Conservative Refocus Rebuttals
By Barry Secrest
I'm always fascinated over how, exactly, the Wall Street Journal, of all news organizations, actually hired a raving, semi-Liberal, lunatic with a keyboard and made her their preeminent staff-opinion-writer...I mean, how does that happen, exactly?
Has Noonan been, somehow, stricken by the Wuhan Virus and is even now suffering from it's [recently] documented psychological side-effects? Has everyone else in her party ( It's actually the Dems) gotten it too?
You know, hanging out in the urban areas, especially in the likes of New York, can certainly do that to you, and a whole lot more, apparently.
"Where did Donald Trump come from?" She initially asks and the question, while, easy enough for most Americans to decipher, tends to summarily incapacitate most writers of Noonan's unimponderable ilk.
"Where is the GOP going? Should the whole thing be burned down?"
Navel-Gazing for Dummies
Well, let me answer that, Peggy (as she undertakes a prolonged instance of extreme navel-gazing) --but first things first, would Peggy Care to explain where in-the-hell the riot-embracing, socialist-craving, Trump-hating, defund-the-police-Democrat Party is headed, if anywhere?
Maybe Nancy is so plugged-in to the current burn-all-federal-buildings-down-Democrats, that she simply quaffs everything over into the burn/don't burn category.
"A lot had to go wrong before we got a President Trump. This fact, once broadly acknowledged, has gotten lost, as if a lot of people want it forgotten."
No, Peggy...Regarding Trump, it was never a credible question being asked by the Democrat media, in fact, and most of the American people obviously know this...
However, what's mesmerizing is the fact that Peggy seems to believe that whatever she manages to type-out on her keyboard, simply becomes "So"--like that movie with Jim Cary in it--the one where God grants him the power to handle all things and Carey's character manages to screw it all up beyond recognition.
Has Peggy watched that movie? Maybe she should...
"Mr. Trump’s election came from two unwon wars, which constituted a historic foreign-policy catastrophe, and the Great Recession, which those in power, distracted by their mighty missions, didn’t see coming until it arrived with all its wreckage. He came from the decadeslong refusal of both parties’ leadership to respect and respond to Americans’ anxieties, from left and right, about illegal immigration. He came from bad policy and bad stands on crucial issues."
Okay, so, what exactly, has this got to do with Republicans, or more specifically, Conservatives? When Peggy scribes the (2) big unwon wars, was she referring to Obama's war against Libya, (which was Obama and Hillary's) or, was she referring to Obama's anemic war movements in both Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Or, maybe she's referring to G.W. Bush's war in Iraq, which America did eventually win, but, hell! I'm not certain which big wars that she means, exactly, simply because there've been so many, that, by the way, Peggy aided in creating.
But, how, exactly, is that Trump's or the American people's fault?
America's biggest war, WW2, was presided over by a Democrat, and the Korean war was also presided over by a Democrat.
The Vietnam war was presided over by Eisenhour who was a Republican, and it was against Communist Aggression, as was the Korean war, but would the Democrats go to war against any Communist nation, now, or would they simply join-up?
That, as they say, is the question.
The Dems now all but own, the Black Lives Matter movement, which is nothing but systemic Marxism, as embraced by most sports teams, and pretty much anyone without even a tittle of common sense, however, that seems to be all the rage, these days.
"He came from the growing realization of on-the-ground Americans that neither party seemed to feel any particular affiliation with or loyalty to them, that both considered them lumpen bases to be managed and manipulated.
He came from the great and increasing social and cultural distance between the movers and talkers of the national GOP, its strategists, operatives, thinkers, pundits, and party professionals, and the party’s base.
He came from algorithms that deliberately excite, divide and addict, and from lawmakers who came to see that all they had to do to endure was talk, not legislate, because legislating involves compromise and, in an era grown polar and primitive, compromise is for quislings."
Nihilism for Beginners
Well, Okay, but Still....why would we burn the Republican party down, when it was obviously the Republicans that managed to get Trump into the office (thank the most wonderful God in heaven) and quite frankly, what's the woman's point?
"He came from a spirit of frustration among a sizable segment of the electorate that, in time, became something like a spirit of nihilism. It will be a long time repairing that, and no one is sure how to. "
What? Has Peggy decided that she must re-imagine the word, "nihilism" or something?
Nihilism is defined as "the rejection of all moral and religious principles in the belief that life is meaningless"
Now, which party represents this particular definition "to a Tee."
It ain't the Republicans.
The Democrat party base has most recently been burning Bibles in Portland, and burning churches, even as most of the blue-state governors have been closing churches down, at every possible moment.
Did Peggy somehow mix-up her title? Did she mean "Burn the Democrat Party Down" and if so, why would we do that when they're doing it to themselves quite splendidly?
"And here, in that perfect storm, was Mr. Trump’s simple, momentary genius. He declared for president as a branding exercise and went out and said applause lines, and when the crowd cheered, he decided “This is my program,” and when it didn’t cheer, he thought, “Huh, that is not my program.” Some of it was from his gut, but most of it was that casual. After the election, a former high official told me he observed it all from the side of the stage. This week the official said that after a rally, on the plane home, all Mr. Trump and Jared Kushner would talk about was the reaction. “Did you see how they responded to that?”
Now, what the heck is Peggy even talking about, at this point? Once we've decided that she simply has to be referring to Democrats, which is in fact, is the party of "nihilism" or "anti-religion" --how does she then toss her entire premise, into the "Orange Man bad," category, along with his party?
"The base, with its cheers, said they weren’t for cutting entitlement benefits. They were still suffering from the effects of 2008, and other things. They weren’t for open borders or for more foreign fighting. They were for the guy who said he hated the elites as much as they did."
The Elites...and Who They Are
Well, there she got something right, I mean, we do hate the so-called elites not unlike Peggy, along with their constant stream of extensive nonsense, but, not exactly for all the reasons pretended by the duplicitous Left.
The nexus for this pernicious brand of dislike flows from the coiffures of what we interpret as an incredible pretense. I mean, are there actually people who wake up thinking how elite they truly are?
Or, more likely, are there not actual people who wake up and go about doing the incredible things that they do, without even thinking about being a so-called elite.
That is the thing, you see.
In order to truly be an Elite, one cannot even approach thinking about the esoteric qualities of elitism, even in passing. In my opinion (which I have many) this instance, indeed, is the true and real quality concerning being an actual elite, and these folks who pretend that they are, don't actually even come close, on their best day.
Or, does their diddling with some poor kidnapped, sex-trafficked youngsters, uber- qualify them, in their very small minds, if you can even call it that?
The Wuhan Chinese Virus
"The past four years have produced a different kind of disaster, one often described in this space. The past six months Mr. Trump came up against his own perfect storm, one he could neither exploit nor talk his way past: a pandemic, an economic contraction that will likely produce a lengthy recession, and prolonged, sometimes violent national street protests. If the polls can be trusted, he is on the verge of losing the presidency."
Ah, so here, we get down to the meat of things.
The Wuhan virus is Trump's fault. Right.
Now, swish that around in your mind for a moment, and gargle it convincingly before expectorating your results, which should proceed right down the drain, along with this spectacularly ghastly idea.
It's not Trump's virus, It's China's.
We know this from the reams of incontrovertible data regarding what China did and when China did it, and even then, how they made the very conscious decision to fly the virus out to everywhere, except, anywhere in China.
They obviously, must think that the world is as stupid as the 1.392 million [non-communist party] villagers that they've cuckolded.
So, will America blame the virus on Trump, or will the people ascribe the virus to its mendacious masters in China? I believe we're starting to see the answer on this, and that answer is not exactly in Noonan's favor.
"Now various of his foes, in or formerly of his party, want to burn the whole thing down—level the party, salt the earth where it stood, remove Republican senators, replace them with Democrats."
Okay, so who, in the Republican party, other than the ridiculously supercilious anti-Trumpers, a people we simply cannot take seriously (not unlike Peggy.... again) desires to burn the party down?
Is it certain conspicuous members, of whom she dares not mention, or, is it merely Peggy's woefully active imagination, or, probably more accurately, is it some second-rate establishment Republican who failed to secure a job in the Trump Administration and is burning mad about the whole damned thing?
Yes, in Peggy's history as a Bilderberger Establishment Republican, it was probably some pissed-off idiot she had coffee and a Danish with, last week, who now, somehow, represents a substantial proportion (of Peggy's imagination) and of the whole blasted Republican Party, that doesn't really exist.
Yeah, that's just how she rolls...."one"...can, in her mind, represent an entire movement that doesn't really exist.But she can write about it and make it seem as so.
"This strikes me as another form of nihilism. It’s bloody-minded and not fully responsible for three reasons."
Well, once again, nihilism is a thing of the Democrats, as we've already ascertained, based upon the reams of evidence that they keep producing, ad nauseum.
"First, it’s true that the two-party system is a mess and great daily frustration. But in the end, together and in spite of themselves, both parties still function as a force for unity in that when an election comes, whatever your disparate stands, you have to choose whether you align more with Party A or Party B. This encourages coalitions and compromise. It won’t work if there are four parties or six; things will splinter, the system buckle. The Democratic Party needs the Republican Party, needs it to restrain its excesses and repair what it does that proves injurious. The Republicans need the Democrats, too, for the same reasons."
Um...NO...we really don't need the Democrats anymore, rest assured, Peggy, any more than we need a few more enemies like China, and the simple fact is, the two-party system has been and always will be a mess, most especially when the Dems keep voting in members like Ilhan Omar and AOC, for Heaven's sake.
That, in fact, is the overall problem.
The Dems are no longer interested in putting in statesmen (or women). In fact, they went radical quite some time ago, and the radicals have now over-taken the entire party, along with its new Communist stylings.
We need a few more democrats like we need a few more holes in the head.
"Second, if the Republicans lose the presidency, the House and the Senate in November, the rising progressives of the Democratic Party will be emboldened and present a bill for collection. They’ll push hard for what they want. This will create a runaway train that will encourage bad policy that will damage the nation. Republicans and conservatives used to worry about that kind of thing."
Well, it's according to what the meaning of "If," is...now isn't it Peggy?
But, the chances of America losing its incumbent President in a re-election, quite frankly, is starkly minimal, indeed, based upon the historical facts--but most especially-- when you have a usurper who can't even figure out where he's at, most of the time.
"Third, Donald Trump is burning himself down. Has no one noticed?"
Nope. NOT AT ALL, in fact, QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
You see, Peggy, In order to subscribe to the misbeliefs that you obviously subscribe to, one would, first, have to totally ignore the NY Times, and Washington Post....and even the sections providing the more useful facilitation of wrapping fish.
In fact, I see the dems and Biden burning themselves down, completely, on most days, even to the point of, predictably, absolving Biden of the horrid mess that is a debate ( for Him).
And I see the democrat media reeling with up to, what is it? 10,000 layoffs, as was most recently reported.
Peggy, you do have at least some concept regarding what THAT will ultimately do, to your shadow-Globalist party?
"When the Trump experience is over, the Republican Party will have to be rebuilt. It will have to begin with tens of millions of voters who previously supported Mr. Trump. It will have to decide where it stands, its reason for being. It won’t be enough to repeat old mantras or formulations from 1970 to 2000. It’s 2020. We’re a different country."
Indeed, we are a different country, as we always will be, however, people like you, Peggy, are so horribly lop-sided that you see only what you wish to see, and not what actually is taking place.
The main point is that the Democrats, which, by the way, I find very strange, you didn't even mention them in any meaningful sense, have completely played-out their efforts to eject Trump from his singular job of over fulfilling his campaign promises, for the last (4 ) years. While Trump was continually, working his Asimov off, the Dems have done exactly what they always do, skulking about and scheming-up, any old way to eject Trump from his party....that simply will not work.While totally ignoring the joke that is Biden.
....and replace him with Pence?
I really don't think they know what they're doing...
I also see a country that is even now gearing up to react to the Marxist BLM/ Antifa-Fascist movement.
I see Newton's 3rd law just about ready to be fully engaged and in the most meaningful way,
" To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
"The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object."
I see Trump pushing ahead with a favorably rating amongst Republicans approaching the highest ever seen, at approximately 96%. I see Trump's poll-standings neatly mirroring his exact standings at the time of the last election, with Democrat samplings among the polls, far over-exceeding the Republican samplings, just exactly as it was in 2016.
And I see Biden, as diagnosed before it's all over with, as a victim of "Sundowners' Syndrome"
In essence, I see what is actually happening
"A lot is going to have to be rethought. Simple human persuasion will be key."
With the Democrats, again, this so terribly true.
"Rebuilding doesn’t start with fires, purges and lists of those you want ejected from the party."
Actually, the rebuilding continues, just as it was incepted back in 2010, with Conservatives over-taking the remaining establishment ( read Globalist) Republicans, and the Nationalists taking back over.
I see the last major strain of the Globalists, and their minions, and we will soon eradicate their like, at least on our side of the aisle.
"Many if not most of those calling for burning the whole thing down are labeled “Never Trump,” and a lot of them are characterologically quick to point the finger of blame. They’re aiming at Trump supporters in Congress. Some of those lawmakers have abandoned long-held principles to show obeisance to the president and his supporters. Some, as you know if you watched the supposed grilling of tech titans this week, are just idiots."
Oh, and when they did the entire way with Obama, including the entire blasted media.... what was that called? "Nothing to see here? "
Yeah, we've watched that movie more times than we've seen Star Wars.
"But Never Trumpers never seem to judge themselves. Many of them, when they were profiting through past identities as Republicans or conservatives, supported or gave strategic cover to the wars that were such a calamity, and attacked those who dissented. Many showed no respect to those anxious about illegal immigration and privately, sometimes publicly, denounced them as bigots. Never Trumpers eloquently decry the vulgarization of politics and say the presidency is lowered by a man like Mr. Trump, and it is. But they invented Sarah Palin and unrelentingly attacked her critics. They often did it in the name of party loyalty."
"Some Never Trumpers helped create the conditions that created President Trump. What would be helpful from them now is not pyromaniac fantasies but constructive modesty, even humility."
Yeah, Peggy...so...what happened to you? No Really?
"The party’s national leaders and strategists don’t have a lot to be proud of in the past few decades. The future of the party will probably bubble up from the states."
" Both parties have weaknesses. Liberals enjoy claiming progress that can somehow never quite be quantified. Conservatives like the theme of betrayal."
It will be unhelpful for Republicans, and bad for the country, if that’s the background music of the party the next 10 years.
..and, again, what of the current Democrats, Peggy? And, why do you systemically ignore all of their non-sense?
We do see what is actually happening...and it bears no resemblance to your theatrical parade of words assembled together to essentially represent absolutely nothing.
"Seinfeld" did it so much better...alas.
By Barry Secrest
Should we even be asking the question? Even with all the violence currently out here?
News Organizations down the line, which consistently proffer-up, often wild opinions on new events, have acted somewhat fecklessly (and suddenly) with regard to the black individual who slaughtered (2) men and beat at least one woman, severely, with nothing other than a baseball bat.
The question of motive, in light of all the Black Lives Matter and Antifa non-sense, which is percolating all over the US, should be included. And yet, in story after story covering this news event, it is not.
Now, Isn’t that unusual?
Here are just a few of the stories we observed:
According to Orlando.com, “Two men were beaten to death and a woman was seriously injured late Thursday during an attack at a home in a gated Windermere community while a 10-year-old boy called authorities while hiding in a bathroom, police said.”
Well, perhaps it was the Tea Party? I mean, the media never lacked in running stories designed to denigrate anyone not of the left, during the formative years of the Tea Party, exactly 10-years ago.
So, what’s happening here?
Anyway, back to Orlando.com:
“The double homicide happened at a home in the 2900 block of Sunbittern Court in the Lake Crescent Reserve community, which is just south of Lake Crescent and north of Park Avenue and Lake Butler Boulevard.
Windermere police stated that Emanuel Hopkins pushed the community’s gate open with his car then tried to steal a car from the home when he was confronted by the homeowners, John and Lisa Savey.
What? was he dissatisfied with his current ride, so much so, that he killed the owners of the car? Or, was that mere happenstance associated with the attack?"
“We do know that in a video that we saw right here from the front entrance here that he came down the road on a high rate of speed turned into this entrance and pushed the gate open turned his lights off,” Chief David Ogden told News 6.”
So, will we ever know of the actual motive which could lead to an actual hate-crime charge? Or, is that simply out of the question due to the current political agenda being staged by the Dem media?
Maybe it had nothing to do with race, however, then you must ask yourself the question regarding why this criminal had to slam his car into the gate of a gated community and then managed to finally get inside a secure home to slaughter two men with a baseball bat, all for the need of a vehicle?
According to Windermere police chief David Ogden, ““I don’t believe the family was targeted,” Ogden said. “I believe that he was just trying to look for another vehicle to steal because he had seen some police officers sometimes before looking at him.”
Hmm…Quite strange, indeed, and why a gated community? Weren’t there plenty of residential areas easier to get into? but, at least there’s one actual printed opinion, which, strangely enough, seeks to direct attention away from the most plausible current source, of the attacks.]]>
The Native American tribal elder who became the focus of a viral social media controversy over the weekend is not a Vietnam veteran, the U.S. Marine Corps confirmed Wednesday.
Nathan Phillips, 64, spent four years in the Marine Corps Reserve and left in 1976 with the rank of private, or E-1, the Marines said in a statement providing his personal releasable information.
Previously identified as Nathaniel R. Stanard, Phillips was thrust into the national spotlight after images emerged of what appeared to be a standoff at the Lincoln Memorial between him and a group of students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky.
He never deployed, but served as a refrigerator technician and anti-tank missile man; he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal the records show.
Over the weekend, images of the standoff generated immediate public outcry, with many media outlets, including this one, citing reports that Phillips was a Vietnam veteran.
As fuller versions of the video of the standoff between Phillips, the high school students and a group of activists from the Black Hebrew Israelites surfaced, new questions arose about whether Phillips was a Vietnam veteran. Military Times sent a request to the Marine Corps for Phillips service record on Monday.
In past media interviews, he has been described as a veteran of the Vietnam War and he had previously described himself as a “Recon ranger” who had served during “Vietnam times.”
By Sidney Powell | Renowned Former Federal Prosecutor
The Supreme Court held long ago in Brady v. Maryland that the Constitution requires the prosecution, which holds all the cards in a criminal case, to give the defense all evidence favorable to the defendant, whether it impeaches a witness, mitigates punishment or shows his innocence. Indeed, the burden is on prosecutors to find anything in the possession of the government that is favorable to the defense.
From the minute Judge Emmet G. Sullivan received the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, which will be decided on Tuesday, he ordered Mueller to provide the defense with all Brady material. Last week, Judge Sullivan specifically ordered Mueller to produce any FBI interview reports — called 302s — or memoranda relevant to the original interview of Gen. Flynn. Ironically, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley has been requesting the agents’ notes and 302s for two years. Did Mueller comply?
Mueller has thumbed his nose at Judge Sullivan’s order. He produced only a 302 created by his own squad seven months later from his own agent’s interview of none other than the infamous, fired-for-bias, disgraced, Trump-loathing, former Agent Peter Strzok — the guy who swore he’d “stop” President Trump and devised “an insurance policy” with his mistress Lisa Page and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in case Trump won the election. We are watching Mueller execute that insurance policy by the day.
The evidence indicates Mueller has destroyed or is suppressing Brady material. There was an original 302 created within five days — by FBI protocol — of the Jan. 24, 2016 ambush interview of General Flynn by two agents — Strzok and Special Agent Joe Pientka. It is mentioned in the Strzok-Page text messages and on page four of the recrafted 302 Mueller filed. Comey read the original 302 before he was fired.
It existed — as Grassley well knows. It was written by Agent Pientka, who also took extensive handwritten notes, whose name is redacted from Mueller’s filing, and who seems to have disappeared. Where are the original 302, his notes, and where is Agent Pientka? Grassley has been trying to get access to all three for almost two years.
Mueller’s filing confirms that Agent Pientka was assigned to take notes of the interview. Judge Sullivan’s order encompasses the production of those notes. Where are they? Were they destroyed despite Grassley’s longstanding request and Judge Sullivan’s original Brady order? The failure to produce them is another Brady violation that warrants the dismissal of the charges against Flynn and warrants holding Mueller and his team in contempt of court.
And no doubt Mueller is aware of other Brady material in the possession of the government. There are two important sets of information being withheld from the defense under the guise of classification.
According to California Congressman Devin Nunes speaking on Laura Ingraham’s program last week, there is testimony from none other than former FBI Director James Comey himself, speaking before House committees, that is exculpatory of Flynn.
Because Comey just confessed on national TV that he oh-so-cleverly, gleefully, and deliberately breached all protocols and any semblance of ethics to ensnare the new administration and Flynn in their carefully calculated perjury trap, there is every reason to declassify Comey’s testimony immediately. The public is entitled to see his duplicity.
John Solomon reported, and Grassley has identified, information in the possession of the DIA that is exculpatory of Flynn. Apparently, the information remains classified — most likely to protect Comey from outrageous abuses of allowing private contractors to mine our intelligence gathering systems as far back as 2012 for nefarious reasons including unmasking and private profit — but that does not absolve Mueller of his obligation to produce it to the defense.
At a minimum, the information must be given to Judge Sullivan under seal. In the alternative, the president should declassify this material immediately, because the government has a solemn legal obligation to produce at least the substance of all exculpatory information to the defendant. If there are true national security interests to be protected, a summary will suffice.
It gets worse. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice reported late last week that Mueller wiped Peter Strzok’s cell phone of all messages during the crucial time he was working for the special counsel. The IG was unable to recover any text messages from it.
This was after the inspector general informed Mueller of the extreme bias of Strzok and Page evidenced by thousands of text messages on their phones. These messages were so egregious they required their termination from Mueller’s squad. Not only did Mueller hide this development from Congress, but he destroyed evidence on Strzok’s phone and allowed DOJ to do the same for Page’s phone. That’s a crime. Mueller put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for simply trying to contact a witness.
Any ethical law Department of Justice official would have taken custody of all electronic devices of Strzok and Page immediately upon discovery of their extreme bias and blatant misconduct — or certainly upon their termination — and preserved all the evidence. For Mueller to destroy this evidence is blatant obstruction of justice that warrants his immediate termination. The same is true for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein who was “overseeing” it at the time.
Mueller has shown abject contempt for the wrong court. Judge Sullivan is a real judge who believes in the rule of law and has the integrity to enforce it equally. The evidence strongly suggests Mueller violated Brady, destroyed or suppressed evidence, and obstructed justice in violation of 18 USC §1512(c). He has disgraced himself and the Department of Justice. Mueller’s time is up.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, and veteran of 500 federal appeals is the author of “LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and senior policy adviser for America First.
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel
By Gerald Flurry
Nov. 11, 2018, marked the 100-year anniversary of the end of World War I. United States President Donald Trump visited Paris, France, to commemorate the roughly 115,000 U.S. military personnel who died in that war.
The United States helped France mightily in that war. American troops gave their lives to protect and support the French Army and people. In both World Wars I and II, British and American forces delivered France from captivity; all totaled, almost 2 million British and American soldiers gave their lives to defend France and other European nations.
Today the brotherhood that once existed between the United States and France is in trouble. We need to understand the prophetic significance of what is happening.
Not coincidentally, Macron has chillingly characterized himself by way of coming into power as the Roman God Jupiter better known as the Greek God Zeus, moreover, the connections only branch out from there...
On the eve of President Trump’s European visit, French President Emmanuel Macron made some bold remarks that reveal a lot about how he feels about the U.S. today. In a radio interview on November 6, President Macron called for a “true European army.” That is a dramatic statement in its own right, but he added: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America“(emphasis mine throughout).
Even the United States? It is one thing for France to say it must defend against Communist China and dictatorial Russia. But what a deeply insulting thing to say about the democracy that crossed the Atlantic twice last century to rescue France from defeat!
Mr. Macron’s remarks didn’t really catch the attention of most people. Many perceived them as simply an attempt by Macron to get more from nato. But that is not the case!
We must grasp the significance of President Macron’s comments. When you understand Bible prophecy, you can recognize that this is part of a momentous trend that will change the world!
The Bible clearly tells us the identity of the American and British peoples. In his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert W. Armstrong explained in detail how America and Britain are descended from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph.
Order your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy or read online.
And France, Mr. Armstrong explained, is descended from Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob and another of those “lost” Israelite tribes. Many of the modern French have descended from this Israelite patriarch, and Reuben is the name for France in biblical prophecy.
Genesis 37 documents Reuben betraying his younger brother Joseph. Mr. Armstrong taught, and the Bible clearly reveals, that this ancient betrayal is also an end-time prophecy that France (Reuben) would betray the U.S. (Manasseh, son of Joseph).
Notice this critical passage regarding America and Britain: “And he [Jacob, renamed Israel] blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, … bless the lads, and let my name be named on them … and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:15-16). As The United States and Britain in Prophecy proves, God answered this prayer. Manasseh and Ephraim did grow into a multitude. In fact, as God promised in Genesis 35:11, they became “a nation and a company of nations”—Manasseh a single “great” nation, and Ephraim “a multitude of nations” (see also Genesis 48:19). And the name “Israel” was named on these nations. They are the birthright nations, blessed above all others on Earth. How specific are these prophecies about the nations of Israel!
In all history, no other peoples match these descriptions better than America and the British Empire. That means prophetic Israel in this end time specifically refers to America and Britain.
But God didn’t prophesy only of what would happen to America and Britain.
Genesis 49 is an astounding chapter that contains important prophecies for today: “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days” (verse 1). We are reading from the first book of the Bible, and it is talking about the last days—the times we are living in now!
If you don’t know the modern identity of the sons of Jacob, you cannot understand Bible prophecy! And one-third of the Bible is devoted to prophesy.
The first son Jacob addressed in Genesis 49 is Reuben (verse 3). God clearly tells us that Reuben will play a role in events that occur in the last days. So we must know who Reuben is.
Why was Reuben addressed first? Because he was the firstborn. The blessings that God promised to Abraham, and that were conferred upon Abraham’s son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, were supposed to transfer to Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben. But Reuben lost his birthright. Why? Jacob tells us: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch” (verse 4). Reuben had sexual relations with his father’s concubine. Isn’t it interesting that even today, Paris is called the “city of love” and France is renowned for its libertine approach to sex? Because of Reuben’s great sexual sin, the birthright blessings went instead to Joseph, the firstborn son of Jacob’s other wife, Rachel.
“Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright” (1 Chronicles 5:1). Chronicles is the last book of the Old Testament as it was originally compiled and points us directly to the New Testament. Ezra gathered information from the former prophets and wrote that book. That means it is prophecy for today. Ezra wrote about the state of the birthright promise in these last days.
Read the history of Joseph and Reuben yourself in Genesis 37 through 46. Jacob favored Joseph above his other sons, and that provoked a lot of sibling rivalry. Making matters worse, Joseph told his brothers about dreams he had indicating that his descendants would “reign over” those of his brothers. This inspired such hatred in them that they conspired to murder Joseph! They planned to kill him and tell their father that Joseph had been slain by a wild animal. Reuben intervened. He convinced them to just leave him in a pit to die, and he planned to save him by coming back later to fetch him. But before he could do that, the brothers sold Joseph into slavery.
Reuben, the firstborn, wouldn’t boldly stand up to his brothers. He tried to “rescue” Joseph in a weak, evasive way. It was a betrayal that ended up enslaving his younger brother!
Your Bible says Reuben’s modern descendants will again betray the latter-day descendants of Joseph—America, and Britain!
The Bible prophesies of a European superpower led by Germany. France will meekly submit to and participate in this German-dominated “beast” of Revelation 13. In so doing, France will cruelly betray the allies it fought alongside in two world wars against Germany! Yes, Reuben’s descendants will play a treacherous role in “selling” their brother into captivity and slavery, just as their ancestor did more than 3,700 years ago!
We are seeing the beginning of that betrayal today!
Remember, the sons of Jacob are brothers. This is about a family. And Reuben, this prophecy tells us, is “unstable as water.” You never know exactly how he is going to behave, even toward his own brother.
This instability is exactly what we are seeing in the French-American relationship today. When President Trump visited France in July 2017, he was treated like royalty! Now the French leadership is sending a brash, treacherous message of opposition.
President Macron’s words were not part of a minor spat, as some in the media characterized it. This strikes at the very heart and core of end-time Bible prophecy! Bible prophecy makes clear exactly what is happening.
Just four days before the World War I commemorations, President Macron made other provocative comments we need to think about. Touring a battlefield of the Great War, Macron praised Marshal Philippe Pétain, who was to be honored at a ceremony at Napoleon’s Tomb that weekend. Pétain was a French general during World War i. But he was more than that: In June 1940, he was appointed the prime minister of France and immediately surrendered France to Adolf Hitler.
Between 1940 and 1944, Pétain collaborated with Hitler while presiding over Vichy France. British historian Andrew Roberts wrote that Pétain “participated enthusiastically in sending non-French Jews to the death camps—principally Auschwitz—in a way that the Germans simply did not have the manpower or local knowledge to achieve.”
President Macron apparently rejects this history. He told reporters that Pétain was a “great soldier—this is a reality.”
Then, at the World War i centenary ceremony in Paris, Macron took the opportunity to publicly rebuke President Trump for recently saying he was a nationalist who puts America first.
Standing before a host of world leaders, Macron lectured America’s president on the difference between nationalism and patriotism. “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” he said. “By saying ‘our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential—its moral values.” President Macron’s speech was heard around the world, and everyone understood exactly who he was addressing!
It was in the midst of this important anniversary week that the French president called for a European army. “We will not protect Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army,” he said. The Times called it “his strongest language yet” for a military union. Europe is striving for a united military—and has been for quite some time.
And what will Europeans do with that army? Macron explicitly said it was needed to protect Europe “with respect to China, Russia, and even the United States.”Does that sound like a stable brotherhood, like the one in World Wars I and ii?
Macron wants to push America out of Europe! The way he views it, France and Europe don’t need America anymore! As recently as World War ii, America lost hundreds of thousands of men saving Europe and France! How can anyone simply forget all that—unless they are unstable as water?
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Anthony J. Tata wrote about those comments: “Macron could not have levied a greater insult at America and its veterans on this 100th anniversary of the armistice signed between the Allies and Germany on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 to end World War I and, ironically, save Europe” (Fox News, Nov. 10, 2018). It’s as if Macron was spitting on the graves of those men...
...and what's good for the goose is good for the gander....a dazzlingly brilliant argument by Trump
The Daily Caller
Mike Brest | Reporter
President Donald Trump argued that former President Barack Obama opened the door for ending birthright citizenship through executive order when he used the same method to get Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) approved.
The president was speaking to reporters before taking off for his rally in Fort Myers, Florida on Wednesday.
(RELATED: Fact Check: Is The US The Only Country With Birthright Citizenship?)
He continued, “You don’t need a constitutional amendment, birthright citizenship. I believe that you could have a simple vote in Congress, or it’s even possible in my opinion, this is after meeting with some very talented legal scholars, that you can do it through an executive order.”
The president recently raised the issue during an interview with Axios’ Jonathan Swan on Monday night. In the interview, Trump explained that he doesn’t believe there is a need for a constitutional amendment to overturn birthright citizenship.
“I’d rather do it through Congress because that’s permanent.
But we can certainly do it through, I really believe we can do it through executive order,” Trump added. “One other thing, if President Obama can get DACA approved, if you look at DACA where he actually said, well, this isn’t legal or this I can’t do but I’ll do it anyway, and then he gets a judge to approve it, and it’ll ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, I hope quickly. But certainly, if he can do DACA we can do this by executive order.”
On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum creating DACA without having Congress’s approval.
“With that being said, I think Congress will ultimately act. But I may very well do it by executive order. So you understand, a person comes in, was never in our country before, has a baby, and now all of a sudden the baby is a U.S. citizen and through chain migration and other things many other people come in through the baby,” he concluded.
Follow Mike on Twitter.
A simple eye-opening conclusion containing the ring of truth to a mystery that's often complex & very difficult to explain.... ~ Refocus Notes
It's probably important to preface any conversation on morality by noting that humans often struggle—mightily—to agree on what morality is. While it’s a thorny topic to define and explain, it would, of course, be foolish to avoid the pursuit of moral truths for this reason.
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who has researched morality and culture for nearly 30 years, apparently agrees.
Haidt has spent the better part of his career attempting to understand and explain the underpinnings of human morality.
During a TED talk a number of years ago, Haidt shared his discovery that contrary to the idea that humans begin as a blank slate—“the worst idea in all psychology,” he says—humans are born with a “first draft” of moral knowledge. Essentially, Haidt argues, humans possess innate but malleable sets of values “organized in advance of experience.”
So if the slate is not blank, what’s on it?
To find out, Haidt and a colleague read the most current literature on anthropology, cultural variations, and evolutionary psychology to identify cross-cultural matches. They found five primary categories that serve as our moral foundation:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives.]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
What Haidt found is that both conservatives and liberals recognize the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity values. Liberal-minded people, however, tend to reject the three remaining foundational values—Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation—while conservatives accept them.
It’s an extraordinary difference, and it helps explain why many liberals and conservatives in America think “the other side” is bonkers.
Liberals might contend, of course, that these values are not proper morals at all but base human traits responsible for xenophobia, religious oppression, etc. Haidt rejects this thesis. And through a series of historical illustrations, psychological studies, and cross-cultural references, he explains that many liberals often fail to appreciate a timeless truth that conservatives usually accept: order tends to decay. (A truth, I’ll add, buttressed by the second law of thermodynamics.)
Now, Haidt is not suggesting conservatives are superior to liberals. He points out that conservatives tend to value order even at the cost of those at the bottom of society, which can result in morally dubious social implications. Liberals, however, often desire change even at the risk of anarchy.
Many people, of course, will refuse to accept Haidt’s explanation of moral reality. This is not surprising. The human inclination is to believe in one’s own understanding of morality, and many people will live their entire lives without seriously attempting to understand their ideological counterparts.
These people, Haidt says, reside on both sides of the ideological spectrum. They exist in what he calls a “moral matrix.”
People will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses.
“If you think that half of America votes Republican because they’re blinded… then my message to you is you’re trapped in a moral matrix,” Haidt said. “You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions. Or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology, and step outside your moral matrix.”
So what to make of all this? I must say, I found Haidt’s explanations pretty insightful. It certainly helps explain our contentious culture. Even many intelligent and reasonable people, after all, will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses.
It doesn’t seem a stretch to contend that liberals in America have largely abandoned the latter three values (with some exceptions, of course), or that conservatives are highly influenced by them.
I’ll be interested to hear what readers think of Haidt’s thesis. But remember, this is a bit of a catch-22: if one reflexively smashes Haidt’s theory, it may only be evidence that this person is living in a moral matrix himself.
This article has been reprinted with permission from Intellectual Takeout.
More From the FEE
Here's an excellent & concise explanation from Rush on who Khashoggi was and what he was actually up to..which is a very far cry from what the media's been trying to sell to America...
Most notably, the US will most likely (soon) be adding the Muslim Brotherhood, a root terror organization that Obama, by the way, adored, to the official list of known terrorist organizations of which many other countries have already recognized & published.
Khashoggi was a Trump critic and stalwart advocate/member of the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization, having joined with them all the way back in the seventies.
~ Refocus Notes
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Transcript From Rush Limbaugh
I think Jamal Khashoggi was much more than a journalist.
Yeah, he wrote opinion pieces for the Washington Post, and so they’re running around saying he was an American citizen, an American journalist. But I don’t think that’s who the Saudis saw when they saw Jamal Khashoggi.
I think they saw an enemy of the regime. I think they saw a guy who’s tight with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, the agents of change in the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis do not get along in any way, shape, manner, or form.
No, no. Do not misunderstand me. I’m not advocating or trying to excuse whatever they did to Khashoggi.
I’m just trying to tell you that he’s not an innocent, minding-his-own-business journalist going about his life gunned down. He was an enemy of the regime, and he once held a position in the Saudi government ” I’m telling you, the Drive-Bys have been dying to tie Trump to this murder.
I think that they would love to undermine Trump’s relationship with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudis in general, and so would the Democrats. It’s just the latest in a never-ending parade of events that the left thinks they can use to destroy and get rid of Trump.
Khashoggi was a friend of Osama Bin Laden.
They went to high school together. But that’s not what you need to know about Khashoggi. Khashoggi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are what’s really relevant here. I think… They’re trying to tell us that Khashoggi was murdered by Mohammed bin Salman because Khashoggi was being critical of the regime and you just don’t do that. And while that’s true, I think there’s a lot more to this than just he got killed because of stuff he was writing in the Washington Post.
I found a piece on him by John R. Bradley at Spectator.us, and Bradley has been following Saudi politics, Middle East politics, Muslim Brotherhood expertise for many, many moons. And his story ran three days ago, and you haven’t seen a thing about this anywhere in the Drive-By Media like Missourians are not seeing a word about Project Veritas exposing Claire McCaskill.
The piece is entitled, “What the Media Are Not Telling You About Jamal Khashoggi — The dissident’s fate says a lot about Saudi Arabia and the rise of the mobster state.” Now, here are just some biographical things. The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but it’s for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power.
John R. Bradley
“This is not just wrong but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable.” So the point this piece is gonna make is that Khashoggi’s not a distant and removed commentator/journalist writing about the Saudi kingdom from afar.
He used to be part of it.
He’s not… Well, the Khashoggis… Adnan Khashoggi was very, very tight with the royal family. I don’t know about bloodlines, but he was… You’re not allowed to become Adnan Khashoggi and acquire that much wealth — particularly running guns and arms — without being tight with the royal family. Jamal Khashoggi is a cousin of Adnan Khashoggi. This piece makes it clear (as you’ll hear in a moment) that Jamal Khashoggi — at one time in his life, at one point — was very, very tight with the ruling family, the royal family, was in the regime.
“This is not just wrong but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable. In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for Western-style pluralistic democracy.
“In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” Now, that right there will provide all of us the first source of serious conflict between Khashoggi and the current Saudi ruling royal family. “[T]he Muslim Brotherhood … exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” What’s Mohammed bin Salman doing? He’s trying to westernize the country! He’s a Millennial.
He’s trying to reform it in certain ways, letting women vote and letting women drive, but not much else. He wants the world to think that there’s massive reform happening in the kingdom. So he does something very visible, like letting women drive. But not much more. They’re still very subjugated. He’s meeting with all of the tech people in Silicon Valley and the Hollywood people. He wants to build a brand-new city from scratch — a huge, dynamic, brand-new city — that incorporates money from Silicon Valley and Hollywood and involves all of those people as developers and investors.
But nevertheless he’s the first of the ruling royal family to ever talk this way, to ever travel the world and set something up like this, and this is anathema to the Muslim Brotherhood! They can’t stand this! There’s something else that the royal family’s doing, and I mentioned this when I was talking about who Khashoggi was and Mohammed bin Salman last week. That is this: Up to 9/11 and even many years after 9/11, the ruling religious dominance in Saudi Arabia was Wahhabism.
All of the clerics, all of the imams were Wahhabi Islamists, and these are the terrorist-inspiring Islamists.
These are the imams, the educators at all the universities which teach and recruit and inspire the Osama Bin Laden-type terrorism. Mohammed bin Salman wants to rid Saudi Arabia of the influence of Wahhabism. Well, that’s not gonna sit well with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is not particularly tied to Wahhabism.
They have their own version of terrorist Islam.
But the fact that the Saudi rile family, which, by definition, and by corporate structure, is in charge of Islam. Mecca and Medina are… Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family is Islam. It’s their charge with maintaining it, protecting it, defining it, the mosques, particularly in Mecca. And for Mohammed bin Salman to come along and try to eliminate the influences of Wahhabism, while at the same time importing such corporate scum as Hollywood and American technology?
This is considered to be an absolute affront to people like the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to get rid of any Western influence in Islam or in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Islamic world! So Mohammed bin Salman has made himself a huge, huge target. Khashoggi, as a Muslim Brotherhood member, would be diametrically opposed to everything Mohammed bin Salman is doing. And that has been well established and has been documented.
Again here, according to Mr. Bradley, “Khashoggi never had much time for Western-style pluralistic democracy.
In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” Well, here comes Mohammed bin Salman incorporating Western influence in Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi “was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post.
“He championed the ‘moderate’ Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East.
His recurring plea to bin Salman in his columns was to embrace not a western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.”
He was not an Americanized Islamist.
He was not pro-democracy.
This was a Muslim Brotherhood advocate and member, and he is righteously indignant over the reforms of Mohammed bin Salman and wrote about them. But he threw in the words “democracy” and “freedom” and “liberty,” and this was all designed to cow Western readers and Western journalists into thinking that he was something that he’s not.
Much like liberals have to mask who they are, that’s what Khashoggi was doing. “He had been a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s, but then became more of a player than a spectator. Before working with a succession of Saudi princes, he edited Saudi newspapers. The exclusive remit a Saudi government-appointed newspaper editor has is to ensure nothing remotely resembling honest journalism” makes it into the papers. So when the Saudi ruling family hired him to run journalism, it was to be PR. It was to be propaganda.
Khashoggi did it. He took the money, he “put the money in the bank,” and he did what the royal family wanted him to do. He made “a handsome living,” which, according to Mr. Bradley here, has “always [been] his top priority. … Khashoggi had this undeserved status in the West” that our caller is talking about “because of the publicity surrounding his sacking as editor of the Saudi daily Al Watan back in 2003. … He was dismissed because he allowed a columnist to criticize an Islamist thinker considered to be the founding father of Wahhabism.
“Thus, overnight, Khashoggi became known as a liberal progressive” in the Saudi Kingdom and outside. And that’s another reason why the left in this country champions him because that’s who he was. “The Muslim Brotherhood, though, has always been at odds with the Wahhabi movement. Khashoggi and his fellow travelers believe in imposing Islamic rule by engaging in the democratic process".....