International Emotions 

To Honor Jesus Christ, Glorify God, Encourage Believers, & Warn All
Est 11-21-2004 Changed 07-09-2011
 

This information is offered with the hope that YOU can come to KNOW the Lord personally.


There is now apparent in the United States a clear line being drawn between  so-called "evangelicals" and "normal"  people mostly by members of the national media.  However, the media must have a clientele or they would be out of business from a lack of readers and viewers.  Therefore, the divided nation concept is not fiction, but a reality.
Nothing made this more clear than the recent presidential election and the ensuing commentary.  There is no doubt that the country is divided when it comes to "values."  There is a media expression of contempt for the so-called "evangelicals" who supposedly reelected George Bush to a second term of the White House (even though a large number of non-evangelicals voted for Bush).

Witness the following-

Gary Wills and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times had this to say-
Kerry was defeated by a "jihad" of Christians.

Gary Wills said-
The United States is an unenlightened nation full of people who believe " more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution."

Additionally Wills said-
These jihadists are motivated by "fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity ."   Let it be said that this is being typed on a computer.

Maureen Dowd said-
 the Bush voters were "a devoted flock of evangelicals, or ' values voters,' as they call themselves ... opposing abortion, suffocating stem-cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."

Zito Joseph, retired psychiatrist, in the New York Times had this to say-
Bush voters are "obtuse", "short-sighted", "redneck ", "shoot-from-the-hip" religious literalists.

Before we continue, let it be said- This religious literalist believes it was a colossal mistake to invade Iraq in an attempt to establish "democracy" in the Middle East.  We have read the end of the book and it is not a pretty sight .   There IS hope , but, it is not in presidents from any political party.

One British Newspaper asked in a headline over George W Bush's picture-
How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?
see the website-
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109242/

Both sides in the political arena seem to believe theirs is principle and the other side is "extremism."  One considers somethings " immoral" while the other sees them as "inclusive."

Each side "arrogantly assumes that they're smart and they're right and logical and the people on the other side are irrational and mean ."  - Michael Horton  "Beyond Culture Wars: Is America a Mission Field or a Battlefield?"  "Both sides treat each other not just as if their ideas are unfounded or wrong, but as if they're evil people ."

We have entered a time in which the Clash of Civilizations is taking on a whole new societal meaning.  Look for these trends to intensify.


12-05-2004

Talk about Christians being blamed for something they have no control over-

from the website-
http://nigeriaworld.com/columnist/ihenacho/112904.html
we read an article entitled

FUNDAMENTALISM AND GLOBAL ARMAGEDDON

Even as we speak, the world has become far more divided, much bitter, more downcast and disillusioned than one has perhaps seen since the beginning of the Second World War. Every bloc seems pitted against the other -third world nations against the rich few nations, debtor nations against their creditors, Islamic world against Christian west, the so-called powerful nations against one another, and the rest of the world against America and America against the rest of the world. And forming some kind of an arch over the polarization and bitterness engulfing the world of today is a looming and potentially catastrophic war between Islam and Christianity. Some fanatics and fundamentalists seem to claim a divine mission to stage a cataclysmic confrontation between the two most dominant religions of the world.

...

However, the most telling development of today appears to be that many religious persons and organizations enamored by the strict, sentimental and non-intellectual lives of fundamentalists and fanatics appear to be abandoning their traditional services for peace to rally behind fundamentalist governments and militant movements around the world, which, on their part, are cleverly disguising the fact that they may be readying themselves and the world for a global war that they believe would hasten the end of the world and the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It appears as if some elements in the world have a tacit agenda to hurry a global Armageddon! The battle cry of the legions of fanatics and fundamentalists that are roaming our earth planet today seems to be: "Apocalypse now!"

The amazing part about ideas of this sort is that those who maintain such actually believe that WE are in charge and could actually dictate to the LORD JESUS CHRIST that He MUST return now because what we are doing here on earth requires Him to comply.  "Fundamentalists" hold to the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Almighty God . The notion that He needs us to bring about the fulfillment of prophecy is totally foreign to true believers of the Bible.  

Continuing with the article...

The bottom line to all is that the North American fundamentalists seem to be drawing their supports from all segments of the human society. Their interest is to continue to narrow these individuals' visions of reality and moral principles in order to finally enlist them in their armies for the imminent Armageddon on planet earth. Unless people wise up, the Christian fundamentalists will continue to build their army for a final assault on people who do not share their faith and vision of the universe. As it were, nothing would guarantee more satisfaction to these fundamentalists than to organize the world's Christians into one large battering army that would roam the face of planet earth invading and subjugating all the "fanatical" and "unbelieving" Islamic Arab nations so as to bring them into the Christian fold in real time for the second coming of Jesus Christ the Son of God . And this seems to be clearly their goal in the frenzied post-9-11 era.

On the opposite side of the spectrum are the counterparts of North American fundamentalists - the Islamic fundamentalists and fanatics. As a result of the US military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the deteriorating situation of the Palestinians, Islamic fundamentalists and fanatics are embarked on massive recruitments all around the Arab world. And nothing could prove more rewarding to them than the opportunity to employ their large army to unleash a world-blanketing Jihad that would bring the "infidel" and "promiscuous" Christian west under the overwhelming authority of their mullahs, emirs and shariah law. It does not need a crystal ball to tell that a jihad of such a magnitude is a part of their intention for the new millennium.

So, while North American fundamentalists are getting ready for an end-time Armageddon, Islamic fanatics are readying themselves for a worldwide Jihad. A collision is brewing. Something will ultimately have to give. And this is the dilemma that faces the new millennium: how to contain and douse the ferocious fire of these two powerful forces that have the intention and capability to plunge planet earth into an unending religious war . Especially disturbing is the fact that the upsurge in recruitments by these camps since the beginning of the 3rd millennium seems to be pushing further wide the already widened gap between Islam and Christianity.


Well, friends, if there was ever a backdrop for creating martial law in the world, this is it.  The fact is, in my opinion, these discussions are lies to invite the very Armageddon they say they want to prevent .  And, while we are telling lies we can blame it on the Bible believers.  I do agree with the writer that the actions of the United States military in Iraq and Afghanistan acts to provoke the Islamic community.  However, the President of the United States is as much a victim as anyone else.

The author of the article concludes with exactly what I have said all along, the "fundamentalists" are the real target of the War on Terror .-

But they know in their heart of hearts that what is happening is not a clash of civilizations . It is rather a clash of fundamentalists and fanatics of one religion against their counterparts of the other religion. Established Islam and Christianity seem to have been pushed aside and their popular fringes have arisen to steer the world into a monumental religious confrontation. The worldwide Christian fundamentalists led by their North American wing seem to be headed for a deadly head-on-collision with their Islamic counterparts. And the only hope the new millennium has is to find a way to head off this on-coming collision that could result in a world-ending Armageddon!

To quote Cal Thomas in a recent syndicated column-
If she [Condoleeza] and President Bush are right about the contagion of freedom, they may unleash a movement that positively affects... If they are wrong- and the evidence is far heavier on this side of the argument- the consequences, to borrow a theological term with which they are familiar, could be Armageddon.



End 12-05-2004


12-11-2004

from the website-
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041207/OPINION04/412070304/1022/OPINION
we read how the President of Bob Jones University , Bob Jones III, has succeeded in raising the ire of the public by apparently labelling all political liberals as "despisers of Christ."  

Published: December 7, 2004

National Columnists
Mathis: God doesn't put up with bigotry

WASHINGTON -- They are all grown now, but the children are still my concern. Since none is married, I remain the significant other, the go-to person, the first responder when they are sick or troubled, though more and more, I'm learning of their sickness and troubles after the fact.

On some matters, however, I appear to be the first and only resort -- like recently, when the three of them had a collective hissy fit upon learning that one of President Bush's supporters and friends in the evangelical community had insulted liberals with a most heinous indictment.

"Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil," wrote Bob Jones III, president of South Carolina's Bob Jones University. " You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ." (Emphasis mine).

Like untold numbers of liberal Christians everywhere, my children were livid. Having been taught all their lives that no one is in position to question what another person believes, they were beyond offended by what Jones put in a letter to Bush on the heels of the Nov. 2 election.

Proudly liberal, they were appalled by the audacity -- and the illegitimacy -- of Jones' comment. They, after all, are praying, church-going, faithful and conscientious. The grandchildren of a minister on their mother's side and a deacon on their father's. Sunday School veterans and Vacation Bible School alums. The daughters and son of a diehard believer. Young people ever mindful of a higher power -- moreover, led and comforted by it.

How dare anyone say such an evil thing, they thundered. Wasn't I furious too?

"I was when I first heard it," I explained. "But he's just an extremist. The man has issues."

---

There are liberals who hate Christ and there are conservatives who hate Christ too.  There will be plenty of "religious" people in hell as well (some of them could be graduates of Bob Jones University). Has it ever occurred to Mr. Jones that liberals might despise Bush because of what he is doing?  To characterize the man who lead the invasion of an Islamic country as acting for "Christ" is going to get a few tribulation saints martyred down the road.

A major emotional problem today is the idea that "Christianity" is invading the Middle Eastern Islamic nations.  It is being widely reported that Armageddon is being sought by "fundamentalists" who support Bush.  (Now we have Mr. Jones' remarks reinforcing such a notion.) I have heard even conservative commentators (such as Pat Buchanan) depict as "Armageddonists" those who support an Islamic invasion to enable the Second Coming prophecies. Of course, true Bible believers view such enabling as complete nonsense.  Let it be said - this Christian does not support "religious" war nor does he blanketly condemn liberals as " despising Christ."  

There are plenty of people who will name the name of Christ, to which He will reply, "Depart from me, I never knew you ."  So, Mr. Jones, I would not be too smug about those who " despise the Christ of Bush." There are going to be many who believe they are Christians, but they are not going to be in heaven.  I like the chances of  a disillusioned "liberal" coming face to face with the real Jesus Christ one day, especially when compared to some smug "fundamentalists."

End 12-11-2004


12-27-2004

Spanglish - The Movie

Spanglish is a charmingly beautiful and compellingly evocative study in love, devotion, sacrifice, romance, hope, and the enduring influence of a good mother. And, it is a lot more than that.   Portrayed as an Adam Sandler comedy, it is more than meets the eye. Spanglish DRAWS you in emotionally and implores you to yearn for a romantic hope  for the two main characters - Sandler and the Hispanic beauty, Flor.

It is the story of a poor young Mexican beauty who brings her daughter "Cristina"  to the United States to make a better life.  The young beauty is the personification of Godly principles, hard work, self sacrifice, and motherly devotion.  Flor and "Cristina" would never use guilt to motivate each other because "we are Catholics and we know what guilt can do" (a warm, humorous and entirely light hearted bit of self reflection.   See, that did not hurt, did it?) The Mexican beauty is employed as a domestic by Sandler's wife, Deborah, an utterly shallow, self absorbed, cold and hurtful neurotic woman caught up in materialism.  Deborah humilates her own slightly plump daughter by buying her new clothes which are deliberately too small, to motivate her to be more chic, like her mother. And at the same time she tries to "rescue" "Cristina" to a better life than that of her mother Flor.

The Mexican beauty ingratiates herself with Sandler's daughter by performing alterations on the new clothes to make them 2 sizes larger.  The beauty's first words in English "just try it on."  (It is ok, America, "just try it on.") Quite a contrast with the egocentric mother.  Then, the beauty proceeds to spend hard earned "mucho dinero" to learn English, motivated by her ever growing connection with the Sandler family, and her love for them, nurtured by a summer at the beach.  This love is only overshadowed by Flo's love for "Cristina" as she poignantly asks "when you go to the private school, is it because you want to become something different from me?" as she fears that her daughter will be captivated by an unprincipled materialistic life.

Sandler, a charmingly understanding and giving man, is married to a self absorbed egocentric woman, whose pursuit of "self" ends in adultery and the disillusionment of her children and the pain of her devoted husband.  Just as it appears that his marriage may end due to the infidelity of his wife, Sandler and the beauty are alone at his restaurant and tenderly express their growing feelings for each other, two empathetic friends yearning to be much more, but, in difficult circumstances.  He gently kisses her first on the forehead, then on the left cheek, then on the right cheek, and lastly on her lips.  The symbolism is too much to ignore - Sandler has genuflected on the face of the beauty!!

One is left with unfilfilled hope as the beauty dutifully and reluctantly resigns her job with the Sandlers', says a tearful goodbye to the  much loved and saddened Sandler children, and removes her daughter "Cristina" (or should it be "Christina"?) from the private school that educated Sandler's daughter as well, much to the chagrin of "Cristina."  After all, isn't "CHRISTina" the ultimate objective?)

The symbolism of this movie is too great to ignore.  If there ever was a promo for Catholic-Hispanic immigration to America, this movie does it beautifully.  There is no more admirable woman than Flo, who wants the most for her daughter, but, is reluctant to see her lost in a new culture, "different from me."  The seduction of the film is that the cultural "difference" is handled on an intensely personal level when "Cristina" publicly insults her mother Flo after Flo dutifully withdraws "Cristina" from the private school funded by a scholarship. "When you go to the private school, is it because you want to become something different from me?", asked the protective and dutiful mother.

Splangish creates an emotional transference of longing for the unification of cultures via a warm and  intensely personal story about two beautiful people.

And you thought movies were just entertainment.

End 12-27-2004


09-11-2005

Hurricane Katrina has killed many people, has destroyed the homes, jobs, and possessions of many others, has separated friends and families, and has changed the life of thousands forever. From the viewpoint of the world this circumstance can be nothing but an unmitigated tragedy (which, by the way, has to be blamed on some politician; just choose one.)

Is the "unmitigated tragedy" the correct viewpoint?

We know that the Lord is in charge of all things
All things includes weather.  We read in the book of Job.

Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north.   By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.  Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud:  And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth.  He causeth it to come, whether for correction, or for his land, or for mercy.  Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God.  Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine?   Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?   -- Job 37:9-16

From the verses it is clear that the Lord is in charge of the weather.  Is it possible that the Lord wanted some people to leave where they are now and go somewhere else for His Purposes?  Never doubt the omniscience and purposes of the Lord.  He has something to accomplish and He will accomplish it.  We do not need to know what He is doing.

When a person loses everything, he can then rely 100% on the Lord.

End 09-11-2005


01-29-2006

Have the number of abductions, kidnappings, murders, abuse crimes, and the like actually increased or has the media decided to place more of an emphasis on these things?   In either case, have you noticed that more often than not there is some discussion about someone's "failure to carry out their responsibilities as a father, parent, husband, etc?"  Even in the case of the Peterson murder, there was discussion of how the husband/father "failed to carry out his responsibility to protect his wife and unborn child."   This certainly is a strange way to describe the actions of a convicted murderer.

So, why are these crimes discussed in such a manner? Could it be that such a discussion is designed to move our society toward more legislation etc which would make the government increasingly responsible for such "protection?"  It certainly appears that way.

End 01-29-2006


01-31-2006

The matter of "intelligent design" and its being taught in schools is becoming a much debated topic.   In a recent AP article we find that

Under legal pressure, a rural school district Tuesday canceled an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design."  A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school system last week, accusing it of violating the constitutional separation of church and state with "Philosophy of Design," a high school course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by some kind of higher intelligence.  In a settlement, the district agreed to halt the course at Frazier Mountain High next week and said it would never again "offer a course that promotes, endorses creationsim, creation science or intelligent design."

Imagine the audacity of the school in offering such a course!  In a recent letter to the editor I found this [comments added thusly]-

The science curriculum in the United States is unique among the world's industrialized nations.  There does not exist a national curriculum developed by experts [emphasis added].  Instead, we have local control in which the science curriculum can be put into the hands of novices. [gasp]  Recent decisions across the country by school boards and state governing agencies illustrate one of the potential consequences: the dumbing down of the science curriculum.... Recent comments by members of the Kansas State board of education, the Dover school district board and Sen. ____ demonstrate a lack of science knowledge.  At the most basic level, they are unable to distinguish the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. [I can not stop laughing] They either lack awareness of or refuse to acknowledge centuries worth of evidence supporting evolution.  [There's the proof of evolution for sure and we all know there can not be any evidence of creation.]

The knowledge of God, the Creator, is ALREADY in the minds of all men.  This is manifested in the creation itself.  The problem is that man does not WANT to KEEP God in their knowledge (even though He is already there).

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge...

01-31-2006


02-13-2006

If you were wondering how it is that such "extremism" as John 14:6 would be eliminated from the public forum, here is a good start.  In a newspaper article a Presbyterian minister in the Bible Belt writes an article entitled "Can People from Other Religions be Saved?".  It took over 30 paragraphs before the minister answered the question.   Here is his answer-

"Can People from Other Religions Be Saved?"

All of us, whatever our faith, want to affirm what we believe is the absolute, final truth.  History teaches us that at its best that attitude reaches out in love to feed, heal, comfort, and uplift humanity.  But more commonly, it deteriorates into an arrogance and self-righteousness that fosters war, terrorism, and prejudice, harming all of humanity.  I don't think that the Bible gives a definite answer concerning other faiths.

We got it now.  Teaching the absolute truth of John 14:6 fosters war, terrorism, and prejudice, harming all of humanity.  (We have been discussing the future blaming of "fundamentalists" for some time.  This sort of thinking will eventually promote the anti-fundamentalist public agenda.)  I guess being born again by the word of God is less worthy than to feed, heal, comfort, and uplift humanity.  I guess spending eternity in the presence of Jesus Christ is less than the best that attitude engenders.  I guess that the shedding of the precious blood of the only begotten Son of God (because He came to save sinners), slain from the foundation of the world and the eternal purpose of the only true God whom we know as (from eternity to eternity thou art God) is secondary to the promotion of world harmony.  Copernicus was wrong; we must be the center of the solar system.  What arrogance and self-righteousness.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Yes, we are to love our neighbors (as the minister says).  However, that includes telling him the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

End 02-13-2006


07-23-2006

The following letter appeared in the Letters to the Editor section of a local newspaper:

Anyone in his or her right mind should be against the multiple horrors brought on by war.  But when in the name of God are the anti-war village idiots in Washington, our media, our universities, etc., going to come to their pathetic senses and recognize that those Islamic terrorists Israel is battling right now are cut from the exact same cloth as those Islamic terrorists US troops are battling in Iraq?  They are one and the same.

Muslim terrorist leaders openly state on the airwaves, on television and in print their sworn intention to not only utterly destroy Western culture but to murder every single one of us by the foulest means at their hands: suicide bombing, biological warfare, nuclear destruction, gunfire or even hacking off our heads!

They are dedicated to our absolute annihilation, as 9/11 proved.

It is blatantly clear that a bulk of the anti-war blabbermouths are not the pious anti-war advocates they pretend to be.  By and large, they are anti-President Bush.  Do not be swayed by their false words!

We currently face a greater danger to our national security than we did from the fascists in the 1930s and 1940s and from the communists during the Cold War.

Every solitary soul in this nation needs to wake up to the fact that, whether we like it or not, we are now in a war with Islam - a war for our very survival.  Most likely, it will take another disaster the magnitude of 9/11 (or greater) within our borders before all of our feeble minds awaken to this reality.

I am publishing this letter because it seems that there are way too many people who actually THINK like the writer of the above letter.  A lot of these "thinkers" are conservative church folks in America who naively believe they can actually win a "war on terror."
A "war on terror" is by definition unwinnable.

At the risk of being an anti-war blabbermouth, permit me to say that the threat to the Constitution of the United States (from a "war on terror" as practiced) is a greater threat than any "Islamic terrorists."  The certain police state to come as described in the Book of Revelation could well be a direct result of the pursuit of the "war on terror."  It is a foregone conclusion that the definition of "terrorist" can expand, given the fact that the meaning of the word "harm" is entirely subjective.  We have the judiciary in place to carry this out when necessary (as has been proven often).

They are dedicated to our absolute annihilation, as 9/11 proved.
If  that is true, then, why did not Flight 11 crash into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant over which it directly flew on its way into New York? http://www.nucleartourist.com/us/nyc.htm
Here is the flight path- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
The power plant lies approximately 30 miles north of the city.  Would that not have been more devastating?

Now as to the anti-war village idiots in the media- Has the writer of the letter ever watched the Fox News Network?  Perhaps he is watching today while the Fox News cheers on the invasion of Lebanon by the IDF.

We currently face a greater danger to our national security than we did from the fascists in the 1930s and 1940s and from the communists during the Cold War.
I agree that fascism is on the rise. 
However, take a look at the definition of fascism from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (Anatomy of Fascism, p 218)
Or from here- http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html

In identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a tendency to identify "evil" with "them." This process involves scapegoating and dehumanization. It was then an easy step to blame all societal problems on "them," and presuppose a conspiracy of these evildoers which had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core group of the nation. To solve society's problems one need only unmask the conspirators and eliminate them.

and

Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic missionAggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

How far away is the nation from such a future?  What will be the real cost of the war on terror?  Are there unintended consequences of current policies?

Every solitary soul in this nation needs to wake up to the fact that, whether we like it or not, we are now in a war with Islam - a war for our very survival.  Most likely, it will take another disaster the magnitude of 9/11 (or greater) within our borders before all of our feeble minds awaken to this reality.
If another disaster is needed, there will be one to get the job done (promote the war on terror). However, apparently 9-11 was sufficient to make all the needed changes to install the Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc. As long as this nation brazenly pays no attention to its open borders, how can one take seriously Homeland Security?  The same people who promote Homeland Security also promote the open borders.  Could it be that both have the same ultimate objectives?

Why would any Islamic terrorists conduct an act so hideous (e.g., 9-11) that it would cause the entire US military to be focused on them?  In Huntington's classic the Clash of Civilizations, page 264, he says -
Defenders of Islam often allege that its Western critics believe there is a central, conspiratorial, directing force in Islam mobilizing it and coordinating its actions against the West and others.  If the critics believe this, they are wrong.
Why does Huntington go out of his way to deny this?

Zbigniew Brezinski, advisor to President Carter, stated in a 1998 interview that the US CIA sponsored the mujahideen in Afghanistan (upon his advice to Carter).  You can read about much of the history of US foreign policy as it relates to these topics here- http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr3001.htm
So, we have the word of Brezinski that Huntington is wrong. 

From  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#Early_years
we read-

January 18, 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper, Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujahadeen started before the Soviet invasion, and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict on par with America's experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the "Afghan Trap." Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant islamic groups. 

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

"We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."—On precipitating the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term: preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." —from The Grand Chessboard

On this webpage http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w27/msg00019.htm we read the words of Brezkinski during this interview.

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid  the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President  Carter.  You therefore played a role in this affair.  Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes.  According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979.  But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.  And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action.  But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that.  We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. 

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them.  However, there was a basis of truth.  You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what?  That secret operation was an excellent idea.  It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?  The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.  Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world?  The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?  Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?  

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems?  But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense!  It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam.  That is stupid.  There isn't a global Islam.  Look at Islam  in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion.  It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers.  But what is  there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. 

The fact is that US secretive policies used the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, used the same "al-Qaeda" (Aghan mujahadeen) against the Bosnian Serbs during the Clinton administration, and are presently using the mujahadeen in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia (Chechnya?).  Therefore, mujahadeen has been and still is an intelligence asset of US foreign policy.  You can read about this all over the net.  Furthermore, according to Bzrezinski, there is no such thing as "global Islam."

In conclusion, the writer of the letter-to-the-editor has a simplistic view of the actual situation. His view smacks of the fascism (by definition) which he says he fears.  My point here is not that I am in favor of or opposed to the policy of the US government.  I am simply describing the treacherous path we are paving and how it relates to Bible prophecy because I am concerned about the souls of those who have never accepted Jesus Christ.   As you can see, the options you are going to have available (as this continues to unfold) are not sanguine.  Your only hope is Jesus Christ.

God bless you all.  I hope to see you in eternity.  As we watch the developments in Lebanon and Israel we can see prophecy beginning to unfold.


End 07-23-2006


07-27-2006

Big brother now wants to make churches part of Homeland Security. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13397

Executive Order 13397

Executive Order 13397, signed by President George W. Bush on March 7, 2006, concerns the "Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to "coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs."

Preacher, do not accept any money from Homeland Security. 

End 07-27-2006



03-16-20008

From http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/index.html?uc_full_date=20080214

we read (in a Copyrighted article by GA Geyer) how the head of the Church in England has called for Sharia Law -

WASHINGTON -- A naive and increasingly destructive "multiculturalism" has been the rule in British social thinking for at least a generation now, and it has led to everything we cynics so readily expected.

Sikhs are no longer compelled to wear crash helmets because they objected on religious grounds. Honor killings among Middle Eastern immigrants remain a problem across England. And police in Wales (of all places!) are dealing with a serious crisis of forced marriages among immigrants.

That's not to mention British doctors who eventually found it easier not to recognize that female circumcision is taking place right in their own hospitals, or that young immigrant or first-generation Arabs or Pakistanis had decided to go out and blow up their dear British benefactors on the London subways!

But this is not the world that the Right Honorable Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, lives in. As leader of the world's Anglicans, his concern in immigration matters, it seems, is far less for his 77 million believers than for the obstructions inherent in trying to bring Islam into England.

That, at least, is implicit in his recent strange BBC interview, which has shaken England to its core.

All he did, he now avers innocently, was to in effect call for aspects of Muslim legal practice, or Sharia law, to be recognized as a "supplementary jurisdiction" in English law.

One does not want to say that the prelate, who occupies the highest church office in England, is often a little overly dense, but the primary paragraph in the speech runs to 160 words!

Still, the major complaint one can wield about the Right Verbose Archbishop is that, even after a veritable firestorm of complaints broke out about his effective embrace of the hated Sharia law, he still didn't "get it." Bewildered, he did what any normal man caught with his toes in scalding hot water would do: He blamed the electronic press, which has a "toxic effect" in dealing with "complex language" such as his.

Which led the newspaper The Guardian to note caustically that: "His subtle academic mind contains so many caveats and subordinate clauses that ordinary mortals regularly find it difficult to navigate the labyrinth of his prose."

Even while the archbishop insists that he never at all meant to suggest that England does not have "a single system of law that applies equally to everyone" (the Daily Telegraph's phrase, in ITS caustic review), the fact is that was what most observers outside of his inner circle surely read into it. (One headline called the speech a "fatwa.")

Most observers -- surely most of the press and a lot of bloggers -- simply saw another tiresomely self-absorbed and self-indulgent multiculturalist convinced that all cultures were equal and that those of the West were probably less so.

Ironically, the Muslim immigrant society within Britain that, far from pressing for putting Sharia or any other version of Islamic law into British law, is not even by majority in favor of it.

Shaista Gohir, an adviser to the government on Muslim women, said simply after the archbishop's interview and subsequent speech on the subject: "I personally think that we should not have Sharia courts as the majority of Muslims do not want it. ... Various polls have so far indicated that around 40 percent want Sharia law ... why ignore the views of the other 60 percent?"

She further pointed out that women would surely not be included in any such "arbitration councils" to judge on personal and familial law, and that women would be pressured by their families into using Sharia courts.

These fairytale adventures on the Yellow Brick Road to Multiculturalism always end up that way -- giving power to the most retrograde elements of society and further oppressing the most needy and suffering.

Many commentators and bloggers were seeing a man at the apex of British society, which gave us the basis for the most advanced domestic and international law in human history. They were seeing their very own "spiritual leader" effectively say that their supreme system of laws was worth little more than a system in which accused adulterers are stoned to death, where women have virtually no rights and in whose countries Christianity is not permitted to be practiced at all.

One must acknowledge that the Right Honorable has chalked up several accomplishments:

  • He has put forward the idea that Sharia law, which itself differs so from one Muslim society to another that it could never qualify as one set of laws, is effectively equal to British law.

  • He has put forward, in essence, the idea that Muslims are not worthy of being judged by the same British law that inspires the world.

  • He would bring into the flexible body of British "case study" law, which has developed step-by-step and experience-by-experience for more than 500 years, the religious principles of a faith that has had neither a Reformation nor an Enlightenment -- Muslims have every possible religious freedom in Britain -- that is hardly the question. The question is whether immigrants, many of whom have shown their lack of respect for British faith and law even while they push to live in Britain and take advantage of its largesse, show minimal respect for their benefactors.

    These are the questions that the Right Wrong Archbishop has brought to us.


  • (This is amazing.)

    End 03-16-2008


    09-14-2008

    Criminalizing  what used to be called free speech

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122099204692716155.html
     

    There are strange happenings in the world of international jurisprudence that do not bode well for the future of free speech. In an unprecedented case, a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam.

    The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.

    Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, "Fitna," which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.

    Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such resolutions aren't legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them as justification for legislation or other actions.

    The prosecutor is relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act that casts a worryingly wide net for such prosecution. Passed in response to the Danish cartoons incident, the law allows the prosecution of individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by "electronic means," such as the Internet. The 2006 amendment, in theory, means anyone who publishes on the Internet could be subject to prosecution in Jordan. If the case against the 12 defendants is allowed to go forward, they will be the first but probably not the last Westerners to be hit by Jordan's law.

    Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in July that although some of Mr. Wilders's statements may be offensive, they are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express their views.

    Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan's extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants' protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.

    Unless democratic countries stand up to this challenge to free speech, other nations may be emboldened to follow the Jordanian example. Kangaroo courts across the globe will be ready to charge free people with obscure violations of other societies' norms and customs, and send Interpol to bring them to stand trial in frivolous litigation.

    A new form of forum shopping would soon take root. Activists would be able to choose countries whose laws and policies are informed by their religious values to prosecute critical voices in other countries. The case before the Jordanian court is not just about Mr. Wilders and the Danes. It is about the subjugation of Western standards of free speech to fear and coercion by foreign courts.

    Can you see how the world court will be made effective particularly as it relates to religion?

    End 09-14-2008


    07-09-2011

    The Casey Anthony Verdict

    Regardless of what you think about Casey Anthony or the trial, there is one thing that is undeniable.   The not guitly verdict has enraged a large number of people.

    These angry people are screaming for blood, for Casey's and for the jurors'.   Watch the video.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-07-casey-anthony-juror-oj-simpson_n.htm

    Casey Anthony verdict could haunt jurors

    I know no one who agrees with the verdict ... everyone in the neighbrhood wants them (the Anthonys) to move.

    If there was ever a case which could serve to cause there to be a backlash against the jury system, this might be one.

    The jury system is the backbone of American justice.  In the world of the Biblical tribulation, surely it will be more important to punish "bad" people than to preserve the jury system.  You are being prepared emotionally.

    ===

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpTH2B99jE0

    Brzezinski: Middle Class Civil Unrest to Flare Up in USA

    go to the 3:25 mark... I do not want to be a profit of doom...the Tea Party is a kind of reflexive reaction... unintentionally perhaps it is a party that in effect argues for the perpetuation of the causes of this injustice..

    Translation - If the Tea Party is for the restoration of Constitutional Government and the free market, then, what does this make the viewpoint of Brzezinski?  He is talking exactly the way a communist or statist or one worldist would of the Tea Party.  Forms of radicalism.. social hostility..  The questioner tosses "Big" a softball question about the Tea Party and sets up his answer.  Is the Tea Party the beginning of this, do you think? Friends, what you are witnessing here is the intellectual elitist explanation of the social unrest ro come.  They already have their scapegoat.  You are being prepared emotionally.

    See these articles that relate to economic upheaval that is to come.   Read this article.  Remember the Tragedy and Hope.

    Read the Following Update About Being Between the Rock and the Hard Place-

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2010.pdf

    This is a review of US Government Debt

    Points of Interest

    See page 24 (PDF)  21 (internal) which shows how the effective interest rates paid have gone from 10% in 1985 to less than 4% in 2010.

    Had these rates NOT gone down, the consequences would have been as follows.

    14,000,000,000,000 (the current debt of 14 TRILLION)   x   (say 6%) = 840 BILLION per year
    This would make the INTEREST on the debt the highest expenditure in the Federal budget (if memory serves me correctly)
    Higher than entitlements and the military.  In any case, Interest Payments alone on the CURRENT debt would be roughly half of the current 1.5 TRILLION annual deficit.
     
    What would cause a rise in the interest rates?
    Answer: if the price of bonds go down, interest rates go UP.
    Bond prices and rates are inversely related.

    What would cause a decrease in the price of bonds?
    Answer: An increase in the SUPPLY of bonds.

    Does the report show anywhere that the SUPPLY of bonds is going to increase?
    Answer:  Yes.  See page 16 (PDF) page 13 (internal)
    Notice that 61% of the debt is SHORT TERM.
    See from the chart on the same page that there is going to be a HUGE shortening of debt maturities as time passes.
    This debt must be REFINANCED- by definition an increase in the SUPPLY.
    This increase in SUPPLY is on top of the SUPPLY increase due to CURRENT annual deficits.

    What is the real rate of inflation?   Approximately 6.8% (or more).   Check the prices of cotton, gasoline, wheat, corn, soybeans, etc.
    So, for investors to make even 2% of real return from bonds, rates would have to be 8.8% (6.8 + 2).
    For simplicity's sake, round this rate to 9%.
    What would the INTEREST payment on the Current debt be?
     
    14,000,000,000,000 (the current debt of 14 TRILLION)   x   ( 9%) = 1.26 TRILLION per year (voila - the deficit is doubled without any increase in "spending.")

    Now you know why the Fed MUST keep interest rates down.

    Which brings us to the second reason for the price of bonds to decline.
    Demand for the bonds goes down until the buyers can get a 2% return after inflation.

    What is QE2?   The program by which the Fed bought 70% of the debt issued by the US Treasury for the past year or so.
    How does the Fed do this?
    Answer: By creating money OUT OF THIN AIR.
    The Fed Debits US 30 Year Bonds and Credits US Treasury Checking Account (or Treasury Dealer)

    What is the effect of the newly created money?  
    Answer: Inflation.

    So, QE2, a program to lower rates, ends up RAISING rates in the long run.  

    Let's look at a mathematical example:
    Suppose you buy a $100 bond which pays 5%.  

    That is $5 of interest per year.
    Now, suppose rates rise to 10% (for new government bonds issued).
    Your bond only pays $5.
    What price would your bond have to be yield a competitive10%?
    Answer :   $5/P  = 10 %
                     $5 / P  =  1 / 10
                      P / 5  =   10  / 1      
                             P  =  $50

    You paid $100 for the bond.  You just lost 50% of your investment.  
    If you want to wait 30 years to get your $100 principal back in full and inflation is only 6%, what will be the real value of your $100 in 2041 dollars?

    Conclusion: the bond market for sovereign debts is going to COLLAPSE.    Bonds are the "safe"  investment.

    Bill Gross, who has made more money than anyone in the world buying bonds for 40 years in his PIMCO bond fund, has now shorted the 30 year bonds of the US Treasury.
    In other words, he placed a huge investment in anticipation of a government bond collapse.   Look it up.

    QE2 is supposed to officially end on June 30, 2011.

    ===============

    Remember, friends, believe in Jesus Christ, stay out of the streets, and do not get caught up in restoring America to the founding fathers' vision.  Translation- the Tea Party will not solve the problem, but, it will create scapegoats.

    End 07-09-2011



    How Is A Man Saved?




    Home Page



    Please e-mail us with questions or comments today.   


     Jesus-is-the-Way
    "I am the way, the truth, and the life" - Jesus Christ
     
    John 14:6