Afghanistan–the Gordian Knot

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

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

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

Afghanistan–President Obama’s Biggest Test

The Financial Times wrote on November 29:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 3, 2009, The Financial Times added:

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

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

Afghanistan–President Obama’s Devastating and Untruthful Speech

Der Spiegel Online reported on December 2:

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

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

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

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

Most Controversial Promises

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

The paper wrote:

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

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

The Left Attacks Obama

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 2:

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

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

No Substantial Help from Europe

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 2:

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

Germany in Political Upheaval Over Afghanistan

The Financial Times wrote on November 27:

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

Der Spiegel Online added on November 29:

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

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

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

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

EU Provokes Israel

The EUObserver wrote on December 1:

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

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

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

Israel and Iran

Der Spiegel wrote on December 2:

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

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

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

How Iran Defies the World

BBC News reported on November 29:

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

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

Switzerland Votes to Ban Minarets

AFP wrote on November 29:

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

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

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 30:

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

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

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

BBC News wrote on November 30:

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

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

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

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 1:

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

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

No German Shopping on Sunday

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

Der Spiegel wrote on December 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deutsche Welle wrote on December 1:

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

The Local wrote on December 1:

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

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

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

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

More News on EU President Herman Van Rompuy

WorldNetDaily wrote on November 24:

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

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

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

EU Commissioners Nominated

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

BBC News reported on November 27:

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

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

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

Britain Unhappy with Nomination of French Michel Barnier

The Daily Mail wrote on November 28:

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

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

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

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

Britain on the Brink of Bankruptcy?

The Daily Mail wrote on November 27:

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

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

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

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

Flagellation in the Catholic Church

Newsmax wrote on November 24:

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

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

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

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

Despicable Methods of Scientists to Support Global Warming

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

The Telegraph wrote on November 28:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Express wrote on December 2:

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

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

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

REPORT ON EUROPE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Europe Chooses Nobodies!”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 20:

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

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

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

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

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

Europe’s Politics…

Deutsche Welle reported on November 20:

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

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

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

The Telegraph wrote on November 21:

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

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

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

“Europe Disgraced Itself”

Bild Online wrote the following biting commentary on November 20:

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

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

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

“Brussels’ Anti-Democratic Maneuverings”

The Daily Mail wrote on November 20:

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

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

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

Who Is Van Rompuy?

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

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

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

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

Did Mr. Van Rompuy “Sell His Soul”?

The Daily Mail added on November 20:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Is Catherine Ashton?

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

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

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

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

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

Will Britain Leave the EU?

BBC News wrote on November 16:

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

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

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

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

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

REPORT ON AMERICA’S DOWNWARD SLOPE

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

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

ABC News reported on November 19:

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post wrote on November 22:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fed and Mr. Geithner Under Fire

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

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

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

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

America’s Declining Prosperity

CNBC wrote on November 19:

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

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

The New York Times wrote on November 23:

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

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

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

President Obama’s Asian Trip an Utter Failure

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 23:

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

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Church in the News

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

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

Continuing Economic Relationship Between Catholics and Anglicans

Times On Line wrote on November 21:

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

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

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

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

CNN added on November 20:

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

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

Europe’s New President and Foreign Minister

Deutsche Welle reported on November 20:

“EU leaders have agreed [unanimously] to appoint Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as EU president and Britain’s Catherine Ashton as its foreign affairs chief [i.e., “foreign minister”]…

“During the mid-to-late ‘90s, Van Rompuy (62) held the post of budget minister under the Christian Democrat-led government of Jean-Luc Dehaene. He was regarded as a budgetary hardliner and has been critical of governments spending their way out of recession. Prior to entering politics Van Rompuy held a position in the Belgian central bank. He is also known as having strong religious convictions…

“Catherine Ashton, 53 and formally a Baroness, has been a close ally of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown since joining the UK Labour Party. Ashton had held a number of mid-level positions in the UK government related to education, justice and human rights before being promoted to the position of EU trade commissioner a year ago. During her time in Brussels Ashton has been a central figure in trade negotiations with nations such as China and Russia…

“[Gordon] Brown admitted that he would have preferred seeing former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the top EU job… But Brown acknowledged that it soon became clear that the European conservative alliance wanted to have one of their own members as president of the European council.”

Reuters added on November 19:

“European Union leaders named Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, who is little known outside his own country, as the bloc’s first president on Thursday… They also chose Baroness Catherine Ashton, a Briton little known even in her own country, as EU foreign affairs chief…

“Van Rompuy, 62, and Ashton, 53, are compromise candidates… Agreement on the positions took weeks, undermining efforts to present the bloc as a united force, partly because Britain had demanded Blair should be president… EU leaders had sought a political balance to satisfy member states and the European Parliament, whose approval is needed for Ashton. This was achieved by appointing a center-right president and a center-left high representative for foreign affairs…

“Blair had long been the front-runner but many other states wanted a candidate more likely to lead by consensus, and Germany and France joined forces to block his candidacy. They remain powerful forces in the EU although they have none of the top jobs which also include a Portuguese, Jose Manuel Barroso, as European Commission President.”

We can safely say that this appointment of compromise candidates does not constitute the final configuration of the biblically prophecied united Europe. Especially Germany will continue to heavily influence the EU, and the final European leader–called the “beast” in the book of Revelation–will still have to manifest himself on the world scene.

Obama to Congress: Don’t Investigate Fort Hood Massacre

The Associated Press reported on November 14:

“President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead. On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to ‘resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.’ He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft. ‘The stakes are far too high,’ Obama said in a video…

“Several members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have… called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan’s contacts with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen and others of concern to the U.S. Hoekstra confirmed this week that government officials knew of about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and the radical imam, beginning in December 2008.

“A joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI learned late last year of Hasan’s repeated contact with the cleric, who encouraged Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The FBI said the task force did not refer early information about Hasan to superiors because it concluded he wasn’t linked to terrorism. Lawmakers, however, already have announced they want their own investigations and were frustrated with what they view as a less-than-forthcoming administration.

“Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., said he wanted to go ahead with an investigation from the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the top Republican. He said he wanted an investigation that wouldn’t compromise law enforcement or military investigations that were continuing on separate tracks. In the Senate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said his Homeland Security Committee was opening an investigation.

“Obama said he was not opposed to hearings — eventually…”

But there may be more behind this request to Congress not to investigate. However, Mr. Liebermann and others announced that they will not abide by President Obama’s request. For further information, please view our new StandingWatch program, Why the Fort Hood Massacre?

Too Scared to Learn the Truth?

The Financial Times wrote on November 13:

“Ten days ago, Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly shot a dozen people dead at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, reportedly shouting ‘Allahu Akbar” – God is great – as he fired. Since then, the question of what motivated him has sat in the middle of the American public debate. The public is increasingly certain that the killings are a case of terrorism. Government and military leaders argue that we must not leap to conclusions… A lot hinges on whether we think of Maj Hasan as a mental case or a soldier of jihad.

“Maj Hasan had been radicalised in the name of Islam as he understood it… Public doctrine insists on a distinction between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion… Islamism is a violent political ideology… Maj Hasan was… an Islamist… And those who had the authority to monitor him more closely were either unable or unwilling to.

“It is hard to see what Maj Hasan could have done to make his ideology more obvious. In June 2007, he gave a medical lecture at the Walter Reed army medical centre that turned into a harangue, on Koranic grounds, about how Muslims in the US military should be exempted from killing other Muslims. The most troubling conduct ascribed to Maj Hasan is the correspondence he initiated with the Yemeni-American jihadist imam Anwar al-Awlaki… Mr al-Awlaki is not merely a ‘radical imam’. He is probably the most cogent exponent of the view that US Muslims should wage jihad against their country…

“There was a deadly shooting rampage at an Arkansas recruiting station last June that was very similar to the Fort Hood episode. The Arkansas perpetrator – an American who had converted to Islam and changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad – had himself visited Yemen. The FBI knew about Major Hasan’s contacts with Mr al-Awlaki. So did the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Why did they lack the will or inclination to act on it?… Maj Hasan’s colleagues, the Economist writes, say he thought the war on terror was a war on Islam…

“General George Casey Jr spent much of last weekend on national television engaging in… wishful thinking. ‘A diverse Army,’ he said, ‘gives us strength.’ Does it? Or is that a platitude? Diversity can be a strength. But diversity as an ideology produced, in Maj Hasan’s case, bureaucrats who were too scared of giving offence to speak their minds – and to act on the information they had. There was, it seems clear, no balancing act between protecting soldiers from harm and protecting minorities from prejudice. Protecting soldiers was simply made priority number two. That is what makes the Hasan case so explosive.”

This development does not say much for our government’s willingness to identify or fight against radical Islam and terrorism.

9-11 Terrorists to be Tried in Civilian Court

The Washington Post wrote on November 14:

“Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and four co-conspirators will be tried in Manhattan federal courthouse less than a mile from Ground Zero, the Justice Department announced Friday…

“But the effort to criminalize the events of Sept. 11 and accord Mohammed the full panoply of rights enjoyed in a federal trial has infuriated and dismayed Republicans, as well as some organizations of victims’ families. They argued that military commissions at Guantanamo Bay offered a secure environment, a proper forum for war crimes, and adequate legal protections for a ruthless enemy.

“‘The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people,’ said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement. ‘The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found “not guilty” due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause’…

“While in CIA custody, Mohammed was subjected to a series of coercive interrogation techniques, culminating in waterboarding. Asked about the prospect that defense attorneys could use the acknowledged waterboarding to derail the case, [Attorney General Eric] Holder said he would not have authorized the prosecutions if he were not convinced the outcome would be successful.

“Prosecutors must still present evidence before a New York grand jury, and while the specific charges they will seek remain unclear, Holder said Friday he was all but certain to order the death penalty against the five Sept. 11 conspirators…

“Excluding those detainees destined for transfer or trial still leaves as many as 75 inmates who will probably be held in some form of prolonged detention because they are too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted…”

McCain Stands Up to Obama…

Newsmax.com wrote on November 13:

“Sen. John McCain issued the following statement Friday on his Web site regarding the Obama administration’s decision to try five Sept. 11 suspects in New York City:

“‘I am extremely disappointed with the Obama administration’s decision to try in U.S. civilian courts the al-Qaida terrorists who planned, supported, and conducted the September 11th attacks. These terrorists are not common criminals. They are war criminals, who committed acts of war against our citizens and those of dozens of other nations.

“‘Terrorists who have declared war against our country should be treated as war criminals and tried for their crimes through military tribunals. In a letter sent to Congress just last week, hundreds of families of victims of the September 11th attacks urged the Administration to try these terrorists in military tribunals, and I fully respect and agree with their position…

“‘If military tribunals are suitable for the terrorists who attacked our sailors aboard the USS Cole, as the Obama administration has decided, then military tribunals are certainly the right venue to try the al-Qaida terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who murdered thousands of innocent civilians on Sept. 11, 2001.

“‘Today’s decision sends a mixed message about America’s resolve in the fight against terrorism. We are at war, and we must bring terrorists to justice in a manner consistent with the horrific acts of war they have committed.'”

Of course, others have also criticized President Obama and his administration for the highly controversial and unpopular decision to try enemy combatants in a civilian court. The Bible predicts that the USA–and especially its leadership–will be losing the pride of its power and the willingness to address and solve its problems. You might want to watch our recent StandingWatch program, Why Aren’t We SOLVING Our National and Global Problems?

Obama Being Attacked by the Ultra-Left

You know it must be bad when MSNBC’s ultra-left hosts, such as openly gay host Rachel Maddow, or liberal or so-called “progressive” hosts such as Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, attack President Obama. For them, Obama’s left-liberal changes don’t go far enough.

The left-liberal New York Times wrote on November 15:

“[Rachel] Maddow pretended to celebrate the passage of a health care overhaul bill in the House, calling it ‘potentially a huge generational win for the Democratic Party’ — but then halted the triumphant music and called it an ‘electoral defeat.’ The Stupak amendment, she said, was ‘the biggest restriction on abortion rights in a generation.’ Then she wondered aloud about the consequences for Democrats ‘if they don’t get women or anybody who’s pro-choice to ever vote for them again.’ She returned to the subject the next four evenings in a row.

“This is how it looks to have a television network pressuring President Obama from the left. While much attention has been paid to the feud between the Fox News Channel and the White House, the Obama administration is now facing criticism of a different sort from Ms. Maddow, Keith Olbermann and other progressive hosts on MSNBC, who are using their nightly news-and-views-casts to measure what [Maddow] calls ‘the distance between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions.’

“While they may agree with much of what Mr. Obama says, they have pressed him to keep his campaign promises about health care, civil liberties and other issues… MSNBC — sometimes critically called the ‘home team’ for supporters of Mr. Obama — has even hit upon the theme with a promotional tagline, ‘pushing back on the president,’ in commercials for ‘Hardball,’ Chris Matthews’s political hour.”

Incredible–President Obama Bows Again…

The Los Angeles Times published the following photographs and wrote in an accompanying article on November 14:

“How low will the new American president go for the world’s royalty? This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference for a superior. To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better…

“Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago.

“Akihito, who turns 76 next month, is the eldest son and fifth child of Emperor Showa, the name given to an emperor and his reign after his death. Emperor Showa is better known abroad by the life name of Hirohito. He became emperor in 1925 and died in 1989, the longest historically known rule of the nation’s 125 emperors. Hirohito presided over his nation’s growth from an undeveloped agrarian economy into the expansionist military power and ally of Nazi Germany of the 1930’s… after Democrat President Harry Truman ordered the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945… Akihito’s father went on national radio… and… pronounced that the country must ‘accept the unacceptable.’ It did.

“As the conquering Allied general and then presiding officer of the U.S. occupation, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, decided to allow Japan to keep its emperor as a ceremonial unifying institution within a nascent democracy. Tojo, on the other hand, was hanged. MacArthur treated Emperor Hirohito respectfully but… was not particularly deferential…

“Akihito assumed the throne on Jan. 7, 1989. Within weeks he began a series of formal expressions of remorse to Asian countries for Japan’s actions during his father’s reign… In 1959, Akihito married Michiko Shoda, the first commoner allowed to enter the Japanese royal family. That was two years before the birth of Akihito’s future presidential guest, Barack Obama.”

Obama Strongly Criticized for Inappropriate Bow

ABC News wrote on November 15:

“An old friend — an academic with expertise about the Japanese Empire, and in general a supporter of President Obama — sends me the following note, relating to photographs of President Obama bowing to Emperor Akihito of Japan…

“‘The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.'”

AFP added on November 16:

“Outrage in Washington over Obama’s Japan bow… Bill Bennett said on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ program: ‘It’s ugly. I don’t want to see it. We don’t defer to emperors. We don’t defer to kings or emperors. The president of the United States — this coupled with so many apologies from the United States — is just another thing,’ said Bennett.

“Some conservative critics juxtaposed the image of Obama with one of former US vice president Dick Cheney, who greeted the emperor in 2007 with a firm handshake but no bow… Some said the gesture was particularly grating coming after Obama’s bow to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah at a G20 meeting in April… 

“The gesture appears to have touched a particularly raw nerve among Obama critics who said the president has hastened America’s decline as a world superpower by being too apologetic and too deferential in his dealings with other world leaders.”

Rather than showing to the world, that America is still willing to lead, its leader gives the clear impression that he is rather willing to bow before others. For more information as to the reasons, please read our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America.”

“Obama on the Loose Embarrasses All of Us”

On November 17, The Washington Times published this biting article:

“Barack Obama on the loose in a foreign land is enough to frighten protocol officers and embarrass the rest of us… No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents)… the bow to the Japanese emperor was… a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority… This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he’s strong, tough and decisive.

“… it’s true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about… Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR…? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen…

“But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better… He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream. He no doubt wants to ‘do the right thing’ by his lights, but the lights that illumine the Obama path are not necessarily the lights that illuminate the way for most of the rest of us. This is good news only for Jimmy Carter, who may yet have to give up his distinction as our most ineffective and embarrassing president.”

“Climate Change”–Obama’s Admission of His “Massive Failing”

We most certainly do NOT agree with many of the assertions in the following article, but the tragic truth is that President Obama AND the American society are blamed for a global economic crisis and for global warming. The article also includes this frightening accusation: “The US hardly has a claim any more to the leadership of the Western world… [It is] indirectly, a major threat to world peace in the 21st century.”

Will Europe “preemptively” strike the USA militarily to ensure “world peace”? The Bible gives the startling answer, which is repeatedly explained in many of our free booklets and our weekly Updates.

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 17:

“US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama… George W. Bush… was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity…

“But few people expected that Barack Obama, of all people, would continue his predecessor’s climate change plan. When he took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US — that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core…

“On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing — and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy… Barack Obama cast himself as a ‘citizen of the world’ when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe…

“Obama’s announcement at the APEC summit that it was no longer possible to secure a binding treaty in Copenhagen is the result of his own negligence… And he has left it to the Europeans to take the lead… If the Copenhagen summit, which energy strategists and environmentalists have been preparing for two years, is a failure, then it will mainly be Obama’s fault.

“Many Americans clearly also believe that real climate change is just something dreamt up by the entertainment industry. Obama has proven himself to be unable to put an end to the lies that modern American society is based on. He is unable to overcome the entrenched lobbyists of the oil and coal industries and make the reality clear to his compatriots: They are the worst energy wasters on the planet — and are thus, indirectly, a major threat to world peace in the 21st century. Although they do not enjoy a higher quality of life than Europeans, Americans consume twice as much fossil fuel per capita.

“… if the worst-case scenario becomes reality at Copenhagen and at the follow-up conferences — if, in other words, world leaders ignore the findings of the global scientific community — then the US will find itself in a very uncomfortable position. America will be seen as the primary culprit of global warming — and this after the US, with its rampant real estate speculation, has given us a global economic crisis that has not only destroyed assets, but pushed 100 million people worldwide into hunger.

“With that kind of track record, the US hardly has a claim any more to the leadership of the Western world — let alone a Nobel Peace Prize for its leader… The Nobel Committee should postpone the award ceremony for the Nobel Peace Prize from Dec. 10 to Dec. 20. Only if Obama has achieved a convincing deal at the Copenhagen conference will there be a real reason to honor him.”

Global Warming — or Not?

Der Spiegel Online wrote the following on November 19:

“Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years… meteorologist Mojib Latif… one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. ‘There can be no argument about that,’ he says. ‘We have to face that fact.’… [This] does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums.

“This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility. ‘It cannot be denied that this [is] one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,’ says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. ‘We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.’

“Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008, and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill…

“The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn’t getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured?… no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050.”

America’s Unemployment and Recession–The Worst Is Yet to Come

The New York Daily News wrote on November 15:

“Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%…

“The long-term picture for workers and families is even worse than current job loss numbers alone would suggest. Now as a way of sharing the pain, many firms are telling their workers to cut hours, take furloughs and accept lower wages. Specifically, that fall in hours worked is equivalent to another 3 million full time jobs lost on top of the 7.5 million jobs formally lost.

“This is very bad news but we must face facts. Many of the lost jobs are gone forever, including construction jobs, finance jobs and manufacturing jobs… Other measures tell the same ugly story: The average length of unemployment is at an all time high… it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more. The weakness in labor markets and the sharp fall in labor income… increases the risk of a double dip recession.

“As a result of these terribly weak labor markets, we can expect weak recovery of consumption and economic growth; larger budget deficits; greater delinquencies in residential and commercial real estate and greater fall in home and commercial real estate prices; greater losses for banks and financial institutions on residential and commercial real estate mortgages, and in credit cards, auto loans and student loans and thus a greater rate of failures of banks; and greater protectionist pressures.”

China a New Global Leader?

The Wall Street Journal wrote on November 13:

“Now, at the dawn of the 21st century, the world is looking to China to assume an unfamiliar role of global leadership. At a time when American prestige is fading, China’s status is rising. President Barack Obama arrives in China next week seeking help on everything from climate change to North Korea’s nuclear threat. At meetings of the Group of 20 nations, China’s opinions are urgently sought on issues such as banking reform and executive pay… History has done little to prepare this country for the kind of leadership that an anxious international community seems so ready to thrust on it…

“Now, as the global economy emerges shakily from the worst recession since World War II, China is attracting admiration from new corners.While the Western world hurtled towards the financial abyss, China was moving ahead cautiously. It has emerged from the crisis with an economy growing powerfully. Its banks are unpolluted by toxic assets; hardly a ripple disturbs its vast pools of national savings. This year, property markets in Beijing and Shanghai are sizzling…

“Critics say that China’s record in the world’s trouble spots, from North Korea to Iraq and Darfur, suggests that it defines its responsibilities in ways that enhance its economic interests. On North Korea, China… is hesitant to threaten the flow of Chinese oil and food that keeps the regime alive. Skeptics in the U.S. say that China holds back because it fears a collapse of North Korea that would not only unleash a flood of refugees across its border but also place U.S. forces face-to-face with its own.

“Similar tensions between China’s economic interests and international obligations play out in Africa, where Chinese companies are investing massively in energy and raw materials to fuel China’s growth. The ‘no-strings’ investments from Nigeria to Ethiopia fly in the face of Western efforts to link investment with improvements in human rights and the environment. In Sudan, China has sent peacekeepers to the war-torn region of Darfur, while bolstering the government by buying oil and selling arms.

“Iran may provide the biggest test to date of China’s willingness to lead. Washington and its European allies see China’s role as critical in the effort to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program. So far, China has resisted tougher sanctions against a country that is its second-largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia…

“China is rapidly modernizing its military forces… A military parade last month to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China sent a powerful message to China’s 1.3 billion people… [It] signaled that China not only was at last a strong country, but also could project power beyond its shores.

“… it has passed America as the world’s largest auto market. No emerging nation on earth has seized the opportunities of global trade more enthusiastically than China… Surpluses from foreign trade—particularly with the U.S.—have helped China rack up more than $2 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves.

“So what does China want to do with the enhanced status that it craves, and which the world seems equally anxious to concede to China? Last month, the Frankfurt Book Fair offered the world a glimpse into the internal workings of the Chinese state… China was invited to the fair as the guest of honor. The Chinese government had invested millions of dollars in the event, lining up some 2,000 Chinese writers, publishers and artists to attend. All went well until organizers invited two Chinese dissidents to a prefair symposium titled ‘China and the World—Perception and Reality.’ Furious Chinese officials threatened to boycott the event and backed down only when organizers withdrew the invitations. ‘We did not come to be instructed about democracy,’ Mei Zhaorong, China’s former ambassador to Germany, icily declared.”

The Bible shows that in the end time, kings from the East will combine their efforts, get involved in a war with Europe, and invade the Middle East. Similar powers from the Far East will launch another attack on the descendants of the ancient House of Israel, shortly after Christ’s return, when these descendants have been brought back to the Promised Land (compare Ezekiel 38). China will play a dominant role in all of these actions.

Israel Defies USA

On November 17, The Financial Times wrote:

“Israel on Tuesday defied US pressure when it gave preliminary approval to a plan to construct 900 new housing units in a suburb of Jerusalem built on occupied Palestinian land in a move that could stoke regional tensions. Washington said it was ‘dismayed’ by the plan to build 900 new units in Gilo, south of Jerusalem. ‘At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed,’ said Robert Gibbs, President Barack Obama’s spokesman.

“In a strongly worded statement, he added: ‘The US also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.’

“Washington has urged Israel not to expand settlements in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, which have been under Israeli occupation since 1967… Israeli officials have long insisted building in East Jerusalem must continue, claiming the entire city is Israeli territory. Israel annexed its eastern neighbourhoods after 1967 – a move never endorsed by the international community.

“The settlements plan was approved on Tuesday by an interior ministry committee. It will be put to public consultation pending a final decision, and it may be years before construction actually starts…

“Last week, Palestinian negotiators suggested that they could instead unilaterally declare independence based on 1967 borders – a proposal condemned on Tuesday by both the US and the European Union… Carl Bildt, foreign minister of Sweden, which holds the rotating EU presidency, added: ‘The EU has said [in the past] we will be ready to recognise a Palestinian state but the conditions are not there as of yet.’…The EU is the biggest aid donor to the Palestinians.”

New EU Foreign Minister Needs “Superhuman” Strength

The EUObserver wrote on November 16:

“The tasks of the proposed new EU foreign minister look relatively clear-cut and powerful on paper but analysts and politicians in Brussels suggest the person will need to be superhuman to manage all that is foreseen under the Lisbon Treaty… [The] position puts foreign policy clout and the financial means to implement it into the hands of one person…

“Spanish centre-right MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo, who was an influential member of the convention that drew up what would eventually become the Lisbon Treaty, said the foreign minister is the ‘crucial one’ when it comes to the EU’s external actors. He noted that [we must make sure that the EU foreign minister was] ‘no longer the obedient servant of the council.’ He pointed out that getting it agreed that the foreign minister would chair the monthly foreign minister meetings was a make-or-break point…, [guaranteeing that] the person [was not] ‘subordinate’ to other foreign ministers.”

The book of Revelation shows that the ultimate leader of Europe WILL have “superhuman” strength. For more information, please read our free booklets, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” and “Is That in the Bible?–The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation.”

New Europe Needs a European Army

Times On Line wrote on November 15:

“Italy is to push for the creation of a European Army after the ‘new Europe’ takes shape at this week’s crucial EU summit following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, said that the Lisbon Treaty had established ‘that if some countries want to enter into reinforced co-operation between themselves they can do so’.

“This was already the case with the euro and the Schengen accords on frontier-free travel, and could now be applied to ‘common European defence’… The Lisbon Treaty, which comes into force in December, will be sealed on Thursday with an EU summit to choose an EU President and Foreign Minister…

“It was a ‘necessary objective to have a European army’, Mr Frattini said. ‘Take Afghanistan: at present President Obama asks Poland, or Italy, or Great Britain for more troops. If there were a European army, he would have a “toolbox” to draw from. He might need 30 aeroplanes: he would be able to ask if the European army was in a position to provide them’…

“There was also a case for joint naval patrols in the Mediterranean, Mr Frattini said. ‘Europe could deploy a joint naval fleet or air force in the Mediterranean: why not? We could say, look, one group of nations is ready at once, and leave the door open for others to join, as with the euro.'”

Europe will have their army in due course; and especially core Europe–ten European nations or groups of nations–will become a powerful military alliance. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

Germany Considering Withdrawing All Troops from Afghanistan

Deutsche Welle reported on November 16:

“In a shift, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg have been speaking frankly about devising a plan to get German troops out of Afghanistan… Germany has some 4,250 soldiers in Afghanistan, the third-largest number of troops in the NATO contingent. Based near the northern city of Kunduz, soldiers have had to strike back against an increasingly fierce campaign by Taliban insurgents… Guttenberg said that Germany needed to re-assess why it was in Afghanistan and how long it wanted to be there…

“German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, leader of the Free Democrats (FDP), went further during a television appearance. ‘We need to get to the point during this four-year legislative term that we are ready to talk about a potential exit strategy in Afghanistan. We don’t want to be there forever,’ said Westerwelle…

“The FDP, the CDU and the SPD are all beginning to talk exit strategy… The withdrawal debate in Germany is changing, and could be on a course that sees Germany getting out of Afghanistan earlier than many had thought.”

If Germany will do this, and wavering Britain is also considering the withdrawal of their troops, then America will soon be left all alone, assuming that there is even American willingness to continue their war in Afghanistan–a war which the West cannot and will not win.

Russian Orthodox Church Upset With Female German Bishop

Deutsche Welle reported on November 13:

“Russian Orthodox clergy are outraged by the election of a divorced female as the head of the EKD. The Russian Orthodox church does not allow women to become priests, let alone take on leadership roles. Russian Orthodox Reverend Georgy Zaverershinsky says the election now makes dialogue between the two churches impossible…”

The Local wrote on November 13:

“The Russian Orthodox clergy is threatening to cut ties with Germany’s Protestants for electing a divorced woman, Margot Käßmann, as the head of their church. Dialogue between the churches, which has been strong and steady for the past 50 years, was no longer possible because of Käßmann’s election, said Rev. Georgy Zavershinsky, spokesman for the Russian church’s office of external relations in Moscow. The church permitted no ordination nor even leadership roles for women, he said. ‘This question is very serious,’ said Zavershinsky. Ultimately, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Cyril I, would have to rule on the matter, he said.

“In late October, Käßmann, 51, was elected to lead Germany’s Protestant church, or Evangelische Kirche Deutschland (EKD), for the next six years. She is the mother of four children but was divorced from her husband in 2007. However, it appears to be the fact of her being a woman, rather than a divorcee, that the Russians object to.

“The leader of the Russian church’s foreign office, Hilarion Alfeyev, Archbishop of Volokolamsk, said the planned celebration of 50 years of dialogue between the two churches, scheduled for late November, would be the last contact between them… The end of co-operation between the churches appeared to have the backing of Russian media on Thursday, with one paper, Vremya Novostei, writing that ‘the Patriarch must not deal with the new leader of the German Lutherans.’

“Many conservative Protestants in Russia also supported the decision. Alexander Prilutski, the leader of the Protestant church of Ingria – a Christian denomination based around St Petersburg – called Käßmann’s election a ‘sign of crisis in Western society.'”

The Bible prohibits women to preach in church, let alone being ordained to the ministry. As the Bible predicts a unification of most “Christian” churches under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, it is interesting to see how this conflict of women preachers will be solved.

Frightening Ignorance of British Schoolchildren

Bild On Line wrote on November 6:

“Many British schoolchildren think Adolf Hitler was a German FOOTBALL COACH, a shocking new study has revealed. The study of 2,000 kids found that 64 years after the end of the Second World War, one in twenty believes the Nazi dictator was merely a sporting figure. And the same number of students also thought the Holocaust was a celebration marking the end of the war.

“The survey was conducted by the British war veteran charity Erskine to mark Remembrance Day, which is observed in the UK on November 11 in memory of all the victims of both World Wars. But it seems a few British teenagers may not have been paying attention in their history lessons because the results were unbelievable. Some 40 per cent of the pupils questioned didn’t know what Remembrance Day was for, and a quarter didn’t care about the fallen soldiers.

“Another particularly disturbing finding was that one in six students thought Auschwitz was an amusement park rather than a concentration camp. And every twelfth student believed the German ‘Blitz’ bombing campaign on London from 1940 was actually part of the clean-up effort in 1945.”

This is indeed frightening. What a generation of young people are we witnessing! Future leaders who have no concepts of history! When Neville Chamberlain met with Adolph Hitler, he pronounced “peace in our time,” being totally unable to recognize Hitler’s true ambitions. Is Great Britain doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past, unwilling or unable to learn from history?