Tag Archives: George WAshington

GOAL IN AFGHANISTAN IS AN ISLAMIC STATE

Muhammad Nabi Omari also claimed that the U.S. cooperates with Ghani’s government to transport ISIS members between Afghanistan’s provinces . . . (MEMRI)

Former Taliban Official Muhammad Nabi Omari Claims U.S. Supports ISIS In Afghanistan, Says: 60-70% Of Afghanistan Controlled By Taliban; Our Goal Is To Establish An Islamic State

Muhammad Nabi Omari, the Taliban’s border police chief from 1996 to 2001, said in a July 9, 2019 interview on Russia Today TV that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani controls less than half of Kabul and that he cannot operate in other provinces or districts in Afghanistan because the Afghan people do not listen to him or recognize his authority.   Omari said that every province in Afghanistan has its own independent government and that 60-70% of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban.   Omari also claimed that the U.S. cooperates with Ghani’s government to transport ISIS members between Afghanistan’s provinces, and he said that there are rumors that the U.S. has opened camps for ISIS throughout Afghan territory. He also said that Afghanistan’s intelligence agencies support, arm, and finance ISIS.   Omari added that the Taliban’s goal in fighting America is to establish an Islamic state.   Omari was held for 12 years in Guantanamo Bay and was released in 2014 in an exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. (MEMRI #7372)

———————————————–

ALAN TURING TO BE ON NEW 50-POUND NOTE

At first this decision may seem like PC gone crazy.

Alan Turing was the subject of the movie “The Imitation Game.”   No exaggeration, he saved hundreds of thousands of allied lives and cut World War Two short by an estimated two years.   Turing was a British cryptanalyst who decrypted German intelligence messages for the British government during the Second World War.

“Turing played a pivotal role in cracking intercepted coded messages that enabled the Allies to defeat the Nazis in many crucial engagements, including the Battle of the Atlantic, and in so doing helped win the war.”  (Wikipedia. “Alan Turing).

“After the war, Turing worked at the National Physical Laboratory, where he designed the Automatic Computing Engine, which was one of the first designs for a stored-program computer. In 1948, Turing joined Max Newman’s Computing Machine Laboratory at the Victoria University of Manchester, where he helped develop the Manchester computers and became interested in mathematical biology.   He wrote a paper on the chemical basis of morphogenesis and predicted oscillating chemical reactions such as the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, first observed in the 1960s.” (Wikipedia)

After the war, a homosexual offense led to the penalty of chemical castration.   Some time after his release, he committed suicide, although this is disputed.

In 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a public apology for the British government’s treatment of Turing.   Four years later, he was posthumously pardoned by Queen Elizabeth II.  It was announced this month that he will be featured on future Bank of England 50 pound notes.

It raises an interesting question:   How many other talented individuals have been lost due to a sexual problem?

————————————————————

JAMESTON REVISITED

July marked the 400th anniversary of the birth of American democracy.

Only twelve years after the initial settlement of Jamestown, the people exercised their right as Englishmen to have their own parliament. In time, this became the Virginia House of Burgesses (from 1643), which remained active in Williamsburg until the American Revolution, giving Americans 157 years to practice democracy.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were all members.

Sadly, 1619, when democracy was introduced, was also the year that slavery was introduced into English America, with the arrival of the first slave ship from Africa, in August.  Four centuries later, demands for reparations are growing.

—————————————————————–

Letter From Jerusalem 

Trump’s Camp David Moment                                                                                  by Raf Sanchez, Jerusalem Correspondent, Telegraph UK, 31 July 2019

We woke up this morning to reports that Donald Trump will lay out his Israeli-Palestinian peace plan at Camp David in the coming weeks.

According to Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, Trump will invite Arab leaders to the presidential retreat but not Netanyahu or the Palestinians

Every indication is that the plan will propose autonomy for the Palestinians but will deny them an independent state.

In what seems to be a related move,   David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel appeared on CNN yesterday and essentially endorsed Netanyahu’s position on the Palestinians.   “We believe in Palestinian autonomy,” he said.   “We believe that autonomy should be extended up until the security of Israel is at stake.”

—————————————————————–

Is Germany Becoming Germany — Again?                                    by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (National Review)  https://www.nationalreview.com/author/victor-davis-hanson/    June 4, 2019 6:30 AM

Merkel’s evident anti-Americanism is a familiar refrain.

The more things change, well, the more they . . .   So it is with the perpetual German resentments of the U.S.

Recently German chancellor Angela Merkel reminded us of that German fixation, when she made some astounding statements to the German media that revealed what many Americans had long ago surmised.

Merkel all but announced that Germany, or for that matter Europe itself, is no longer really an ally of the United States:   “There is no doubt that Europe needs to reposition itself in a changed world. . . . The old certainties of the post-war order no longer apply.”

She insisted that Germany views the democratic United States as not much different from autocratic Russia and Communist China: Urging Europe to present a united front in the face of Russia, China, and the U.S., she said, “They are forcing us, time and again, to find common positions.”   And Merkel concluded that therefore Germany must find “political power” commensurate with its economic clout to forge a new independent European path.

In other words, in the calculus of the supposedly sober and judicious Merkel, the democracy that saved Europe twice from a carnivorous Germany — and Germany once from itself and once from becoming a Soviet vassal — is now similar to the world’s two largest authoritarian dictatorships, nations that not so long ago murdered respectively 30 million and 70 million of their own citizens.   And how odd a sentiment for someone who grew up in Communist East Germany, a nightmarish state whose collapse was largely attributable to the Reagan-era effort to bankrupt and roll back the Soviet empire.

—————————————————–

THAT HAMILTON WOMAN

That Hamilton Woman was Winston Churchill’s favorite movie.   One source says that he watched it over 80 times.   He certainly watched it every night he was sailing across the Atlantic for a historic meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt.   It was made at a crucial time for England, in 1941.   America was neutral and every nation in western Europe had been conquered by Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union was still neutral.   So England stood alone against the forces of fascism.

“Throughout the centuries England has built up a Commonwealth committed to freedom . . . every few years she must sent out her ships to stop a dictator conquering the world.”   So says the British Ambassador to the Kingdom of Naples, on the eve of the Napoleonic Wars.   England fought alone at that time, too, against Napoleon.

This has been the course of European events.   Every so often one nation on the continent of Europe achieves domination over the others.   Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler are the most famous dictators, who all, in turn, tried to conquer democratic England, but lost.

It’s happening again. Germany is the dominant power, as it was twice in the last century.   This time it’s different.   There’s no military rivalry involved (not yet, anyway), but Germany has achieved the ascendancy and wants to hold its position.   Anybody who threatens it will earn the enmity of the teutonic state.

That’s what Brexit is all about.

———————————————————————————

“Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

 

Advertisements

THE INVASION SPEEDS UP

CBS News reporter Mireya Villarreal appeared to be stunned when Arizona Border Patrol agent Fernando Grijalva told her that the crisis at the border was the worst that he has seen in decades. (From article by Carlos Garcia, The Hendersonville Tribune, January 25, 2019)

In its lead editorial Wednesday, The New York Times called upon Congress to amend the National Emergency Act to “erect a wall against any President, not just Mr. Trump, who insists on creating emergencies where none exist.”

Trump “took advantage” of a “loophole” in the NEA, said The Times, to declare “a crisis at the border, contrary to all evidence.”

The NY Times news desk, however, apparently failed to alert the editorial page on what the top story would be that day.

“Record Numbers Crossing to U.S., Deluging Agents” was the page-one headline.  The NY Times quoted Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection:   “The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point. … This is … a border security and a humanitarian crisis.”

Reporter Caitlin Dickerson explained what is behind CPB’s alarm: “The number of migrant families crossing the Southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago.”

She continued, “More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, an 11-year high … newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day.”

Only if one believes in open borders is this not an emergency, not a crisis.   Consider the budgetary impact alone of this invasion.
(“Can Trump stop the invasion?” by Pat Buchanan, 3/8/19)

———————————————————————————

A BETTER APPROACH TO NORTH KOREA

  • American leaders have been wrong.   The best way to get what we want from North Korea, whether it be “denuclearization” or anything else, is to reverse decades of Washington thinking and raise the issue of human rights loudly and incessantly.   The same is true with regard to North Korea’s sponsor and only formal ally, the People’s Republic of China.
  • Kim Jong Un knows how inhumane his rule is — he has, after all, had hundreds of people executed — so if we do not talk forcefully about, say, Otto Warmbier, Kim will think we are afraid of him.   If he thinks we are afraid of him, he will see no reason to be accommodating.   It is unfortunate, but outsiders cannot be polite or friendly.
  • It is time to let Kim know that America no longer cares about how he feels or even about maintaining a friendly relationship with him.   That posture, a radical departure from Washington thinking, is both more consistent with American ideals and a step toward a policy that Kim will respect.

(Gatestone, Gordon Chang, 3/12/19)

———————————————————

IRAN:   EXECUTIONS OF CHILDREN

  • The list of unspeakable human rights violations committed by Iran’s regime is lengthy; however, by far the most disturbing seems the cruelty enacted against children.
  • Now is the time for the EU to halt its appeasement policy with a regime that does not hesitate to flog people — publicly, as a message to others — torture any citizen they choose to target, enact cruel punishments such as amputation without a fair trial, and execute children just starting their lives.   These are acts that should be condemned — not condoned through the pursuit of appeasement policies, moral depravity and raw greed.

(Majid Rafizadeh, Gatestone, 3/8)

————————————————————

NOT MY FAVORITE

More than three hundred years after Queen Anne’s death, it’s suddenly been revealed that she was a lesbian.

According to the movie “The Favourite.”

The movie does not make much of the fact that she must have had a close relationship with her husband, Prince George of Denmark and Norway, with whom she had seventeen children.   Not one of the children survived her.

Queen Anne is generally considered a good monarch on both sides of the Atlantic.   The movie revolves around her close friendship with Sarah Churchill, an ancestor of Winston Churchill.   They had a falling out in 1711.   Sarah was replaced by Abigail Masham, Sarah’s cousin, as the queen’s best friend.

The suggestion that she was a lesbian has no basis in fact.   Whatever next?   We’ve already “learned” that Abraham Lincoln was gay; are we about to find out that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were more than just friends?   Or that Winston Churchill, on his nights off from saving the world from fascism, doubled as a drag queen?

It’s time for us all to boycott Hollywood and switch to Bollywood movies, already seen around the world by far more people than anything out of Hollywood.   The movie “Kashmir” was the first ever musical about terrorism, and was far more credible than “The Favourite!”

———————————————————-

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES CRASH

I was deeply saddened to hear of the terrible accident Sunday, in which an Ethiopian Airlines flight crashed, killing all 157 people on board.

It brought back many memories of Ethiopian Airlines.   For many years, it was the only reliable airline crossing east to west in Africa. We often used it when flying from Ghana to Cameroon and back.

It did, however, have a reputation for being late. This was typical of most African airlines at the time.

On one occasion, I remember arriving at the airport in Douala, Cameroon, with my wife and three children.   As we approached the airport we could see a flight taking off.   Inside the airport terminal building, we were proudly informed by an Ethiopian Airlines official that this time, instead of being late, the flight had departed two hours early!

We spent an extra three days in Cameroon!

—————————————————————————-

BREXIT UPDATE

It really couldn’t be a bigger mess!

The British parliament rejected Mrs. May’s second proposed “deal,” and followed it up with a vote to not leave the EU without a “deal.”   By doing the latter, they have rejected the vote of the people who want to leave.   This smacks of a deliberate last minute attempt to stop Britain from leaving the EU.

There are only two weeks to Brexit, which is written into law. However, if the law is altered to allow more time, Brexit may not happen.   The EU has already said that Britain can delay departure as long as it likes.   To do this, all 27 member countries would have to vote approval.   Nigel Farage, the man behind Brexit, has already asked friends in Poland and the Czech Republic, to vote down the Extension, which would well and truly leave Britain trapped.

This would leave Britain in an even worse state than before the 2016 referendum.   Still trading with the EU, with no voting rights and no freedom to maneuver.   And no rebates, either – so membership will cost more.

Who would join this club?

President Trump this morning said that a second referendum on the issue would not be wise.  America seems to be sending a clear signal that it wants Britain to leave; maybe to weaken the EU.

—————————————————————-

CHRISTIAN STREET PREACHING PUNISHED

Being a street preacher can be a thankless business.  Since moving to Britain from Nigeria nine years ago, 64-year-old Oluwole Ilesanmi has toured the country reading aloud from the Bible, spending hours outside train stations, urging people to see the light.   Sometimes he makes a convert; most of the time his preaching falls on deaf ears. Last month, it resulted in him being arrested.

Saturday 23 February began like a typical day for Ilesanmi.   He went to Southgate tube station in north London and preached for a few hours.   His spiel included a disobliging reference to Islam, which seemed to rile a passer-by.   To Ilesanmi’s surprise he was then accosted by the man.   A woman who filmed the incident says she feared Ilesanmi was about to be attacked:   ‘The man had his forehead to the preacher’s forehead.   He looked like he was about to knock him out.’

It seemed that Ilesanmi was the victim.   But he was accused of Islamophobia, and then the police arrived.   The video — since viewed millions of times online — shows what happened next. Ilesanmi was arrested, handcuffed and one of the officers snatched his Bible away.   When Ilesanmi objected, the policeman responded by saying:   ‘You should have thought about that before being racist.’

‘When they took the Bible off me I felt so enraged,’ Ilesanmi tells me. ‘They couldn’t do that to the Koran.   They dare not do that to the Koran.   The policeman wanted to even throw the Bible on the floor.’

That was just the beginning of his humiliation.   He was then bundled into a police car and driven off.   When he asked where he was being taken, he was told:   ‘Somewhere where you can’t get back to preach.’ That turned out to be Wrotham Park, five miles away on the outskirts of London, where the cops let him out of their car.  ‘De-arrested,’ the police later called it.   Ilesanmi, without any cash, was at a loss as to how to get home until an elderly man took pity on him and paid for a bus ticket.     (Tom Goodenough, Spectator, 3/16)

—————————————————–

 A third of British billionaires have moved to a tax haven 

by Paul Morgan-Bentley, Head of Investigations | Billy Kenber, Investigations Reporter | Louis Goddard, Data Team, March 7, 2019 * The Times, London

A third of British billionaires have moved to tax havens after an exodus over the past decade, a Times investigation has found.

They are among 6,800 Britons controlling 12,000 UK firms from low-tax jurisdictions.   The Exchequer is denied billions a year but many of the bosses still reap the benefits of British assets.

Some have bankrolled political parties while living offshore as successive governments have failed to enact a law passed in 2009 that would have banned large donations from anyone resident abroad for tax purposes.   Many have been awarded honors or hold titles, with at least one viscount, one baron, six knights and one dame among the billionaires.

(The Times, 3/7/19)

————————————————————-

FRANCE

“Macron hates the yellow vests and wants them to vanish.   He wants to win European elections and needs the Muslim vote.  He knows perfectly well who the anti-Semites are today, but will not attack them.   He needs them.   He attacks [only] those who are dangerous to him. ” — Éric Zemmour, French author, February 19, 2019.

————————————————————————————-

QUESTION

“You (and many COG’s) teach that Manassah separated from Ephraim.   But doesn’t this assume everyone in the U.S. colonies came from an Ephraimite (British) background?”

No.  It doesn’t assume that.   The country was started by people of Ephraimite descent and has Anglo-Saxon institutions.   They are still there, even though the majority of people may not be Ephraimites.

FORTY YEARS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD

George Washington and the French and Indian War

I spent a couple of evenings this week watching “The War That Made America,” a 4-hour PBS special made in 2006, to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the French and Indian War.   The intro added the words:   “And it’s not the war you think.”

It is, arguably, the most significant war in American history.   If it had ended differently, we might have been French and Catholic. Instead, we speak English and have freedom of religion.

Prior to 1754 the British had control of the eastern seaboard.   The French were in control of the “Ohio country.”   From Canada to Louisiana, they had a series of forts that controlled the center of what is now the US.   These forts stopped Americans from moving westward.   They were trying to strengthen these forts when conflict arose between Britain and France.

George Washington fired the first shot, as a member of the colonial Virginia Regiment, a provincial militia.   It was the first shot in what was really the first world war, a war that saw fighting in India, the Philippines, Africa and Europe as well as North America.   Outside of the US, the war is known as the Seven Years War.

After more than seven years of brutal fighting, the French were driven out of North America.   The threat from the Roman Catholic Church, which did not tolerate freedom of religion, was over.   The French king no longer ruled over North America, replaced by an English king who was a constitutional monarch.

When told the news that he had lost Canada, Louis XV was talking to Voltaire, the famous French philosopher. In an attempt to console him, Voltaire asked what the French had actually lost. It was, he said, just “a few acres of snow.”

Fast forward fifteen years, to 1775.   This was the year that saw the beginning of major changes that lay the groundwork for the world we now live in.

From Wikipedia:   “In the Hebrew Bible, forty is often used for time periods, forty days or forty years, which separate “two distinct epochs.”   Several Jewish leaders and kings are said to have ruled for “forty years,” that is, a generation.”

1775 was truly the end of one epoch. 1815 was the beginning of another.

  1. MANASSEH SEPARATED FROM EPHRAIM

The forty-year period began with the separation from the “multitude of nations,” of a ”great people,” Manasseh.   The multitude remained united under the Crown.

Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for  Manasseh was the firstborn.  And he blessed Joseph, and said: “God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has fed me all my life long to this day, The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; Let my name be named upon them, And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

“Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head.  And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”

But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know.   He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”

“So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will bless, saying, ‘May God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh!’ ” And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh.”   (Genesis 48:14-20)

2.  CANADA ALSO BECAME A NATION.

One of the consequences of the US victory at Yorktown was the expansion of Canada and of it becoming its very own nation.  The British had control of the 14th colony, Quebec (Lower Canada), which refused to join the “Protestant Republic” forming to the south.   Britain had conquered Quebec in 1759, guaranteeing the French their Roman Catholicism.   Many of America’s Tories fled to Ontario, then Upper Canada, and, with Lower Canada, formed a new nation of Canada.   Later, in 1867, they would be given independence under the Crown, forming the Dominion of Canada, the first nation of the British Commonwealth.

3.  FRANCE LOSES ITS SUPREMACY TO ENGLAND

The first blow against French domination was struck in 1759 when the British gained Montreal and Quebec.   But it was the 22-year period of on-again, off again, military conflict with France that led to a century of British domination.   The Napoleonic Wars weakened France and strengthened England.   The defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, on 18th June, 1815, saw the end of France as a great military power.

4.  The LOUISIANA PURCHASE of 1803, financed by a British bank, gave America the Ohio country and enabled it to expand westward.

5.  NAVAL SUPREMACY

The Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805, one of the greatest British victories of all time, gave Britain naval supremacy.   For over a century, the Royal Navy ruled the seas, protected British territories and the US and ensured the peace.

  1.  ABOLISHMENT OF THE SLAVE TRADE

The trade in slaves ended for the British Empire in 1807. The US followed a year later.   It wasn’t until 1833 that the British ended slavery throughout their empire.   For the US it was thirty years later during the Civil War.   But the end of the slave trade boosted the growth of the British Empire, which was seen throughout Africa as a Liberator.   The West Africa Squadron of the British Royal Navy patrolled the Gulf of Guinea, and was authorized to stop any naval vessel (of whatever country) and free their slaves.   In the fifty years of the Squadron it is estimated that 150,000 slaves were freed.

During the Revolutionary War, the British were supported by most of the slaves in the thirteen colonies, slaves who were promised their freedom at the end of the war.   With defeat, they took those slaves on board ships, many of which went to found a new nation, Sierra Leone, in West Africa.

Three new countries emerged in the 40-year period we are looking at – the United States, Canada and Sierra Leone.

  1.  WAR OF 1812

This war showed that the US was a serious nation.   Canada was, too. The two fought and established their separate identities.   Canadians made it clear they wanted to stay under the Crown.

THE COST OF ARROGANCE

The PBS documentary showed quite clearly the role of the Indians in the struggle for North America.   The French started the war with great advantage – most of the Indian tribes were on their side.   But their arrogance toward the Indians caused that to change.

At the same time, British arrogance toward George Washington cost them the American colonies twenty years later.   They refused to allow Washington advancement in the ranks because he was a “provincial.”   He quit the military in 1758, returning in 1775 to lead the Patriots” against the British.

The DVD is well worth four hours.   You could also read the book “A Few Acres of Snow” by Robert Leckie, “the saga of the French and Indian Wars.”   Published in 2006.

————————————————————

MAY VISITS GRIMSBY

Mrs. Theresa May, Prime Minister of the UK, visited my hometown of Grimsby this morning.   She was there to make a pitch for her latest Brexit proposals, to be voted on in parliament on Tuesday.   Grimsby is one of the towns that most supported Brexit.   She made it clear that, if her proposals are rejected, the UK might have to remain in the EU.

Even if her proposals receive the support of parliament (a big IF), there is no guarantee that the EU will go along with them.

The people voted to leave the European Union.   Now they are being told it’s not as simple as that.   Why not let the people have what they voted for?   That will never do!

 

 

 

 

RUSSIA, BRITAIN AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

This 1783 portrait shows the American delegation to the Paris peace talks. The British refused to pose with the Americans. Animosity was still running high more than a year after the war had ended.

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.

WHY ARE WE IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

Greater Middle East

“America is losing its hegemony in the Middle East.” So wrote The Economist in its September 13th issue, page 55.

This raises a question.   Why does America need to be in the Middle East? At one time, oil would have been the answer, but now that the US is glutted with oil, dependence on the Mideast has declined. Middle East oil still largely determines the world price of oil, but is it worth never-ending wars to keep the price down?

The same Economist article (“The Next War Against Global Jihadism”) explained:  “the region itself has grown radically more fragmented and volatile.”   Unresolved conflicts that have gone on for decades or even millennia still threaten the peace of the world. These conflicts have “been exacerbated by a shadowy proxy struggle between the two sects’ main state champions, Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

These two countries are the leaders of Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, respectively. Ironically, they are now “allies” of sorts, as both countries have a vested interest in defeating ISIS. Saudi Arabia joined in the US led bombing mission on ISIS Syrian targets, while Iran is giving support to Syria’s Assad regime which is threatened by ISIS.

No western allies want anything to do with Syria, but Syrian cooperation is needed to defeat ISIS.

It’s all very complicated.

America’s first president George Washington wrote in his farewell address to the American people:  “Avoid foreign entanglements.”  The mess in the Middle East is the kind of situation he was advising against, although most of the countries in the region did not exist in Washington’s time.

Americans and Europeans, who make up the western alliance, do not even begin to understand the complexities of the Middle East quagmire. How many people understand the rivalry between Sunni and Shia Islam, or even when and how it started?  Not many. But it’s affecting us now more than any domestic challenge.

Prior to World War One, which was being fought exactly a century ago, the Middle East was of no importance to the western powers.   After the war ended, the peace treaty divided up the Ottoman Empire, with the British emerging as the dominant power in the region. That remained the case until the 1950’s when America took over Britain’s former role.   For decades, the British and the Americans supported questionable regimes.   When those regimes were overthrown in the Arab Spring, the West was distrusted by ordinary people and by the new leaders who had seen their predecessors betrayed. Egypt, with the biggest Arab population, is a classic example of this.

Of course, Israel is different. Their values are more akin to ours. But, absent from the Middle East, we can still send arms and financial support. The Israelis have always taken care of themselves in times of conflict.

So, again, I ask the big question:  why are we even in the Middle East?

Perhaps the answer can be found in history.  In modern history, it was Napoleon who first realized that domination of the Middle East would enable a nation to control the world, to be the number one superpower.   His campaigns in Egypt and Syria were not successful and the British ended up dominating the area.   Their period of supremacy became even greater after World War One. When the British pulled out of the area, their superpower status was over.

If the US withdraws from the area, or is defeated in its battle with ISIS, America’s leadership role will also likely be over.

Even now, it’s difficult for the United States to tread through the minefield of Middle East politics.   It was essential for the country to have Arab involvement in the bombings of Syria this week.   If the US had acted without Arab support, it would have fed the delusion that the “Christian” West is fighting Islam, a widely held view. Labeling America as “the crusader state” adds to this impression.

We are frequently reassured that there will be “no boots on the ground.”  Senior military men have said that the war cannot be won any other way.   Americans are tired of wars, especially in the Middle East.   If America at some future point turns its back on the region, its period of global dominance could well be over.