly half the voters supported Donald Trump, while the other half supported Hillary Clinton.   The latter seem no more inclined to accept the result than voters in 1860.   That is not to say there will be another civil war, but there could be a great deal of civil unrest; and, eventually, another civil conflict, this time between conservatives and liberals, with race as a contributory factor.

Hundreds of thousands, some would say millions, of angry women were out on the streets of a number of cities, demonstrating over threats to women’s rights; an issue that did not even exist in 1860.   The term “women’s rights” is a euphemism for abortion, the murder of babies.   There was no support for abortion in 1860 – that’s a new phenomenon that is directly due to the nation’s gradual rejection of Christianity.   Over 60 million abortions have been performed since legalization in 1973 – those children, who would now be adults, have been replaced by over 60 million immigrants, some from countries that are hostile to the United States.   It really doesn’t make any sense.

Many of those immigrants are now with the demonstrators against the new Administration.   This adds an ethnic dimension that did not exist in the two previous civil wars.   Some of the most outspoken critics of the new administration in Washington are Muslims.   Liberals come quickly to their defense. I even heard one prominent liberal on CNN yesterday extolling the virtue of an Islamic female leader who “is pro-gray, pro-LGBT.”   Do they really believe that?  The gay lifestyle is totally at variance with Islam.   Gays have no civil rights in any Muslim country.

These divisions in America, primarily over abortion (sorry, women’s rights) and race, will continue to worsen during the Trump presidency.   They have already resulted in some violence.   In time, they could explode into greater conflict.

Americans can pride themselves on being part of a presidential republic that has seen many peaceful changes of government, but America is not unique where peaceful change is concerned.   The challenge now is to make sure peaceful transfers of power continue. This is not likely to happen in a period of increasing diversity. Tribalism was a big factor in Gambia’s electoral disaster – tribalism is now a growing threat in America.

Diversity is just another word for “tribalism.”

We should not become complacent.   Jesus Christ warned that:  “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  (Matthew 12:25).

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAMILY UNIT – FOUNDATION OF SOCIETY

Lark-Rise-To-Candleford-net-worth

“Lark Rise to Candleford” is a BBC series set in 1895.   It’s about two geographically close communities, one poor and the other fairly affluent, and how characters inter-act with each other.   The series started in 2008 and ran for four seasons.

My wife and I have been watching it when time permits.   We are now halfway through the third season.

We usually watch it after the latest episode of “Agatha Raisin,” set in contemporary England.   Shown originally on Sky TV and filmed in the Cotswolds, one of the most beautiful areas in the country, Agatha Raisin is an amateur detective (Agatha! Get it?), who has moved from London to the Cotswolds for a change of pace.   She must be having second thoughts as the small village she lives in has at least one murder per week.   Every murder is tastefully done – no extreme violence here, no, not in England.   No guns.

The two series could not be more different.   We unhesitatingly recommend the former, but are not likely to continue to watch the latter.

In 1895 the residents of Lark Rise and Candleford all lived in accordance with strict societal rules.   These included biblical standards of morality.   This cannot be said about the residents in Agatha Raisin’s village, or even of Agatha herself.   Agatha Christie would be appalled. And Queen Victoria would certainly not have been amused!

What a difference 120 years has made to the family and morality.

Pause for a moment and think of how much it has cost us on both sides of the Atlantic.

The high costs of welfare are largely to cover-up the breakdown of the family system in this new liberal age.   These welfare rolls have put us on a toboggan slide to insolvency.   They have also added to the violence in our society as mothers often choose single parenthood over marriage as a way to get more benefits; boys without fathers are more inclined toward crime and violence.

A report from England two days ago highlighted how teenage girls there are increasingly unhappy.   Family breakdown leads to unhappiness and increases the likelihood of addictions and suicide.

The anti-biblical society we have created has put 65 million babies to death in the US alone, following the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion.   These 65 million have been replaced by an equal number of immigrants, many of whom make no attempt to assimilate, while some are openly hostile toward us. Aside from the moral consideration, wouldn’t it have been better to raise those 65 million babies to be productive members of society?   Faced with growing existential threats, they would also have added to our military strength; after all, the greatest strength is people, not technology.

Generous welfare benefits in western countries are also contributing to the migrant crisis, as hundreds of thousands of economic migrants are attracted to the West by all the freebies.  Not all are refugees fleeing wars and persecution.

It’s a complete mess.  It’s clearly time for a rethink.  It’s time to restore the family to its traditional role and reverse the role of the state.

Christians believe that God created the family system — “male and female created He them” (Genesis 1:27). “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).   To a certain extent, this is still a basic principle of our law – the marriage relationship takes precedence over other relationships.

However, what we fail to see is that within the biblical parameters we have the perfect welfare system.   For thousands of years, this was the foundation of every society, a family system in which the various members of a family helped and supported each other.   It is still the basic unit of most cultures around the world.

The irony is that, in the event of a financial collapse, which is inevitable at some point, we would see the family unit restored, as people would have to help each other again.

We might even see some sense come back into the financial system. One of the characters in the first season of “Lark Rise” is now serving time in debtors’ prison.   Until 1905, in Britain at least, people were sent to prison for their debts, until family members could save the money to pay off the debt and get them out.   Today, the accumulation of debt in the western world is no longer a crime – and it’s even legally possible for people to walk away from their debts. This cannot be good for the economy.

The more Biblically aware Victorians believed that “if a man doesn’t work, neither should he eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10)   They would have been appalled at the very idea of state welfare.

Another scripture that influenced the Victorians was written by the Apostle Paul.   “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (I Timothy 5:8).

The family system was the foundation of society.   It’s taken quite a battering in the last century, but still survives – and will be needed once again in the event of a national or international calamity.

A VERY BRITISH REVOLUTION

Sun headlines BREXIT

“See EU Later!” – front page headline in The Sun.

“No one was hurt. But still a revolution that will lead to profound change.” (BBC Assistant Political Editor, Norman Smith).

The most important election this year has already taken place.  No, I haven’t forgotten the one in November that has still to take place here in the United States.   Nor am I overlooking the election in Australia next week.

The referendum in the United Kingdom on membership of the European Union was a once in a lifetime vote that will actually lead to significant change, something that normally doesn’t follow a general election.

The British people voted yesterday to leave the European Union.  Or, rather, 52% of those who voted, opted to “Leave;” 48% voted to “Remain.” Even that does not reveal the whole story – London and Scotland voted to “Remain.” The English voted overwhelmingly to leave. London, a city which, at best, is only 50% ethnic English, voted to remain.

The pace of change that is taking place right now is staggering.   Britain is OUT; so is David Cameron, who resigned this morning; it’s only a year since he led the Conservative Party to a surprise win in the last election.  It’s less than two years since the Union with Scotland was secured in the Scottish referendum.  Scotland voted yesterday to stay in the EU.  The First Minister of Scotland is now insisting that Scots be given another opportunity to vote on leaving the UK.  What a change in just a few months!

Even the Leader of the Opposition Labor Party may choose to resign – while he supported continued membership of the EU, the party’s supporters did not.

London’s first Muslim Mayor is even talking of the capital city somehow maintaining a special relationship with Europe.

The prospect of the United Kingdom breaking up is a serious one.  Only England (outside of London) and Wales voted to “Leave.”   Even Gibraltar, the first British territory to vote, voted overwhelmingly to “Remain” – the Spanish Prime Minister, seizing an opportunity, is now calling for joint British and Spanish control of the peninsula.

Meanwhile, there is turmoil on the international financial markets, which will likely continue until some sort of an agreement is reached between the UK and EU, reassuring markets.

It’s a big mess all round!

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES

  1. Changes could come to the EU.  Other nations may withdraw, forcing change on those that remain.   Financially, the European Union received a lot of money from the UK. This spigot will be cut off.  To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the EU has finally run out of other peoples’ money!
  2. The future of the European Union itself is also uncertain.   One thing is absolutely clear – the bureaucrats who control the Union are out of touch with the common people.   Demands from the people of other countries for their own referendum will increase.   Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, is calling for a quick resolution of uncertainty, hoping to stop any contagion.   Anti-Establishment revolutions, even non-violent ones, have a habit of spreading from one country to another – 1989 is a recent example; 1918 and 1848 are two others.
  3. Scotland is more likely to leave the United Kingdom, taking England and Wales back to the seventeenth century.  Northern Ireland’s future is also uncertain.
  4. Germany will emerge from this as a more powerful force in Europe. This was one concern some British people had. Ironically, by voting to leave, they will have helped strengthen Germany as the dominant power in Europe. As the EU progresses, fulfilling its goal of an “ever closer union”, it will inevitably mean a greater role for Berlin.
  5. The referendum was an anti-Establishment vote.  For 43 years the British people have lived under the growing authority of the bureaucratic socialist super-state that is the EU, having to comply with thousands of dictates they did not want.  Some people have done very well out of the EU.  Prominent Brits have jumped aboard the European gravy train and done very well out of it, with high salaries and an even higher expense account.  There has been little or no accountability.
  6. The vote was a vote against globalization.   The driving force in western thinking, since World War II, has been globalization. Multiculturalism, free trade deals, massive numbers of immigrants, have all profoundly changed the western world; yesterday’s vote was the first big sign that the people are hitting back. Half the people (actually a little over half) feel that they are missing out and don’t like the way things are going. That’s true in other countries as well as the UK.
  7. Migration was a major issue.   People don’t like the sheer numbers of Syrians, Iraqis, Poles, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Pakistanis, etc that now live in Britain.   The new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, a Muslim whose family migrated from Pakistan, sensing this significant change in national thinking, campaigned against a Brexit and now wants London to continue an association with Europe.

In this context, it’s interesting to note the prophet Daniel’s observation about the interracial condition of the ancient Roman Empire and of its modern-day successor founded by the Treaty of Rome:

“42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.” (Daniel 2:42-43).   Whereas America was a melting pot, the European Union was a union of 28 different nations and cultures, each with its own languages and customs.   Mixing was never going to be as successful as in the United States.

  1. Yesterday’s vote could start a populist movement – even the US may follow in November.   Presidential candidate Donald Trump, on a private visit to Scotland, said this morning that Brexit is a good thing: “the British have gotten their country back.”   Brexiters have a lot in common with Trump, who may capture the mood of Americans in the same way. Hillary Clinton supported the “Remain’ campaign but was out of touch with the people.  (There was no reason for her to get involved in the first place.)   President Obama warned on a recent visit to the UK that if the country left the EU it would go to the “back of the queue” (a British term) to wait for a new trade deal with the US.   Trump today said that will not happen if he becomes president, that the UK has been a close ally of the US for decades and deserves better than that.

Note the following comment on Twitter from Michael Moore, leftist documentary filmmaker who lives in Flint, Michigan:   “Hail Trumptannia!   Fear wins out in UK.   Britain votes to “build a ‘wall’” by leaving EU.  Hatred of immigrants, xenophobia, nationalism reign.  Fellow Americans – we’re up next!”  This is a typical comment from the not-so-intellectual elite, who insult the voters when they lose!  Expect more of the same from the EU as well as the US.

  1. However, financial concerns are justified.  The pound dropped 10% in hours, even before the final tally was realized (trading continued in the Far East due to the time difference) and stock markets are in freefall.  But this was to be expected.   It should soon calm down.   The Emperor Napoleon once dismissed the English as “a nation of shopkeepers”, a quote from Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations.”   But this will only help Britain – Germany sells 20% of its cars to the UK, they will not want to lose that market.
  2. The vote for Brexit will have an international effect as well as a domestic one.   Relations between the EU and Russia may change.  The Mayor of Moscow today said that without Britain, the EU will be less likely to continue economic sanctions on the country.

Today we are witnessing a seismic shift in world history.   We don’t see those every day. What we are seeing is England waking up to the consequences of globalism.   Others will follow.   But, the world has changed in the last 43 years.   Whereas the UK was a constant in the pre-EU world, it no longer is.   The EU offers Scotland and Ireland a viable alternative.   The Brexit could mean the end of the United Kingdom.  British historian Paul Johnson wrote in his 1972 book “The Offshore Islanders,” written between Britain’s application to join Europe and its actual membership, that disunity has always been fatal to the offshore islanders (the British).   The country has not been this divided in centuries and will likely see further division ahead.

Europe has already meant the end of David Cameron, who joins his two Conservative predecessors, John Major and Margaret Thatcher, in being brought down by divisions over Europe.   Whoever replaces him as prime minister will have to try and unite the party and the country at a very difficult time in history.

At the same time, there is going to be a lot of lingering bad feelings, in both British major parties and between the UK and the rest of Europe.  Mr. Juncker has just announced an emergency meeting of the other 27 leaders of the EU, to take place on Wednesday. We will soon see what the EU has in mind for a Europe without the UK.

BREXIT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Jo Cox

The street murder of Jo Cox, a British Member of Parliament (M.P.), a few days ago, is having a big impact on the Brexit vote due on Thursday.

Until the murder, the “Leave” campaign was winning in the polls; now the “Remain” vote is gaining steam.

The killer, a middle aged white man, was motivated by politics, making this an assassination.   He shouted out “Put Britain First” as he was killing her.   His action showed the frustration of many people his age who are concerned that they are losing their country, that England is being taken over by migrants and its independence seriously threatened by the European Union.

Jo Cox was in favor of Britain remaining in the EU; she was also very supportive of Britain taking in more Syrian refugees.   At the same time, she seemed oblivious to the grooming of young white girls by older Muslim males in her own backyard, a scandal that has received a great deal of coverage in the press.

This is a classic example of “The Dream and the Nightmare,” the dream being the social engineering of the liberal-leftist Establishment; the nightmare the frightening consequences that ordinary people have to live through as they try to cope.   The politicians behind these decisions live in their affluent suburbs away from those consequences and never have to face the reality.

If the vote Thursday is to “Remain” in the EU, it will not be the end of the white English backlash against globalization.

Monday’s Wall St Journal reported that global stock markets and the British currency have both risen around the world due to increased expectation of a pro-EU vote.  The globalists have loved the EU ever since its inception in the late 1950’s, when it was called the European Economic Community.   At that time, it was more a trading bloc.   Renamed the European Union in 1991, it is now progressively and increasingly a very socialist super-state.   65% of the laws that are imposed on the British people now come from the European parliament, not from London.   As Germany is the dominant power in the EU, Berlin dictates to London via Brussels, a situation unthinkable not so long ago.

Some have rather unkindly referred to the EU as the “fourth reich,” the fourth attempt at a German Empire in Europe.  The first reich was established by the Emperor Charlemagne in 800 AD and lasted for over one thousand years, until 1806 when Napoleon had it abolished.    This empire was composed of a motley assortment of nations, each with its own relationship with the central authority, from 1438 a Habsburg, the German-speaking family that dominated central Europe until 1918.

The second reich was the Hohenzollern dynasty of the Kaisers (1871-1918).   Its collapse at the end of World War One led to the democratic experiment of the ill-fated Weimar Republic.

Hitler’s Third Reich, a promised second attempt at an empire that would last a thousand years, replaced Weimar but only lasted twelve years, defeated in the rubble of World War II.

The European Union was meant to end European wars by containing Germany and keeping Germany and France in a close economic union.   The reality is that Germany has once again become the dominant nation of Europe.   This fourth German reich is nothing like the last one.   In many ways, Germany is a model nation and has done a great deal of good around the world.   But, still, non-Germans don’t want German domination.

It was the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which laid the foundation of the EU.   Two thousand years earlier, Rome had united most of Europe forcefully.   Roman Empire

Following the fall of the Roman Empire in the late fifth century, there have always been those who wanted to revive the Roman Empire.   In 800 Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West.   The Habsburgs ruled central Europe as “Roman Emperors,”   More recently, in 1922, Mussolini proclaimed the restoration of the Roman Empire.   The Treaty of Rome followed just 35 years later.

These revivals of the Roman Empire were actually prophesied in the Bible.   Students of the Bible are aware that there is to be a final resurrection of the Roman Empire.   You can read about it in Revelation 17:12-14.   This passage shows that ten kings, or nations, will come together to form this final version of the ancient Roman Empire.   It will clearly be the final revival as the Kingdom of God is established shortly after it.   Also note, it’s not going to be the 28 countries that form the EU.

In the event of a Brexit on Thursday, perhaps we will start to see the EU unravel, to be replaced by the ten-nation union that the Bible talks about.

 

CONFUSION REIGNS!

 

Captain America

Last Sunday evening I was humbled.

I decided to take all four granddaughters to the latest “Captain America” movie, which began at 7.15pm.   I sat there through over two hours of film, not comprehending what was going on.   I was totally bewildered.

Leaving the movie theater at 10pm, we all drove home in my daughter’s RV.   It was very dark outside.   I was driving as all the girls are 9, 10 and 11.

Suddenly, a voice in the back yelled out, “Will my dad be up this late?”

I shouted back, “Which dad?”  Two of the girls belong to our son, Kurt, and two to our daughter, Alix, and her husband, Mike.   And they all have similar-sounding voices.

“MY dad!” was the response.

Again, I asked, “Which dad?”

This time, two girls shouted back,  “OUR dad!”

“Look,” I said, “I can’t see who is asking and there are two dads here. There’s Kurt and there’s Mike.  Which dad do you want?”

This time, the response was clear.   “Kurt.”

Silence followed for a few seconds, then I heard our nine-year-old granddaughter, Elena, turn to her sister and cousins and observe: “I’ve heard that when people are old, they get very confused!”

—————————————————————————

Perhaps there is some truth to that.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a few years older than me and said something last week that showed she is very confused.   Either that, or she was deliberately misleading people.

She said in a speech that Donald Trump’s call for an end to Muslim immigration would increase terrorism.

If this is true, how does she explain Japan?   They have received no Muslim immigrants – and have experienced no Islamic terrorism!

—————————————————————————

There was no mention on any news program of the religious background of the man who killed the UCLA Professor a few days ago.   Earlier, he had also murdered his ex-wife.   A “hit list” found at his home showed he intended to kill two professors but the other one was gone for the day.

The man, Mainak Sarkar, was a Bengali immigrant.   Bangladesh is a Muslim country.

Once again, we see the need for a complete overhaul of the rules relating to immigration and naturalization.   Confusion (Babylon) has been the result of the last fifty years when it comes to immigration.

————————————————————————–

There’s also a lot of confusion over in England, too, over the EU Referendum taking place on June 23rd, less than three weeks away.   The debate has gotten nasty and the country remains very divided.

It’s becoming the norm for foreign leaders to butt in.   US President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Donald Trump have all expressed their opinion.   Mr. Trump has brought forward his visit to the country by two days, now arriving the day before the vote, rather than the day after.   The head of the International Monetary Fund, the German Chancellor, and European Union bureaucrats are all warning of disaster if the country leaves the EU.

Although there are peripheral issues, the fundamental question is: do the British people want their country administered from London or Berlin?   75 years ago, Winston Churchill knew the answer.   Does England need another Churchill to figure it out?

A very important secondary question is: do the British people want their country to remain British, or become a European mix?   The EU’s open borders have led to millions of people from other EU countries flooding into the UK, for its more generous welfare benefits and it’s better economy.   There’s nothing can be done about this as long as they remain in the EU.

The future of the UK is certainly at stake.

The worst possible result is a close vote, with the majority of Scots voting to “Remain” (in the EU) and the majority of English voting to “Leave.”   This would lead to Scotland calling for a second referendum on independence from the UK.   Going it alone could work with help from Berlin and Brussels, the capital of the EU.

It would mean the end of the United Kingdom.

In today’s world where only money seems to matter, I don’t think anybody really understands the full implications of this. “Grey hairs are here and there upon him, and he knows it not.”   (Hosea 7:9).

It’s not just the elderly who are confused!

——————————————————————————-

A final comment on the US presidential election comes from our 11-year-old granddaughter, Paris, who was half-watching the news with me.   Following the usual five-second sound bite from both Trump and Hillary, she suddenly asked:   ‘Why do we have to have a president anyway?   Whey can’t we be like other countries, with a king or a queen?”

After watching this election, it’s no wonder she’s confused!

 

ACROSS THE POND

Queen's 2016 birthday

I’ve not been able to write much recently.   This is due to the fact that we moved house on Sunday.   Or, rather, I should say we moved the big, heavy items with the help of younger men from our church. For a month before that, we were moving small items ourselves.   Now, we still have to clear out our old house.  We have a few more days to do that and then things should get back to normal.  (Why is my wife laughing hysterically . . . ?)

Moving house later in life is more difficult.   Not only is lifting harder, especially after two major back surgeries and my wife’s cancer surgery.   But also we have accumulated more.   So this has been an opportunity to get rid of some things.   We still have a long way to go, though.   We must keep working on it.

——————————————————————————–

President Obama is in England as I write.  He’s upset a lot of people by urging the British to stay in the EU.   A referendum on the issue is due in two months.

The US president stated that fighting terrorism is more effective within the European Union.   This is debatable – the EU allows freedom of movement within the 28-member organization.   In itself, this encourages terrorism.

It should be noted that Switzerland is surrounded by the EU, but not a member and has not had one single terrorist incident.

It’s also true that the EU is not a security organization – NATO is.   There is no suggestion that Britain leave NATO.

Thirdly, it has always been the case that foreign leaders do not interfere in elections in other countries.   Is a new precedent being set here?   Can Mr. Cameron now come over to Washington and tell Americans not to vote for Trump?

Having said that, President Kennedy over 50 years ago, encouraged the United Kingdom to join what is now the European Union.   The reason is simple – Washington wants a reliable pro-American voice in the world’s biggest single market.

But how would Americans feel if they were part of an Americas Union, bringing all the nations of North and South America together in one bloc?   Would they willingly take orders from Havana and Caracas?   That’s exactly what the Brits are having to do as members of the EU.   Some member countries have lost considerable financial independence, as they have to wait for orders from Berlin.   Germany is the dominant power in the EU.   The Union is a socialist bloc that tries to control every aspect of daily life.   No wonder so many Brits want out.   The president should stay out of the debate and leave it to the British people, who have to subsidize the organization from their taxes each and every day.

—————————————————————————–

The Obamas arrived in London on the Queen’s 90th birthday.   They will be having lunch with her on Friday.   The official reason for their visit is to honor the Queen.   Mrs. Obama has expressed a desire to see the monarch’s grandchildren and great grandchildren.   A family photo was released this week showing four generations of monarchs sitting together – Queen Elizabeth and future monarchs Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George.   A similar picture was taken in the 1890’s of Queen Victoria with her oldest son, grandson and great-grandson (the future Edward VII, George V and Edward VIII).

No other British monarch has ever lived to be 90.   Nor has any other monarch reigned as long as the Queen.   The Queen’s marriage is also the longest ever royal marriage in history.   It’s interesting to note that out of 40 monarchs, the three most prominent ones have all been women, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II.

Commentators on BBC World yesterday expressed the opinion that the Queen’s longevity and famous devotion to duty owes a great deal to three things – good health, strong faith and Prince Philip, who turns 95 in June.   For the first time, a book on her faith is available for people to read.   It’s title is The Servant Queen and the King She Serves.   Hopefully, it will influence more of her subjects to reject the secular humanism that has brought so many evils into British society and look to Jesus Christ for solutions to their problems.   This is equally true for Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

In contrast to most world leaders the Queen sees herself as a servant.   She is no doubt familiar with the words of Jesus Christ who taught His disciples to be different to the leaders they saw around them.

”But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.   Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.   And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”  (Matthew 20: 25-28).

—————————————————————————–

Pat Buchanan has just written a column on “America’s Imperial Overstretch,” comparing the country’s present state to the last days of the British Empire.   Most people today are unaware that when the British monarch was born, the British Empire was the greatest power in the world.   At the start of her reign, Britain was still a very powerful country.   One of its greatest strengths was the Royal Navy. Now, there are so few ships, there are none available to protect the Falkland Islands from Argentina.   Nor are there any to defend Gibraltar.   The governments of the two colonies took the unusual step earlier this month of issuing a joint statement reminding potential aggressors (Argentina and Spain) that the United Nations charter calls for the “self-determination of peoples.”   The populations of both colonies want to remain British but Britain can’t or won’t defend them.

This is the future Americans have to look forward to – imperial decline on a massive scale.

Note Pat Buchanan’s comments:

“Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this country has been steadily bled and slowly bankrupted. We are now as overextended as was the British Empire in the 1940s.

“And like that empire, we, too, are being challenged by nations that seek to enlarge their place in the sun — a resurrected Russia, China, Iran.   And we are being bedeviled by fanatics who want us out of their part of the world, which they wish to remake according to the visions of their own faiths and ideologies.  (“America’s Imperial Overstretch,” 4/14)

—————————————————————————

President and Mrs. Obama arrived in England after visiting Saudi Arabia.  It was clear the Saudis are upset with the United States.   For decades the alliance between the two has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy.   Now that the US is cuddling up to Shi’ite Iran, the Saudis feel betrayed.   As one commentator put it – they don’t like playing the role of a rejected wife as the husband turns his attention to his new mistress, Tehran!   Divorce, however, is not considered an option. It is also the case that many Saudis (maybe most) are more enamored with IS than the US!

ENOUGH WITH TEDDY BEARS!

 

Easter Sunday Bombing in Lahore, Pakistan
Easter Sunday Bombing in Lahore, Pakistan

There’s an incredible disconnect in the western world right now.

A few days ago, we witnessed the Brussels bombings that killed 35 and sent hundreds to area hospitals.   Many are maimed for life.

Then, on Easter Sunday, the world witnessed a deliberate bombing of Christian families in Lahore, Pakistan, that killed more than twice as many people as the bombs in Brussels.  Many of the victims were children.   Muslims were killed as well as Christians, but the target was a Christian gathering, with the intent to kill as many as possible, especially children.   Less than 48 hours later, Sky News in England revealed that ISIS has plans to attack Jewish kindergartens in Turkey.   Children have clearly become prime targets for Islamic militants.

Faced with the prospect of more terrorism in the years to come, each attack ratcheting up the intensity and the carnage, an anti-immigrant rally was held in Brussels on Sunday.   The rally was quickly condemned as being made up of “hooligans,” “right wing thugs,” “racists” and “neo-Nazis.”   None of their concerns was addressed.

Older people know that the West as it is now is the direct result of more than five decades of liberal and leftist thinking that has created the multicultural, mixed race, mixed religions, environment we are now living in.  It’s a disaster.  Yet the creators of this mess insist on more of the same.

The BBC World Service (radio) Monday broadcast an interview with Dominic Grieve, a British Conservative politician and Member of the Privy Council, therefore very much a member of the British Establishment.   He was asked a number of questions relating to security in light of the Belgian attacks, in the series “HardTalk.”  His position was predictable, that the vast majority of Muslims, including Syrian immigrants, are appreciative of living in the West and don’t want to cause trouble.

The news then followed with an update on the Pakistani bombing.

It is clear that there is a very anti-Christian element in Islam.  The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has promised to defend British Christians against all such threats, but this will be difficult to do when over three million Muslims live in the country.

It’s glaringly obvious to a growing number of people that these two religions cannot mix.   But Mr. Grieve implied there is a need for greater efforts to achieve “assimilation.”  Somehow, as with everything else, the West is at fault.

The incident in Brussels inspired an article by Raheem Kassam, which appeared in the Middle East Forum.  It was originally written for Breitbart, a conservative publication.  The title of the article was: “Enough with Teddy Bears and Tears:  It’s time to take our civilization back.”

Mr. Kassam writes:  “Teddy bears, tears, candles, cartoons, murals, mosaics, flowers, flags, projections, hashtags, balloons, wreaths, lights, vigils, scarves, and more.  These are the best solutions the Western world seems to come up with every few months when we are slammed by another Islamist terrorist attack.  We are our own sickness.”

This is so true – because we don’t know what to do, or rather because we are afraid to take the necessary steps, we hold all-night vigils, pile up the flowers and the teddy bears, sing “We shall overcome” and promise to tell Muslims that we love them, thinking that will change everything.   Even the Pope, for many the leader of the Christian West, prayed for western countries to embrace more refugees on Easter Sunday, rather than clearly condemning the persecution of Christians in Islamic countries.   One day later came news that a Catholic priest was crucified on Good Friday by Islamic State.

In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a “crusade” to the Holy Land to end the persecution of Christians.  Pope Urban’s reaction to reports of massacres was more understandable than Pope Francis’ reaction a thousand years later.

People in the West today, after seven decades of cultural appeasement, will do anything except fight.

I’m not talking about fighting a war, necessarily.  But there’s no fight to even stand up for our ideals, our history, our values, our culture. Instead, we simply wait for the next attack.

Mr. Kassam’s article also said:  “Our security services and our police, hamstrung by political correctness, are just as interested (or more?) in rounding up Twitter “hate speech” offenders than criminal, rapist, or terrorist migrants. Our borders are as porous as our brains. We refuse to realize that there are now literally millions of people amongst us who hate us.  Who hate our way of life, and who will, one day, dominate our public life.”

The teddy bears that are being left at memorials to suicide bombers owe their origin to President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, whose foreign policy was summed up in the expression “speak softly and carry a big stick!”   Diplomacy, in other words, must be backed up by force.   Western leaders today seem only capable of speaking softly, if at all.

Breaking news, as I write, has Hillary Clinton criticizing Donald Trump over his wanting to end Muslim immigration.  She then asked: “What would that mean for a nation founded on religious freedom?” Mrs. Clinton must know that religious freedom was not extended to Muslims until 1965.  Before that, immigration was strictly restricted mostly to people of European descent.  It was the Clinton’s friend, Senator Edward Kennedy, who sponsored the bill that liberalized immigration in 1965.

We are building up to a major clash between the Islamic world and the post-Christian West.   Today’s Western leader, seems content to do little or nothing. It’s up to the Europeans to save western civilization.

At the weekend, the McLaughlin Group on PBS discussed the Brussels attacks and the responses of US presidential candidates, who seem disillusioned with NATO (whose headquarters are in Brussels) and feel the Europeans need to do more to defend themselves.   Germany specifically was mentioned as a wealthy nation that can do more.  Note the following:

“On Wednesday, the German cabinet adopted a four year budget plan that would dramatically increase spending on the military, police, and intelligence services.

“German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble (Christian Democrats, CDU) did not mince words at a press conference Wednesday, declaring,  “The central points of this budget and finance plan are of course the internal and external security of our country.” (World Socialist Web)

Bible prophecy shows that the reaction to the rising threat from radical Islam is going to come from a union of ten nations in Europe, a union only Germany can lead.

“At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through.” (Daniel 11:40)

Revelation 17 is a chapter about the historical revivals of the Roman Empire.  One still lies ahead.  “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.   These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.” (verses 12 & 13).   The “beast” is the supreme European leader of the revived Roman Empire, a European centered union of ten nations with great military power.  This power is destined to fill the vacuum left by the United States.

I don’t normally agree with anything Eleanor Clift says on the McLaughlin Group, but this week I did.  She told the much younger British regular, Tom Rogan, there was a very good reason why we don’t want to rearm Germany.  He was the first one to suggest it.   As the post-World War II generation dies off, few will think of World War II and the dire threat Germany and Japan posed to the world. Instead, they will simply say America can’t do it all, rich countries like Germany and Japan should spend more.  The result is not likely to be a good one.