War Over the Nile

War Over the Nile

Kubu/iStock

Will Egypt topple the Ethiopian government?
From the December 2012 Trumpet Print Edition

War may soon be coming to Ethiopia. The seeds were sown decades ago, but now the bitter fruit is beginning to appear.

In March of 2011, at the height of the political revolution in Egypt, Ethiopia announced that it would soon start construction on a massive hydroelectric dam on the headwaters of the Nile River. This is an explosive declaration. Not only will this dam undoubtedly reduce the amount of water flowing into Sudan and Egypt for several years and perhaps permanently, but it is an existential threat to Egypt.

For Egypt, allowing Ethiopia to construct this dam is somewhat like Israel allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Egypt is nothing without the Nile. Almost 100 percent of Egypt’s 83 million inhabitants live along the Nile River. It is the lifeblood of the country. It does more than just support agriculture and industry; it provides the water necessary to push the turbines at Egypt’s giant Aswan Dam. This dam, one of the biggest hydroelectric engineering feats of all time, helped transform modern Egypt into a Middle Eastern superpower. The massive lake created by the dam allowed Egypt to expand its agricultural production like never before. It turned whole swaths of desert into lush, irrigated farmland. Electricity production allowed businesses and manufacturers to expand. Egyptian standards of living rose—and the population skyrocketed.

The power to shut down the Nile—even temporarily—is the power to destroy Egypt.

Root of Conflict

To say Egypt and Ethiopia do not have the best of relationships is putting it mildly. During the 1960s, Egypt played a major role in helping Eritrea break away from Ethiopia. Cairo was ground zero for the formation of the Eritrean Liberation Movement and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, the primary forces behind Eritrea’s long war for independence. During the ’70s and ’80s, Egypt actively supported several other terrorist groups that also worked to overthrow the government in Ethiopia. When Eritrea finally gained independence in 1993, it had Egypt to thank.

Egypt’s strength and ability to impose its will on its neighbors is a function not just of its military, but also of its economy. And that is dependent on economic treaties in force. This is one of the roots of contention between Egypt and Ethiopia.

Due to colonial-era treaties between Egypt, Sudan and the United Kingdom, Egypt holds sole authority over the Nile River’s water—forever. Until recently, this meant that if any upstream nation (also former British protectorates/colonies at the time) wanted to use water from any tributary flowing into the Nile, they had to seek Egyptian approval.

Over the years, nations such as Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia have largely abided by these pre-independence treaties—often to the detriment of their own people.

But now that may be about to change.

Ethiopia’s Blue Nile River generates approximately 85 percent of the total water flowing into the Nile. Ethiopia contends that it was not a signatory to the 1959 treaty, and thus it should not have to abide by a treaty that takes virtually 100 percent of its water that flows into the Nile. Thus, Ethiopia is leading the charge to rewrite the treaties.

More than leading the charge—it is now the first nation to actively challenge Egypt’s virtual monopoly on the Nile.

Challenging an Unjust Treaty

Ethiopia claims that the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is needed for its own domestic electricity requirements. This dam, which is currently under construction, will become one of the top 10 biggest dams in the world. It will be able to generate three times the power the Hoover Dam does. It will also greatly increase Ethiopia’s regional importance by providing desperately needed electricity to its neighbors.

In 2010, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania signed an agreement rejecting Egypt’s claim to the Nile and formed a new partnership to redistribute the river’s water more equitably.

Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam is the first test of this agreement—and Egypt’s resolve. It is scheduled for completion in three years, at which time large amounts of water will be withheld from the Nile. But perhaps even more importantly from Egypt’s perspective, if not stopped it could herald a gold rush of other hydroelectric projects that will inevitably lead to increased agricultural projects within the region. If other Nile River nations begin to consume water the way Egypt does, it will be the end of the Nile. Even today, the Nile River delta is retreating due to vastly reduced amounts of water making it to the Mediterranean Sea.

If Ethiopia succeeds, it will be the end of Egypt’s control of the Nile. In water-limited Africa, that would be an unmitigated disaster for the land of the pharaohs.

Advance Intelligence

An indication of how this potentially explosive situation could play out comes from a remarkable source: biblical prophecy.

In the April 2011 issue of the Trumpet, Gerald Flurry prophesied specifically that Libya and Ethiopia would become the victims of radical Islam. At the time, there was very little physical evidence to suggest Ethiopia could ever be threatened. But he made that prediction based upon the prophecy in Daniel 11:40-43, which foretells an end-time clash between a German-led Holy Roman Empire and an Iranian-led Islamic coalition called the king of the south. In verse 43, Daniel lists the “Libyans and the Ethiopians” as part of the king of the south alliance. “This verse states that Libya and Ethiopia are also going to be closely allied with Iran!” stated Mr. Flurry.

When this article was published, some readers said the idea that largely Christian Ethiopia could ever fall into the radical Islamist camp was outrageous. Muslims and Christians had been peacefully coexisting for years, they said.

Based on the physical evidence at that time, these critics seemed right. But look at Ethiopia now.

In November 2011, the Ethiopian government discovered plans by a group of Wahhabi Muslims to turn Ethiopia into an Islamic country governed by sharia law. In a press conference, the Ethiopian government expressed concern over the increasing incidence of violence against moderate Muslims and Christians by radical Wahhabi Muslims. Since then, there has been a huge uptick in Islamic-inspired protests and riots. Even Western newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Times are warning about an Islamic backlash and the radicalization of Ethiopian Muslims.

Then, on August 20, Ethiopia’s longtime prime minister, Meles Zenawi, suddenly died. His successor is untested and comes from a small Protestant group as opposed to one of the major religious affiliations. There is talk of a power struggle.

On August 22, just two days after Zenawi died, Gerald Flurry said on a Key of David program that Daniel 11:43 shows that Egypt is about to have a “major impact on other nations in the Middle East, and in Libya and Ethiopia in particular.” He went on to say that Egypt would play a critical role in turning Ethiopia into an Egypt-Iran allied state.

Events are now bearing out that prophecy.

What Will Egypt Do?

According to a recent report by the intelligence company Stratfor, Egypt has three choices. First, Egypt can bring political and economic pressure on Ethiopia to prevent the construction of the dam. This has already had a limited effect, but it probably won’t be enough to stop Ethiopia. Although Egypt and Sudan have successfully discouraged international investors from financing the $5 billion project, Ethiopia appears to be internally funding construction.

Second, Egypt could resort to direct military intervention. Although Stratfor says this is a last option, it also warns that “Cairo will use any tool at its disposal to stop the project, including military force if necessary.” This jibes with the Stratfor files that were stolen by WikiLeaks and published on August 31. According to these WikiLeak documents, Egypt has procured the use of Sudanese military bases to launch military attacks on Ethiopia’s dam project. One high-level Egyptian official was reported to have said: “If it comes to a crisis, we will send a jet to bomb the dam and come back in one day, as simple as that. Or we can send our special forces in to block/sabotage the dam.”

Third, Stratfor says Egypt could reactivate and support proxy militant groups. There are at least a dozen such armed groups scattered across ethnically divided Ethiopia that are working to overthrow the government or carve out independent regions.

Egypt could also use its allies in Eritrea to destabilize Ethiopia. This is exactly what appears to be happening.

On October 13, Ethiopia announced that it had seized 500 weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition being smuggled into the country from Sudan. The seizure came just a month after six exiled Ethiopian opposition groups announced the formation of armed movements against the government. According to Africa Review, 12 armed opposition groups have recently taken up arms against the Ethiopian government.

Ethiopia may quickly be headed for civil war—instigated by Egypt! According to one report, most of these groups are proxies of Egypt’s Eritrean and Sudanese allies.

Will Egypt soon topple the Ethiopian government? Egypt has tens of billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. military hardware. It has well-positioned and locally supported militant groups based in Ethiopia and on its borders. And it is facing the prospect of losing control of its most important and strategic asset—a river that is the lifeblood of its existence.

The Bible says Egypt will soon be instrumental in bringing a radical political reorientation to Ethiopia. Watch while it happens.

What Is the True Gospel?

The Philadelphia Trumpet, in conjunction with the Herbert W. Armstrong College Bible Correspondence Course, presents this brief excursion into the fascinating study of the Bible. Simply turn to and read in your Bible each verse given in answer to the questions. You will be amazed at the new understanding gained from this short study!
From the December 2012 Trumpet Print Edition

“Just believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you’ll be saved.” That’s what most Christian ministers are working very hard to try to get across to you. Turn on your television on Sunday and see Gospel Video tv, the Gospel Entertainment Network, the Gospel Music Channel and so on. You’ll see preachers telling you all about who Jesus was. Believe on Him! Accept Christ! Let Him into your heart!

The gospel is everywhere on Sunday! Or is it?

Believe it or not, preaching about Jesus Christ and imploring the unconverted to believe on Him is not the same as preaching Christ’s gospel!

Jesus was the Son of God and our Savior. But He was also a messenger. His purpose was to communicate something from God to mankind. The miracles of Jesus Christ are not the gospel. His personal attributes are not the gospel. The existence of Jesus Christ is not the gospel.

What Jesus Christ preached is the gospel!

So, if Jesus’s message wasn’t just about Himself, then what was it about? What is the gospel?

False Gospels Preached Today

In today’s professing Christian Western world, we hear a variety of “gospels”: the “gospel of grace,” the “gospel of salvation,” the “social gospel.” Most of these are messages about Christ. Others include the “science of mind” or “religious science.”

None of these is the gospel Jesus proclaimed!

The true gospel Jesus brought proclaims the solution to the world’s sufferings, frustrations and indescribable evils. It goes so far beyond proclaiming that Jesus was real. But men rejected that gospel and crucified Jesus for preaching it! Billions today believe on Christ, but do not believe His gospel—because most have never heard it! They have heard of Christ and what He did. But no one has relayed His actual message. And that true gospel is the solution to your problems, national problems and world problems! It explains how to receive happiness, abundance, fulfillment and eternal life! Yet the vast majority of Christians have never heard the true gospel.

1. What did Jesus tell His disciples would happen prior to His return? Matthew 24:4-5.

This is shocking when you really think about it. Jesus Christ prophesied that many people would be deceived about Him. He said that “many” ministers would teach that He was the Christ, yet He called them “deceivers.” Thousands of “Christian” ministers have “preached Christ” for centuries. They have said Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. But they have withheld Christ’s gospel—the rest of what He taught. And billions have been deceived by these false gospels, just as Christ predicted!

Remember, a deceived person does not know he is deceived. Otherwise he would not be deceived. Millions have been deceived into accepting a false gospel—a false salvation!

2. Did the Apostle Paul lament the fact that there were already many false apostles, teaching a counterfeit gospel in his day? Galatians 1:6-9.

About 20 years after Christ’s death, Paul pronounced a curse on anyone who would dare preach any gospel besides the one true gospel Jesus preached. That is the message Paul continued to preach to the Galatians, yet the Galatians had also heard another “gospel” preached by false ministers who claimed to represent Christ. Today we have even more perverted gospels being taught. The vast majority of believers know a gospel, but they don’t know Christ’s gospel!

3. What did Paul say is in store for those who through their wickedness suppress the truth of God? Romans 1:18. (The Revised Standard Version plainly translates “hold the truth” as “suppress the truth.”)

Before the end of the first century a.d., the message of the true gospel taught by Christ and His apostles was suppressed, and false “gospels” had been substituted. Christ’s message would not be proclaimed worldwide again until the latter half of the 20th century!

4. Did Jesus Christ say it is necessary to believe the gospel to be saved? Mark 16:15-16.

Notice Jesus said, “He that believeth.” Believes what? The message He preached—the gospel! Not a gospel. Not any gospel. THE gospel! Jesus Christ told His apostles—and you—that you must believe His precise, identical gospel in order to be saved!

In order to believe that gospel, however, you must first come to know what gospel Jesus preached.

The ‘Gospel of the Kingdom of God’

1. Where did Jesus first preach the gospel? Mark 1:14; Acts 10:36-37. When did Jesus begin preaching the gospel? Same verses.

Galilee is the place where Jesus first preached the gospel, not Jerusalem. And He began preaching “after the baptism which John preached.”

2. What was the “gospel” Jesus preached? Mark 1:14.

The message God sent by Jesus Christ was the “gospel of the Kingdom of God.” Jesus was sent to announce that message. He did not force men to accept it, believe it, or act upon it. He never pleaded with a single person to become converted. He proclaimed the good news of the Kingdom of God, and then left it to God the Father to call, through that announcement and His Spirit, those whom He would select (John 6:44). Christ did not come at that time to convert the world! He did not launch a “soul saving” crusade. He came to announce the gospel—the good news—of the coming Kingdom of God!

3. Nevertheless, did Jesus say it was necessary to repent and believe the gospel He preached? Mark 1:14-15.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not that familiar gospel about the life and times of Christ. It is Christ’s gospel—the gospel He preached. Scripture calls it not “the gospel about God,” but “the gospel of God.”

4. Whom did Jesus plainly say sent Him and told Him what to say? John 12:49-50.

The Father sent Jesus bearing a special message: the good news of the Kingdom of God. Jesus is God’s Spokesman—the Word that was made flesh and lived, and taught, on this Earth!

5. When Christ comes, what will His mission be this time? Revelation 19:11-16. See also Revelation 11:15.

When Christ returns, He will not be simply preaching about the Kingdom of God—He will be establishing and ruling the Kingdom of God! If you believe your Bible, you’ll see the “Kingdom of God” is a literal government ruling over every nation on Earth. At Christ’s Second Coming, He will literally take over every national government. He will become the “King of kings,” ruling and enforcing the law of God. The gospel of the Kingdom of God is the good news that the government of God is coming to rule the world! The Kingdom of God is also the Family of God into which human beings will be born—the divine royal Family! This is what Jesus preached at His first coming, and it is what He will establish at His second!

Christ’s Gospel Has Been Proclaimed to the World!

John the Baptist was the “messenger” that Malachi prophesied would prepare the way before Jesus Christ’s ministry 2,000 years ago (Malachi 3:1; Mark 1:4, 7-8; Luke 1:13-17). An angel prophesied that John would go ahead of Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and … to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17).

1. After John was put in prison and Christ had begun His ministry, what did Jesus prophesy about Elijah? Matthew 17:10-13. Did Malachi also prophesy of another Elijah? Malachi 4:5. What would this “Elijah” do? Malachi 4:6; Matthew 17:11.

The apostles were expecting an Elijah to come in the future. Jesus Christ said that he would indeed come in the future, and he would restore “all things.” Jesus also revealed to them something else that they didn’t know. Another type of the original Elijah—John the Baptist—had already come (verses 12-13). Jesus Christ said that John was a type, not only of the original Elijah, but also of the future “Elijah.” This man would also be sent by God in the spirit and power of Elijah the prophet. When Christ spoke these words, that hadn’t happened yet! This Elijah was to come prior to His Second Coming (Malachi 3:1-6).

Christ will restore God’s government over the entire Earth. Before that, He sent someone in the spirit and power of Elijah to restore His rule inside His Church first. Believe it or not, that event has happened already!

God used this modern Elijah to restore the truth Christ taught, including Christ’s gospel of the Kingdom of God! That gospel was restored at the beginning of 1934 when Herbert W. Armstrong went on air with the World Tomorrow radio program. By 1953, the same gospel Christ preached was being broadcast around the world, and by 1972, Mr. Armstrong was meeting presidents and heads of state worldwide—proclaiming that same gospel.

Mr. Armstrong produced the World Tomorrow television program, which by the mid-1980s was the most widely viewed religious program in the U.S., and was watched by multiple millions worldwide. His flagship magazine, the Plain Truth, reached a monthly circulation of 8.4 million, and an estimated readership of 25 million in six languages across 200 countries.

2. Where did Jesus say the gospel of the Kingdom of God would be preached? Mark 13:10. When did He say that the gospel would be preached in all the world as a witness? Matthew 24:14.

The fruits of Herbert W. Armstrong’s life prove that God used him to fulfill Matthew 24:14. That gospel has been preached to all the world as a witness! To prove for yourself whether or not he was the modern-day Elijah, request our reprint article, “Elijah Has Come Already.”

3. How did Christ compare the works that His servants would do to the mighty miracles He performed while on Earth? John 14:12.

Christ’s work today is reaching far more people than He reached while on Earth! With modern technology, His gospel message can now reach millions of people via print, television, radio and the Internet.

The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine is proclaiming Christ’s gospel and His warning as a powerful witness to a readership of over one million. It is translated into Dutch, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Norwegian. The Key of David with Gerald Flurry airs on over 200 television stations around the world.

This is a globe-girdling work! The sun never sets on the offices of the Philadelphia Church of God. The Church is prophesying again as Christ commanded, delivering His gospel! (Revelation 10:11).

The gospel has been preached to all the world as a witness. Now, in this time of no more delay, the message must be delivered once more just before Christ returns. This is now being fulfilled before your very eyes and ears!

The Truth Revealed in the Benghazi Attack

The Truth Revealed in the Benghazi Attack

STR/AFP/GettyImages

From the December 2012 Trumpet Print Edition

On September 11, Americans were honoring the death of almost 3,000 victims who were murdered by al Qaeda terrorists 11 years ago. That date borders on sacred to most Americans. Yet on that very day, Egyptians attacked the American Embassy in Cairo. They ripped the American flag to shreds and hoisted a black Islamist flag.

The same day, terrorists attacked the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. They murdered four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

The United States provided the military power to overthrow Libya’s dictator, Muammar Qadhafi, last October. Ambassador Stevens was personally involved. He risked his life to help ensure the Libyans would have a more democratic government. Because of his efforts to promote democracy, Stevens became the target of a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda. He knew about it and told Washington that his life was under threat. The last day of his life, he was pleading with the American government to send more help to protect him. There is evidence that the consulate staff was appealing for help while shots were being fired—and help was denied.

Why didn’t the U.S. fulfill that request? Why not send help to a man so dedicated, so willing to risk his life for his country? That is a maddening question, and is currently under investigation.

But the main message from Sept. 11, 2012, doesn’t need an investigation—it is obvious. This attack sent a clear signal that Libya is following Egypt into the Iranian terrorist camp.

Getting Control of Libya

Many American leaders don’t want to acknowledge it, but there is a rising tide of Islamism in Libya. The radicals have a particularly strong hold in the east of the country.

Even fewer will admit that these radicals are getting a lot of their support from Iran. The Iranians are funneling aid to Libyan extremists through Egypt, which lies along Libya’s eastern border.

We prophesied that this would be the case. The Trumpet has said for almost 20 years that Egypt would come into Iran’s camp. Now that prophecy is fulfilled. And before there was any trouble in Libya, we prophesied that it too would ally with Iran. This past summer I said Egypt would lead Libya into that alliance with Iran. Now we see Libya following Egypt into an alliance with Iran.

Libya’s radicals are gaining control. Look what they did to America’s consulate—and the Libyan government has done almost nothing about it! The “democratic” Libyans don’t have a chance. How can they stand up to the heavy armaments that have poured from Egypt into the hands of Libyan Islamists?

What does it all mean? It means the “king of the south” is getting control of Libya!

What we’ve seen happen in Egypt and Libya was prophesied in Daniel 11:40-43. This passage speaks of a European power, “the king of the north,” attacking a Middle Eastern alliance led by Iran. That European “king” “shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.” The focus is mainly on Egypt here. Verse 43 adds that “the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.” The Libyans and Ethiopians will also be allied with Iran, and Egypt is going to swing them into that camp.

In the October 2011 issue of this magazine, I wrote an article called “Egypt and Libya to Join Terror Network.” How could I have known that? Only through Bible prophecy. The Benghazi attack is prophecy being fulfilled. This is one of the most specific prophecies in the Bible.

Fulfilled prophecy is the greatest proof of the existence of God! And fulfilled prophecies are flooding world news today!

Where Is America’s Response?

This tragedy also illustrates another prophecy being fulfilled.

The Libyan terrorists killed America’s ambassador and three others on the most painful date possible—yet months later, America still hasn’t figured out how to respond! This is a massive insult to our country and our dead. But it doesn’t infuriate our people the way it should.

This is far more dangerous than it is insulting—because America’s pathetic response to this attack shows the entire world how weak America is! It is a spectacle of American weakness.

God says He has broken the pride of our power (Leviticus 26:19). Benghazi perfectly shows that though America has tremendous power, we fear to use it. It is a sign that America has receded into the background and is declining fast.

Being weak causes violence and wars! The fact that America will not respond will only allow evils like this to increase. As we get weaker, people will attack us more and more violently.

And why is America so weak? Study Leviticus 26. It is because of our sins. That is why God brought this curse upon us.

America can bomb Qadhafi out of power, yet is afraid to put boots on the ground to finish the job. (In this case, it is afraid to do so even to save an ambassador and his men!) The nation’s terrorist enemies are happy to finish the job themselves, and we just hand it over to them.

Just like we handed Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now Israel and Egypt are very close to war. The Jews are surrounded by terrorists who want to kill them.

The curses on America are plain to see. Prophecy is being fulfilled—in Benghazi and all over the globe! You would think that as times get worse and worse, people would look to the Bible to see what God has to say. Conditions are intensifying and getting so bad that anybody can recognize something is terribly wrong.

Why is everything going wrong for America? I strongly encourage you to request a free copy of our book The United States and Britain Prophecy to understand!

Reflections on a Battlefield

Reflections on a Battlefield

Neal B. Johnson/CC/flickr

Corregidor: An epic struggle, a futile shame
From the December 2012 Trumpet Print Edition

It jarred me, the way those hulking relics of war stood starkly against the tropical foliage. Demolished, pockmarked concrete—surrounded by beautiful, lush green plants. This is Corregidor, island of antithesis.

This small island fortress in the Philippines was the setting of some of the most dramatic scenes of World War ii. It simultaneously symbolizes bravery and betrayal, humanity and hatred, strength and savagery. Gazing across the scene, I was bombarded by incongruous images and emotions. But the biggest collision in my mind was between the epic past and the uncertain present.

After it captured the island from Spain in 1898, the United States built a major military outpost on Corregidor. “The Rock” bristled with guns and mortars, a total of 23 separate batteries. Yet Corregidor was also a soldier’s paradise, with a sandy beach, golf course, baseball diamond, opulent cinema, lavish officers’ quarters and excellent barracks housing thousands of men—all against the backdrop of the calm waters of Manila Bay.

Most of these impressive installations are still there. But now they are skeletons bearing the garish scars of the horrors they endured. Of those enormous barracks filled with soldiers, only empty concrete shells remain, interlaced with rebar that holds sagging chunks of staircases and walls aloft in twisted formations. Gaping holes and mounds of rubble mutely testify to the furious Japanese aerial bombardment. The theater is roofless and hollow. The swimming pool is a cavity carpeted with vegetation.

The ruins still reverberate with the voices of the soldiers who occupied these structures, who manned these munitions. Every blast hole brings to mind the men whose bodies were also blasted and battered when the bombs fell.

Buried in the center of the island lies Malinta Tunnel, a colossal bunker complex that the Americans drilled into a mountain over the course of a decade. The wide but dank passage now serves as the setting for an audio-visual show telling the story of its construction and use during the war: MacArthur turning it into usaffe headquarters; the Philippine government taking refuge there; and the unfolding of the most shameful chapter in America’s World War ii history—the “Betrayal in the Pacific.”

Ten days after attacking Pearl Harbor, the Japanese descended on the Philippines, America’s possession. President Franklin Roosevelt immediately proclaimed his “solemn pledge,” backed by “the entire resources in men and materials of the United States,” that America would come and safeguard the Filipinos’ freedom. MacArthur skillfully evaded Japan’s powerful clutches, evacuating U.S. and Filipino forces to Corregidor to make a stand until reinforcements arrived. But the “solemn pledge” was a blatant lie. The help never came. Allied forces on Corregidor eventually succumbed to Japanese butchery and surrendered on May 6, 1942.

The presentation well conveys the terror of those days with sounds of enemy planes buzzing outside, of bombings that shook the tunnels, of the voice of President Quezon lamenting, “How typical of America to writhe in anguish at the fate of a distant cousin, Europe, while a daughter, the Philippines, is being raped in the back room!” Then, the radio announcement from the Voice of Freedom: Despite the Allied forces’ “superhuman endurance … in the face of overwhelming odds,” “Bataan has fallen, but the spirit that made it stand—a beacon to all the liberty-loving peoples of the world—cannot fall!” It was galvanizing yet gut-wrenching to hear, knowing the hellish death march those captured soldiers afterward endured.

The next wave I felt was one of redemption, hearing how America partially atoned for its treachery when it fought back for the Rock three years later. On the island’s Topside hill is a field too small for an airborne combat landing zone. Yet this is where hundreds of daring men parachuted down from just 400 feet—descending directly into a cauldron of fierce, close-range warfare. These tough men, who knew both the nobility of sacrifice and the brutality of killing, were the liberators of Corregidor.

A short walk away is the Pacific War Memorial Museum. There I stared at the black-and-white portraits of the officers who had orchestrated the offensives and commanded the troops. They seemed like superior men. Serious, manly, steely, intelligent—men of character, men who inspired men. I felt small.

The stories of the Japanese Imperial Army evoked in me a different kind of wonder. Their warrior code of honor, Bushido, exalts death above surrender. In the Malinta Tunnel we learned what this means. That great bunker, which had survived intensive shelling throughout the war, in the end succumbed to sabotage from within: Two thousand Japanese soldiers stationed inside, knowing Allied troops were about to capture them, blew themselves up. Apparently this grim business was repeated in caves all over the island: After the U.S. reclaimed it, for days Corregidor reverberated with underground explosions of Japanese suicides. Haunting.

I tried to comprehend this conflicted past: noble and brutal, crucial and futile, eternal and long-gone. These ruins impressed me with what men did here, yet I could not escape the whole truth: Like every battlefield, this was just another horrid chapter in human war-making, another place where high rhetoric clashes with the low things human beings do to each other.

These ruins are oddly relevant to the present. Their hollowed hulks evoke the decline of America. As Moses prophesied long ago, the pride of its power has been broken and lies in rubble; only the facades remain. Three generations after what proved to be America’s last unequivocal military victory, the U.S. presence in the Philippines is only an echo. America’s reputation is mortally wounded; its ambition has shrunk. Its unprecedentedly superior military is oddly impotent against the most pitiful of threats. Today, an attack on an American consulate, rather than being soundly punished, sets off a rash of evasion, backbiting and recrimination that tears the government up internally.

It all makes Scripture’s most shocking prophecy seem far more conceivable: When the next world war breaks out, America will shrink all the more—and horror will spread over the globe virtually unchecked.

I walked beyond the memorial museum to a rotunda. There I saw words chiseled in stone that finally reminded me of hope: “Sleep my sons, your duty done … for freedom’s light has come. Sleep in the silent depths of the sea, or in your bed of hallowed sod, until you hear at dawn the low, clear reveille of God.”

I look forward to meeting them when that dawn comes.

‘How Could This Happen?’

‘How Could This Happen?’

Mohammed Huwas/AFP/Getty Images

Humiliation in Cairo and death in Benghazi shook America. But our response has been even more terrifying.
From the December 2012 Trumpet Print Edition

It was a mortifying week. We watched angry crowds protesting outside of American outposts throughout the Middle East and beyond. Violent mobs chanted, “We are all Osama.” Structures were defaced or burned. Islamic banners were hoisted where American flags once flew.

Americans were trying to focus on preparing for a presidential election—and we got handed a new mini-9/11.

In the week after September 11 this year, Muslim anti-Western violence hit nearly 30 countries, killing about 30 people. Especially in the Middle East and North Africa, we witnessed a meltdown of order in country after country. It felt like the world was unraveling.

This explosion of unrest sent a chilling message. For the past four years, the Obama administration has worked hard to reach out to the Muslim world—wishing Muslims a happy Ramadan; embracing the Muslim Brotherhood; apologizing for things America did in the Middle East to defend against the Soviets half a century ago; criticizing America’s response to the Twin Towers falling. When the Arab Spring began last year, the White House embraced it, praising and supporting the empowerment of the Muslim street.

September 2012 proved that strategy a failure.

Cairo and Benghazi

In two countries in particular, the attacks were especially vicious—and stung America the worst.

It started in Egypt—and on the anniversary of 9/11 no less. An angry, armed group of about 2,000 Egyptians surrounded the American Embassy in Cairo, breached the compound, yanked down the American flag, ripped it and burned it, then raised a black flag bearing these words in Arabic: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.”

But that horrific affront was not the worst thing to happen that day. Six hundred miles away in Benghazi, Libya, a group of over a hundred heavily armed terrorists stormed the American consulate after nightfall. They fired rocket-propelled grenades and set it ablaze, attacked a nearby cia safehouse with guns and mortars, and killed a highly respected ambassador and three other Americans.

In Egypt and Libya. Just last year, President Obama threw his weight behind uprisings in these exact countries to help the people topple long-standing dictators Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Qadhafi. Washington brimmed with optimism for the future of these “liberated” peoples.

The back-to-back attacks—the first assaults on American diplomatic facilities in either country—shattered those illusory hopes. They highlighted the stark reality that “liberating” these nations had created a dangerous vacuum and unleashed some violent, unpredictable forces.

German newspaper Die Welt ran the headline: “U.S. President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins.”

“[N]ow parts of the freed societies are turning against the country that helped bring them into being,” the article said. “Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.” Indeed.

Amazingly, though, this isn’t the way the Obama administration viewed these events at all. It immediately and vociferously promoted a completely different reading of what had happened, and of the state of the Middle East and North Africa.

If the attacks themselves didn’t illustrate the failure of American policy vividly enough, the official interpretation made it far worse.

How Could This Happen?

“Today, many Americans are asking—indeed, I asked myself—how could this happen?” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the day after the murders in Libya. “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

It’s an excellent question—one that deserves to be answered honestly.

Strong clues lie in the events that led up to the previous Libyan government’s fall. For seven months, a U.S.-led bombing campaign smashed Qadhafi’s forces. This bombardment raining down from above allowed the Islamists on the ground to go on the offensive. They rounded up Qadhafi loyalists, including many civilians, and conducted mass beatings and killings. The United States turned a blind eye to these atrocities. Then, Libya’s rebel forces got hold of Colonel Qadhafi. They proceeded to sodomize him and parade his beaten and bloodied body through the streets of Sirte en route to his public execution. The dictator’s lynching was recorded and distributed worldwide via YouTube.

But instead of pausing to reassess its strategic alliance with these so-called liberators of Libya, the United States just laughed off the grisly killing. “We came, we saw, he died,” Secretary Clinton joked during an interview with cbs. In other words, why should Libya’s “freedom” march be hindered by a messy war crimes investigation? The tyrant may have been brutally beaten, sexually assaulted and shot dead—but Libya was now on the road to full democracy! President Obama said Qadhafi’s death marked the end of a long and painful chapter in Libya. He said the people in the “new and democratic Libya” now had a chance to determine their own destiny.

This is what the leaders of the United States of America were saying about the new Libya in October 2011.

But what was the Trumpet saying? That same month, in the October 2011 cover story, editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote this: “Now America and the West have paved the way for another Iranian victory in Libya. We are rejoicing about the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi, while we should be mourning. Libyan chaos is now the ideal setting for Iran to bring that nation into its deadly terrorist web.The government that replaces Qadhafi will be a thousand times worse” (emphasis added throughout).

The signs were there. Really, is what happened on 9/11 such a shock? How couldn’t this happen?

Essentially the same story played out in Egypt. When public protests broke out against the rule of Mubarak—America’s longtime ally—the Obama administration took their side. Mubarak responded to the pressure with a warning: “You don’t understand the Egyptian culture and what would happen if I step down now.” He feared that the Muslim Brotherhood, a popular Islamist organization he had suppressed for decades, would take over. President Obama ignored the warning. His administration celebrated Mubarak’s fall as a victory for freedom and democracy, a model of a “peaceful” transition away from dictatorship. He even took some of the credit, praising America’s instrumental support for the opposition. “I think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt that we were on the right side of history,” he boasted.

Once again, the Trumpet had a far different view. “For three decades, [Mubarak] just about single-handedly held Egypt’s forces of religious extremism and anti-Israelism in check. Now … those forces have driven him from office,” we wrote in our April 2011 cover story. “Time will soon show: Egypt, the Middle East, and the world are far more perilous for it.” Six months later, in that same October 2011 story, Mr. Flurry wrote, “The end result is going to be that we exchanged Mubarak and ‘the only successful Middle East peace treaty’ [the one between Egypt and Israel] for the Muslim Brotherhood—allied with Iran. … It shows that Egypt is already allying itself with Iran in its bloody terrorist war. This has the potential to cause the Middle East to explode and drag all the Earth’s inhabitants into World War iii!”

Sure enough, soon after Mubarak was gone, the Brotherhood rose, and grisly signs of its radicalism emerged. Now Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel is effectively dead; the most powerful Arab country in the Middle East is rapidly forging a fresh alliance with Iran. And the mobs on the streets are flying an Islamist flag at the American embassy.

How could this happen? Well, again—how couldn’t it?

However, to an American administration intoxicated with the notion that Muslim radicals can be won over with politeness, this came out of nowhere.

Protecting Their Story

This long-cherished idea that the White House’s outreach to Muslims is brilliant foreign policy is extraordinarily resilient. Not even the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks were able to kill it.

If anything, those attacks prompted the Obama administration to defend its strategy even more aggressively. The fact that the president’s reelection was at risk surely increased the stakes.

Consider the horrific facts about Benghazi that emerged in the weeks after the attack. Among them: that the consulate had warned the State Department a month before 9/11 that it would not be able to defend against a “coordinated attack” due to “limited manpower”; that Ambassador Chris Stevens knew he was on an al Qaeda hit list, and his murder was a premeditated strike; that the Americans under fire requested military help at least three times, and were—for unknown reasons—thrice denied; that Americans were killed only after hours of being under siege without receiving help; that American officials in Tripoli, the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House were watching everything as it happened thanks to a live video feed from unmanned drones over the city.

Stunning. The reality that this was a well-planned, well-executed and lethal terrorist attack on American soil was known virtually right away.

Nevertheless, administration officials—apparently intent on preserving the myth of the success of their outreach to the Muslim world—immediately began promoting a bizarre and altogether false version of events.

The president, the secretary of state and the UN ambassador sprang into action and lashed out … at a YouTube video. An Egyptian Salafist television station, in order to incite anti-American violence on the anniversary of 9/11, had screened a low-budget, poorly made mockery of the Islamic prophet Mohammed that was made by a Coptic Christian from Egypt living in California and apparently assisted by people from Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt. This video served as the flimsy pretext for some of the anti-America rioting. But the mob in Cairo—led by Mohammad Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda’s leader—had been coordinated by Salafist militants weeks in advance of the video being broadcast. And the terrorist strike in Benghazi had no connection to the video whatsoever. Nevertheless, the administration briskly diverted attention from what had really happened by fixating its attention on this YouTube clip.

American officials relentlessly attacked the video as a disgusting, reprehensible, abhorrent attack on Islam and on freedom of religion. They asked YouTube to censor it. They applauded the media for going after the video producer, who was subsequently tracked down and arrested. And then they did everything they could to downplay the seriousness of the attack. “We must be clear-eyed, even in our grief,” said Secretary Clinton. “This was an attack by a small and savage group—not the people or government of Libya.” Nothing to worry about, then.

White House press secretary Jay Carney also performed an acrobatic dance around the issue: “This is … in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people,” he explained. “It is in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” In other words, We’re on the same side as the protesters. We all agree: This video is reprehensible and disgusting. “[T]his is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy,” he assured us.

If these mobs did want to protest U.S. policy, the administration, the American people, or the United States writ large, what would they have to do? Islamist chants, flag burning, arson, murder—Washington doesn’t take any of these personally.

A reporter asked Mr. Carney if the attacks occurred because of “perceived American weakness” that stems from Obama’s leadership. He answered, “We’re very proud of the president’s record on foreign policy.”

Even as he said that, anti-American violence was erupting all over the world. In Tunisia, Islamist protesters scaled the wall of the U.S. Embassy compound, broke windows, started fires and raised the black flag of al Qaeda. In Sudan, a mob of 5,000 protesters marched right by Sudanese policemen and set the German Embassy on fire. In Yemen, the United States dispatched Marine reinforcements to fend off attacks. In London, 200 protesters burned American and Israeli flags outside the U.S. Embassy. In Sydney, Muslim protesters were waving signs that read, “Behead all those who insult the prophet.”

The Sunday after the 9/11 attack, Libyan President Mohamed Yousef told cbs’s Face the Nation that he had “no doubt” that what happened in Benghazi had been a preplanned terrorist strike. But that same hour, on abc’s This Week, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack was not premeditated; it was a “spontaneous” protest that was inspired by the violence in Cairo, which happened because of the video. The Benghazi “protest” was then “hijacked” by “clusters of extremists,” and the whole thing just sort of “evolved” from there, Rice said.

Quite an elaborate account. And entirely fictional.

In the days that followed, as more facts emerged, the administration’s story got more and more convoluted. And just as all this was blowing up, the presidential debates occurred. In the vice presidential debate on October 12, Joe Biden defended the White House’s account of the Benghazi attack (which for two weeks had been that it spontaneously sprang from—in the president’s own words before the United Nations—“outrage” over a “crude and disgusting video”). Biden said this explanation was “exactly” what the intelligence community had told them—when in reality, the State Department was calling it a coordinated terrorist attack almost immediately. Mr. Biden also claimed the government didn’t know the consulate in Libya wanted more security—even though evidence proved that the State Department had repeatedly received those requests and they had obviously been denied.

Whatever mistakes were made in Benghazi, this administration would not even acknowledge they existed, let alone take responsibility.

But it went even a step further. Even as its misdirection and cover-up were being exposed and refuted by emerging evidence—and even with countries throughout the Middle East in tumult—the White House made a gutsy move: It ramped up its “right side of history,” “proud of the president’s record” rhetoric.

We’re Doing Everything Right

In his debate, Mr. Biden praised the president for his tremendous progress on the Iran problem: Though they were on the rise when he took office, the Iranians are now more isolated than ever and far less powerful. Biden gushed about his achievements, “This is a guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again.”

The rest of the world is now following America again? That is an astonishing take on the state of global affairs.

In the presidential debate about foreign policy, Mr. Obama also paraded his accomplishments. “We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated. In addition, we’re now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security.” He even praised himself for his handling of Benghazi: “When we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way.” And despite the radicalism that has emerged in Egypt and Libya, the president reiterated his conviction that he was right to support the ousting of Mubarak, and correct in dethroning Qadhafi.

The families of the Americans killed in Benghazi have every right to take exception to his “everything we could” remark. And his statement about al Qaeda being decimated was awkward, considering that it was an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist mob that struck the consulate. But what the president said about Afghanistan warrants particular scrutiny.

Mr. Obama took credit for bringing the situation under control to the point where America can hand control back to Afghanis. But the facts undermine this claim. Ever since the so-called Obama surge—when in 2009 he shifted attention away from Iraq and sent an additional 33,000 troops to Afghanistan—there has been a dramatic rise in U.S. casualties. Of the more than 2,100 U.S. service members who have been killed in Afghanistan, about 70 percent have died on Mr. Obama’s watch. Of even greater concern is the alarming increase of “green on blue” attacks. This year there have been more than 30 attacks on coalition forces by their Afghan “partners.” The problem has gotten so bad that U.S. forces now carry weapons at all times—even while on base—to protect themselves from people who are supposed to be on their side.

Despite these many setbacks, however, the Obama administration actively peddled the “mission accomplished” theme on Afghanistan. During the vice presidential debate, Mr. Biden said America’s primary objective in Afghanistan is “almost completed.” Mr. Obama took it even further, repeatedly saying on the campaign trail that America has “blunted the Taliban’s momentum” and that al Qaeda is on the “path to defeat.”

But according to cbs reporter Lara Logan, the administration was misleading the American people with this “major lie” in order to justify the U.S. exit strategy. During a 60 Minutes episode on September 30, Logan interviewed Gen. John Allen, the commanding officer of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Taliban commander who had been trained by al Qaeda. All of them agreed: Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are now returning to Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is definitely “on the run,” as Mr. Obama repeatedly stated. But it isn’t running from American forces—it is instead rushing to fill the power void left by a superpower that has spent its strength in vain.

This is the real story. America is fading. After a decade of fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, most Americans want out. The nation’s leaders have responded by declaring victory so they can finalize an exit strategy.

Even Obama’s Republican opponent actively promoted the “mission accomplished” propaganda. “We’ve seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful, and the training program is proceeding at pace,” Mitt Romney said at the foreign-policy debate. There are now a large number of Afghan security forces—350,000—that are ready to step in to provide security, and we’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014.” He emphatically told America’s enemies that as president, he would stick to the 2014 timetable. Obviously in that debate, he was speaking to undecided voters, moving to the center to avoid coming across as radical. But how telling is it that this is what it takes to appeal to a war-weary American electorate in 2012?

Are you buying what these leaders are selling? The prevailing narrative is that America is doing everything essentially right. In Syria, Bashar Assad is sure to go eventually; we just need to keep doing what we’re doing. In Egypt, we were correct in ousting Hosni Mubarak; we’re better off with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge. In Libya, we did right in knocking off Qadhafi; Libya is progressing nicely. In Afghanistan, we’ve basically done our job; the locals can keep things under control now, so we can bring our boys back.

Apparently, a great many Americans believe it. They want so much to think that the greatest dangers facing the nation are now in the past.

But the cold, hard, stark reality is, it just isn’t true.

The Post-American World

Events are exploding in America’s face. The Middle East is transforming, and in spite of enormously costly American efforts, it is descending deeper into radicalism. On top of that, the rest of the world faces tremendous instability. Europe is in turmoil, seized with unrest that, history shows, could be commandeered by extremists of a different stripe. Asia is being redrawn as China rises and actively undermines American interests. Latin America is also decoupling from the U.S. and playing host to more extremist and violent elements. Frankly, the proliferation of factors that could lead to devastating conflicts can numb the mind.

But America’s top leaders—both Democrat and Republican, it seems—insist that things are under control. America has never been stronger and safer. We just need to stay the course. Make a few tweaks, but keep doing what we’re doing. These leaders, in their arrogance, think they write the script. In Afghanistan, they have decided in their own minds that America won. But the reality, Logan says, is that “After 11 years of war in Afghanistan, where we are surrendering—rushing for the exits as fast as we can—not only do we not dictate the terms, but we have less power to dictate anything on the world stage.”

In other words, it isn’t al Qaeda or any other terrorist group that is on the path to defeat. It’s the United States of America.

How is this possible? Isn’t the U.S. the world’s strongest nation? In the foreign-policy debate, Mr. Obama boasted, “We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.” But the painful truth is, that expenditure provides us with nothing. The U.S. “no longer has the … basic ability to impose its will anywhere on the planet,” Tom Engelhardt wrote on Real Clear World. “Quite the opposite, U.S. military power has been remarkably discredited globally by the most pitiful of forces” (October 10). Even a hundred or so terrorists can poke America in the eye with a sharp stick by destroying an American consulate and killing an ambassador—and face no consequences whatsoever.

The time of American superpower is past. We are in a multipolar world. Washington’s authority and influence is bleeding out in several directions, and is being absorbed by unpredictable, unstable powers.

Can Americans recognize this? Do they even care? Judging by presidential politics, it seems the stunning answer is no. As George Will said of Obama and Romney after their foreign-policy debate, “They understand, both of them, that foreign policy is very peripheral to Americans’ interests today, and what foreign policy they want needs a lot less American involvement overseas. Tonight we saw two men who don’t really disagree all that much talking about subjects concerning which the voters don’t care all that much.”

That is astonishing, given the state of the world. Americans are eager to pass responsibility for Iraq onto Iraqis, for Afghanistan onto Afghanis, for Israel onto Israelis, and for every other problem area onto “partners” in the international community. They like their presidential candidates to talk about exerting leadership in the world, but in the end, they pretty much would like the world to take care of itself. The nation’s role in the world is peripheral to their interests.

Well, the truth is that, more and more, America’s role in the world is peripheral to the world’s interests as well. America’s “ability to impose its will anywhere on the planet” is long gone. And when a political candidate says “the rest of the world follows us again,” the rest of the world chuckles—and then carries on with its business in post-American reality.

They are confident that the next administration will oversee the continuing contraction of American influence and power. America is becoming irrelevant. The U.S. is disengaging from the world, and the world is returning the favor.

But the story doesn’t end there. This massive geopolitical shift is going to have fearsome consequences. Probably within this next presidential term, the multipolar, post-American world will explode with shocks so earthshaking that no president will be able to paper over the facts. America’s pride in its power has been broken. And the powers that are rising to replace it are about to tear this world apart.

The Dollar Killer

The Fed’s latest announcement is a death knell for the greenback.
From the December 2012 Trumpet Print Edition

America’s economy is in deeper trouble than thought. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confirmed it. His official announcement on September 13 said America is on the mend, it is just experiencing a few headwinds from Europe. He then went on to unleash a quantitative easing program (qe3) so potentially massive in scope that it could dwarf qe1, qe2, Operation Twist, and all the money-printing schemes the Fed has carried out so far—combined!

If you really want to know what is going on in the economy, ignore what the Fed says—and watch what it does.

Another Bank Bailout

Bernanke announced that the Fed will spend a whopping $40 billion per month—$480 billion per year—purchasing mortgage-backed securities from the big Wall Street banks. He called it an effort to drive down mortgage rates and get more people buying and building houses, thus creating jobs.

If this is the best the Fed has to offer, America is in big trouble. Mortgage rates are already at historic lows, and people cannot afford to buy more houses. Pushing record-low rates a few fractions of a percent lower won’t do much. What is likelier is that the big banks will finally have an opportunity to unload all their garbage subprime-mortgage-backed securities at the expense of taxpayers. In other words, this is another bank bailout.

But if that part of the Federal Reserve’s announcement wasn’t shocking enough, what it said next should blow your socks off. The Fed said it was writing itself a blank check for how much it could spend until the labor market improved “substantially.” It gave itself no predefined limit on how much it could spend or for how long under this new qe3 program. It is completely open-ended.

The Fed also indicated that if this did not prove enough to stimulate the job market, it could unveil other policy weapons. For starters, it will keep the interest rate it charges banks to borrow money at zero percent until at least 2015.

Remember: This new qe3 program is in addition to the current $45 billion per month the Fed is using to purchase U.S. treasury bonds—and to keep the federal government paying its bills. In the past, the Federal Reserve has only lent money to the federal government short term, but now it is going to use this $45 billion per month to lend to the government “longer term.”

What This Does to the Dollar

For those not versed in the intricacies of Federal Reserve machinations, remember that the Fed has no money of its own. Any money it spends, it does via a printing press, or its electronic equivalent, which it uses to create dollars out of thin air.

But there is no free lunch. Economists always forget the other side of the equation. You don’t just create $40 billion, throw it at the banks, and get magical economic growth. Every time the Fed “creates” money out of thin air, it cheapens the value of all preexisting dollars.

So while dollar money supply totals may grow by $40 billion per month, and while America’s gross domestic product may increase, it is phony growth because the dollars are worth less. Yes, people are spending more, but they are getting less.

Printing money to buy things is “Zimbabwe policy.” What happened to Zimbabwe when it tried this? Eventually it cost Zimbabweans billions of dollars to buy a banana. This is where the quantitative-easing road leads.

It is happening already. Within just a few hours of Bernanke’s statement, the dollar lost over half a percent in value. The following day it lost more than half a percent again.

The Federal Reserve’s qe policy will drive the dollar “through the floor,” says Peter Schiff, ceo of Euro Pacific Capital. “This is a disastrous monetary policy; it’s kamikaze monetary policy,” Schiff told cnbc. “The dollar … is going to be in free fall at some point … ultimately there’s going to be a currency crisis.”

Schiff is absolutely right. When America’s central bank announces that it is going to create unlimited amounts of new money to fix the economy, you need to realize that America is in serious trouble.

The truth is that America is addicted to quantitative easing. It can no longer function without it. The federal government can’t cover its bills without money printing. The banking sector would collapse without money printing. The mortgage market would no longer function without various forms of quantitative easing. And now Bernanke says the job market may not recover without qe.

America needs to prepare for massive economic upheaval. America’s top banker has signaled that it is quantitative easing or sudden death for the economy. There is no choice. If the money printing stops, America stops. But that means the dollar is going to get killed.