When President Trump was elected, many Christians thought this would mean a delay in prophesied end-time events, as America was “made great again”.
The opposite seems to be the case.
As Sky News put it following Mr. Trump’s announcement that the United States is pulling out of the Iran deal, the president’s proclamation sent an “earthquake” through the Middle East.
Rather than delaying prophesied events, Mr. Trump is speeding them up, laying the groundwork for rapid escalation.
Consider the following:
The growing rift between Europe and America. Less than a month after French President Emmanuel Macron paid a seemingly highly successful visit to Washington, DC, the French today condemned America over the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, calling the decision “unacceptable.” Earlier in the week, France, Germany and the UK all expressed support for the Iranian deal, refusing to support the US.
It should be emphasized that it is not Europe distancing itself from America; it’s America that keeps on making decisions that are taking the country down a new path of isolationism.
It’s America that is changing, not the rest of the world. But changes decided in Washington are going to have a profound effect internationally.
Just today, European Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker is capitalizing on America’s decision to call once again for a United States of Europe with its own, single, unified military.
At some point, prophecy shows that ten nations in Europe will unite to form a formidable military, political and economic alliance. You can read about this in Revelation, chapter 17. “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.” (Rev. 17:12-13)
Pressure from the US on Berlin to build up the German military.
After two world wars that were started by Germany, you would think nobody would want to rearm the country that lies at the heart of Europe. And that has been the case with every Administration since World War II. But now it’s changing, as President Trump feels that the Germans must spend more on the defense of the western alliance – which may not be an alliance much longer! Building up its military will leave Germany in the perfect position to lead the ten nation revival of the Roman Empire.
Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing the city as the “eternal capital” of Israel. No other major nation has followed America in this. This is just one decision that has changed the Middle East dramatically.
The Old Testament Book of Zechariah is a Millennial prophecy, which speaks to us today. It contains prophecies which could not have been fulfilled until the restoration of the Jewish nation exactly seventy years ago. Note chapter 12, verses 2 & 3.
“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.”
Judah is the biblical name for the modern nation of Israel, whose population is mostly Jewish, people who are descendants of the ancient tribe of Judah.
Given time, conflict around Jerusalem will involve more nations. Note Zech 14:2: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle.”
US support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emboldened Israel to strike at Iran in Syria. It’s worth remembering that it was Netanyahu who warned President George W Bush about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, calling on Washington to do something. That did not work out well. Could we see greater intervention by the United States in a rising conflict between Israel and Iran? Iran this week attacked Israel for the first time.
Add to this, the growing conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam, with the US clearly supporting Sunni Muslim countries (notably Saudi Arabia) against Shi’ite countries (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon).
The decision to tear up the climate change treaty, signed in Paris. Mr. Macron tried to change President Trump’s mind, but failed. People may criticize the US president for many things, but he’s certainly fulfilling his election promises, including this one. The rest of the world remains committed to the treaty.
Trade is another area of growing conflict, as President Trump puts “America First.” Here certainly the US has many grievances on unfair trade practices, but, again, it adds to the growing sense of divergence, as the US moves in a different direction from the rest of the world. Other nations continue to support globalization as a way to universal prosperity.
This growing trade war could even backfire on the US, if China decides to divest itself of US dollars. The result would be a serious downward pull on the greenback’s international value.
Even in less important areas, there has been significant change. For the first time, royal wedding planners had to announce that no politicians will be invited to next week’s wedding. This was the only way out of inviting the US president to a wedding where the bride is an American. But the alternative was a massive demonstration outside the church, thereby giving the British a security headache.
It’s not that all the changes are wrong. As an article headline in the Wall Street Journal put it: “Everything about Trump is bad, except for all his policies.” Rather, it’s the combined effect that all the changes are making that has sent an earthquake around the world. The aftershocks will be with us for some time.
Many Christians will no doubt continue to believe that Trump is going to reverse America’s fortunes and usher in a new glorious age, but it seems more likely that the radical departure from previous policies is only going to speed up the prophesied events that culminate in the return of Jesus Christ.
CBS this morning showed a few minutes of an interview with the Pope, to be broadcast in its entirety on “60 Minutes” this Sunday. This morning, the pope was talking about the Jewish seventh day sabbath being a day of rest. He actually used the terms “seventh day” and “sabbath.”
After yet another school shooting in the United States, the 19th this year, Pat Buchanan wrote a brilliant analysis. The following is a quote from his article, posted this morning.
“Another factor helps to explain what happened Wednesday: We are a formerly Christian society in an advanced state of decomposition.
“Nikolas Cruz was a product of broken families. He was adopted. Both adoptive parents had died. Where did he get his ideas of right and wrong, good and evil? Before the Death of God and repeal of the Ten Commandments, in those dark old days, the 1950s, atrocities common now were almost nonexistent. (“The Motives behind the massacre,” Pat Buchanan, 2/16)
Deuteronomy 28 is the classic Bible chapter that should help us all think. In summary, what it says is that the more we obey God, the greater our society will be; the more we turn away from God, the worse it will become. As Mr. Buchanan points out, “before the death of God and repeal of the Ten Commandments, in those dark old days, the 1950s, atrocities common now were almost nonexistent.”
RIPPLE EFFECT OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
It’s not just that US schools are unsafe, it’s clear to the rest of the world that America is a very violent country, with a governmental system that doesn’t work any more. As one writer put it, the US has an eighteenth century constitution in a twenty first century world.
Most countries already have a bad impression of the current US president. But, when Mr. Trump spoke following the shootings and talked about mental illness, that impression only worsened. Mental illness was (and usually is) a major factor, but what differentiates America from other western countries is easy access to weapons. Even the mentally ill can walk into a gun dealer and buy an assault rifle!
Parkland will not be the last school mass shooting.
ISLAM AND THE WEST
Sheikh “Abu Qusay” delivered a Friday sermon in Jerusalem, in which he said:
“Oh dweller of the White House, let me tell you, from the pulpit of the Prophet Muhammad, that this is the promise of Allah and His Messenger: Jerusalem is the heart of the land of Islam. We will storm your White House, stomp on your head, kill your soldiers, and capture your land. This is the promise of the Prophet Muhammad.” The sermon was posted to the internet on December 22nd. (MEMRI)
Nervous Rex? Tillerson in Turkey
The war in Syria has already tested and destroyed many alliances. Turkey’s relationship with America may be next. Having launched one army offensive against Kurdish insurgents in north-west Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government says it will soon order another, this time in the north-east. There, the militants are flanked by American troops, who are supporting them in their fight against Islamic State. It will be up to America’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who arrives in Turkey today, to calm nerves and prevent the diplomatic row between the two NATO allies from exploding into an armed one. That will not be easy. After an American general warned that his forces would retaliate against any attack on their positions inside the Kurdish strongholds, Mr Erdogan said the United States “had clearly never received an Ottoman slap.” Slap or no slap, Mr. Tillerson’s ears will be ringing by the time he gets back to Washington. (Economist, 2/15)
German government plans massive military expansion in Iraq By Johannes Stern, 13 February 2018
The new grand coalition in Germany is planning a massive expansion of the German army (Bundeswehr) mission in Iraq.
This was announced by Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) in the course of her trip to the Middle East last weekend. Von der Leyen praised Germany’s cooperation with the Peshmerga [Kurdish military forces] during her visit to Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Autonomous Region in northern Iraq. The Bundeswehr has been arming and militarily supporting the Kurdish force for three and a half years. It was “impressive to see the great success of the Peshmerga training mission,” she said, thanking “Bundeswehr soldiers” on the spot. Von der Leyen then announced that in future the Bundeswehr would be deployed throughout Iraq.
There will be “another mandate,” she said, “a mandate with a new balance … between Baghdad and Erbil on equal terms on both sides.” The defense minister made no concrete statements about the planned operation, but left no doubt she envisaged a long-term military engagement throughout Iraq. “Both in Kurdistan, as well as in the central government in Baghdad,” there is “a request above all to help in the implementation of reforms, in the construction of ministry structures,” the minister said. In Erbil, for example, “the construction of an entire sanitary unit is necessary,” but this also involved “of course the entire planning, organisation, recruitment and training.” There is also “considerable demand” for logistics. Germany wanted to “make its contribution” to provide Iraq with “independent, loyal operational forces for the long term.”
The Socialist Equality Party rejects the coalition pact, which focuses on the return of Germany to an aggressive foreign and great power policy, and calls for the disclosure of all the talks. Under conditions of escalating warfare in Syria and Iraq, and US preparations for war against North Korea, which threaten to provoke a Third World War, this demand, along with the demand for new elections, is becoming increasingly urgent.
Special Dispatch No. 7339
Hamas, Palestinian Factions In Response To Israel’s Airstrikes In Syria: ‘Any Israeli Attack, On Any Front, Will Be Answered With A Comprehensive War On All Fronts’ (MEMRI 2/15)
Macron Vows to Reform Islam in France “It is time to bring in a new generation”
by Soeren Kern, February 13, 2018 at 5:00 am
The overall objective of President Macron’s plan is to ensure that French law takes precedence over Islamic law for Muslims living in the country.
The plan, as currently conceived, is vague and short on details, but appears to involve three broad pillars: determining who will represent Muslims in France; delineating how Islam in France will be financed; and defining how imams in France will be trained.
“It is time to bring in a new generation. We have seen fifteen years of debate to defend the interests of foreign states.” — Hakim el-Karoui, a French-Tunisian expert on Islam who is advising Macron on the reforms. (Gatestone)
A New Élysée Treaty – Berlin and Paris are seeking a “new Élysée Treaty.” On the 55th anniversary of the original 1963 Élysée Treaty, in which the Federal Republic of Germany and France committed themselves to hold “consultations” on major political issues, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the drafting of a new treaty aimed at “deepening” cooperation between the two countries and “strengthening” the EU. In a declaration, the parliaments of both countries called for harmonizing almost the “complete range of policy issues.” This would amount to massively enhancing the “German-French axis.”
(Own report) – In Washington serious warnings are being raised against an independent German-European military policy aimed at weakening NATO. The militarization of the EU is being supported as long as “it is complimentary to NATO,” a senior Pentagon official was quoted. However, Washington would intervene if Berlin and the EU were to pull military resources away from NATO and use them for their own wars. This statement was made in light of the NATO defense ministers’ meeting that begins today, which will include a decision on the establishment of two new NATO headquarters. One will be established in the United States, to secure the military supply routes from North America over the Atlantic to Europe. A second will be established in Germany, to optimize rapid redeployments of West European troops eastwards across the continent. At the current stage of planning, this will be under German sovereignty and available also for use outside of the NATO framework.
Despite its loss in U.S. trade court against Bombardier, Boeing believes 2018 will be a turning point in its lengthy WTO challenge to Airbus over government subsidies. The threat of hefty tariffs could redraw the playing field — or trigger a trade war among traditional allies. (Dominic Gates,The Seattle Times 2/10)
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday rejected the sale of the Chicago Stock Exchange to a group that would have included Chinese investors, capping a two-year battle over a deal that sparked political opposition in Congress, reports the WSJ’s Dave Michaels. (2/16)
Some like it hot: America’s economy
The White House will announce its infrastructure plan today. It is expected to call for $200bn more in government spending to encourage private investment, hoping for a total of $1.5trn towards spending on roads, bridges, ports and more. Were Congress to pass such a plan without cutting spending elsewhere, it would be the third recent salvo of fiscal stimulus. Last week lawmakers passed a budget that will raise spending by $143bn (0.7% of GDP) this year; in December President Donald Trump signed into law tax cuts worth about $280bn in 2019. America’s budget deficit will probably reach $1trn (5% of GDP) that year. All this will stimulate an already hot economy. Unemployment is just 4.1%, and real-time estimates of GDP growth in the first quarter of 2018 are as high as 4%. The natural question is: when will inflation take off? This strangely timed fiscal experiment will reveal the answer. (Economist Espresso, 2/12)
China, Maldives: Beijing’s Boats Send a Message to India — China’s increased military presence in the Indian Ocean gives the country more options to respond to the crisis in the Maldives, in addition to challenging New Delhi’s influence in the region. (Stratfor, 2/16)
Finally, Mo Ibrahim has found an African president worthy of the $5 million prize the Sudanese billionaire offered to any leader who would step down after losing an election. The prize goes to Liberia’s Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. It’s been eleven years since the prize was established. “Ellen Johnson Sirleaf took the helm of Liberia when it was completely destroyed by civil war and led a process of reconciliation that focused on building a nation and its democratic institution,” said the head of the prize committee.
Liberia’s gross domestic product was only $550 million when Mrs. Sirleaf became president in 2005. At the end of her tenure in office it had increased to $2.1 billion. (Wall Street Journal, 2/14)
COMMENT ON OXFAM CHARITY SCANDAL
Can charities be truly bad? It seems perverse to say that they are, but the Oxfam abuse scandal has revealed a sinister side to international aid — and about time, too. In our cover package this week, Harriet Sergeant argues that, in Africa and elsewhere, NGOs often do more harm than good. Mary Wakefield, meanwhile, who wrote about rapist aid workers in the magazine a fortnight ago, well before the Oxfam story broke, asks why polite society prefers to ignore scandals which relate to organisations that people want to believe are good. (The Spectator, UK, 2/15)
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils — Berlioz
Consternation has been expressed this week that the US currently has no Ambassador to South Korea, at a time when war between the US and North Korea is a definite possibility. Nothing has been said about the fact that the US has no Ambassador to the European Union, also at a very critical time.
On Sunday, in a British television interview, President Trump described the EU’s trading policies as “unfair” to the US and threatened increased tariffs on imports from the 27-member nation trading club.
The US president, Donald Trump, claimed in an interview with ITV broadcast on Sunday that the EU had been “very unfair” on American exporters, and that it would “morph into something very big” that would “turn out to be very much to [the EU’s] detriment.”
Washington is currently examining the case for protecting US economic interests on national security grounds, including the imposition of import tariffs on aluminum and steel.
Responding to Trump’s comments, a spokesman for the European commission told reporters in Brussels that the EU was ready to hit back if its importers were made to suffer.
The spokesman said: “For us trade policy is not a zero sum game. It is not about winners and losers. We here in the European Union believe that trade can and should be win-win.
“We also believe that while trade has to be open and fair it also has to be rules-based. The European Union stands ready to react swiftly and appropriately in case our exports are affected by any restrictive trade measures by the United States.”
(“Brussels prepared for trade war with US if it restricts EU imports,” Daniel Boffey, The Guardian, 29th January, 2018).
There is an assumption in the United States that America is the biggest trading power in the world and can dictate to others when it comes to trade. This may not be the case.
“The adjusted GDP of the 28 EU member nations is bigger than both China and the US, the traditional list of world’s economic super powers.
“In nominal U.S. dollar terms, the European Union (plus Norway, Switzerland, Iceland) accounted for 25.4% of world output in 2014 according to data from the International Monetary Fund. That was greater than America’s share (22.5%) and well in excess of China’s—13.4%,” said Quinlan.
(“Europe is bigger than the US”, Bob Bryan, Business Insider, 30th June, 2015).
These facts will have changed in the 2 ½ years since this was written. When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union next year, the figures will need to be further adjusted. But the figures do convey that the US, the EU and China are each roughly on a par when it comes to the size of their economies.
What is not conveyed here is how powerful the European Union is through its trading agreements. Whereas the US has twenty major trading partners, the EU has eighty. These countries will all likely side with Brussels if a trade war worsens.
Nobody is likely to benefit from a trade war. The latest tariffs the US imposed on Chinese washing machines, for example, will increase the cost of purchasing a washing machine in the US. This will apply to thousands of products as tariffs are increased by all three economic powers.
There’s a lesson from history here. The Smoot-Hawley Act, passed by Congress in 1930, raised tariffs on over 20,000 items imported from other countries. One side effect was that US trade decreased by over 50% increasing unemployment. This period became known as the Great Depression.
The first shots have been fired in a new trade war. It’s not likely that the US will come out ahead here, certainly not in the long term. Putting “America First” will mean the rest of the world coming together in a renewed commitment to globalization, leading to the new global economic system predicted in Revelation 18.
Note the following just after Angela Merkel’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos:
“German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted on Wednesday “protectionism is not the answer” to world problems, addressing the Davos economic summit before US President Donald Trump appears to defend his “America First” agenda.
“We think that shutting ourselves off, isolating ourselves, will not lead us into a good future. Protectionism is not the answer,” Merkel said in a speech in the Swiss resort.
She spoke a day before the arrival of the US president whose aggressive trade policies have raised concern among defenders of globalization.
“Let us not shut off from others, let us keep pace with the best in the world and let us canvas for this multilateral approach,” Merkel said.”
Headline in WIN (World Israel News)
German FM in Israel rejects US Jerusalem move, warns of European ‘frustration’ (1st February)
During a visit to Israel, German FM Sigmar Gabriel blasted those who oppose a Palestinian state, demanding a two-state approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
We went to see “Darkest Hour” recently. Although not perfect, the movie is a fairly accurate attempt at showing what Winston Churchill was up against when he suddenly became Prime Minister in May, 1940. Forgotten now is how close Britain came to being invaded by Hitler’s armies. The future of the world depended on what was to follow – if the UK had fallen, other nations would have had to sue for peace on Hitler’s terms. Those “other nations” included the United States, which was totally unprepared for war in 1940.
Britons like to say that they “stood alone” against Hitler. Certainly, in Europe that was true. But forgotten now is a simple fact: at the time, Britain ruled a quarter of the world’s people. All these nations fought with Britain. Two and a half million Indians were in the British Army, plus hundreds of thousands of people from Africa and the Caribbean. Additionally, the British dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia) played a major role.
In the event of another threat to Britain, none of these countries will be likely to come to her aid.
Watching the movie, you can also see clearly the similarities with today. Whereas, in 1940, Britain was faced with an enormous military threat from Germany, today it’s an economic threat – from the German dominated EU. As the Brexit negotiations continue, the EU has the advantage, because the Brits are allowing them to. There seems to be a lack of backbone in standing up to Brussels, Berlin and Paris. The FT’s Philip Stephens today described the mess as “Britain’s nervous breakdown.”
Sadly, there is no Winston Churchill waiting in the wings!
Note the following headline from the British Daily Express newspaper following an incident were young leftists stormed the Churchill café, screaming that Churchill was a racist. Nigel Farage is the man who led the Brexit campaign. Churchill was an Empire-loyalist, an unforgiveable sin in today’s Britain!
“Nigel Farage TEARS APART ‘pig-ignorant’ lefty gang who terrorized Churchill café. NIGEL FARAGE aimed a furious tirade in the direction of a group of protesters who burst into a Winston Churchill-themed cafe in London while chanting Britain’s wartime leader was a “racist.”
You will remember that Donald Trump reportedly described African countries as “****hole countries.”
At least two countries on the Dark Continent are capitalizing on this.
Namibia is promoting tourism with posters proclaiming that “Namibia is Africa’s Number One ****hole country.”
Namibia is not the only country to take advantage of Trump’s words.
According to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “A Facebook page run by a marketing group promoting tourism in Zambia – famed for the Zambezi River that feeds the spectacular Victoria Falls – includes a slogan welcoming visitors to “****hole Zambia.” “Where beautiful vistas and breathtaking wildlife are our Trump card!” says an accompanying post.
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.
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.
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!
Donald Trump’s statement that “Islam hates us” has been roundly condemned by other presidential candidates and by the media.
But, what if he’s right? What if Islam does hate the West?
Islam and the West have a long history of conflict. The predominant thinking in the West is that it’s all in the past, that religion itself is no longer important.
But is that the view from the Islamic world?
Let’s consider the facts —-
Christians are being driven out of the Middle East. And not just by ISIS. Even the supposedly pro-western, moderate Egyptian government continues to discriminate against its Coptic Christian population, down from 25% of Egyptians forty years ago, to 10% now. Recent articles show that it’s become almost impossible for new churches to be built.
Whereas millions of Muslims have moved into the West in recent decades, there is no traffic the other way. Christians are still not allowed to move into Muslim countries, except as temporary skilled workers. Citizenship for non-Muslims is out of the question.
Islam means “submission,” surrendering your own will to the will of Allah. The West is built on freedom of the individual, the exact opposite.
The goal of Islam is to take over the world. Everybody must submit to the will of Allah. “I was ordered to fight all men until they say: “There is no god but Allah.” So said the prophet Muhammed in his final address to his followers in March 632. 1400 years of violence has followed. At least three times in history Islamic forces have tried to conquer Europe. Could the present migrant invasion of Europe be yet another attempt?
Voices in the Islamic world are frequently raised against the “crusader states,” meaning the United States and its coalition partners. The term “crusaders” goes back almost one thousand years to when the western Europeans launched a series of crusades against Islam, establishing the “Christian” Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Holy Land. It took two centuries for the Muslims to oust the Christians. Many, and perhaps most, see Israel as a new crusader state that must be ousted; they also see US and other western troops as “crusaders” intent on forcing Christianity on the region.
Warnings from former Muslims. Author Salman Rushdie in a lecture on C-Span warned that “when a Muslim from the Middle East moves to Detroit, he is not looking to take advantage of America’s way of life to better himself. Rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard who will spread Islam to America.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian, suffered female genital mutilation as a young girl. She fled to the Netherlands, where she eventually became a Member of the Dutch parliament. She helped Theo van Gogh make a short documentary titled “Submission,” highlighting the suffering of women at the hands of their Muslim husbands. Mr. van Gogh was decapitated on the streets of Amsterdam for making the film. Ms. Ali now lives in the United States. She is frequently on television warning the West on the dangers of Islam.
Where are the so-called “moderate” Muslims? When the irreverent Bill Maher (who frequently lampoons Christians), discussed the issue of Islam with PBS’ Charlie Rose, he responded to a comment from Mr. Rose about “moderate Muslims,” with “what moderate Muslims? Show me one. Bring one to your program and I will return to discuss the issue with him.” This was said over a year ago. To date, Mr. Maher has not returned.
The late Professor Samuel Huntington predicted in his book “The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order” that “the population explosion in Muslim countries and the economic rise of East Asia are changing global politics. These developments challenge Western dominance, promote opposition to supposedly “universal” Western ideas, and intensify intercivilization conflict….” (inside cover of book).
He first wrote on this subject in 1993. We are now in the thick of the crisis he foretold.
Birth rates have certainly played a major role in these developments. While western countries have practiced birth control, including the murder of innocent babies through abortion, many nations, including Muslim ones, have continued to have large families, exporting their surplus to the West.
Additionally, Bible prophecy suggests a coming clash of civilizations. Although the term is not specifically used, Daniel, chapter 11, foretells of a coming clash between “the king of the south” and the “king of the north,” two powers to the south and to the north of Jerusalem. These are likely to be an Islamic alliance to the south and a European super-state to the north, as prophesied in Revelation chapters 13 & 17.
Not for the first time, Mr. Trump has raised an issue that needed to be raised. He warns of Islam threatening the United States. Some voices in Europe are raising similar fears, following the Paris attacks and the migrant crisis. Calls for restrictions on immigration are greeted with voluble cries of “racist.” Both President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have said it’s “un-American” for the country to discriminate against Islamic immigrants. They clearly do not know much history – before 1965 the US openly discriminated.
One final question needs to be considered: The United States and western Europe have not had a 1930’s style Depression in the fifty years of mass immigration. When another one comes, which it surely will, will the multicultural paradise envisioned by Mr. Obama, the Clintons, the Kennedys and others, hold, or will we see friction between the various ethnic groups, the kind of conflict that has led to so much upheaval in other parts of the world?
"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