British Prime Minister Misleads the Nation on Debt

British Prime Minister Misleads the Nation on Debt


British Prime Minister David Cameron misled the nation by claiming his government is paying off Britain’s debt, in a three-minute party election broadcast shown on itv on January 23.

“So though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress,” he said. “We’re paying down Britain’s debts.”

This simply isn’t true.

According to the government’s forecasts, Britain’s national debt is set to rise from £770 billion (us$1.25 trillion) in 2010, shortly before this government took office, to £1.36 trillion when Parliament stands down for elections in 2015.

That’s an increase of roughly £600 billion. Or £10,000 (us$16,000) for every man, woman and child. This is not paying down the debts in any way.

“What Cameron said is not an exaggeration,” wrote the Spectator’s editor, Fraser Nelson. “It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office.”

Here’s the video:

The discussion about debt in the broadcast wasn’t just a picky point. A large chunk of time was spent asking people how much they thought the deficit had shrunk. They all talked about changes of just a few percentages, before it was revealed that the deficit had been cut by 25 percent.

It sounds impressive. It’s deliberately deceptive.

When the government says it’s cutting the deficit, most think it’s reducing the debt the country owes. That’s not true. Debt is the total amount of money the government owes. Deficit is the amount of money the government borrows each year. It is the rate at which the debt grows. (For a more detailed explanation, see “Britain’s Fiscal Cliff.”)

By boasting that the government is cutting the deficit by 25 percent, those politicians are just saying that the debt isn’t growing quiet as fast as it used to be.

Exploding debt is one of the biggest problems Britain and America face. Yet our leaders refuse to be honest about it. For more on this vital subject, see Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry’s recent video “We Don’t Have a Spending Problem.”

America Thrusts Wives and Moms Into Combat

America Thrusts Wives and Moms Into Combat


It’s official: Women are no longer ‘barred’ from the front lines.

Why are liberals so confounded eager to throw women into deadly warfare?

America’s military lifted its ban on women serving in combat positions this week. The move could open more than 230,000 jobs in front-line combat and elite commando units to women.

Thus, the feminist dream to see women viciously tortured and killed alongside men advances.

This is a policy change years in the works. Operating under the no-women-in-combat ban, the military has been expanding the number of “non-combat” positions for some time. That designation has served essentially one purpose: to open up more jobs to women. The line separating combat from non-combat is arbitrary and in flux: The harder the lobbying to expand opportunities for women became, the narrower the definition of “combat” got.

Now, the charade is dropped. And why? Are hoards of women soldiers demanding that combat positions be opened to them? No.

The truth is that for years, while “non-combat” jobs opened to women that were obviously more combat-related, the number of positions available far exceeded the number of women applying for and accepting them. Women don’t want those jobs. Though there exists an exceptional minority, women who enlist are generally more likely to think negatively about the harsh demands of military duty. They tend to view it as a short-term choice, a stepping stone to a better life as a civilian with a family. For example, whereas getting married tends to make a man more stable, solidifying his careerist goals in the service, it has the opposite effect on a woman. Attrition rates are consistently many times higher among women than men. And Army surveys show that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women strongly oppose policies aimed at thrusting women into combat.

So who pushed for this policy change? It was basically an aggressive minority of lobbyists and high-placed feminist civilian leaders, along with a few hard-core careerist military women. These politically correct ideologues are driven to prove that women can do anything men can do—no matter the costs to the military, to America’s security, or to the women themselves.

These costs are exceedingly well documented—and consistently ignored, shouted down or buried. The average woman is almost 5 inches shorter, with nearly 40 fewer pounds of muscle and 6 more pounds of fat, than the average man. She has less than half of his upper-body strength, 20 percent less aerobic capacity, and lighter, brittler bones. She cannot run or jump as far; last as long; grip as well; push, pull, lift or carry as much.

The military has dealt with this by implementing separate conditioning standards for women, by lowering standards generally or eliminating some altogether. Britain’s military is watching America thrusting women into combat and saying it wants no part of it: Officers warn that lowering physical standards is ample proof that female infantry is a bad idea.

Though civilian leaders love to speak of the “new warfare” being a tidy, push-button, technology-driven business, reality has never matched that fiction. War is brutal, physical, demanding and deadly. Politicians can easily overlook that fact in the midst of relative peace. But their eagerness to plunge women into the nightmare of warfare is, in fact, disregard for women masquerading as support for women.

Some female soldiers recognize this—too late—and are not impressed. As one of them said, “Those feminists back home who say we have a right to fight are not out here sitting in the heat, carrying an m16 and a gas mask, spending 16 hours on the road every day and sleeping in fear you’re gonna get gassed.”

Women face greater danger than men in most combat situations. Physical limitations make them likelier to be injured, captured or killed. This reality also endangers the men who are forced to fight alongside them. (Elaine Donnelly says bluntly, “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a 5’2”, 110-pound woman.”) And when women are captured, experience has shown that they are treated far worse—unimaginably worse—than male prisoners of war. Though feminists lobby hard against rape generally, they “bravely” insist that, since women are duty-bound to serve as combat soldiers, rape in war cannot be stopped. Jessica Lynch, a poster child for women in combat, was allegedly beaten, raped and sodomized in captivity.

Shame on those decision-makers who would purposefully subject women to such abuse—only to serve their own twisted ideology!

Consider soberly: The military agency that trains pilots in survival, evasion, resistance and escape as prisoners of war actually includes a component to desensitize male soldiers to the screams of their women cohorts.

Of course, these same men are then expected to treat women soldiers with utmost respect and dignity, in keeping with all of the sensitivity training they have had forced upon them.

In the “brutish,” non-politically correct world of yesteryear, the strong were obligated to serve the weak. A traditional-thinking male seeks to protect a woman. An honorable man shields a female from danger and hurt. This attitude, to the feminist, is contemptible. And on a gender-integrated theater of combat, it introduces a host of complications. A leader is expected to view that woman not as a woman, but simply as a soldier—a grunt whom he must be able to send into harm’s way. In the up-is-down moral climate of today’s military, his reluctance to pitch her into the lion’s den is considered backward!

America’s leaders are trying to convince us that we cannot win our wars without our wives and mothers on the front lines. They see that as a sign of the nation’s progressiveness.

At the same time, when we see Islamic extremists sending women out as suicide bombers, we rightly view that as a sign of their barbarity, and their moral and spiritual depravity.

This is a terrible experiment. The Bible prophesies—in places like Leviticus 26:14-21—that it’s going to fail cataclysmically.

EU Publishes Plan to Regulate Press

EU Publishes Plan to Regulate Press


The European Union wants to be able to regulate the press and even fire errant journalists, according to a report by the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, published January 22. The report is designed to be a guideline to be used in drafting new regulations.

The report says that all nations should set up “independent media councils.” The report states: “Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status.” These councils “should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values.”

The High Level Group was set up by European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes last year.

There’s no doubt that the press needs improving. But that regulation must come from a moral public discerning what they choose to buy and read. The idea of the EU regulating what can and can’t be said is scary. As Conservative MP Douglas Carswell said: “This is the sort of mindset that I would expect to find in Iran, not the West. This kooky idea tells us little about the future of press regulation. It does suggest that the European project is ultimately incompatible with the notion of a free society.”

Freedom of speech is not a European value. Authorities are constantly trying to pump their propaganda into schools. Now they want to pump it into the papers too.

Future unrest sparked by mass unemployment in Europe will give EU officials further temptation to regulate what newspapers say.

Europe is on its way to becoming an undemocratic superstate. Restricting the press is an important part of this trend. For more information on this, see our article “Democracy and the Palace of Europe.”

Daniel 11:40 About to Be Fulfilled

Inaugural Address: Decade of War Ending?

President Barack Obama took the oath of office for his second term on Monday. Standing before nearly 700,000 people, he placed his hand on two Bibles and pledged to guide America through an “uncertain” future.

President Obama: “We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully—not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

President Obama: “A decade of war is now ending.”

Despite what President Obama said, America’s war on terrorism remains far from victory. Radical Islam has spread farther than before the war on terrorism began. Iraq, Afghanistan and much of the Middle East bow to Iran—not democracy. America now retreats from war. Its foreign policy consists of nothing more than treaties and alliances. Yet history proves that war is never won by negotiation.

The Bible prophesied of the disappearance of America’s “man of war.” As President Obama calls more troops home, watch the countries we leave behind fall into the hands of our enemies.

To learn more, read “Why We Cannot Win the War Against Terrorism” by Gerald Flurry.

Cameron Pledges ‘In-Out’ Referendum on EU

British Prime Minister David Cameron offered Britons the vote to leave the European Union. The vote hinges on his party winning the next election, expected in 2015. Cameron spoke in central London on Wednesday, saying Britons should have a say in their EU status.

Cameron said, “[W]e will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Cameron was trying to change the rules of the game mid match. He warned that a British withdrawal from the EU spelled danger for both the bloc and Britain. The possibility of a referendum is expected to further rattle business leaders and frustrate EU member states trying to stem the eurozone debt crisis.

Fabius told British businessmen recently that if Britain wants to leave Europe, France would, quote, “roll out the red carpet for you.”

Herbert W. Armstrong prophesied for decades of a German-led United States of Europe comprised of 10 nations or groups of nations. He also forecast Britain’s exit from this union.

In 1956, Mr. Armstrong said, “The stage is all set! All that’s lacking now is the strong leader—the coming führer! The Germans are coming back from the destruction of World War II in breathtaking manner. Germany is the economic and military heart of Europe. Probably Germany will lead and dominate the coming United States of Europe. But Britain will be no part of it!”