Bending the World to Its Rules

Europe’s growing ability to dictate global regulations and business practices is worth watching.
From the April 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

A regulatory war has erupted between the European Union and the United States. Just ask executives at Microsoft. In mid-January, they were forced to set aside their whiskey sours and golf clubs and dig out their pinstriped suits and law books when EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes initiated a new antitrust investigation into the goliath of American companies.

Kroes’s January 14 announcement was salt on an already painful wound for Microsoft. Barely three months had passed since the American behemoth caved in and ended its opposition to a 2004 decision by the EU that exposed the inner workings of Microsoft’s operating system to European competitors, reduced its royalty collection, and ensured it would pay fines imposed by the EU.

On February 27, Microsoft’s accountants again had to put in extra hours when, for the third time in four years, the EU blasted the corporate giant with another record €899 million fine. All told, Microsoft now owes the European Commission us$2.6 billion—no small change.

Microsoft, however, is only one of several American companies at which the suits in Brussels have pointed their legal cannons. Qualcomm, Intel, MasterCard, Google and Apple have all found themselves subject to claims lodged by EU antitrust regulators.

When Microsoft waved the white flag before the EU last October, the Wall Street Journal said this showed that “Europe now writes the rules for global business across the board—unapologetically to the benefit of its own industry” (Oct. 31, 2007; emphasis mine throughout). Microsoft’s capitulation, and the American government’s impotence in persuading the Europeans to cut it some slack, sent a clear message to U.S. companies looking to conduct business on the Continent: Your only option is to obey.

There is an unnerving reality behind the EU’s efforts to become the global trendsetter in regulations and business practices.

Europe Writes the Rules

It appears the antitrust angle is just a single theater in a much broader war by Europe on American business. “The European Union’s strategy to take the regulatory helm is evident in issues such as climate change, chemicals regulation, genetically modified organisms and antitrust regulation, for which Europe has adopted legislation or enforcement regimes that are stricter than those of the United States—and that, through the ‘California effect,’ are forcing changes globally,” wrote analysts at Stratfor (January 17).

Stratfor’s use of the term “California effect” refers to the American phenomenon in which California, as one of the largest and wealthiest states, can virtually dictate national policy by setting its own state regulations and forcing nationwide corporations to either comply or lose that state’s business. In the same manner that major U.S. companies can’t afford to ignore California’s market, few multinational corporations can risk giving up their presence in the massive and highly lucrative European economy by rejecting EU rules and regulations. This explains why Microsoft caved to EU demands last October.

In June 2007, the European Parliament signed into law the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (reach) regulation. Ostensibly designed to protect the health of Europeans, it bans certain chemicals, severely restricts others, and requires strict testing, reporting and registration of all chemicals imported into Europe. This single law could revolutionize the global chemical industry. Any company wanting to sell chemicals to Europe will be forced to meet its guidelines. Reach will likely affect American chemical companies the most. They are the largest in the world, and now they are having to spend millions of dollars testing, reporting and registering their products to conform to EU standards.

Reach essentially gives European nations the power to dictate global policy in chemical manufacturing. In fact, its effects ripple beyond the chemical industry. For instance, all foreign cosmetic companies wanting to export to Europe must register the chemicals contained in their products. To be fair, this regulation will also apply to European companies. The only difference is, foreign companies have until June 1 this year to comply, while their counterparts on the Continent have at least three years before they are required to do so.

Reach gives the EU an unmatched ability to exert its influence far beyond its own borders and into the industries—hence the economies—of other countries.

Living by Its Own Rules

The EU’s modus operandi is virtually the same in relation to the highly politicized issue of climate change. On January 23, EU leaders in Brussels announced “a sweeping package of measures to combat climate change that sets a global standard and means major changes for how Europe gets its energy” (Time, January 23).

Problem is, the EU’s strategy for solving climate change is so extreme, some fear that European companies will be driven to relocate to countries with less-stringent environmental laws. How does the EU plan to prevent such an exodus? Instead of tempering the policy to make it more achievable, it plans to impose “carbon tariffs on imports from countries that fail to sign up to a global climate change deal, such as the U.S. and China” (ibid.).

Europe has every right to blaze the path toward addressing this illusory problem. But it is doing so by imposing its standards on the rest of the world and proposing to penalize any nation that doesn’t comply—even when European companies say that compliance is impossible!

Then there is the issue of genetically modified foods and crops. In November 2005, the World Trade Organization decided that some European states were breaking international trade rules by not allowing the import of gm crops and foods. The wto asked the European Commission to bring its member states into line with wto rules regarding gm crops and foods. After two years, that deadline expired January 11. The European Commission failed to enforce the widely accepted wto rules; instead it asked the wto for more time to work with the member states to help them bring national regulations in line with global trade laws. Two years wasn’t enough?

Note the trend: On antitrust issues, climate regulations and its new reach law, the EU is quite happy to impose new regulations—oftentimes at great cost—on America and the rest of the world. But when it comes to genetically modified foods, the EU lives by its own rules.

More to Come

You can be sure Europe’s regulatory imperialism will only grow more intense.

European stock markets were pummeled mid-January—many suffering their worst single-day drop since 9/11—as a result of growing fears that the American economy is on the precipice of a recession. “As if climate change and chemicals policy regulations … were not enough,” wrote Stratfor, “the subprime mortgage crisis’s impact in Europe has heightened Europe’s perception of the United States as a laggard. Bankers and regulators in Europe argue that lax U.S. regulation of mortgage-backed securities is responsible for the problems in Europe emanating from the subprime crisis …” (op. cit.).

As America’s economic recklessness ripples out to impact European economies, European leaders are brainstorming for ways to regulate, protect and even guide the global economy. Surely it won’t be long before we see the EU imposing new laws and regulations to protect its monetary interests and safeguard the global economy. After all, tumultuous times demand far-reaching solutions—and European leaders never miss an opportunity to extend their bureaucratic power.

After the EU victory over Microsoft last year, Mario Monti, the former EU competition commissioner responsible for Europe’s success, told an Italian newspaper that putting such U.S. giants in their place was “the true strength of a united Europe.”

That’s a telling statement.

Neelie Kroes, the current European commissioner for competition, celebrated the decision by musing about how low she’d like Microsoft shares to fall.

Americans ought to consider the spirit of these statements. This isn’t a series of independent, unrelated battles between Europe and certain specific companies or industries in America. This is not Europe versus Microsoft; Europe versus Google; Europe versus gm foods, or Europe versus American chemical companies.

This is Europe versus America!

Monti and Kroes are not backwoods political renegades; they made these statements while holding the post of EU competition commissioner—the person responsible for shaping the European business environment and managing the ability of foreign companies to participate in the European market. “EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes wields much more prestige and power than her counterpart in the United States,” wrote Stratfor. “The power given to the competition commissioner likely reflects the EU view that such regulatory powers offer political and strategic benefits …” (op. cit.).

Ultimately, this is the crux of the matter. By using its own economic largesse to set global regulations and define global business practices, the EU is steadily gaining the power to transform the global economy.

History offers a powerful lesson we would do well to remember as we watch this trend continue: The nation controlling the world economy possesses the political and strategic power to shape the world.

On the March

As other nations refuse to give the U.S. any more military support in Afghanistan, Germany steps up.
From the April 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

“You’ve come a long way, baby.” So goes the 1989 Virginia Slims jingle for the “women’s own” cigarette. The advertisement contained the usual warning about the contents of the cigarette package having the potential to cause death to the consumer.

The same phrase could apply to the rapid rise of the military power of the nation that instigated the most recent world war. But this package does not carry with it an explicit warning that its contents have the potential and proven history to pose death to countless millions. In fact, the world has been sold the message that its death-dealing potential is a thing of the past. This makes its return to favor ever so much more dangerous.

On January 16, Germany’s military force, the Bundeswehr, issued a statement indicating that 250 German troops will be deployed to Afghanistan with a specific combat role. Social Democratic Party chief defense spokesman Rainer Arnold “announced that the German army had begun making preparations for the deployment … adding that the mission, slated to start in July, signaled a ‘new quality’ in the German engagement in Afghanistan. Part of the new mission could include pursuing terrorists ….”

The size of this combat force may seem small. Yet that has been the history of the German military’s return to power: softly, softly—little by little—lest we awaken old memories of darker days.

In fact, the German security and defense services have come a long way from their initial, tentative revival 50 years ago, with the aid of their benevolent English-speaking victors, to their new international peacekeeping role. Indeed, it appears from recent statements by certain German officials that, as other nations withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, Germany is positioned to take on even greater responsibilities in that theater.

The Bundeswehr also reported, “With 350 Norwegian troops leaving Afghanistan by the middle of the year and Germany heading nato’s International Security and Assistance Force (isaf) in the country’s north, it is likely that the Bundeswehr will have to replace the Norwegians. ‘If other countries are no longer available to do this task after September, then we will do it ourselves,’ the head of the German Federal Armed Forces Association, Bernhard Gertz, told the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung. ‘It’s in the interest of our own soldiers.’ In a separate interview with the daily Der Tagesspiegel, Gertz added: ‘It is clear that we will take over this task’” (ibid.).

History of Revival

Germany’s revived willingness to send troops into combat follows decades of treading lightly following Nazi atrocities. It is interesting to track the return of Germany, after it was vanquished in 1945, to its rearming by stealth with the support of the Western Allies beginning with the creation of the Bundeswehr in 1956. That was barely 10 years after the Allies had declared that never again would Germany be permitted to rearm and pose a threat to world peace.

During the ensuing decades, the Bundeswehr became one of the most efficient and best-supplied conventional armies on the Continent. (We say conventional because, despite several attempts to acquire atomic weaponry, these requests were denied.) However, German military forces were limited in scope by post-war constitutional restrictions and the constraints imposed on them via integration into the nato alliance.

That all changed with German unification in 1990. reports, “Upon the end of negotiations for a peace treaty (the ‘2 + 4 treaty’) German troops moved forward to the western boundary of Poland (1990). The German military was still prohibited from the manufacture, possession or use of biological, chemical or atomic weapons, and the size of the Bundeswehr was limited (to a maximum of 345,000 persons). These restrictions did not, however, prevent military leaders from formulating far-reaching visions. With the issue of the ‘political guidelines for defense’ in 1992, the Bundeswehr left its earlier role as a ‘defensive force’ and laid claim to the role of the worldwide representative of a reunified, economically expanding Germany. According to the ‘guidelines,’ military means are a necessity in order to expand the ‘room for political action and the vigor with which German interests can be brought to bear internationally’” (emphasis mine throughout).

Under the new guidelines for the enhanced, post-unification role of the Bundeswehr, the whole pace and extent of German military activity picked up. As Germany’s eastern neighbors were progressively swallowed up by the European Union, Germany took the initiative to start training officers from those candidate countries, taking care to ensure that they depended on German military technology.

In the meantime, on Dec. 23, 1991, Germany unilaterally announced its recognition of the separatist states of Slovenia and Croatia when they declared independence from the Republic of Yugoslavia. Shortly after, the Vatican also announced its official recognition of the breakaway states. The result was the start of the Balkan wars—horrible, bloody, dirty little wars that exploded across the entire Balkan Peninsula, deliberately provoked by Germany’s very first diplomatic initiative since the unification of East and West Germany only a year earlier.

The Balkan wars of the 1990s made fashionable the term “ethnic cleansing” as competing enclaves sought to eliminate each other in distinctive turf battles. It was all very predictable to anyone who knew Balkan history. The term “ethnic cleansing” is an English rendition of a term coined by Croatians in their attempt to wipe out the Serbians and other minority groups within their nation.

Repeating of History

The movers and shakers in the German government knew their history and had read the outcome of their actions well. The prize would be the capture of the crossroads of Europe—the Balkans. This would allow the EU to move aggressively eastward, right up to Russia’s doorstep, with the nato alliance not only fighting the wars that Germany had triggered, but even footing the bill and handing the spoils to the German-dominated European Union!

The entire German initiative in the Balkans episode was created to destabilize the region—and then to invite nato forces to secure the peninsula—so the EU could then be handed the ongoing governance of the nation-states that once comprised Yugoslavia.

The plan worked—perfectly! Germany got what it wanted and more, as the Luftwaffe bombed military and civilian targets on the Balkan Peninsula under the nato umbrella.

The newly united Germany was blooded in battle.

Germany had broken the post-World War ii spell that had prevented it from entering active combat since its defeat by the Allies in 1945.

For his efforts, Germany’s military commander, Gen. Klaus Naumann, was elected in 1994 by nato’s chiefs of defense to the senior nato post of chairman of the North Atlantic Military Committee. He assumed the appointment on Feb. 14, 1996—after the 1995 Dayton Accords that were to settle the wars instigated in the Balkans by German diplomatic action four years earlier. Through his military leadership and careful planning, Naumann had thrust the German military back to the forefront of combat—in the process of supporting an illegal war, a war having no UN mandate, prosecuted by Germany’s old enemies, the United States and Britain, at Germany’s behest, and at substantial cost to Deutschland’s old enemies.

Nuclear Capability?

A few years ago, Naumann sketched out his vision thus: “This huge long-term task of stabilizing the entire region from North Africa through the Levant, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Indian Ocean is tomorrow’s challenge for Europeans and North Americans alike. Both have no alternative but to take it on shoulder to shoulder. This task should mark both nato’s new vision and nato’s new frontier” (World Security Network, Aug. 13, 2003).

But the most startling public declaration to date to be made by any member, or retired member—as Naumann now is—of Germany’s modern armed forces was made by Klaus Naumann in the context of the latest nato manifesto to which he was a prime contributor and signatory.

According to the Guardian newspaper, “Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country’s performance in Afghanistan. ‘The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner.’ By insisting on ‘special rules’ for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to ‘the dissolution of nato’” (January 22). Though these words would have been cold comfort for Germany’s Chancellor Merkel—who was already at odds with her vice chancellor and foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, on numerous aspects of German foreign policy—surely they stirred the blood of the German High Command!

But that’s not all. The manifesto recommends that nato initiate a nuclear first-strike policy—and, unsurprisingly, Naumann supports it. “Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it,” he said, adding that nato needed to show “there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option” (ibid.).

“The nuclear first strike must be in the ‘quiver’ of every escalation strategy,” Naumann wrote in the study, titled “Toward a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World,” which discusses nato’s war preparedness. According to German Foreign Policy, the report “has been making the rounds in the EU since January” (February 25).

“The military study demands a totalization of the arsenals needed for first-strike capability. This is the only way for the usa, nato and the EU to secure their ‘escalation dominance.’ The nuclear first strike is literally referred to as ‘indispensable’” (ibid.).

Think on that. Germany’s top military strategist endorses a nuclear first-strike initiative for nato!

That ought to be big news!

But it hasn’t been.

Overshadowed by the Middle East, the Iraq war, the global economic meltdown, celebrity shenanigans and the U.S. presidential election, who wants to focus on this seemingly innocuous “peace-oriented” European Union and its all-too-willing lapdog, nato?

Who, really, would want to turn the spotlight on a peaceful, “democratized,” modern, united Germany and begin to analyze the military motives of its most senior armed forces spokesman?

But the Naumann strategy goes further. “As the military authors emphasize, it is only possible to escalate a war up to the nuclear level, if the population is in favor. ‘Debates’ on the home front that hamper the military effectiveness cannot be tolerated. ‘Operations’ for the purpose of maintaining defense preparedness could become indispensable, threaten the authors, implying media control. The objective is to use a ‘first-strike media strategy’ to take over the headlines” (ibid.).

Given the history of the last time such a recommendation was made by Germanic voices, the next statement is quite chilling. “The study proposes that a political directorate, comprised of the usa, nato and the EU, should control the entire social system. Several European capitals are examining the concept of what amounts to a military dictatorship for its feasibility” (ibid.).

That statement should scare all sensible Anglo-Saxons out of their wits!

Herbert W. Armstrong, well over half a century ago, not only prophesied Germany’s return to military dominance in Europe, but also predicted that the Anglo-Saxons would encourage this to the point of handing over weapons of their own manufacture—including nuclear weapons—to Germany’s control, only to find them ultimately turned back on themselves!

Beyond Europe

As in the past, the new German general staff has lost no time in working to develop a highly efficient military machine that, in the words of, “now controls an intervention force with continually modernized high-tech weaponry and special units (ksk). It is subject to secrecy. The wars in Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Afghanistan (including the engagement of the German navy off the coast of Africa in 2002) were test runs for the inner state of the Bundeswehr under conditions of battle. The German forces have risen to the point of rivaling the leading armies of Europe.”

Outside of Europe, the German military hierarchy is concentrating on deployment in Eurasia (using Afghanistan as a stepping stone), the Mediterranean and, increasingly, the continent of Africa. Each of these regions is crucial to the continuing development of Germany’s imperialist goals under the umbrella of the European Union. Securing access to oil, natural gas and raw materials nearby the European continent is the prime motive.

Out of the Germano-Vatican-instigated Balkan wars, there has developed a whole new philosophy to justify aggression of one nation against another. One of the most insightful observers of the rise of Germany to dominance within the European Union, British author John Laughland, recognized that in May 1999, “nato had attacked Yugoslavia on the basis that national sovereignty was no longer the basis of the international system, and that instead there existed a ‘right of humanitarian intervention’—a right for other states to bomb a country if they believe that human rights abuses are being committed there …. National sovereignty is explicitly cast aside. Many people are tricked into believing that this is a good thing because they believe that states should be prevented from committing abuses. This is true, of course, but the problem is that international organizations can commit abuses too, as nato unquestionably did in 1999. States are at least potentially subject to control by the populations over which they wield power; international organizations are never subject to any such control. Their power is therefore more, not less dangerous than that of nation states” (ibid., Feb. 18, 2007).

The European Union, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty, is destined to have its own representative high commissioner, its own Ministry of Foreign Policy. It is destined to have its own diplomatic corps that will supersede the authority of the diplomats of its once-sovereign member nations. It is now slated to have its own security council, comprised of the seven member nations with the most powerful military forces, and ultimately to have its own EU combined military force, superseding, in authority of command, the individual general staff of each EU member nation’s previously sovereign military command.

And guess which nation is in the box seat to take on the leadership of the existing over 2-million-strong combined force that the EU potentially has at its disposal, under its High Command especially resurrected for that purpose.

Yes, the German military has come a long way since its crushing defeat in 1945 and the elimination of its High Command “forever.”

Prophetic Vision

But it was all so predictable. In 1945, even before the Allied victory over the Nazi regime, one lone voice was declaring that there were powers within Germany that had already planned for the resurgence of the German nation and military might in consequence of a defeat in World War ii. In a letter to his co-workers, dated Jan. 23, 1945, Herbert W. Armstrong had this to say: “But even though the Germans surrender, and we gain another armistice, it will be only another recess! The Nazis will go immediately underground—plotting and preparing World War iii. We shall fail to bring about world peace, because we do not know the way to world peace!

“More and more people all over this nation are beginning to see the stark, solemn, awful fate that is prophesied for this nation! It is a fate we can avoid—if, and only if—we repent of our sins—of our Baby _lonish customs and our ways contrary to God’s revealed laws, and turn unitedly to Almighty God for mercy, for protection, for help, for victory, and for peace!”

Does that sound strange to you?

Well, that’s what they thought of the One through whom those prophecies were originally delivered, and all who have since followed on preaching that message over the past two millennia. Yet the words of those prophecies about our nations are as ringingly true today as they were when they were originally received and declared. The only difference is that today we have irrefutable proof through major world events and the increasingly deteriorating conditions of our society as to their present-day reality!

Write for our booklet titled Nahum—An End-Time Prophecy for Germany, and learn more about this powerful nation and the role it is destined to play with increasingly high profile in the current decade and just beyond.

The Failure of African Democracy

From the April 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

Kenya’s struggles to implement a functional democracy are nothing new on the African continent.

In Nigeria, national elections in April 2007 were plagued by fraud. It was hoped that elections in 1991, the first in 16 years, would introduce a new democratic era. That optimistic idea suffered a bad bruising in last year’s elections. Human Rights Watch observers reported widespread problems including intimidation of voters, vote-rigging and -buying, and bloodshed. European Union observers said the election process “cannot be considered to have been credible.”

While the election for leadership of South Africa’s African National Congress in December ousted a man who failed to deliver on his promises to his people, it brought to power a man with questionable character who faces criminal charges. And though some may laud this leadership change as democratic progress, South Africa itself is more or less a one-party state, with the anc elites quickly running the country into the ground.

The ruling party in Zimbabwe, which has been in power for 28 years, also had a congress in December, in which Robert Mugabe’s candidacy for this year’s presidential election was endorsed, making an utter mockery of democracy. The Zimbabwe Independent reported, “Mugabe secured his endorsement after distributing cars and farming equipment to traditional chiefs and party members and used war veterans through their leader Jabulani Sibanda last month to organize the so-called million-man march to garner support for him” (Dec. 21, 2007).

In theory, democracy should protect against such political strong-arming. In Africa, though, democracy—or the trappings of it—generally only protects the flow of foreign aid into government coffers. And it also spins nice new invisible robes of legitimacy for the continent’s emperors.

The picture that Aidan Hartley portrays of political campaigning in Kenya is depressing in its continuing repetition elsewhere across Africa. “In the election campaign rallies I attended there were no debates about policies, despite the huge health, education, security and poverty problems. The Big Men arrived in helicopters hired at £1,000 an hour to address voters in slums and forest clearings …. Praise singers kowtowed to the Big Men, who dozed, talked on their mobile phones and then waddled back to their helicopters, which blew dust into the faces of the poor on take-off” (Spectator, January 9).

Examples of free and fair elections facilitating the peaceful transition of authority from one leader to the next—the basic promise of a functional democracy—are simply dwarfed by examples of this fragile process being thwarted by various forms of corruption. Many are the ways in which those hungry for power—particularly those determined to retain power—can vigorously manipulate and exploit this system in their own self-interest.

Little wonder, then, that a brief stint of democracy in Kenya did not bring the freedom people wanted. That is why, in Nigeria, just 35 percent of the people support democracy. It is also why, out of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa—although all but five had at least one multi-party election in the decade leading up to 2004—not one could inarguably be considered a successful, functioning democracy.

The most common form of governmental change among these nations, in fact, has been the coup. Only one—Côte d’Ivoire—has been free of a coup attempt. In the post-colonial generation between 1957 to 1990, Blaine Harden reported in Africa: Dispatches From a Fragile Continent, “Not one African head of state, even in nations that tolerate a measure of democracy, has permitted voters to end his reign. … Excepting four civilian presidents who chose to retire and a handful who were lucky enough to die in office of noncoup causes, all the others have been assassinated, jailed or exiled.”

Democracy is simply a concept that no African nation has been able to effectively embrace. In essence, post-colonialism has failed in Africa.

America’s Greatest Foreign-Policy Blunder?

Was the decision to invade Iraq America’s greatest foreign-policy blunder? Or was it just the consequence of an even greater error of judgment?
From the April 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

“Iraq was the single worst strategic mistake in American history.” So says former American Vice President Al Gore.

Victor Davis Hanson points out several similar statements by high-profile U.S. leaders. “Senate majority leader Harry Reid agrees that the war he voted to authorize is ‘the worst foreign-policy mistake in U.S. history,’ and indeed is already ‘lost.’ Many of our historically minded politicians and commanders have weighed in with similar superlatives. Retired General William Odom calls Iraq ‘the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.’ Senator Chuck Hagel (who voted for the war) is somewhat more cautious; he terms Iraq ‘the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam …’” (Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2007/08).

Well—is Iraq the single worst mistake in American history, or are these opinions the result of a failure to grasp just where the Iraq war fits within the context of the total, albeit brief, history of the greatest single nation on Earth?

We put forward the case that the Iraq war and its unfortunate outcome are but the effect of a greater cause. We posit that the apparent cause of this war and of much of what then led to the present difficulties in the Middle East was in fact a foreign-policy blunder by the United States made in the mid-20th century. The eventual outcome of that error will render insignificant the war instigated by the U.S. on Jan. 16, 1991, whose effects continue to ripple on at massive expense to the American nation 17 years later.

In fact, we propose that the continuing conflicts in the Middle East result from the fulfillment of an ancient biblical prophecy.

A Turning Point

Cast your mind back to 1956. At that juncture, Britain was still struggling to put its economy back together following the ravages of two world wars fought within 21 years of each other at massive cost in both lives and treasure. In 1947, India, the “jewel in Britain’s crown,” became independent from the British Commonwealth and Empire. In 1948, the 11-month siege of Berlin by the Soviet Union had the world’s attention riveted on the escalating tension between the Western allies and the ussr. In 1950, Asia became the focus, as the Korean War ravaged the Korean peninsula for the ensuing three years. In 1954, the seeds of an even worse war in Vietnam were sown as France’s Asian colonies collapsed into disorder in Indochina and the U.S. began aiding the South against North Vietnam. In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was signed by the Soviet Union and other socialist states, beginning a 35-year standoff with the nato alliance. In 1955, the Alabama bus boycott triggered great social disruption between black and white in America.

At this point, the U.S. was well and truly engaged—its military strength shoring up the West in Europe, training the South Vietnamese Army in Asia, and still deployed in strength in Japan and the Philippines, and its National Guard beginning to be rolled out to contain racial disruption at home.

Then on July 26, 1956, Gamul Abdul Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. This is the vital choke point through which much of Middle Eastern oil transits to the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Israel, Britain and France invaded Egypt in response. The ussr threatened to intervene on the side of the Egyptians. President Eisenhower threatened a nuclear retaliation if it did. But Eisenhower was an anti-imperialist, intent on seeing Britain, the last of the great colonial powers, divest itself of its empire. Instead of backing his British, French and Israeli allies, Eisenhower forced a cease-fire upon them, thereby yielding up control of the world’s most vital sea gate to a declared enemy of the West.

Ever since, the Middle East has been a theater of escalating conflict, embroiling the U.S. in continuing aggressive and often misguided diplomacy to this very day.

One has to wonder, if America had backed its allies at that crucial moment in history when Suez was up for grabs, would the U.S. and Britain be involved in Iraq, let alone in Afghanistan, and worrying about the intentions of Iran and Syria today? Would Israel have had to fight a war in 1967 and again in 1973 in order to survive as a nation? Would the U.S. have reneged on its commitment as an ally of the shah of Persia and let him be deposed, thus sowing the seeds for the rise of a nuclear-powered Iran set to control the Middle East in the not-too-distant future, to the great peril of Israel and the West? Would we have ever heard of the Palestinian Liberation Army, Hamas, Fatah, al Qaeda and all their clones? Would we even have a need for a Middle Eastern peace process?

But the fact is, it was not to be.

Almost 4,000 years ago, Almighty God prophesied that the British would possess the major sea gates of the world. Then, well over 3,000 years ago, He prophesied the subsequent loss of those sea gates due to the failure of the recipients of His blessings to acknowledge their source and submit to the law that would have guaranteed their continuance. These pivotal biblical prophecies are explained in The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

Both of those prophecies have been fulfilled.

Beginning with its victories in the great sea battles against the Spanish and French in the 17th and 18th centuries, Great Britain went on to rule the waves in the 19th and early 20th centuries by virtue of its possession of every major sea gate on the planet. By the end of the 20th century, apart from Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, Britain had lost control of those vital sea gates.

Yet the greatest strategic loss, not only to Britain, but to the rest of the free world, was the loss of the Suez Canal. With that loss came the loss of any prospect of peace in the Middle East.

“Shrill Captives of the Present”

Either ignorant or forgetful of that history, not even aware of the inevitable impact those powerful prophecies have had on world events of today, we remain fixated on the daily news from Baghdad, unable to really figure why we are there, how we got there, and what the true outcome will be. As Hanson opines, “[W]e seem to think our generation is unique in experiencing the heartbreak of an error-plagued war. We forget that victory in every war goes to the side that commits fewer mistakes—and learns more from them in less time—not to the side that makes no mistakes. A perfect military in a flawless war never existed—though after Grenada and the air war over the Balkans we apparently thought otherwise. Rather than sink into unending recrimination over Iraq, we should reflect about comparable blunders in America’s past wars …. Without such historical knowledge we are condemned to remain shrill captives of the present” (ibid.).

Thus it was that America gave away its greatest sea gate, the Panama Canal, almost half a century after its failure to help secure Suez. The U.S., and indeed the whole world, will live to regret those two great foreign-policy tragedies. The failure to learn from the Suez blunder led to the Panama debacle. The loss of that sovereign American territory is bound to have consequences similar to those of Suez in the near future.

So it is that we continue making the same old mistakes, condemning our enemies on the one hand, appeasing them on the other. Our past foreign-policy errors led to a compounding of those errors in the present, in turn leading to inevitable failure in the future.

Will we ever learn the way to peace?

The plain answer, according to biblical prophecy, is a resounding YES! As usual, we shall have to do it the hard way. Yet in the end it will be worth the ordeal. But first we shall have to endure the heartbreak of seeing our free nations descend into unspeakable conditions at the hands of the tyrant. It’s going to be a hard history we write through this decade and into the next. Yet, it will end with an unbelievably positive outcome.

To come to grips with the history of the past, to really appreciate what is occurring on the volatile world scene today, and to fully grasp the potential the future holds, request your own free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy. That book will open your mind, allowing you the opportunity to change from being a mere “captive of the present” to one who has real confidence in the marvelous future that lies ahead of the present global world disorder. It points to a vision of real hope that will take your breath away!


From the April 2008 Trumpet Print Edition


Kosovo declared independence on February 17. Countries around the world, such as the UK, U.S., France and Germany, recognized Kosovo’s independence. By doing this, they defied Russia’s wishes. Russia promised to stand by Serbia. It backed up this stance by applying intense pressure on two of the most vital buffer states at its borders, Ukraine and Georgia. Both have aspired to join nato; Ukraine has sought EU membership. By using political threats against Georgia, and playing the energy card against Ukraine through which Russian gas transits to the EU, Moscow signaled that it will play hard ball in the face of any EU takeover in Kosovo. The stage is set for a confrontation between East and West (see article, page 32).

Europe also provoked the Islamic world in February. Geert Wilders, chairman of the recently formed Netherlands’ Freedom Party, called the Koran “an inspiration for murder” and said that if the prophet Mohammed were alive today, he would have him “tarred and feathered as an extremist and deported if he were in Holland.” Then Danish newspapers republished one of the cartoons that sparked Muslim outrage in 2005, in order “to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend,” as one newspaper wrote. Muslim rioters took to the streets; many Islam countries expressed hostility over the move.

In late January, Societe Generale, France’s second-largest bank, reported what may be the banking fraud of the century. Allegedly a rogue bank employee illegally wiped out multiple billions’ worth of bank money. The bank blamed the $7.1 billion hit on a 31-year-old trader who supposedly acted alone to speculate in the future’s markets. If nobody really noticed the massive fraud for over a year, maybe other banks have unnoticed problems too. As such, the scam carries shadowy implications for the global banking industry.

The European Union continues to demonstrate its endemic corruption and undemocratic nature. In February, members of the European Parliament from the Budgetary Control Committee voted to keep secret a report on abuse of EU funding. The report uncovered deputies misusing their staff allowances. However, as mep Chris Davies said, it wasn’t just “the scale of the abuse that is taking place” that was troublesome, but also “the fact that it has been kept secret.”

In late January, several meps attempted to use procedural requests to slow down debate in the Parliament to protest the lack of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in most EU nations. Europe’s solution: The parliamentary president was simply given illegal powers to silence the protesters.

In February, news broke of a massive tax-evasion scam in Germany—one of the largest ever in the nation’s history—involving numerous German-controlled foundations set up in Liechtenstein as tax-evasion shelters.

Yet more turmoil in Germany’s government surfaced after two of the three parties in the ruling “grand coalition” lost ground in key state elections. In one state, this resulted in one of the parties considering an alliance with an opposition party, much to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chagrin. Watch for the Merkel coalition to continue to weaken—and, simultaneously, the right wing in German politics to surge in popularity.

The pope has again demonstrated just how much political power he can wield. By influencing a well-placed Catholic politician, the Vatican brought down the government of Italian President Romano Prodi on January 24. Now it appears that the path has been cleared for a bill promoting stricter laws on abortion, a bill opposed by the Prodi administration. The Vatican’s influence is also being felt in Spain, where Catholic leaders fought hard against the socialist government in the run-up to the March 9 elections. This is about more than merely promoting a Christian agenda in Europe. The Vatican remembers the political power it wielded before the Reformation, and now it wants it back.


Since U.S. President George Bush’s visit to Israel in January to revive the peace process, trouble in the region has only escalated. The day after he left, Palestinians in Gaza launched a barrage of rockets at Israeli targets—more than 150 in four days.

Then, on January 23, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians—and terrorists and weapons—streamed across the Egypt/Gaza border unhindered after Hamas destroyed two thirds of the border wall—a demolition for which Hamas had been preparing for months. Within two weeks, Palestinian terrorists carried out a suicide attack in southern Israel, leaving one woman dead and slightly injuring 11 other people. Hamas has used the Gaza border crisis to try to force a new arrangement for control of the border and establish itself as a player in such an agreement. Egypt has hosted Hamas representatives for discussions on the issue several times. Israel’s attempts at isolating Hamas are simply not working.

As Israel’s troubles mount, it is becoming increasingly open to a greater European role in the region. “Developing a strong relationship with Europe is becoming the third pillar [in addition to the idf and the U.S.] safeguarding Israel’s survival,” said a senior Israeli diplomatic official in February. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin in mid-February to discuss the rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s trust in foreigners has not worked before, and it is prophesied to be the country’s undoing in the future.

Also bad news for Israel, the emerging relationship between Iran and Egypt continues to progress. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak held talks with Iran’s parliament speaker on January 30, the first such high-level meeting in almost 30 years. Mubarak is probably feeling the pressure of Egypt’s Islamists. After the Gaza border breach, the Muslim Brotherhood staged about 80 anti-government demonstrations. Islamic fundamentalism is rapidly growing more popular in Egypt as it is embraced by the youth. Conditions in Egypt are building toward a radical change in the nation’s politics.

President Pervez Musharraf’s allies suffered defeat in Pakistan’s parliamentary elections on February 18. Musharraf has now become a lame-duck president and could be forced from power. If Pakistani society continues to fragment, and there is a period of weak civilian government, Islamic extremists will inevitably grow stronger. You can be sure Iran would look to exploit such a situation. Already, Tehran is making inroads into Pakistan economically. On February 9, Iranian Consul General Saeed Kharazi called for stronger bilateral links with Pakistan, calling the nation Iran’s top foreign-policy priority.

Iran launched a research rocket and inaugurated its first major space center on February 4 and hopes to conduct its first satellite launch later this year. The kinds of technologies needed to launch a satellite are the same as what are needed to launch a long-range ballistic missile—with or without a nuclear payload.

Further evidence has emerged of Iranian interference in Afghanistan, with 60 Iranian-made mines being discovered in a Taliban compound in western Afghanistan in late January. Tehran is manipulating both sides of the Afghan conflict in order to keep the U.S. bogged down and to enhance its own influence in the country. The strategy is working: An independent assessment by nato’s former commander says nato’s forces in Afghanistan are in a “strategic stalemate” as the Taliban’s control grows.

The West’s efforts in Iraq are also being complicated: On February 21, Turkish troops launched a ground incursion to root out Kurdistan Workers’ Party (pkk) guerrillas hiding in northern Iraq. The U.S. finds itself in a difficult position: It can’t back the Kurds for fear of alienating the Turks, who have been among its few friends in the Middle East. Yet it must be cautious in backing the Turks for fear of further escalating Iraqi tensions.

During a January tour of Persian Gulf states, French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed a deal with the United Arab Emirates president to open a permanent military base in his country in 2009. Then France held a 10-day joint military exercise with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the first such war games ever. With Gulf nations seeking to contain Iran, we can expect them to look increasingly to Europe. Bible prophecy indicates a split between Muslim nations in the end time—those that will ally with Europe, and those that will ally with Iran.

On February 12, Imad Mughinyah, a Hezbollah leader who planned attacks that killed hundreds, was killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria. Blaming Israel, Hezbollah threatened the Jewish state with “open war” in response.


The Kremlin is becoming increasingly concerned over the EU’s eastward expansion. The Union has gobbled up most of Eastern Europe’s former Soviet states, fragmented the regional dominance that Russian ally Serbia one had in the Balkans, and is now working to isolate Serbia and eastern Ukraine from EU influence.

After Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, the Kremlin sent two representatives to Serbia, including First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev said Moscow would recognize Serbia as a single state with jurisdiction stretching over its entire territory. Medvedev also met with the prime minister of the Serb-dominated Srpska region of Bosnia-Herzegovina to work out a natural gas deal—a move that portends more tension with the EU (see article, page 32).

The EU and nato seek to expand into Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on February 12 that Russia would aim nuclear warheads at Ukraine if it joined nato. Russia truly poses a threat to the EU—a threat the EU must address if it ever hopes to annex Ukraine. Russia and Europe will likely negotiate a deal that temporarily shelves their differences and allows each to go about the business of increasing its own power.

Despite strained relations with Europe, Moscow still has friends in Asia. February 8, Putin hailed China as a “strategic partner” that would reach “new horizons” of cooperation with Russia in the future. China and India are standing with Russia against Europe and America by opposing Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia.

Former Soviet states Belarus and Kazakhstan entered a customs union with Russia on January 25; five days later, Belarus inked a foreign-policy plan of action with Russia. This plan lays a basis for Russo-Belarusian cooperation and prevents attempts by Western nations to isolate Belarus. China, India, Belarus, and the former Soviet states of Asia are all starting to work together as a counterweight to European imperialism.

Japan is now forming a growing friendship with Russia’s ally China. On February 27, Japan’s defense force chief of staff met with China’s defense minister to discuss military cooperation between the two countries. Japan reiterated its support of keeping Taiwan as part of one China.

Many of the American troops stationed in Japan were originally put there as a quick reaction force against any Chinese move to dominate Taiwan. This alliance is jeopardized by Japan aligning itself with China on the Taiwan issue. Soon Japan will have to choose between America and China—and we expect it to take the latter option.

Latin America

The moment the U.S. awaited for 50 years finally arrived: On February 19, Cuban despot Fidel Castro announced his resignation. Ever since Castro brought the world to the brink of war by allowing the ussr to install nuclear missiles in his island nation, he has been the poster boy for anti-Americanism. He has also inspired a host of imitators in Latin America, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. The Cuban National Assembly gave the reins of power to Fidel’s 76-year-old brother Raul, guaranteeing no substantial change in the direction of the country for the present.

At the end of January, Hugo Chavez encouraged fellow Latin American governments to pull billions of dollars in reserves from U.S. banks. He and other leaders have formed a new Latin American bank, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, as an alternative. On February 21, he announced that China will loan Venezuela $4 billion—all of which will be repaid in refined fuel. This deal follows close on the heels of President Chavez’s February 10 threats to cut off oil to the U.S. if Exxon Mobil wins a court judgment to seize billions of dollars in assets from the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela. Chavez is still in no position to carry out this threat—he is reliant on U.S. oil dollars—but the more foreign deals he can establish, the more his bluster becomes a legitimate concern for the U.S., which receives 12 percent of its oil from Venezuela.


Members of the Movement for Democratic Change staged demonstrations in Zimbabwe on January 23 to test the effect of new laws guaranteeing political freedoms—and were promptly tear-gassed; dozens were arrested. “This was a severe test for Robert Mugabe,” said Tendai Biti, secretary general of the mdc, “and he has failed.”

On February 12, Mugabe expelled former Finance Minister Simba Makoni from the ruling zanu-pf party, as Makoni declared he was running against Mugabe for president. Clashes between the two factions could heap more violence on this starving country.

South Africa’s power problems blacked out the country’s gold, platinum, coal and diamond production from January 25 to 29. Production resumed at a rationed 90 percent, but the country as a whole continues to suffer from the blackouts. Insufficient government planning means the blackouts will continue for at least five years, according to the Economist.

On February 2, rebel forces seized the capital in Chad. Within two days, government forces defeated the rebels. The government has accused the Sudanese government of supporting the rebels and has threatened retaliation. The EU began deploying 3,700 troops to Chad on February 12. The role that French forces, separate from EU troops (eufor), played in defending the capital means that the Chadian rebels no longer see any EU troops as neutral. As a result, eufor now faces more hostile conditions than originally planned.

Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika visited Vladimir Putin in February. In the midst of heightened cooperation, Russia has agreed to build railroads in Algeria, to start extracting oil in Algeria by 2011, and to increase the number of flights between the capitals. As the race for African resources grows between Europe, the U.S. and China, Russia is strengthening its presence in Africa too.

Violence in Kenya continued through February 28, when ex-UN head Kofi Annan brokered a power-sharing agreement between President Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga. In the two months it took them to reach common ground, 1,500 people died and 600,000 were displaced from their homes (see article, page 22).


In February, the British government produced a shocking 138-page report pressuring schools to promote a pro-homosexual agenda, branding those opposed to that agenda as “homophobic bullies.” The report forbids schools to reinforce traditional gender roles, and instructs them to encourage homosexual role models and to positively portray same-sex “parents” in discussions about family.

Meanwhile, many British students have forgotten the reality of their greatest prime minister. A February poll found that one in five British teens believe Winston Churchill was a myth, while more than half believed King Arthur, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes were real.

British families are facing a rising tax burden. Due to rising mortgage costs, stagnating earnings and excessive debt, the average annual income for British families has dropped $2,500, while the government faces a mushrooming budget deficit and is sinking further into debt as recession looms. The Telegraph reports that 10 million Britons may default on repayments for mortgages, credit cards or personal loans by the end of the year.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in mid-February that implementation of elements of Islamic sharia law was “unavoidable” if social cohesion was to be fostered in Britain. Coming under heavy fire for the remarks, Williams stood by them.

In the United States, the Pentagon declared success when a U.S. Navy operation scored a direct hit on a deteriorating reconnaissance satellite February 20. Although Washington insisted the operation was necessary to prevent debris and dangerous hydrazine fuel from hitting the Earth’s surface, Beijing complained loudly that it was a satellite-destroying show of force that raises tensions between the two countries.

Early February found National Intelligence Director John Michael McConnell admitting to the Senate that Iran “would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon” by the end of 2009. “If I had ’til now to think about it, I probably would change a few things,” McConnell admitted, referring to the department’s assessment that Iran had halted its nuclear program in 2003.

A federal appeals court rejected Massachusetts parents seeking to prevent their elementary school-aged children from being exposed to discussion of homosexual “families” in the classroom. The dispute involved a 5-year-old boy bringing home a book titled Who’s in a Family? that portrayed households being led by homosexuals. In 2006, a U.S. district judge declared that public schools are under an obligation to teach young children about homosexuality. The appeals court upheld the opinion.

Meanwhile, economic woes continue. The world’s largest automaker, General Motors, announced in February that it planned to offer voluntary buyouts to its 74,000 union workers after posting its biggest annual loss ever—$38.7 billion in 2007.

In Australia, the new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is wasting no time jerking the nation’s helm hard left. At the opening of a session of Parliament, Rudd welcomed Aborigines to the floor who danced and sang tribal songs based on pagan tribal rites attached to snake worship and other traditions. Rudd followed the spectacle with an apology on Australia’s behalf to the mythical “stolen generations” of Aboriginals. One problem with the apology is that there is simply no evidence that any Australian government ever had a policy to “steal” children on the basis of them being Aboriginal.

Here’s to the Heroes

Here’s to the Heroes

Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Remember the true heritage of today’s English-speaking peoples.
From the May 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

Winston Churchill famously stated, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” Few these days are encouraged to study the ancient history of the British and their colonial sons and learn of their unbreakable link to biblical heritage. That heritage links the fighting forces of these peoples today 3,000 years back to, believe it or not, King David of ancient Israel!

Benjamin Disraeli, twice prime minister during the British Empire’s time of greatness (the years 1868 and 1874-1880) observed, “The most popular poet in England is the Sweet Singer of Israel. Since the days of the heritage, there never was a race who sang so often the odes of David as the people of Great Britain. It was the ‘sword of the Lord and of Gideon’ that won the boasted liberties of England; and the Scots upon their hillsides achieved their religious freedom chanting the same canticles that cheered the heart of Judah amid their glens” (Tancred).

Heritage—that’s what once made Britain great! That’s what moved these peoples to carve great nations out of the continental extension of North America, of southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand. It was a heritage acknowledged by Victoria, Queen of the British Empire at its peak. It was known to the Anzacs of old, who joined the fight to free the world from the tyrant in World War i.

One of Australia’s great sons, Anzac soldier Ion Idriess, was inspired by the biblical setting of the desert war of 1914-18. Of Davidic Welsh stock, Idriess enlisted as a trooper in the Australian Imperial Force. He was attached to the 5th Light Horse Regiment. Wounded twice, once at Gallipoli and again at Gaza, Idriess witnessed the famous Anzac mounted infantry charge at Beersheba that led to the taking of Jerusalem by British Imperial forces. Amid the heat and sand, the fire and the blood of desert warfare, his writings made between marches and skirmishes reflected the deep emotion of a soldier conscious of Palestine’s link between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. At Rafah, en route to Gaza, he pondered, “Britain has brought along the 20th century into a land that was ancient when Christ was a child” (The Desert Column). Conscious of the seemingly overwhelming combined superiority in arms of the Turks, Austrians and Germans that awaited in the Sinai desert, Idriess mused, “The story of David and Goliath is not repeated in modern warfare when it is a handful against many men and many machines.” He was later to eat those words as he witnessed the Australian Light Horse charge the cannon, bullets and cold steel of the enemy, by whom they were vastly outnumbered, and capture the ancient city of water wells, Beersheba, opening the way for victory over the Turks at Jerusalem.

Of the great warrior psalmist, we read in a few words in the biblical book of Samuel a summation: “David the son of Jesse … the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Samuel 23:1). “The man”! That term in this verse is translated from the Hebrew Ha-Gever, meaning mighty, he-man, HERO!

Recently, while attending a performance of the Australian group the Ten Tenors, I was inspired to think on the power that the true heroes of the English-speaking nations have demonstrated in securing the freedoms that those nations presently enjoy. While listening to the Ten Tenors’ rousing rendition of lyricist Don Black’s “Here’s to the Heroes,” my mind filled with the images of the clash of steel, the fire of cannon, the pounding of hooves and the shouts of men in the bloody heat of battle as portrayed by Idriess at Gallipoli and on the desert sands of Sinai. As those 10 young Australians sang out lustily the words, “Here’s to the heroes who change our lives. // Thanks to the heroes, freedom survives,” in my mind’s eye I saw the frenzied gallop of the Australian Light Horse, vastly outnumbered by the entrenched enemy, swoop down in the face of ravaging fire to take ancient Beersheba of Abrahamaic tradition. I visualized General Allenby dismounting in respect to the ancient heritage of the Holy City, marching through the Jaffa Gate to secure the City of Peace under British martial law.

Australia was founded on the blood and sweat of its pioneers, and gained maturity as a nation in the face of fire and steel in the desert of the Middle East and in the mud of the Western Front in World War i. Its military record is foremost a history of gallantry, of self-sacrifice in the best traditions of the human spirit that, in the words of the Savior of mankind, bespeaks this reality: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). That’s the true Anzac spirit.

Do today’s Australians still reflect that spirit? Where are the true heroes today who are willing to fight for the preservation of the heritage of King David, the psalmist hero?

You need to prove the link that binds the English-speaking nations profoundly to their biblical past, to a singular heritage, alone, upon which true greatness can be built. You need to study our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy (request a free copy). This eye-opening book will enable you to view current events in a far different and more spectacular—even hope-filled—light than you ever have before! It’s the only book you will read that gives the plain, unadulterated revelation of the true heritage of the English-speaking peoples!