LINK TO 2016

LINK TO 2015

LINK TO 2014

LINK TO 2013

LINK TO 2012

LINK TO 2011

LINK TO 2010

LINK TO 2009


Home Page
Home Page

That prophecy is a part of God's revelation to man; that it is included in that Scripture which is profitable for instruction (2 Tim. 3:16); that it is designed for us and our children (Deut. 29:29); that so far from being enshrouded in impenetrable mystery, it is that which especially constitutes the word of God as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. (Ps. 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19); that a blessing is pronounced upon those who study it (Rev. 1:1-3); and that, consequently, it is to be understood by the people of God sufficiently to show them their position in the world's history and the special duties required at their hands. (1914 Yearbook, p. 293)



"A Message Whose Time Has Come"

Windows Media

Windows Media 54kbps

Windows Media 11kbps





(Cf. DISTRESS OF NATIONS WITH PERPLEXITY - A Sign of the last remnant of time)

Keeping an eye on the European Union:

European Union

CONTINUING COVERAGE OF THE GEOLOGICAL AND CLIMATOLOGICAL SIGNS WHICH MULTIPLY - “the sea and the waves roaring” Luke 21:25; “Calamities, earthquakes, floods, disasters by land and by sea, will increase. . . ." - (R&H, December 11, 1900):

Natural disasters and extreme weather

Global Disaster Watch

The Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System




A Major Path For Rome Among Many Converging through Jerusalem to Global Domination By Satan in Person - the Ultimate Antichrist


(The Roman Catholic Social Doctrine - Ascendancy of the Roman Catholic dogma in the body politic of the United States.)

The insight of A. T. Jones that needs to be kept in mind as Roman Catholic legislation proliferates throughout America - "The papacy is very impatient of any restraining bonds"  more . . .

Ellen G. White: "When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result." (GC 445.1)

"When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end is near." (5T 451.)

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

We do not go deep enough in our search for truth. Every soul who believes present truth will be brought where he will be required to give a reason of the hope that is in him. The people of God will be called upon to stand before kings, princes, rulers, and great men of the earth, and they must know that they do know what is truth. (Review and Herald, February 18, 1890; TM 119)

Spirit of Prophecy Policy on Family Planning  (For full context cf. Adventists and Birth Control; Adventists and Birth Control (Concluded)

A quotation to be kept in mind and applied to current events:

"What the Jesuit Order is for the left wing of the Roman Catholic Church, Opus Dei is for its right wing. (Hegelian politics at its finest, for the Roman Catholic Church cannot lose if it has strong ties with both ends of the political spectrum!)" (From Opus Dei in the USA)


Certain of the popular positions mentioned approvingly in some hyperlinked reports, essays, and blogs on this web page will of necessity cause reactions of strong disagreement, or at the very least discomfort, on the part of many readers. Regrettably, these positions cannot be separated from the core issues in the reports which prove the fulfillment of major end-times prophecies, and may of themselves be fulfillment of the prophecy of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

LINK TO 2016





In His prophecies of the end times Jesus repeatedly warned His followers to "Watch." As we watch, it is evident that the unfolding scenes are complex - so complex that eyes may glaze over from trying to understand them; but we cannot afford to fall asleep on watch. As we "wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12,) it is particularly evident that Rev. 16:13-14 is being fulfilled. By deception Satan would gather all of humanity into the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty on his side if it were possible. His power to deceive is very great; but the power of the Spirit of Almighty God is greater yet. It is He Who will give us an understanding that is impregnable against Satan's deceptions. We can understand the unfolding of the end-time prophecies with prayer and perseverance in time to be protected against the final overwhelming deception, which is closely connected to the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45. We have seen in the meteoric rise of Donald Trump to the US presidency how swiftly events that are stranger than fiction can overrun the nation and the world. To the majority of inhabitants of the earth what is predicted in prophecy might also seem stranger than fiction; but it will come to pass.

Everywhere that Trump turns his attention, the results are disruption of the norms that have prevailed in the nation and the world, and an intensified danger of conflict where the threat has always existed. While North Korea is one area of danger, there is another in the Middle East, and this is also the area where the final dramatic events of earth's history are to take place. Trump has been stirring up trouble between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with war threatened. It can be stated with
confidence that this would not fit the prophecies of Dan. 11:40-44. However, it does stir up conflict in this volatile area which is involved in these prophecies. What is very clear is that the Trump administration is engaged in dangerous meddling in Palestine, the geographical area which is central to the final great prophecy signaling the imminent close of probation for all humanity (Dan. 12:1.) Here we are confronted by a very complicated situation which is difficult to read:-


From [D]@gmail.com:

Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israeli Capital in U.S. Shift

U.S. isn’t taking position on ‘final status’ for city, he says

World leaders balk at U.S. plan, which includes moving embassy

President Donald Trump on Wednesday recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announced he would begin moving the U.S. embassy there, despite warnings from leaders across the globe that the move would undermine peace efforts and spark violence.

“It is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” the president said in a statement from the Diplomatic Room at the White House. “This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do.”

Vice President Mike Pence stood behind Trump as he spoke, and Pence will travel to the region later in the month. . .

Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is provocative because the eastern sector of the city -- home to some of the holiest ancient sites in Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- is also claimed by Palestinians as the capital of a future state.

Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, reversing longtime U.S. policy

President Donald Trump on Wednesday reversed decades of U.S. policy and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imperiling Middle East peace efforts and upsetting the Arab world and Western allies alike.

Trump announced his administration would begin a process of moving the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step expected to take years and one that his predecessors opted not to take to avoid inflaming tensions.

The status of Jerusalem - home to sites holy to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions - is one of the biggest obstacles to reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump’s announcement as a “historic landmark,” but other close Western allies of Washington such as Britain and France were critical.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the United States abdicated its role as a mediator in peace efforts, and Palestinian secular and Islamist factions called for a general strike and rallies on Thursday to protest.

The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, believing its status should be resolved in negotiations. No other country has its embassy in Jerusalem.

Trump’s decision fulfills a campaign promise and will please Republican conservatives and evangelicals who make up a sizeable portion of his domestic support. . .

Trump’s decision risks further inflaming a region already grappling with conflict in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. . .

The United States is asking Israel to temper its response to Trump’s announcement because Washington expects a backlash and is weighing the potential threat to U.S. facilities and people, according to a State Department document seen by Reuters.

Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal and indivisible capital and wants all embassies based there. Palestinians want the capital of an independent state of theirs to be in the city’s eastern sector, which Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed in a move never recognized internationally.

Netanyahu said any peace deal with Palestinians must include Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That would be a non-starter for Palestinians in any negotiations if it meant the entire city would be under Israeli control. . .


The arrogance and folly of Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is evidenced by the universal condemnation it has provoked throughout the world:-

The UN Security Council, which raises issues of legality as well as the incitement to conflict:

14 Security Council member criticize US action on Jerusalem

One by one, 14 members of the U.N. Security Council spoke out against President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at an emergency meeting on Friday, some with regret and some with anger at the 15th member, the United States.

It wasn’t the first time that the U.S. stood alone in defending its close ally, Israel, in the U.N.’s most powerful body. Over decades, it has vetoed many council resolutions it viewed as harmful to Israel.

But this was a rare rebuke for an action the United States took that in the eyes of the rest of the council and most of the world clearly violates U.N. resolutions and decisions that Jerusalem is an issue to be resolved by Israel and the Palestinians in peace negotiations on a two-state solution. . .

The European Union [not surprisingly, given its fundamental identification with the Vatican]:

Jerusalem latest: All 28 EU foreign ministers warned Trump administration not to move US embassy

All 28 EU foreign ministers warned Donald Trump’s chief diplomat against moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in a face-to-face meeting the day before the president made the announcement, the European Commission has said.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday in Brussels Federica Mogherini, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, said Mr. Trump’s announcement had “the potential to send us backwards to even darker times than the ones we are already living in”.

“I discussed this with Secretary Tillerson during his visit to Brussels on Tuesday. I’ve made clear our disagreement with this decision as did all the foreign ministers of the 28 member states of the European Union that met him with me the same day,” she said. . .

Ms Mogherini urged “all relevant actors” in the Israel-Palestine conflict to “avoid to further escalate tensions on the ground”

“The worst thing that could happen now is an escalation of tensions around the holy places because what happens in Jerusalem matters to the whole region and the entire world,” she added.

The issue of the embassy’s location is a fragile one in the Middle East conflict. Israel unilaterally claims Jerusalem as its capital, despite it being partly located in Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel.

World leaders across the globe [with emphasis on Middle East regional leaders]:

World leaders respond to US embassy move to Jerusalem [TRTWORLD is a Turkish news channel]

Here is how leaders and senior officials from the region and around the world reacted to the move.

Palestinian Authority's president

"President Abbas spoke after his call with President Trump with the presidents of Russia and France, with the Pope and with King Abdullah of Jordan. He told them such a move was rejected and he urged them to intervene to prevent it from happening," the Palestinian president's spokesman said.

Hamas' chief

"The American administration's recognition of occupied Jerusalem as the occupation's capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem crosses every red line" said Hamas chief Ismail Haniya in a letter to world leaders. . .

UN's secretary-general

"We have always regarded Jerusalem as a final status issue that must be resolved through direct negotiations between the two parties based on relevant Security Council resolutions," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, adding that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has “consistently warned against any unilateral action that would have the potential to undermine the two-state solution."

Turkey's president

"Mr. Trump, Jerusalem is the red line of Muslims," Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said. Ankara has threatened to cut diplomatic ties with Israel if Trump recognises Jerusalem.

Iran's supreme leader

"That they claim they want to announce Quds as the capital of occupied Palestine is because of their incompetence and failure," Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Khamenei said, using the Arabic name for Jerusalem.

Pope Francis

The Catholic pontiff said "recognising the rights of all people" in the Holy Land is a primary condition for dialogue. . .

Jordan's king, foreign minister

The Jordanian monarch King Abdullah, whose dynasty is the custodian of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, told Trump that moving the embassy there would have "dangerous repercussions" for the region and would obstruct US efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. . .

Saudi Arabia's king

King Salman stressed to Trump that any US announcement on the status of Jerusalem "will hurt peace talks and increase tension in the region” and said it would "inflame Muslim feelings all over the world,” the Saudi Press Agency said.

Morocco's king

Morocco's King Mohammed VI warned US President Donald Trump against moving the American embassy to the contested holy city of Jerusalem.

In an open letter to the American president, the Moroccan king expressed his "deep personal concern" and "the great concern felt by Arab and Muslim states and peoples" over moves to recognise the city as Israel's capital and transfer the US embassy there. . .

The king urged Trump to avoid anything that could "exacerbate feelings of frustration and disappointment, which are the basis of extremism and terrorism."

Egypt's president

Egypt's Abdel Fattah el Sisi cautioned Trump against "taking measures that would undermine the chances of peace" and complicate matters in the Middle East, a presidential statement released in Cairo said.

Russia's president

Russia's Vladimir Putin told Palestinian President Abbas in a phone call that Russia supports resumption of talks between Israel and Palestinian authorities, including on the status of Jerusalem, the Kremlin said.

France's president

French President Emmanuel Macron earlier said he reminded Trump in a phone call that the fate of Jerusalem should be determined in negotiations on setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Germany's foreign minister

"Recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not calm a conflict, rather it fuels it even more," Germany's foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel said, adding such a move "would be a very dangerous development."

China's foreign ministry

"We are concerned about the possible escalation of tensions," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said.

"All relevant parties should bear regional peace and tranquility in mind, be cautious in words and deeds, avoid impacting the foundation for the settlement of the issue of Palestine, and avoid causing new confrontation in the region." (Cf. World reacts to Trump's Jerusalem decision.)


The reaction of the Pope and the Vatican to the Trump Administration action on Jerusalem is negative, and this was to be expected:

Pope Francis challenged Trump on his Jerusalem decision at the Vatican and on Instagram

Pope Francis called on President Donald Trump to respect the "status quo" and not move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

He also doubled down on his message in an Instagram post, in which he called Jerusalem a sacred city to "Jews, Christians and Muslims."

The Vatican backs a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with both sides agreeing on the status of Jerusalem as part of the peace process.

The Pope also said Trump's move could inflame the Muslim world.

Pope Francis, speaking hours before U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement on Jerusalem, called on Wednesday for the city's "status quo" to be respected, saying new tension in the Middle East would further inflame world conflicts.

The pope delivered a similar message in an Instagram post following his statements, in which he the sacredness of the city to all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and said "it has a special vocation for peace." . . .

More on the Pope's reaction to the Trump Administration's Jerusalem action:

Update: Pope concerned by U.S. move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Following reports that U.S. President Donald Trump planned to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Pope Francis expressed his concern that such a move would further destabilize the Middle East.

Pope Francis said he could not "keep silent about my deep concern" for Jerusalem and urged respect for "the status quo of the city in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations." . . .

According to Vatican Radio, the pope received a telephone call from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Dec. 5 regarding Trump's plan to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

The conversation was "part of a series of contacts made by the president of the Palestinian National Authority after his conversation with Donald Trump during which -- according to Abbas' spokesman -- the U.S. president announced his intention to move the American embassy," Greg Burke, Vatican spokesman, told Vatican Radio.

The Vatican supports a "two-state solution" for the Holy Land with independence, recognition and secure borders for both Israel and Palestine.

At the same time, the Vatican consistently has called for a special status for Jerusalem, particularly its Old City, in order to protect and guarantee access to the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. . .

There is continuing reaction by the Pope which underscores the concern of the papacy about Trump's action on Jerusalem:

From [D]@gmail.com:

Pope to meet Jordan’s King Abdullah amid Jerusalem tensions

Francis and Jordanian monarch set to discuss aftermath of US recognition of Israel's capital

Pope Francis will meet Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the Vatican next week, the Holy See announced Friday, as Palestinians continued to clash with Israeli forces over US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The pope and King Abdullah, who is the custodian of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem’s Old City, are likely to discuss the ongoing tensions, though the Vatican never indicates topics of discussion for such meetings in advance. . .

On Sunday, the pope called for “respect of the status quo” in Jerusalem and warned against “a new spiral of violence.”

Abdullah has denounced the Jerusalem announcement as “a violation of international rights.”

Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, which includes the Old City, from 1948 until 1967, when it was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Jordan’s status as the custodian of the holy sites was reaffirmed by the country’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel.

Jerusalem, which contains sites considered sacred by Jews, Christians and Muslims, is of huge importance to both Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and his plans to move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, has sparked anger in the Arab and Muslim world and let to protests in countries throughout the region.

The move has been welcomed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli politicians on both left and right.

It is interesting to note that Trump's action has united Israeli politicians at both ends of the political spectrum; but that is the way of politics. It would probably be folly for the left to adopt a position in opposition to what must be a popular move in Israel.

The Pope's upcoming meeting with King Abdullah is an indication of the Vatican's strong reaction against an obstacle placed in the way of a longstanding objective of the Church of Rome.

Donald Trump may not be aware of it (his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, declared in an interview on Sunday, December 10, that "Jerusalem is now off the table,") but his decision to recognize the City as the capital of Israel was not only likely to stir up a hornet's nest of unrest in the Middle East, but is also a direct challenge to the longstanding policy of Rome on Jerusalem; a policy which has aligned perfectly with the prophecy of Dan. 11:45:


Vatican voices concern over Trump's Jerusalem move

Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s Dec. 6 notice that he will be moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the Holy See has expressed its concern for recent violent outbreaks and urged leaders to promote peace and security.

A Vatican communique Dec. 10 pointed to concerns for peace and security in Jerusalem and reiterated its belief that “only a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians can bring a stable and lasting peace,” as well as “guarantee the peaceful co-existence of two states within internationally recognized borders.”

The brief statement was published just days after the news broke that President Trump would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a widely controversial decision that has provoked a mixed reaction from the international community. The Vatican said it is watching the development of the situation closely, especially in Jerusalem, which is a “Sacred city for Christians, Jews and Muslims from all over the world.”

The statement also reiterated the Holy See’s position on the importance of maintaining the status quo in Jerusalem, as per the repeated requests of the international community, and the hierarchies of the Catholic and Christian communities of the Holy Land. . .

The Vatican has long supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and on a diplomatic level recognizes and refers to both “the State of Israel” and “the State of Palestine.”

Donald Trump has bumbled into the middle of a long historical process that was inching step by step towards the papacy's goal of establishing a presence in Jerusalem. The lengthy quotations from the following article illustrate the delicate dance of decades into which Trump has barged like a bull in a china shop:

The Vatican Joins the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Prior to the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948, the Holy See refrained from taking sides in the Arab-Jewish conflict, preferring to adhere to its foundational principle of "remaining [a] stranger to all merely temporal conflicts" as provided in the 1929 Lateran treaty. Thus, when the United Nations General Assembly convened on November 29, 1947, to vote on Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Holy See (as a "permanent observer" at the United Nations) did not participate.

Of course, the Vatican did not remain aloof to developments in the Holy Land and their possible effects on the future of the Christian holy sites there. When, in the summer of 1937, a British royal commission proposed internationalizing the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a means of "ensuring free and safe access to them for all the world," the Holy See registered its desire to protect Jerusalem's holy sites (while also seeking an additional international enclave near the Sea of Galilee), underscoring its enthusiastic support for territorial internationalization—what eventually became known as the corpus separatum. Likewise, despite abstaining during the vote on Resolution 181, the Vatican endorsed its recommended internationalization of Jerusalem; and while this corpus separatum was never implemented due to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and political infighting between interested states, the Holy See remained committed to the idea as the foremost means to safeguarding Christianity's holy sites.

Thus, for example, in October 1948, the Holy See published an encyclical, In Multiplicibus curis, proposing to "Give Jerusalem and its outskirts ... an international character which, in the present circumstances, seems to offer a better guarantee for the protection of the sanctuaries." On Easter 1949, amidst ceasefire negotiations between Israel and its Arab invaders, the pope published another encyclical, Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus, "the passion of our Redeemer," focusing on the torments of the Holy Land, and stating that "Jerusalem and its vicinity ... should be accorded and legally guaranteed an 'international status,'" thereby further entrenching the Holy See's support for corpus separatum.

In subsequent decades, the Vatican made few official statements regarding Jerusalem's status, seemingly waiting for more opportune moments to raise the issue. In December 1963, Pope Paul VI announced his decision to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and pray for the success of the Second Vatican Council and for peace and Christian unity. Despite the Holy See having no official diplomatic relations with either Israel or Jordan, the latter of which at the time occupied the West Bank including east Jerusalem, this historic visit followed strict protocols reserved for visits of heads of states. In Israel, President Zalman Shazar held a reception at the historical site of Megiddo for the papal delegation and accompanied him to the Mandelbaum crossing in Jerusalem. In the city, the pope also met with Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. The international media followed the pope's every step, describing the visit as "a great act of sacred theatre."

Israeli scholars sometimes argue that the Catholic Church's policy toward Israel "was fundamentally hostile," but doing so ignores or downplays the deep transformation in the Holy See's attitude that took place toward the Jewish people in the course of the twentieth century. Vatican II fundamentally changed the Holy See's policies toward the Jews and ultimately its policies toward the (Christian and non-Christian) population of the Holy Land. The Nostra Aetate (In Our Times) was one of the Second Vatican Council's (October 28, 1965) final declarations dealing with the relation of the church to non-Christian religions. Regarding the Jews, the document offered new teaching whereby "the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God." Most significantly, it freed the Jews from the charge of deicide because "what happened [to Christ] in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." The Nostra Aetate served as an important declaration that opened up the possibility for eventual relations with the Jewish state, particularly in recognizing the Jewish people's right to exist and the role of the Vatican in upholding religious freedom.

The Six-Day War of June 1967, in which Israel captured Jerusalem and the West Bank, marked the next significant milestone for the Holy See. During the war, Pope Paul VI pressured Israel to declare Jerusalem an open city under international control, but Israel had already celebrated what it termed the city's reunification. However, Israel immediately provided legal protection for free worship and access to sanctuaries, promised to safeguard the holy sites, and offered to establish official diplomatic relations with the Holy See. The Vatican, however, while effectively discarding its demand for the territorial internationalization of the holy sites and instead focusing on ensuring their internationally guaranteed statute, stuck to its old principle that a formal agreement would not be tenable in the absence of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. It was only after the September 1993 signing of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that the Holy See moved ahead and entered into agreements first with Israel and Jordan, and then with the Palestinians. . .

The Holy See has an important goal to provide clear protections for important status quo and other key holy sites as well as members of the church. Thus, it felt compelled to engage Israel and the Palestinians, walking a fine line trying to appease both sides while protecting key interests. This is even more troubling since it constantly shifts as both Israelis and Palestinians jockey for international position, legitimacy, and control.

One of the three sections of the 1929 Lateran pacts was the Treaty of Conciliation that established Vatican City as an independent entity (as well as restoring the sovereignty of the pope as a monarch, removed in 1870 following the Franco-Prussian war). Article 24 of the Treaty of Conciliation provides that:

In regard to the sovereignty appertaining to it also in international matters, the Holy See declares that it desires to take, and shall take, no part in any temporal rivalries between other States, nor in any international congresses called to settle such matters, save and except in the event of such parties making a mutual appeal to the pacific mission of the Holy See, the latter reserving in any event the right of exercising its moral and spiritual power.

Thus Article 24 calls for a balance between the Holy See not involving itself in any temporal rivalries but allowing it to exercise moral and spiritual power, especially when working in the framework of a pacific mission. Indeed, this is reflected in the perception of the Holy See as possessing an international legal personality from its spiritual power and position, rather than from the more traditional elements of statehood, such as its small territory.

The Holy See has the ability to serve as a broker for peace, understood as encompassing key values of life: economic rights, freedom of conscience, a need to harmonize ideals with national interests, and the pursuit of justice (and not warfare) through dialogue and mutual respect.

Article 24 is also coupled with the Holy See's desire to secure the church's material position to pursue its spiritual mission. Its international relations are not solely pragmatic but a form of theology combined with fundamental human rights norms, a focus on developmental concerns, a striving for neutrality, with an overlay of monarchial maneuvers.

But different interests are at work when accounting for the Holy See and its relations with Israel and the PA, particularly with respect to Christian holy sites. There seems to be a desire by the Vatican to wrest Christian holy sites from the control of Muslim and Jewish governing authorities with a view toward internationalization and human rights ideals that protect and preserve the Catholic faithful in the area (be they under Israeli or Palestinian control).

The shift in the Holy See's policy bends the framework devised by the Lateran pact in terms of involving the Holy See in local conflicts as evidenced, among other things, by its recognition of Palestine as a state and including language in all three agreements that affects in different ways the status of the post-1967 territories.


One does not have to favor the aims of Rome to recognize that Donald Trump's action on Jerusalem constitutes a grave threat to peace in the world. The surreal fact is that the action was a deliberate act of delusional fantasy with the crazy intention of provoking world war. This delusional madness is probably inspired by the spirits of Rev. 16:13-14. The imponderable question is what are they up to, seemingly directing a movement in opposition to the objective of both the papacy and Satan himself?

The following headline in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz states the motivation of Donald Trump's action in stark terms:

Armageddon? Bring It On: The Evangelical Force Behind Trump's Jerusalem Speech

The U.S. evangelical community is in raptures over Trump's decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, believing it moves the world closer to Armageddon. . .

The text of the article cannot be accessed without a Haaretz subscription, but the following are concurring reports:

The real reason Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel was because he feared losing his evangelical voter base

There are those evangelicals who believe in the prophecy of the ‘End of Days’ foretelling Jewish control of all Jerusalem, a war of civilisations, and a choice of Jews to either embrace Christianity or die in the wrath of God.

I have got my latest Prayergram post. It is, quite aptly, on the topic of the day: the “Jerusalem Prayer”.

One passage reads “God bless Donald J Trump! He understands the real principles behind success. It is not being good at what you do or understanding theory and practice. It is being on the right side of the blessing of God. Whoever blesses Israel shall be blessed: whoever curses Israel shall be cursed.”

And, lest there be any misunderstanding: “If we bless Israel, regardless of its faults, lack of faith, both personally and organisationally, God bless us. While the world cries out, Donald J Trump who learned about the blessing on his mother’s knee, masters the simple, plodding art of doing the right thing regardless of consequences.”

Prayergram send their posts not just to the believers, but others, like journalists who have written negatively about the Christian right or Donald Trump. This is intended to show us the error of our ways and also, if possible, save our souls.

The “Jerusalem Prayer” was, the evangelists stress, of great importance, something that needed to be widely disseminated after Trump had announced that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

There are no fewer than 50 million evangelicals in America who, according to research, are convinced of the literal truth of Biblical prophecy. A recent survey found that 82 per cent of white evangelicals believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people; a conviction shared by just 40 per cent of American Jews. Among these evangelicals there are those who believe in the prophecy of the “End of Days” foretelling Jewish control of all Jerusalem, a war of civilisations, and a choice of Jews to either embrace Christianity or die in the wrath of God.

The decision to move the embassy does not actually have much popular support across the US population as a whole. A Brookings Institution survey found that it has the backing of only 31 per cent. Polls have also repeatedly found that a large majority of American Jews, who tend on average to have a better standard of education than the rest of US population, and are liberal by tradition, oppose the move.

But Trump’s Jerusalem declaration has been widely and enthusiastically welcomed by his religious base. Johnnie Moore, who acts as a spokesperson for the Trump’s evangelical advisers stated: “The issue was second only to concerns about the judiciary among the evangelical supporters. President Trump has yet again demonstrated to his evangelical supporters that he will do what he says he will do.”

For Paula White, a “megachurch” pastor from Florida who is close to Trump: “once again, President Trump has shown the world what I have always known, he is a leader who is willing to do what is right however loud are the voices of the sceptics and the critics. Evangelicals are ecstatic, for Israel is to us a sacred place and the Jewish people are our dearest friends.”. . .

Trump is not the only senior member of the administration to cultivate the Christian right. Vice President Mike Pence, who could be seen on TV standing behind Trump as the embassy announcement was made, with a reverent glow to his face, had pressed for a move to Jerusalem. And backing also came from Nikki Haley, the ambassador to the UN who tries her best to match Trump on hawkish rhetoric about smiting America’s enemies. She avidly courted the evangelical vote while Governor of South Carolina. . .

The evangelists could always site God on their side. For Indiana pastor Paul Begley the embassy move is the beginning of “End of Days”: “The Jewish People – I’ve been there, I’m telling you – they believe when the Temple’s built, the Messiah will be revealed to them. Jesus will be revealed to the Jewish people, and they will embrace him.”

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, “founder/president of Proclaiming Justice to The Nations” wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “Christians recognise the Jews’ biblical connection through King David’s establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of ancient Israel and the location for both the first and second Temples. According to the prophets, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Apostle John, all Israel awaits the rebuilding of the Third Temple. President Donald Trump may implement one of the most biblically historic initiatives of his presidency by allowing the first step of the Jerusalem Embassy Act to go into effect. “

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem excites apocalyptic fervor

During the election campaign last year many conservative evangelical Christians saw then-candidate Donald Trump as a man of strength who would make the world ready for a final battle between good and evil.

As the historian Matthew Avery Sutton wrote at the time, they expected him to lead America in “a real-world battle against evangelicals’ enemies and a spiritual battle against the Antichrist.”

His prediction is beginning to come true — with Jerusalem playing a critical role in that apocalyptic drama.

On Dec. 6, President Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Met with concern by almost all corners of the diplomatic world, it was greeted with excitement by a large segment of conservative Christians, especially white evangelicals who are among his staunchest supporters.

As Trump “spiritual adviser” Paula White said, “Evangelicals are ecstatic, for Israel is to us a sacred place and the Jewish people are our dearest friends.” John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, responded to Trump’s announcement by noting its precise “biblical timing” set out in Leviticus. Michael Evans said that America is “in the middle of prophecy right now” and compared Trump to King Cyrus, a pagan king who nonetheless was an instrument of God and helped Israel. At a rally for the president in Florida, state Sen. Doug Broxson excited the crowd by declaring: “When I heard about Jerusalem — where the King of Kings (applause) where our soon coming King is coming back to Jerusalem, it is because President Trump declared Jerusalem to be capital of Israel.”

Such statements are important because they shift the frame with which listeners are asked to consider what happened. They position Trump’s statement within sacred, rather than secular time. In other words, they show that they think the Jerusalem decision was part of God’s plan for the world, a step on the way to the reunification of the holy city (still considered occupied under international law) and the restoration of the ancient Israelite Temple. In other words, a step on the way towards the apocalypse.

And apocalyptic beliefs are particularly strong in America among white evangelical Christians. In a 2010 Pew Survey, 58 percent said they believed Jesus would return to earth in the next 40 years.

The immediate roots of end-times thinking in the American context can be traced to Hal Lindsey’s 1970 book “The Late, Great Planet Earth,” which repackaged and reformulated much older Christian ideas. For Lindsey, the formation of the modern state of Israel was critical because it signaled a step towards the rebuilding of the Temple. These ideas were reintroduced to a new generation by the immensely popular “Left Behind” books (and movies), in which Jerusalem is at the center of a conflict between the Antichrist and the believers, and between Satan and Jesus.

Theologian explains how Trump’s Jerusalem move is right-wing evangelicals’ dream come true

President Donald Trump’s decision to announce that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital drew effusive praise from many American evangelical Christians — largely because they believe it will bring about the apocalypse.

Christian theologian Diana Butler Bass explains on Twitter that having the state of Israel take full control of Jerusalem is part of many right-wing evangelicals’ mythology for what they believe will bring about the resurrection [?] of Jesus Christ.

“For decades, conservative evangelicals have been longing for this recognition,” Bass writes. “They believe it is necessary in order to regain control of the Temple mount. That is important because rebuilding the Temple is the event that will spark the events of the Book of Revelation and the End Times.”

Bass makes it clear that she does not believe Trump himself is looking to bring about the end of the world, but she thinks that many of the evangelicals who have lobbied him on this issue absolutely are.

“You can’t discount those evangelical advisers… almost all of whom take these End Times prophecies literally,” she writes. “Of all the possible theological dog-whistles to his evangelical base, this is the biggest. Trump is reminding them that he is carrying out God’s will to these Last Days.”

To this end, says Bass, these evangelicals are actually praying that Trump’s move destabilizes the Middle East and causes chaos and suffering.

“They want war in the Middle East,” she writes. “The Battle of Armageddon, at which time Jesus Christ will return to the Earth and vanquish all God’s enemies.”

Diana Butler Bass may be correct in not believing that "Trump himself is looking to bring about the end of the world;" but he is playing a dangerous game which could lead to the Middle East going up in flames. However, the nations of earth are so afraid of a world war, which could lead to the use of thermonuclear weapons, that an Evangelical theology which plays into the hands of the Israeli Zionist government may be of greater significance. Both are intransigent in their opposition to the internationalization of Jerusalem, which is the policy of the papacy. Opposition to this policy delays but cannot prevent the ultimate realization of Satan's objective and the final conflict between him and Jesus Christ. This must not be overlooked in watching the developing events in connection with Jerusalem.

It is plain to see that Donald Trump is stirring up the threat of conflict between the United States and North Korea. While this is not inconsistent with the Evangelicals' lust for world war, their false theology is really centered on Israel and the Middle East. In this context Trump's dangerous actions are not confined to Palestine and Jerusalem:


How Trump Is Inflaming the Middle East’s Proxy Wars

He has emboldened a recklessly aggressive Saudi government, which is now destroying Yemen, imposing a blockade on Qatar—and could even stumble into war with Iran.

On May 23, as President Donald Trump flew from Tel Aviv to Rome, one of his advisers boasted to reporters accompanying Trump on Air Force One of the success of his visit to Saudi Arabia. “Donald Trump united the entire Muslim world in a way that it really hasn’t been in many years,” the adviser said, with no hint of irony at such a grandiose claim. Trump was basking in the glow of the grand reception he got in the kingdom—and he used his visit to firmly side with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states in their conflict against Iran.

Less than two weeks later, the Trump aide’s bombastic claim had unraveled. In the early hours of June 5, Saudi Arabia and four of its Arab allies suddenly cut off all diplomatic and economic relations with Qatar, a tiny emirate in the Persian Gulf that is rich in natural gas. The Saudis and their allies accused Qatar of financing terrorism; supporting Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas; and undermining Arab efforts to isolate Iran. They also imposed a partial blockade, sealing off Qatar’s only land border (with Saudi Arabia) and restricting air and sea travel to and from the peninsula.

The Saudis, along with allies Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, were clearly emboldened by Trump’s unequivocal support. Instead of uniting the Muslim world, or even the smaller realm of Sunni Arab monarchies, his visit has thrown regional alliances into disarray. The Saudis’ dream of a united front against their rival Iran is in jeopardy, as even some of their allies worry about a Saudi-fomented coup or war to bring Qatar to heel.

In Riyadh Trump didn’t mention Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which has killed thousands and left millions near famine.

In a speech before dozens of leaders from across the Muslim world who had gathered in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, on May 21, Trump condemned Iran for stoking “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror,” and he urged fellow Muslim states to isolate Tehran. “Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace,” Trump said, “all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.”

Trump made no mention of Saudi Arabia’s destabilizing actions in the Middle East, especially its war in Yemen, which has killed nearly 10,000 Yemenis and left 6.8 million people—a quarter of Yemen’s population—on the brink of famine. By blatantly taking sides and singling out Iran for supporting terrorism and instigating sectarianism, Trump will only exacerbate the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and worsen sectarian conflict in the region. It’s clear that Trump has waded into complex religious and political dynamics he doesn’t grasp. . .


The targeting of Iran by the Trump Administration, coupled with the apocalypse delusions, invites attention to the prophecies of Dan. 11:40-44, which point to a course of events constituting a departure from Rome's persistent pursuit of a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Which comes first? Iran is located in the geographical area of the Seleucid Empire, as is Syria. The Seleucid Empire was the territory of the King of the North, identified as a participant in the conflicts mentioned in Dan. 11:40-44. "The King" involved in these conflicts is the Papacy, which had its own army and waged wars until the latter part of the 19th century. The papacy is perfectly capable of waging war. Thus we see a very long history of the papacy seeking to achieve her objectives in Palestine by peaceful negotiations, while there are Bible prophecies pointing to her involvement in war(s) at the very end of time either before or after "the King" has planted "the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" (Dan. 11:45,) identified as Jerusalem in Dan. 9:16.


Donald Trump's action on Jerusalem, applauded by Israel and clearly opposed to the ultimate goal of Rome, is a paradox in the complex interplay of actions by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Rome has deliberately fostered an activist militancy in the United States with the declared objective of establishing a "Christian" nation. This moved into high gear in 1975 with the USCCB's "Pastoral Plan." Donald Trump's election to the presidency of the United States and the powerful influence
exerted on him by the Apocalypse fanatics is the product of the Pastoral Plan, which was formulated by the Right Wing of the Roman Catholic Church. The influence of right-wing Catholics over the Trump Administration is described in DONALD TRUMP'S ROMAN CATHOLIC HANDLER AND HIS COHORTS. However, the Catholic Bishops have soured on his administration:

The Catholic bishops’ honeymoon with Trump is over

Although many evangelical ministers warmly embraced Donald Trump as the Republican Party presidential candidate, the U.S. Catholic bishops never publicly endorsed him. They did express strong support for some of his positions — for example, his opposition to abortion and his support for religious freedom. That, together with their negative response to the views of Hillary Clinton, made many observers believe that although the bishops did not publicly endorse him, they were happy to see him elected.

Their happiness was evident with the reinstatement of the “Mexico City policy,” a U.S. government policy that bans international organizations from receiving federal funds if they sponsor abortions. Likewise, the bishops supported Trump’s efforts to deny taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. They also approved his executive order instructing federal agencies to respect the religious freedom of believers and their organizations. Most importantly, they were delighted with his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court because of their expectation that he will be a pro-life justice.

But the relationship between Trump and the Catholic bishops appears to be a marriage of convenience rather than the love affair he has with evangelical ministers. Already there have been some public spats. . .

At the beginning of February, the bishops found it “troubling and disappointing” that he did not roll back the Obama executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity. Here Trump was more liberal than the Catholic bishops. Nor has he yet dealt with their concerns about the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

But what really bothers the bishops is the president’s actions on immigration and refugee policy. During the first seven months of the Trump administration, the bishops issued over 20 statements on the treatment of immigrants and refugees, all of them very critical of the Trump administration.

Nor did they mince their words.

The bishops said they were “disheartened,” “deeply troubled,” “deeply concerned” and “disappointed” by the president’s actions on immigration and refugees. They worried about “bigotry,” “fear and intolerance.” The president’s actions were “alarming,” “devastating” and “injurious.” He was putting people “in harm’s way” and making “migrants, especially vulnerable women and children, more susceptible to traffickers and smugglers.” They protested the president’s executive order that “virtually shuts down the refugee admissions program,” which affected resettlement programs run by the church.

The president’s policies, they complained, “needlessly separate families, upend peaceful communities, endanger the lives and safety of the most vulnerable among us, break down the trust that currently exists between many police departments and immigrant communities, and sow great fear in those communities.”

These are not love notes. They are the shrill cries of a spouse who feels her children are being neglected and abused.

Likewise, the Catholic bishops, who had not supported Obamacare because of their concerns about abortion and birth control, failed to come to Trump’s assistance in its repeal. During the first seven months of this year, they strongly argued in 11 statements against repeal of Obamacare unless something better for the poor were enacted. They especially fought any rollback in the expansion of Medicaid or subsidies to low-income people buying insurance, which were at the heart of the Republican plans. . ."


Disagreements between the papacy and the Evangelicals have flared into the open at the instigation of the Vatican:

Trump's evangelical advisers request papal meeting

President Donald Trump's evangelical Christian advisers are requesting a meeting with Pope Francis after a Vatican-approved magazine published a piece condemning the way some American evangelicals and Roman Catholics mix religion and politics.

That request came in an Aug. 3 letter to the pontiff from Johnnie Moore, an evangelical author, activist and public relations consultant. Moore asked Francis for a meeting of Catholic and evangelical leaders — and quickly.

"It’s in this moment of ongoing persecution, political division and global conflict that we have also witnessed efforts to divide Catholics and Evangelicals," Moore wrote.

"We think it would be of great benefit to sit together and to discuss these things. Then, when we disagree we can do it within the context of friendship. Though, I’m sure we will find once again that we agree far more than we disagree, and we can work together with diligence on those areas of agreement."

Moore told RNS he was writing on behalf of evangelicals informally advising the Trump administration. He was a member of Trump's evangelical advisory board during the 2016 presidential campaign and is one of several dozen prominent conservative evangelicals who have attended meetings organized by White House staff, prayed for the president in the Oval Office and voiced support for some of his policies.

Moore said he reached out to the pope because of his reputation as a "bridge builder" and assumes Francis would be willing to build bridges to those who disagree with the piece published in La Civiltà Cattolica in July. The article was authored by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, an adviser to Francis, and the Rev. Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor.

Evangelicals and Catholics have united on a number of issues, including opposition to abortion and support for religious liberty, Moore wrote. He expressed hope that evangelical leaders could meet with Vatican officials to discuss other "matters of great concern to us all, especially as it relates to refugees, the poor and the persecuted."

La Civiltà Cattolica's article had called out Trump's conservative religious supporters for promoting what Spadaro and Figueroa called a “xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations.”

The fact that the magazine piece condemned Catholics as well as Evangelicals is confirmation of a continuing alliance between right-wing Catholics and Evangelicals.

Now, as a result of Donald Trump's action on Jerusalem with the enthusiastic support of the Evangelicals, the divisions between them and Rome are exacerbated. As reported in the previous article cited above, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is also soured on the Trump Administration. The issues are joined, and Jerusalem probably ranks as the top priority. The Vatican's policy on Jerusalem is not subject to compromise. Dan. 11:45 predicts that Rome will achieve her objective. How will the present impasse be ended?


White Protestant Evangelical officials in Alabama have turned to the Bible in defence of Roy Moore, accused of sexual molestation of a girl fourteen years old when he was in his thirties. The worst abuse of the Bible in defence of Moore was committed by Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler, who dragged the conception and birth of the Lord Jesus Christ into the sordid affair:

Alabama state auditor defends Judge Roy Moore against accused of sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old, invokes Mary and Joseph

Judge Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Alabama's upcoming special Senate election, denies allegations that he romantically pursued teenagers as young as 14 when he was in his 30s. Even if the allegations are true, one statewide elected official in Alabama said it's "much ado about nothing." . . .

“He’s clean as a hound’s tooth,” Ziegler claimed, before relying on Scripture to defend Moore.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

“There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler concluded. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

A Republican Just Used Jesus To Justify Roy Moore’s Alleged Underage Sexual Scandal

A top Alabama Republican elected official just used the worst excuse ever to try and whitewash his party’s Senate candidate who stands accused of pedophilia, an act which he doesn’t deny or dispute. . .

“There is nothing to see here,” Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler told the Washington Examiner…. “He’s clean as a hound’s tooth,” Ziegler claimed, before relying on Scripture to defend Moore.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ.

“Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.” . . .

What’s even more creepy about the Alabama Auditor’s religious excuses, is that Ziegler himself has a teenage daughter named Mary Magdalene. (Biographical hyperlink and italics in the original.)

Here is a clear demonstration of the abomination of mixing Christianiy with politics, which is a deeply corrupting influence. It is also evidence of the astonishing ignorance of Bible facts and principles in the Evangelical world, of which Ziegler is a member. Furthermore, one cannot escape the implication that Joseph and Mary engaged in fornication before their marriage, which would be an echo of the dastardly accusation by the Jews that Jesus was illegitimate. Whether or not this was the intention of Ziegler, there is the larger question of his apparent abysmal ignorance of the facts of Jesus' conception and birth as provided in the gospels. Even taking into account the Bible illiteracy of contemporary Christianity, it is reasonable to expect that a Protestant Christian would know the basic facts of Jesus' identity as "Immanuel" - "God with us." Such an expectation is reasonable even considering the probability that Ziegler is unaware of the awesome majesty of the risen Christ revealed in the first chapter of the Book of Revelation, verses 10-18.

In the Gospels, the virginity of Mary is firmly established with specificity by Matthew (Matt. 1:18-25,) and Luke who quotes the statement from the mouth of Mary herself (Luke 1:34.) There is no excuse for a Christian to be unaware of these facts.

Delving a little more deeply, these words of the angel Gabriel are profoundly significant: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35.) Jesus Christ was not the natural son of Joseph. He had no earthly father, but was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and was thus the Son of God by birth as well as the Son of Man by lineage through Mary. As the God-Man, He was the Son of God by decree (Heb. 1:5; Psalm 2:7,) and by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:3-4.) Of further profound significance, He has been highly exalted as God (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:8-13.) The last referenced text also reveals His role as the Creator (Gen. 1.) Wonder of wonders!! - By agreement between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit divinity has been united with humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, and received into the very midst of the Godhead with the Father and the Holy Spirit! These facts of the Bible must not be trivialized and trodden underfoot by the profanity of men whose minds are under the control of Satan!

True Christians understand and conform to the following standard:

With rev'rence let the saints appear,

And bow before the Lord;

His high commands with rev'rence hear,

And tremble at his word,

And tremble at his word.


The mainline Reformed Churches have been seduced by the Church of Rome into surrendering the primary tenets of Protestantism. In the quest for ecumenical unity, Protestantism has changed drastically without moving Rome one inch in her theological positions and idolatrous forms of worship. Now the Reformed Churches and Rome regard themselves as more alike than different:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Five Centuries After Reformation, Catholic-Protestant Divide in Western Europe Has Faded

As Protestants prepare to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that the prevailing view among Catholics and Protestants in Western Europe is that they are more similar religiously than they are different. And across a continent that once saw long and bloody religious wars, both Protestants and Catholics now overwhelmingly express willingness to accept each other as neighbors – and even as family members.

The survey also shows that one of the major theological controversies of the Protestant Reformation no longer starkly divides rank-and-file Catholics and Protestants in Western Europe. Today, majorities or pluralities of both groups say that faith and good works are necessary to get into heaven – the traditional Catholic position. Fewer people say that faith alone (in Latin, sola fide) leads to salvation, the position that Martin Luther made a central rallying cry of 16th-century Protestant reformers.

Yet differences remain between the two Christian traditions. Geographically, Protestants are still concentrated in the north and Catholics in the south of Europe. In many countries, sizable minorities among both Catholics and Protestants (roughly four-in-ten or more Catholics in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy and France and comparable shares of Protestants in Switzerland and the UK) say the two groups are more different religiously than they are similar. And Protestants and Catholics who consider religion to be important in their lives are more likely to take their respective church’s traditional position on salvation compared with those who say religion is less important.

Differences do indeed remain, and are not likely to be resolved, which is the whole point of unity in diversity (Cf. This Joint Declaration . . .) Rome is satisfied with this state of affairs, because she has uprooted Protestant church leaders and laity alike from their foundation rock, the Bible, from which the five Solas are derived. Higher Criticism, the creation of Rome, destroyed Bible Christianity in the Protestant world over the centuries. This is the basis on which the Catholic-Protestant divide has faded in spite of the remaining differences.

Another report is in basic agreement with the article cited above; but it also provides a penetrating analysis of the varying beliefs of Evangelical Protestants in America which complicate the process of assimilation by Rome:

500 Years After Reformation, Many Protestants Closer to Catholics than Martin Luther

Pew finds less than half of Protestants in many countries believe both sola fide and sola scriptura.

In 1517, Martin Luther staked his soul on two revolutionary ideas: sola fide, that justification is dependent on faith alone; and sola scriptura, that Scripture is the only ultimate authority for Christian belief and practice and does not need oversight from church leaders or tradition to be read and understood.

The 95 theses Luther nailed to the door at Wittenberg served as the catalyst for one of the world’s largest religious splits, as thousands broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. His legacy, 500 years later, is 560 million Protestants across the globe, making up more than a third of the world’s Christians.

But many of them don’t actually agree with him.

Today, half of American Protestants say that both good deeds and faith in God are needed to get into heaven (52%); the same number believe that in addition to the Bible, Christians need guidance from church teachings and traditions, according to two studies released today by the Pew Research Center.

The numbers don’t change in Western Europe. In Luther’s home country of Germany, 61 percent of Protestants believe good deeds are needed for salvation. In John Calvin’s Switzerland, 57 percent agree, as do 47 percent in Abraham Kuyper’s Holland. . .

“In fact, in every country [in Western Europe] except Norway (where 51% of Protestants say salvation comes through faith alone), belief in sola fide is a minority view even among Protestants,” Pew reported. (For this study, Pew defined sola fide as “faith in God alone is needed to get into heaven,” and defined sola scriptura as the “Bible provides all religious guidance Christians need.”)

About half of Catholics and Protestants in Europe now say that the two religions are “more similar than they are different,” while only about a quarter say they’re “more different than they are similar.”

In America, where many followers of the Reformation fled to escape Catholic persecution, more than half of Protestants now say that Catholicism is more like Protestantism than the two are different (57%).

However, most Americans know the two aren’t exactly the same. When asked to define Protestantism in their own words, a plurality of adults said “not Catholic” (32%) or generally Christian (12%).

Though American Protestants were largely able to pinpoint Martin Luther as the inspiration (71%) and the movement’s label as the Reformation (70%), just 3 in 10 said they believed in both sola fide and sola scriptura (by Pew’s definitions).

If Luther has an heir, it appears to be the white evangelical.

“White evangelicals are the only Protestant subgroup analyzed in the survey in which most take the opposite position,” Pew said.

Almost 6 in 10 said the Bible provides all the religious guidance Christians need, while almost 7 in 10 said that faith alone is needed to get into heaven.

Fewer white evangelicals believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura (per Pew’s definitions) at the same time (44%), but the number is still higher than for black Protestants (19%) and white mainline Christians (20%). (Two-thirds of black Protestants identify as evangelical, according to Pew.)

White evangelicals are also least likely to believe in the Catholic teaching of purgatory: 24 percent, compared to 31 percent of white mainline Christians and 47 percent of black Protestants.

Perhaps predictably, white evangelicals who attend church weekly are even more likely to believe in sola fide and sola scriptura (per Pew’s definitions). Eighty percent believe in faith alone, 68 percent believe in the Bible’s ability to stand alone, and 59 percent believe in both. The vast majority don’t believe in purgatory (86%).

Education ups the numbers even further. Among white evangelicals who attended college, most believe in sola fide (81%) or sola scriptura (72%); in fact, most believe both (65%). Just 7 percent believe in purgatory. . .

“Analysis of the data shows that for Protestants, knowing that only Protestantism traditionally teaches that salvation comes through faith alone is closely linked with believing that salvation comes through faith alone,” Pew reported. “Among Protestants who know that only Protestantism traditionally teaches that salvation comes through faith alone, about three-quarters (77%) embrace the concept of sola fide. But among the much larger share of Protestants who are not aware that sola fide is solely a Protestant teaching, far fewer (35%) believe that faith is all that is needed to get into heaven.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

What a sad and incongruous statement this is: "But many of them [the 560 million Protestants across the globe] don’t actually agree with him [Martin Luther.]" They cling to the name "Protestant" while denying the fundamental tenets of the Protestant faith. This is a manifestation of the "strong delusion that they should believe the lie prophesied by the Apostle Paul." Mark the course of deception by Rome:

She ensnared the Protestant world with Preterism and Futurism, thus destroying the prophecies which identified her conclusively as the Antichrist. She played upon the vanity of Protestant theologians to seduce them into engaging in "Higher Criticism," which has destroyed the Bible as the only source of Truth and rule of faith and practice. The end result is that the Protestant world as a whole is in the clutches of "the Dragon," and is totally oblivious of the fact (Cf. Rev. 12:3-9; Rev. 13:2b; Rev. 16:13-14.) The survey results reported above reveals American Protestantism in a state of unbelief and confusion. Interestingly, the author of the survey report states, "If Luther has an heir, it appears to be the white evangelical." Appearances can be very deceiving. The two outstanding marks of contemporary white Evangelicals are their commitment to union of Church and State under the inspiration and manipulation of Rome, and their relentless pursuit of supremacy over the entire body politic under their idea of "Christianity." The following article sounds a warning against Christian Theocracy:

Evangelicals, politics, and theocracy: a lesson from the English revolution

The current cycle of primary elections has re-ignited old debates about the place of religion in American political life. Those candidates identified as evangelicals, such as Ted Cruz, are often represented as proposing a top-down reconstruction of American society, encouraging a “moral minority” to take power in order to impose its expectations upon the culture at large. To the extent to which this is true – and the assumption can be contested – these candidates are developing some of the most controversial themes in modern evangelical thought.

This ambition to reform American culture shows the extent to which evangelical political thinking has changed. For much of the twentieth century, American evangelicals tended to disavow active political engagement, while praying for cultural reform. This political passivity began to change in the mid-1970s, when both candidates for the White House identified themselves as evangelicals, and especially after the early 1980s, when evangelical leaders began to build the ecumenical coalition that would drive conservative politics into the next decade. This change was informed by the publications and activities of a number of key figures, especially Frances Schaeffer, whose name is well known in histories of the Christian Right, and his less famous, but more controversial, fellow-traveler, R. J. Rushdoony.

The voluminous and demanding publications of Rushdoony did most to underwrite the new culture of evangelical engagement. In such publications as his massive Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), Rushdoony proposed a radical platform for political change. Developing themes latent in his Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, he denied the existence of natural law and argued instead that all government had to be reshaped according to biblical norms. At times that could sound innocuous. “God’s goal is a debt-free society which is also poverty-free,” he suggested. And he argued for lower tax, on the basis that governments should not claim a greater share of their citizen’s property than the tithe demanded by God.4 But Rushdoony understood that the godly society he imagined would only be made possible by a legal revolution.

Rushdoony argued that crimes – and their punishments – were to be defined by the Bible. That’s why he could consider alternatives to incarceration. Drawing on case law in the Pentateuch, he argued that crimes involving property should be resolved through restitution rather than imprisonment, but breaches of the first seven of the Ten Commandments – including idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, and dishonoring one’s parents – should be punished by death. These positions may seem to be so extreme as to be irrelevant to the contemporary political climate, and Rushdoony’s name has not often been cited in this cycle of primaries, but when candidates propose a flat tax of 10%, or punishment for women who have undergone abortions, they are echoing his ideas. Whatever their similar goals, nevertheless, those evangelicals pursuing the top-down reformation of American society are overlooking Rushdoony’s warning about how these goals should be achieved.

The article goes on to describe the ultimate failure of the radical Puritan government of the mid-17th century in England, and ends with the following paragraph:

The end of the English revolution reminds evangelical political leaders to be alert to the limitations of top-down reform. Rushdoony understood that “the key to social renewal is individual regeneration,” for “man must be remade if the world itself is to be saved.” Human beings are not changed by politics alone. Perhaps, as the cycle of primaries continues, the most influential modern theorist of the requirements of biblical law may also become the most telling voice against its imposition.

The warning will neither be heard nor heeded by the Christian Supremacists. They are so illiterate in the knowledge of Bible prophecy that they probably do not know what is predicted in Rev. 13:11-17. They will be swept to the pinnacle of power by the principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12; Rev. 16:13-14.) They are blind to their ultimate end as prophesied in Rev. 19:19-20.

Far from being the heirs of Martin Luther, what they represent and are in the process of achieving is antithetical to Martin Luther's teachings:


1. Congregation of Saints. To Martin Luther the Church in the truest sense comprised a community of saints, a congregation of genuine believers wherever they may be found. Since his central theological tenet was sola fide, Luther viewed the Church as the sum total of men who experience a genuine faith-grace relationship with God. As pointed out by William A. Mueller, the Church conceived of in this way "is rather a spiritual entity that is being built, as it were, from above." John M. Headley cites Luther's work Operations on the Psalms in which the Church is defined as the spiritual collection of the faithful wherever they may be. Such a Church is not bodily or visible, neither can it be geographically confined. Just as faith is not a tangible entity that can be perceived by the senses or confined within physical limits, so the true Church, as understood by Luther, transcends any natural boundaries. It is primarily a spiritual entity because the relationship that characterizes its members is a spiritual one. This understanding of the Church was reflected in the Augsburg Confession (1530) which stated: "Also they teach that one holy church is to continue forever. But the church is the congregation of saints, the assembly of all believers."

It seems to be the consensus of scholarly opinion that Luther viewed the Church as a spiritual, invisible communion of believers; spiritual because of the primary qualification for membership, and invisible because it is impossible ultimately to determine the presence or absence of faith. J. W. Allen maintains that to Luther "the Church Universal on earth, consists of those only who know and do the will of the Lord." . . .

Without doubt Luther included in the visible church others apart from the elect. But this did not involve a continuation of the medieval idea of general membership in the Church. The medieval church could not be defined as the communio sanctorum, the invisible community of saints. Spitz nicely distinguishes between the medieval theory of the Church and that of Luther by pointing out that "in its most literal meaning Schleiermacher's famous definition applies to Luther's view of the Church—the relation of the Catholic to Christ is determined by his relation to the Church; the relation of a Protestant to the Church is determined by his relation to Christ." Luther included the non-elect in the visible church only because he saw the impossibility of determining who were the elect and who were not. He did not regard membership in the visible church and participation in its sacraments as the means of grace and salvation. Whatever his later attitude to the territorial church, in the early period up to 1525 Luther's theology ruled out identification of the Church with the political community.

It is clear that the Evangelical concept of theocracy is diametrically opposed to the true Church as conceived by Martin Luther. The fact that differing proportions of conservative Evangelicals believe in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide do not make them the heirs of Luther. This is especially so in view of the extent to which they have strayed from true Bible Christianity:

How the Bible Belt lost God and found Trump

He’s a divorced adulterer who ran a gambling empire, so how did America’s Moral Majority get so evangelical about Donald Trump?

My host was Wayne Flynt, an Alabaman who has made the people of the southern US his life’s work. A 76-year-old emeritus professor of history at Auburn University, he has written empathetically about his region in books such as Poor But Proud. A Baptist minister, he still teaches Sunday school at his church and delivered the eulogy at last year’s funeral of his friend Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird.

I took my place in the book-lined study of Flynt’s redwood house in Auburn, Alabama, to hear his thoughts on the local economy, but the conversation turned to a central mystery of US politics. Trump would not be president without the strong support of the folks Flynt has chronicled — white residents of the Bible Belt, raised in the do-it-yourself religious traditions that distinguish the US from Europe. [5] I wondered how a thrice-married former casino owner — who had been recorded bragging about grabbing women by the genitals — had won over the faithful.

Flynt’s answer is that his people are changing. The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, are less central to their thinking and behaviour, he says. Church is less compelling. Marriage is less important. Reading from a severely abridged Bible, their political concerns have narrowed down to abortion and issues involving homosexuality. Their faith, he says, has been put in a president who embodies an unholy trinity of materialism, hedonism and narcissism. Trump’s victory, in this sense, is less an expression of the old-time religion than evidence of a move away from it. . .

The irony is that evangelicals turned to politics to prevent that very outcome. Fearing that so-called secular humanists would impose a moral order of their own through government action, born-again Christians began flocking to the polls in the late 1970s. Their impact was undeniable. They were the shock troops of the Reagan Revolution of 1980. They rescued Trump last year after many political analysts had counted him out, reckoning that the changing demographics of the US had made a white conservative like him unelectable.

When the Christian right burst to prominence, its calls to defend the unborn were a rallying cry. But unyielding opposition to abortion was not a traditional evangelical position. In 1971 — two years before the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalising abortion — the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, the largest US Protestant denomination, endorsed abortion in cases of rape, incest, “severe” foetal deformity or where there was “the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother”. As recently as 1976, it said it believed government should play a “limited role” on abortion matters.

Abortion only became a leading concern of the religious right when the late firebrand Jerry Falwell and other leaders of the Moral Majority seized upon the issue towards the end of the 1970s. In the decades that followed it became a sure-fire way to mobilise conservatives unmoored by a variety of political and social changes that followed from the 1960s — ranging from federal efforts to take away tax breaks from racially segregated Christian schools to movements promoting the rights of women and homosexuals. (“God made Adam and Eve,” Falwell liked to say, “not Adam and Steve.”)

The Christianity of the Evangelical Religious Right is a delusional sham. It has served the Church of Rome's purpose very well in paving the way for forming the Image to the Beast,  converting the United States into a Theocracy. This is an extraordinary fact given the influence of Zionism in blocking the way to the papal objective in Jerusalem; and it is also partial evidence of the extinction of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church comprises right and left wings. The same applies to the churches of the former Reformation. The Evangelicals on the right are matched by the Social Gospel churches on the left:

Social Gospel

The Social Gospel refers to the emphasis of a primarily Protestant movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, to apply Christian principles to social problems.

Being part of the "modernism" trend with a strong emphasis on social justice, the movement is a rival to evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Members of the movement see it as a return to the beginning of Christianity, that is to the message of Jesus.

In the United States, prior to World War I, the Social Gospel was the religious wing of the progressive movement which had the aim of combating injustice, suffering, and poverty in society. In this context, it is seen as having provided the philosophical underpinning for the New Deal. After the war, the movement shifted its focus to the civil rights arena, and later, became outspoken in its opposition to the Vietnam War.

With the ascendancy of the "Christian right" beginning in the 1980s, the Social Gospel agenda declined in the United States, but examples of its continued existence can still be found, notably the organization known as the Call to Renewal.

The author of the following article sees a match between the Left and Right in regard to the Social Gospel. In effect he reasons that the objectives of the Right are equivalent to a Social Gospel. Historically this is not so in the strict sense of the term "Social Gospel;" but his thoughts are interesting in their comparison of the contrasting positions of Left and Right, and inadvertently sheds light on the Romanism of both Left and Right:

The Dangers of Moralizing and The Social Gospel of the Left and Right

Living a life of good works is not going to keep anyone from hell.

Attempting to legislate a city, state, or nation into righteousness is a wasted effort that will yield no eternal rewards. That doesn't mean we should do away with laws against murder, rape, stealing, and fraud. Romans 13 tells us that the purpose of government is to reward the righteous and punish the wicked. God created civil government for the purpose of maintaining a stable and just society so the other two institutions God created-the family and the Church-could go about their respective biblical mandates. Cities, states, and nations need laws. Some Christians have, and I pray will continue to have, a godly impact in government as individuals. But collectively, the Church needs to realize how foolish it is to spend so much time and money trying to force our biblical values onto an unsaved culture.

The way to produce a change in any culture is to preach the Gospel. It is only as individuals place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that people are changed, families are changed, values are changed, and thus communities and cultures are changed. You cannot change a culture simply by fighting the symptoms of a depraved and sinful culture. A culture reflects the values embraced by the people living in a city, state, or nation, and until you change an individual's values, you will not change a culture with legislation or moralizing. A person's actions are based on his or her values, those values are based on the person's worldview, and that worldview consists of his or her theology, philosophy, ethics, etc.

The unsaved humanist is not going to change his or her values until the worldview based on a theology that denies the God of the Bible is changed. That means the goal of the New Apostolic Reformation and some of today's New Religious Right to legislate "kingdom values" through the seven mountain mandate, as they call it, is a waste of time and money. Preaching a biblical Gospel, on the other hand, is never a waste of time and money.

I believe many of the NAR and New Religious Right members fail to preach the Gospel simply because they themselves are not saved. Many do not dare preach a biblical Gospel because they want to work with all the world's religions to establish their own version of the Kingdom of God on earth, and it is hard to get invited to speak at Mormon and Catholic conferences if you insist on preaching the Gospel of Christ. . .

The real advocates and practitioners of the Social Gospel reflect the influence of Rome's teaching which emphasizes "good works" as an essential part of Justification. The Religious Right which has advanced Theocracy in America seeks to establish righteousness by the power of the State. Neither the Left nor the Right can succeed in establishing a righteous nation; but both are Romanized and advancing the Roman Catholic objective of world domination. Both have betrayed the Gospel of God and the Reformation, and are now deliberately or unwittingly promoting a form of Christianity that is in harmony with Rome's dogma on Justification and her Social Teaching, which it should be noted includes Subsidiarity and Solidarity, both now exercising an overwhelming influence on the legislative policies of the United States:

Subsidiarity and the state’s moral obligation (If hyperlink does not work, google the title. The web page is online.)

Ready or not, 2017 could prove to be the year of unanticipated subsidiarity—the idea that social needs should be addressed at the lowest level of personal, civic, or governmental authority capable of responding to them.

Though Trump lost the national popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan claims the election of Trump is a voter mandate to dismantle federal-level social services that have served some of the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. Ryan’s antipathy toward the Affordable Care Act, shared by the Republican congressional majority, is well established, and repealing the national healthcare program is already the Republicans’ top priority. But Ryan’s desire to reform Medicaid and Medicare will surprise voters who had come to accept these programs as imperfect but reliable safety nets.

In the past Speaker Ryan has rhetorically deployed the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity in order to justify targeting federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. The spectacle of the next four years may show the federal government’s retreat from a variety of social and civic challenges that had previously benefited from federal aid.

Expect pullbacks not only in healthcare but in financial and banking industry oversight, efforts to mitigate climate change, and the enforcement of labor and clean air and water standards. How should Catholics respond? State and local governments will need to step up and fill the regulatory or social voids that will open up as the federal government recedes.

The church may need to take a more activist role. U.S. Catholic bishops may applaud alterations to the Affordable Care Act that liberate Catholic and other faith institutions from a problematic contraception mandate, but they will surely continue to make a moral argument for universal healthcare as a human right and will certainly butt heads with the incoming administration over the treatment of immigrants in the United States. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

The concept of Solidarity is seriously flawed, especially in the context of the body politic of the United States. Nevertheless, Roman Catholic advocates of this essential part of Rome's Social Teaching bemoan the fact that the Republican Congress is ignoring it, as recognized in the last article cited. (Cf. Subsidiarity and Solidarity are Inseparable.) In any event, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine is aggressively being implemented in America. This has a critically important bearing on the unfolding prophecies of Rev. 13.

The following article confirms the connection between Protestants and the Church of Rome in promoting the Social Gospel, and illustrates the utter confusion in the Protestant world about the degree of separation from Rome that the true Gospel of God demands. The very first paragraph reveals the delusion that the Gospel of God can be preserved while "cooperating with Roman Catholics on social and political matters":

Don’t compromise the gospel in social cooperation, says Mohler at TGC workshop

Evangelical Christians must not compromise the gospel when cooperating with Catholics on social and political matters, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, at The Gospel Coalition National Conference on the Protestant Reformation.

Evangelicals partnering with other groups in shared matters of social concern is often necessary — such as with Catholics in the pro-life movement — but should never eclipse the importance of doctrinal differences between the two.

"We can be involved in common moral concerns with Catholics, but we should not call what we are doing a ministry,” said Mohler during his April 4 workshop titled “When to Stand Together, When to Stand Apart: Principles for Social Cooperation without Compromise.”

Such “co-belligerence” is essential when Protestants and Catholics find themselves fighting on the same front. But evangelical Christians should never succumb to the strong temptation to minimize the gospel for social or political benefit, he said.

"What we can't do is ever cooperate, on any level, in such a way that we pull back our theological conviction in order to meet some other end,” Mohler said.

As the Apostle Paul predicted, God has sent strong delusion to those who "did not receive the love of the Truth, that they might be saved". Because of their determination to repudiate the principles of the True Gospel, the God of Heaven has permitted them to continue their backsliding into the trap set for them. Rome is happy to receive them into the fellowship of the Great Apostasy:

Francis rolls out ‘social gospel’ case for Catholic/Orthodox unity

Sometimes what a pope doesn’t say can be just as important as what he does, and such was the case in Turkey on Sunday as Pope Francis laid out his vision for unity between Catholics and Orthodox Christianity.

Francis offered several motives for pursuing closer ties, yet conspicuously absent was the imperative most often cited by more conservative Catholics and Orthodox: Making a common stand against secularism, especially permissive sexual morality.

In effect, the pope’s case rested not on the wars of culture, but on the social gospel. . .

Knowing that concerns about papal power have long been a stumbling block, Francis insisted that full communion “does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.”

He then ticked off three reasons why Orthodox and Catholics should come together: to defend the poor, to end war and heal conflicts, and to help young people to see past materialism and to embrace a “true humanism.”

“There are too many women and men who suffer from severe malnutrition, growing unemployment, the rising numbers of unemployed youth, and from increasing social exclusion,” Francis said.

“We cannot remain indifferent before the cries of our brothers and sisters,” he said. “They ask us to fight, in the light of the Gospel, the structural causes of poverty: inequality, the shortage of dignified work and housing, and the denial of their rights as members of society and as workers.”

As with Orthodox Christianity, the Social Gospel is also a central element in Rome's drive towards ecumenical unity with the Evangelicals:

The Francis "Infect": Pope Francis Is Changing Evangelicalism's Attitude Toward Rome

While it is not surprising that Pope Francis’ visit to the United States enamored the Catholic faithful and even the secular establishment, his warm reception by evangelicals is something that, at least many years ago, would have been considered quite newsworthy. In recent years, however, Protestants and evangelical Christians have warmed up to Roman Catholicism, and Pope Francis has only furthered the comraderie between the two groups as many evangelicals admire the pope’s populist style and message of care and concern for the poor and oppressed. The grassroots ecumenism that has become a hallmark of evangelical churches during the past several decades encourages ministry, unity, and appreciation for all who simply “call Jesus, ‘Lord,’” regardless of what another may believe about the doctrine of salvation, the church, or even the authority of the Bible. Thus, it is now no surprise that many evangelicals—whether the leaders of the movement or those who weekly sit in the pews—speak highly of the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Francis, praising him as a man of God who loves and preaches the gospel. Since the rise of Pope Francis, many notable evangelicals and charismatics such as Rick Warren, Luis Palau, Kenneth Copeland, and Geoff Tunnicliffe have praised the pope, and some have even referred to him as “our pope” (Rick Warren) and have stated that a “new era” of evangelical-Catholic relations is now in order (Geoff Tunnicliffe of the World Evangelical Alliance).

Christianity Today, the mouthpiece of modern evangelicalism, has frequently lauded Pope Francis, who has even adorned the cover of one issue (the December 2014 issue included the cover story “Pope Francis: Why Everyone Loves the Pope”). Only decades ago, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians viewed Roman Catholicism as a dangerous religious system that spreads a false gospel of works, elevates a mere man as the vicar of Christ on earth, and propagates the belief that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is the final authority regarding the interpretation of the Bible. What has changed? Has the Roman Catholic Church changed? Not at all! Evangelicals have changed. The quest for unity with Rome has led to a change in attitude toward not only the Roman Catholic Church but, more generally, the importance—or lack thereof—of doctrine and its role in the life of the body of Christ and the individual Christian. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

The last paragraph in the above quotation gets to the heart of the matter. Bible doctrine is no longer important in the relationship between Evangelicals and the Church of Rome. This actually applies across the board to all of the Protestant churches, Mainline and Evangelical; and Rome has made it clear that this is a satisfactory arrangement:

Don’t confuse Christian unity with uniformity, Francis urges

Christian unity dialogue is not about one Church being absorbed into another, nor the eradication of difference. Rather, Pope Francis said yesterday, it is about coming together in Christ.

On Thursday, Pope Francis spoke about Christian unity and ecumenism, specifically what they are not. Namely, they aren’t about uniformity or the total absorption of one religion by another, but instead consist of a common communion in Christ.

“Ecumenism is true when Christians are able to shift the focus from themselves, from their arguments and formulations, to the Word of God who demands to be heard, accepted and witnessed in the world,” the pope said Nov. 10.

“Because of this, the various Christian communities are called not to ‘compete,’ but to cooperate.”

Of course, there is a huge difference between what the Roman Catholics define as the Word of God, and that contained in the Bible:

Pope Francis: 'The Word of God Precedes the Bible and Surpasses It'

On April 12, 2013, Pope Francis, in a meeting with the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, explained succinctly the Catholic understanding of Scripture, shared with the Orthodox Churches, but rejected by most Protestant denominations.

The meeting was held at the conclusion of the annual assembly of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the Holy Father noted that the theme of the assembly this year had been "Inspiration and Truth in the Bible."

As the Vatican Information Service reported, Pope Francis emphasized that this theme "affects not only the individual believer but the whole Church, for the Church's life and mission are founded on the Word of God, which is the soul of theology as well as the inspiration of all of Christian existence." But the Word of God, in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding, is not confined to Scripture; rather, Pope Francis noted,

Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. That is why the centre of our faith isn't just a book, but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

The relationship between Christ, the Word Made Flesh, and the Scriptures, the written Word of God, lies at the heart of what the Church calls Sacred Tradition:

It is precisely because the Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture that, in order to properly understand it, the Holy Spirit's constant presence, who guides us "to all truth," is necessary. It is necessary to place ourselves within the great Tradition that has, with the Holy Spirit's assistance and the Magisterium's guidance, recognized the canonical writings as the Word that God addresses to his people, who have never ceased meditating upon it and discovering inexhaustible riches from it.

The Bible is a form of God's revelation to man, but the most complete form of that revelation is found in the person of Jesus Christ. . . (Original italics; underscored emphasis added.)

Pope Francis' statement of the Catholic understanding of Scripture is not new; but a reiteration of the blasphemous dogma of Rome formulated in Vatican I & II. This outrageous formulation of dogma seeks to make Jesus Christ the embodiment of all of Rome's false doctrines, idolatry, and pagan practices. In a manner similar to the Eucharist, it professes to give the Pope power and authority over the person of our Lord, the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending . . . which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8.)

Contrast the Pope's declaration with the definition of Christian unity in the context of the Word of Truth, given by Jesus Christ Himself, the subject of Rome's blasphemy:

John 17

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Can anyone legitimately doubt the meaning of "the words which thou gavest me," "thy word," and "their word," in verses 8, 14, 17, and 20? This is the true basis of Christian unity. What the Pope has said brazenly contradicts the words of Jesus Christ in the very prayer on which the papacy and apostate Protestantism profess to base their quest for unity.

Pope Francis also contradicts these words of Jesus:

John 5

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Here is another text which clearly identifies the Scriptures:

Luke 24

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Jesus Christ Himself established the Scriptures as the only source of Truth and the revelation of His identity and mission. It is not too strong a statement to say that ecumenical Protestants have made a pact with the Devil, of whom Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44.)

The broad sweep of the Protestant churches' repudiation of the Five Solas, the collaboration of Rightwing Evangelicals and Catholics in the creation of Theocratic governance in the United States, and the ecumenical force of the Social Gospel, do not exhaust the wide range of Romanization of Christianity and the world. Nevertheless, their collective impact by itself is strong evidence that the end is near.

"When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end is near." (5T 451.)

4 This Evangelical Christian Supremacist policy statement is in harmony with the relentless Religious Right Republican governmental policy of cutting taxes in America as the prevailing version of the Roman Catholic principle of Subsidiarity.


Looking for World War III to hasten the Second Coming of Jesus Christ

What a complex prophetic drama is currently unfolding on the world stage! Central to current events is the role of the United States; and its presidential leadership is evoking anxiety and fear, even revulsion, around the globe. Understanding the confusing scene is a demanding challenge:-

Chavez: Bellicose Trump is provoking his own crisis

Donald Trump assured us during his campaign, “I know words. I have the best words.” But are “fire and fury” and “locked and loaded” really the best words for a president to use in an increasingly volatile international crisis involving nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

No question, North Korea precipitated this crisis with its aggressive pursuit and testing of a nuclear delivery system capable of reaching not only America’s allies but also our very shores. Kim Jong Un’s bellicose threats (that he would “blow the U.S. from this planet,” and other such claims) upped the ante, but should the president be responding in kind? . . .

If Trump doesn’t start acting more presidential, he’s likely to provoke his own crisis here at home. The Constitution provides a mechanism to remove a president who for mental as well as physical reasons cannot perform his duties. In a press conference Friday afternoon, the president raised the specter of using military force not just against North Korea but also Venezuela: “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary,” Trump said. “We have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away. Venezuela is not very far away, and the people are suffering, and they’re dying.

'Not helpful,' Donald: World reaction to Trump's 'fire and fury' comments

New Zealand's premier admonished him for remarks "not helpful" in a "very tense" environment. Australia's prime minister said "maximum economic pressure" was the only way to deal with North Korea. In Japan, where Nagasaki was marking the 72nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city, Mayor Tomihisa Taue said anxiety was spreading "that in the not too distant future these weapons could be used again."

A day after President Trump vowed to respond to North Korea "with fire and fury" if Pyongyang continued to threaten the U.S militarily, many world leaders have yet to weigh in on Trump's comments. However, those that have appear to view the president's rhetoric as more likely to escalate the situation than to settle it. . .

China's foreign ministry appealed for calm and urged Pyongyang and Washington to refrain from using "any words or actions" that could further aggravate the situation. In Berlin, Ulrike Demmer, a spokeswoman for Chancellor Angela Merkel's government, said Germany wanted to avoid military escalation and to settle the conflict peacefully.

Trump pledged to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea after a Washington Post story Monday, citing U.S. intelligence officials and a confidential Defense Intelligence Agency report, that said North Korea may have mastered a technological hurdle needed to strike the U.S. with a nuclear missile. That was swiftly followed early Wednesday by a statement from North Korea's army that said it was studying a plan to strike the U.S. territory of Guam with ballistic missiles.

Bellicose Trump Prompts Protest at US Embassy

HUNDREDS were expected to protest at the US embassy yesterday evening as organisers warned of a “very dangerous global situation” developing as Donald Trump’s row with North Korea escalates.

The demonstration, organised by Stop the War and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, has been called to stop Mr Trump’s “nuclear war drive.”

And they demanded that the British government distances itself from the US president’s “nuclear ambitions.”

CND general secretary Kate Hudson warned “it hasn’t quite sunk in … just how close to nuclear war we might be” as Mr Trump continues to threaten North Korea.

The question is whether Trump's reckless words are solely due to his natural bellicosity and mental imbalance, or is there an end times, delusional, ideology associated with his madness. There are two deranged influences on the man who now exercises the powers of the US presidency which support the latter alternative. The two influences are his White House strategist, Steve Bannon, and the Evangelical Christian Supremacists. Both influences are centered on the Middle East; nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that the capacity to envision an apocalytpic war in one part of the world makes it easier to countenance the same in another part. It should be noted that the primary vision of war in the Middle East could be significant in the setting of end of the world prophecies such as Daniel 11:45, and the preceding verses 40-45 which predict a pattern of conflict in that region 3 Also pertinent are Isa. 14:12-14 and Isa. 2:1-6.

Trump’s fire-and-fury messages channel Steve Bannon’s apocalyptic visions

In late July, North Korea tested a type of missile some say can hit Chicago, announcing that “packs of wolves are coming in attack to strangle a nation.” This week, US president Donald Trump hit back, vowing on Aug. 8 to attack North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Pyongyang’s next move was a suggestion that it might bomb Guam, prompting Trump to take to Twitter to declare that “military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely.”

Was this just macho posturing from the White House, or is Trump really ready to kick this word war up to World War level?

The escalation doesn’t seem to have been born from carefully calculated policy. Trump reportedly improvised his “fire and fury” line, taking John Kelly—the Marine general who’s supposed to be imposing discipline as the new White House chief of staff—by surprise. So where did Trump’s flash of apocalyptic menace come from? Possibly it came from practicing Clint Eastwood impressions in front of the mirror.

A more disquieting possibility, however, is that it came from his top adviser, Stephen K. Bannon. While it’s hard to know the influence Bannon’s worldview exerts on Trump, the worldview itself is plain to see, revealed over years of filmmaking, radio-show-hosting, and lecture-giving, as Quartz analyzed in more detail earlier this year.

A key part of the Bannon worldview is that big wars are needed to usher in new stages of civilization. Could that be what’s spurring Trump on?

Steve Bannon thinks an apocalyptic third world war is coming, claims historian

Donald Trump's chief strategist has repeatedly spoken of the belief global society goes to war every 80 to 100 years

A historian claims Steve Bannon repeatedly tried to prompt him into saying that the US was on the brink of a third world war.

David Kaiser said Donald Trump’s now chief White House strategist “really made an effort” in a 2009 interview to persuade him the “fourth turning” would be at least as big as the Second World War.

Mr Bannon’s belief that global society repeats itself and runs in cycles, divided up by a war every 80 or 100 years, has been well documented in recent weeks. . .

The former chairman of ‘alt-right’ news website Breitbart appears to believe we are in the midst of an existential war, predominantly with Islam and China.

He told The Washington Post last month “we are witnessing the birth of a new political order”.

In 2011 he told Political Vindication Radio “we’re in a 100-year war against radical Islam” and in 2014 told a Vatican conference: “We are in an outright war against Jihadist Islamic fascism.”

Even as this piece was being written, Steve Bannon's position in the White House was becoming incresinigly insecure. As of August 18, 2017, he was out. This does not mean that delusional apocalypticism has left the White House with him. The false apocalypse inspired by the spirits of devils (Rev. 16:13-14) to obscure and discredit the true is alive and well in the White House and with the loyal supporters of the President:

Bannon gave Trump exactly what he craved

Stephen K. Bannon may be gone, but he won’t soon be forgotten. Firing the chief strategist from the White House will bolster the frayed hopes of Chief of Staff John F. Kelly that he might somehow corral the raging bull in the Oval Office. Plenty of china has been smashed since January, but a few dishes — maybe even the prized platter of tax reform — could yet be rescued. Maybe.

But Bannon played a role for President Trump that no one else can fill, one that Trump will pine for like a junkie pines for smack. The impresario of apocalyptic politics gave Trump a grandiose image of himself at a time when the real estate mogul was building a movement but had no real ideas. . .

Bannon convinced him that he was something more than a political neophyte with great instincts and perfect timing. Trump, Bannon purred in his ear, was the next wave of world history. He painted a picture of Trump as a world-historical force, the revolutionary leader of a “new political order,” as the strategist told Time magazine earlier this year.

Under the influence of a pair of generational theorists, William Strauss and Neil Howe, Bannon conceives of American history as a repeating cycle of four phases. A generation struggles with an existential crisis: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II. The next generation builds institutions to prevent a future crisis. The next generation rebels against the institutions, leading to a “Fourth Turning,” in which the next crisis comes. Believing that another crisis is upon us, Bannon framed a role in Trump’s imagination for the former real estate mogul to remake the world. To the list of crisis presidents — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt — they would add the name of Trump.

With Bannon gone, the White House might become a place less in love with conflict and chaos. But it is hard to think that Trump will be happy without aides who can paint such a picture for him. . .

Donald Trump no longer has Bannon in the White House; but he still has the unshakeable backing of the Evangelical Christian Supremacists, (the prophets of Baal.) Theirs is another false apocalypticism conducive to confusion and chaos; to what end remains to be seen:

Evangelicals, Trump, and the “Politics of Apocalypse”

What’s up with those evangelicals? Is it the end of the world?

Matthew Sutton’s book American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism, is a fascinating, meticulously researched and well-written study of the complicated relationship between fundamentalism, evangelicalism, and the interplay of these movements within modern culture.

Sutton argues that the distinguishing feature of modern fundamentalism and its morphing into evangelicalism, that which apocalypse images differentiates those conservative streams of Christianity from the rest of the modern world, is an ardent apocalypticism; a drama-filled eschatological outlook with distinct historical stages that culminates in a destructive cleansing of the world and a general resurrection with a final, double-judgment (heaven/hell).

Contrary to popular perception, however, theirs was not an “escapist” theology that led to passivity or a relaxed attitude about culture.

Yes, they mostly held to a premillennial (and often pre-tribulational) eschatology–the belief that Jesus is coming back any day to rapture believers and pour out God’s wrath on the rest of the world, after which he will establish a “millennium” of God’s reign on the earth before the final judgment.

However, the dramatic nature of their apocalypticism actually stirred them up to fervent, passionate action. Not, it should be said, to environmental activism, for example; but to action nonetheless.

They were stirred up to kind of action they deemed consistent with their belief that God was going to violently and radically transform the world, save some souls and damn many others, and eventually usher in a lengthy period of peace. . .

In view of the last sentence, the Evangelicals are probably less likely to be alarmed by Donald Trump's bellicosity than the rest of the American nation:

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming [2012 Essay.]

Millions of Americans believe that Christ will not come again until Israel wipes out its competitors and there is widespread war in the Middle East. Some of these folks want to start a huge fire of war and death and destruction, so that Jesus comes quickly.

According to French President Chirac, Bush told him that the Iraq war was needed to bring on the apocalypse . . .

Bill Moyers reports that the organization Christians United for Israel – led by highly-influential Pastor John C. Hagee – is a universal call to all Christians to help factions in Israel fund the Jewish settlements, throw out all the Palestinians and lobby for a pre-emptive invasion of Iran. All to bring Russia into a war against us causing World War III followed by Armageddon, the Second Coming and The Rapture. . .

If the expectation of these Evangelicals is to be taken seriously there is legitimate cause for widespread fear in America. These are the people who recently prayed and laid hands on Donald Trump, have supported him overwhelmingly, and continue to support him steadfastly:

How Apocalypticism Strengthens The Evangelical Affinity For Trumpism

Apocalyptic resonances within Trumpism made the man and his message especially palatable.

One great mystery of Donald Trump’s rise to power involves the overwhelming support he received from white evangelicals during the 2016 campaign ― support he still enjoys despite his constant and easily verified lying, his attacks on the courts and the free press, his close associations with open racists, his aggressive pursuit of undocumented persons, and his support for a wretched health care policy. Yes, white evangelicals tend to be conservative, but one would hope their gospel values would reject dishonesty, authoritarianism, and cruelty.

So powerful is the evangelical affinity for Trumpism that dissenters face punishment. Look what’s happened to Russell Moore, the Southern Baptist ethicist who called out Trump’s “serious moral problems” and un-Christian personal behavior. Under withering pressure from his own denomination, Moore offered a public apology for being “overly broad” and “unnecessarily harsh” in his criticisms of Trump supporters. That apology might have saved Moore’s job, but it reveals the fierce support Trump enjoys among evangelicals. How do we explain the evangelical affinity for a movement that so obviously conflicts with Christian values? Some propose that evangelicals have fallen in love with political power. They’ve sold out themselves and their values in order to support a conservative agenda ― and to find themselves seated at the table when key decisions are made. Perhaps their pro-life convictions outweigh all other considerations, or maybe they’ve just corrupted themselves. Surely this criticism bears a measure of truth. We should not overlook another dimension of white evangelicals’ attachment to Trumpism: apocalypticism.

With respect to contemporary religion, scholars use words like apocalypticism and millennialism somewhat loosely. But these terms describe a widespread fixation among evangelicals with the end times, particularly the belief that we are currently living in the last days. . .

The apocalyptic stream runs a long, winding course through American history. Donald Trump appeals to American evangelicals for many reasons. Apocalyptic resonances within Trumpism made the man and his message especially palatable. Trumpism’s rejection of international and interreligious cooperation, combined with its tendency to demonize its opponents, touched a deep place in the evangelical mindset.

Note the last sentence, and consider how much it is out of harmony with the ecumenical work and ultimate objective of the papacy. This is a central factor in the complicated state of affairs connected with fulfillment of the Dan. 11:45 prophecy.

There is another aspect of the Evangelicals' apocalypticism that is astonishing in its delusional fantasy, especially coming from so-called "Christians" who boast of understanding Bible prophecy. It betrays how far they have strayed from the correct principles of biblical exegesis. They view Donald Trump as embodying an end-time Nebuchadnezzar, and even more generally Cyrus, who is expected to execute a prophecy completely fulfilled over two millenia ago! Significantly, they are joined in this delusion by some Israelis:

Does the 'Cyrus prophecy' help explain evangelical support for Donald Trump?

The Persian king might have been a pagan, but he still served God’s plans. For some Christians, Donald Trump does just that.

“Donald Trump is anointed by God,” my Indianapolis Uber driver confided. I’d asked why she had Trump/Pence stickers on her rear bumper. It was the day before the presidential election and I would have asked anyone, but I was particularly interested because she was a decorous, middle-aged black woman.

“Well,” she’d begun, “I’m a Christian and I’m very much against abortion, and I don’t approve of same-sex marriage either. And, Mr Trump has said he’ll appoint supreme court justices who agree.”

I told her I understood. Still, I wondered how she could support someone so greedy and self-aggrandizing, so profane and offensive to women and minorities, someone who seemed so “un-Christian”.

“Yessss,” she responded slowly. “You’re right. But he doesn’t have to be a Christian to be part of God’s plan. Our minister says he’s come to tear down the corrupt order just as Nebuchadnezzar did.” And just as the pagan Nebuchadnezzar had the prophet Daniel to counsel him, “Mr Trump has godly men around him. Governor Pence, Jerry Falwell Jr, Mike Huckabee.”

Did her whole congregation believe this, and who were they? “Oh yes,” she said. “We all do. And we’re multicultural, too. Black and white and Hispanic. Although,” she added, as I was getting out of the cab, “There are also many who believe that Mr Trump is not Nebuchadnezzar but a Cyrus.” Nebuchadnezzar, I remembered, had destroyed the first temple in Jerusalem, forcing the Jews into the Babylonian captivity.

Cyrus, the pagan Persian king who was called “the Great”, had conquered Babylon in 539 BC, freed the Jews, and returned them to Jerusalem where they would rebuild the temple. He might not have been one of God’s people, the thinking among some Christians goes, but he still served God’s plans.

The belief that a politician is the subject of biblical prophecy gives his election an aura of inevitability and his actions an unquestionable authority. In the year of his campaign, Trump was described by a variety of religious supporters as “the last Trumpet” who would galvanize the second coming of Christ, and a modern King David, as well as Nebuchadnezzar. Most often, however, he was recognized as “Cyrus”.

In an official White House statement on Wednesday, Trump quoted King Cyrus on the occasion of Persian new year. While most will have regarded this as a routine pleasantry, for others, this message will have considerable significance. . .

The earliest and most visible public proponent of the Cyrus connection was Lance Wallnau, a business consultant who has a doctorate in ministry. In 2016, before he met candidate Trump, “the Lord spoke” to Wallnau, telling him: “Donald Trump is a wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness.” Before his second meeting with Trump a few months later, Wallnau saw an image of him as the 45th president and, once again, heard God speaking: “Read Isaiah 45.”

Wallnau was impressed that God was speaking to him again – and impressed, as well, by the numerical connection between the 45th president and the 45th chapter of Isaiah. “Thus says the Lord,” the chapter begins, “to His anointed, to Cyrus.” Reading further back in Isaiah, Wallnau saw that the Lord had named Cyrus “My Shepherd...” saying to Jerusalem “‘You shall be built,’ and to the temple ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’”

To Wallnau, the message was clear. Trump had been elected by God and would soon be elected by Americans to fulfill the prophecy. He was a warrior against the global “demonic agenda”, “raising the warning cry about the unraveling of America.” Trump’s obvious faults and flaws only confirmed the prophecy: Cyrus, like Trump, was powerful, rich, and pagan, not at all godly.

It’s impossible to know how many voted for Trump believing he was a Cyrus, fulfilling Biblical prophecy, but there are hints.

White evangelicals were crucial to Trump’s electoral victory; 81%, some 28 million, voted for him. The book in which Wallnau recounts his prophecy, God’s Chaos Candidate, was 19 on the Amazon bestseller list shortly before the election, and is still selling well.

And in the months since Wallnau first reported his communication from God, other prominent Evangelists, including Curt Landry and Derek WH Thomas, have spread the word about the Cyrus prophecy. Meanwhile, another Evangelical with a large following, Michael Brown, has been speaking of Trump in a more “nuanced” way, not prophesied but as “parallel” to Cyrus.

Some ultra Orthodox Jews, like Rabbi Matityahis Glazerson, have also embraced the Cyrus prophesy. For them Trump is a “Moshiach,” as well as a Cyrus, a Messiah-like figure who will help Israel to “settle properly in its land”. Trump’s support for Israel, his daughter’s conversion to Judaism, and the president’s commitment to moving the US embassy – a kind of modern temple – from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, confirm the prophecy.

Perceiving Donald Trump as destined to play the role of a modern Cyrus is focused on the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. This has allied the Evangelicals with fundamentalist Jews in a peculiar way:

Apocalypticism Explained - Jerusalem

When you open the Book of Daniel or the Book of Revelation and read them, there's absolutely no question that the stage is the ancient land of Israel, with the capital of Jerusalem. All the scenarios absolutely center on this, if read literally. ... When fundamentalist Christians read the Bible in the 20th century, something has been fundamentally changed, just in the last 50 years in particular. And that is, they're able to open texts for the first time in 2,000 years--texts like Revelation, texts like the Book of Daniel, all the prophets--and they can begin to see the possibilities of a literal fulfillment, not a symbolic fulfillment as in the past. That is, Jerusalem would mean Jerusalem. The Jewish people would mean literally the Zionists and the Jewish state that now exists. ... In June 1967, at the conclusion of the Six Day War, the Israelis found themselves, for the first time in 2,000 years, in control of the Old City of Jerusalem. Jews could go to the wall and pray. There was this euphoric sense of victory and even survival after this war, from just a Jewish point of view, from an Israeli point of view. Christians, however, who were fundamentalist interpreters of the Bible, had a completely different take on this. It's quite interesting. Not only did they laud and applaud the Jewish sovereignty, but they understood this as the beginning of the end, as a potential fulfillment of Bible prophecy, because in fact every scenario that you can read about in the prophets, from the Book of Revelation back to the Book of Daniel, implies that in the last days Jerusalem would be ruled and controlled not by Turks, not by British, not by all the various cultures that have controlled Jerusalem for the centuries, but by, in fact, a sovereign Jewish population. And so in fact, this was true again. Now, the big event that these interpreters were waiting for would be the rebuilding of the Temple, the so-called Third Temple.

One of the strangest and most unusual symbiotic relationships that has developed from the Six Day War is that fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians have something in common. You would not expect this to happen. But after 1967, with Israeli control over the holy places, and the Temple Mount in particular, here we have a double interest. On the one hand, we have fundamentalist Jews who believe that the destiny and future of Judaism and of the Jewish people is the rebuilding of the Temple up where the Dome of the Rock is, where the mosque is. Now, why would Christians be interested in this? Traditionally, Christians have had no interest in the Jewish Temple. And this is what we've seen develop just in our time. When Christians read the Book of Revelation, they read about a figure coming into Jerusalem from the outside and occupying Jerusalem, and in fact, sitting in a temple of God, claiming to be God, stopping the Jewish sacrifices. And so it's a simple matter of literal reasoning. If in fact the world is going to end, if Jesus is going to come back, if these things are going to happen, we have to have a temple. And so we have Christians interested in seeing that the Temple is built, in some cases even willing to raise funds and even pay for this to be built. Gershon Solomon, who is one of the most vocal advocates of rebuilding the Temple, does much of his speaking not at synagogues, when he comes to the United States, but in Christian churches. He draws thousands of people that want to hear the latest news about the potential rebuilding of the Temple on the Temple Mount. And so it is one of the strangest things, I think, that we've seen develop in our own lifetime. . .

Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between the fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christians and fundamentalist Jews is confirmed by the following:

President Trump: "Be a King Cyrus!"

Temple Mount Faithful to President Donald Trump: "Declare, Call, and Stand with Israel to Build the Third Temple in Jerusalem Like King Cyrus of Persia Did in 536 bce."

"Call the Pope to Return the Temple Menorah and Articles to Jerusalem to Be Used by Israel in the Third Holy Temple, soon to Be Built, Like King Cyrus Did When He Returned the Temple Menorah and Articles from Babylon to Be Used in the Second Temple."

The Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement blesses President Donald Trump upon his election as the next president to lead the United States of America. Today we are blessing President Donald Trump with an ancient Jewish blessing: "Blessed are You our LORD, King of Kings, for sharing His honor with human beings".

Many in Israel think and believe that the election of President Donald Trump was not an accident, but rather an important part of end-time events that we are now experiencing during this very significant era of modern history. President Trump appeared suddenly from nowhere. He never was an active member or an official in any of the political parties in the United States. He came with a completely different vision from all other candidates in the recent elections and especially different from the previous president that served before him. His vision for America is basically to return to the vision of the founding fathers of America, a vision based and adopted from the biblical mandate laid out by the prophets of Israel. More than this, President Donald Trump was elected by the American people with great excitement and expectation, especially concerning his vision and policy toward the greatest ally of the United States, Israel.

The Temple Mount and the Land of Israel Faithful Movement is calling President Donald Trump to stand with Israel in her main mission to build the Third Holy Temple on the Holy Temple Mount in Jerusalem and to fulfill the call of the G‑d of Israel to do it in the lifetime of our generation with no delay. It will be the greatest day for all mankind when Israel will invite the G‑d of Israel and the universe to dwell in His Holy House in Jerusalem in the midst of the life of His people Israel and the entire world.

When the vision of G‑d of thousands of years that always pointed to our end-time generation is fulfilled, it will open a new and unique age that never was before, an age of true worldwide peace when G‑d will reign in the midst of His capital in Jerusalem and bless all of His creation. President Donald Trump, please read and give attention to this great and wonderful prophecy of the G‑d of Israel about our generation:

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. And many people shall go and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the G—d of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for from Zion shall go forth Torah, and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall decide for many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more.... But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of Hosts has spoken it." (Isaiah 2:2 -4, Micah 4:1-4) [Cf. Isaiah 14, and Isaiah 2 (entire chapter)]

That Pope Francis and his supporters in the Vatican and worldwide must have been chafing over all of this has always been obvious. Now it has burst into the open:

Confidants of Pope Francis blast right-wing American evangelicals in article that mentions Trump

Two confidants of the pope penned an article condemning the desire for religious influence in the political sphere

Two collaborators of Pope Francis condemned the growing link between politics and religion in an article this week published in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit publication that is reviewed by the Vatican’s Secretary of State before circulation.

Rev. Antonio Spadaro, the editor-in-chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, and Rev. Marcelo Figueroa, the editor-in-chief of L’Osservatore Romano, co-authored the article that specifically targeted American evangelicals.

Titled, “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism,” the article explicitly references President Donald Trump and his chief adviser, Steve Bannon.

The co-authors wrote that “a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere” in the U.S., Crux reported.

“The most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations,” the authors added.

The pair warned that the politics of Bannon was “apocalyptic” and reminiscent of ISIS, the Huffington Post reported.

“We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible,” they wrote.

Spadaro and Figueroa argued that the goal of Christian fundamentalists is to “submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism.” . . .

Pope Francis allies accuse Donald Trump's team of 'apocalyptic geopolitics' similar to Isis

Leading Vatican-linked figures accuse US President's team of 'evangelical fundamentalism'

Donald Trump’s administration is responsible for promoting an “apocalyptic geopolitics” with roots similar to those of Islamist extremism, two allies of Pope Francis have said.

Writing in La Civilta Cattolica, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Antonio Spadaro, and Marcelo Figueroa, the editor-in-chief of the Argentinian edition of the Vatican newspaper, accused Steve Bannon, the US President’s chief strategist, of being a “supporter of apocalyptic geopolitics” and claimed Mr Trump’s team promote an “evangelical fundamentalism” that twists Christian scripture to promote conflict and war. . .

In the article, the authors accuse Mr Trump’s team of using a selective interpretation of the Bible to demonise “the migrants and the Muslims”.

“Within this narrative, whatever pushes toward conflict is not off limits”, they write.

“It does not take into account the bond between capital and profits and arms sales. Quite the opposite, often war itself is assimilated to the heroic conquests of the ‘Lord of Hosts’ of Gideon and David. In this Manichaean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context.”

They say the belief that leaders should “submit the state to the Bible” is “no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism”.

“At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the worldviews of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart,” the authors write.

“We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible.”

The article is likely to deepen tensions between the White House and the Vatican. [Cf. RIGHT WING SUPREMACY]

It is worthy of note that Pope Francis has not given up on diplomacy:

Report: Jerusalem, Vatican in talks on pope visit to Israel Deliberations are reportedly underway about Pope Francis's possible second trip from the Holy See to the Holy Land.

Officials in Jerusalem and the Vatican have been discussing the possibility of Pope Francis visiting Israel this coming autumn, Channel 10 reported on Thursday.

The report, citing unnamed sources, did not provide further details on the alleged deliberations. The pope previously visited Israel in 2014, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between the Jewish state and the Holy See. Channel 10's report Thursday emerged the day after the pontiff and US President Donald Trump met at the Vatican on the third leg of the American leader's nine-day foreign tour, which also included stops in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Pope Francis urged Trump to be a peacemaker in what was expected to be a tense meeting after the two had exchanged sharp words last year.

Trump at first did not plan to stop in Rome during his visit to Europe, which some in the Vatican saw as a snub. When he changed his mind, the Vatican squeezed him in at 8:30 a.m. on a Wednesday morning, an unusual day and an unusually early time. . .

The Vatican's policy on Jerusalem has been crystal clear for a long time. Jewish and Christian Zionists have been impeding Rome's progress in the implementation of the policy. Promoting the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians has been a critically important component of papal policy. Now with Donald Trump's election and the madness of the Evangelical Christians who support him, there is both a continuing intransigence by the Israeli government supported by the Christian Zionists, and even more alarming for the world as well as the Vatican the threat of fomenting war in the Middle East. Here one cannot ignore the prophecies of Dan. 11:40-44.

Which will prevail - the peace efforts of the Vatican and the United Nations, or the provocation of wars by the presidency of Donald Trump? If the latter, how will Rome ever establish her presence in Jerusalem according to the prophecy of Dan. 11:45, which undoubtedly will be fulfilled? It is profitable to compare the fantasies described in the articles cited above to parallel prophecies of the Bible.

Before doing so, it must be noted that there is a true Apocalypse revealed in the Bible, which is now rapidly approaching, in the light of the prophetic Word. There are the detailed prophecies of Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation and in the Gospels. There are also prophetic references to the Apocalypse in the Old Testament (e.g. Isa. 2:10-21; Isa. 13:9-13.) Related to Dan. 11:45 are two prophecies which fill in details of events that are to occur during the period of time covered by that verse (Isa. 14:12-14; Isa. 2:2-5.) It is also evident that the events of Rev. 17:7-13 fall within the same time period, preceding Dan. 12:1 and Rev. 17:14.

Close and prayerful study of the prophecies should not fail to yield enlightenment and understanding; but always in opposition to the Truth has been Satan who ". . .abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44.) There are many fables about the apocalypse inspired by him, perhaps the most egregious because of their influence on world politics are those of the Evangelicals, as described in the articles cited above. There are two major parallels between their fantasies and the true prophecies:

The Evangelicals predict wars raging, particularly in the Middle East, to herald the Second Coming of Jesus. (Millions of Americans believe above)

Dan. 11:40-44 predict wars in the Middle East immediately prior to the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45; which is followed by the close of probation for the world.

Although not predicting the building of a third Temple in Jerusalem, the prophecy of Isa. 14:13 clearly associates Satan with an "enthronement" on the Temple Mount.

So again the question arises: how will Rome ever establish her presence in Jerusalem according to the prophecy of Dan. 11:45? Conservative reasoning would lead to the conclusion that this will be by means of peaceful negotiations; and indeed this has been the choice of the Vatican for decades. However, the policies espoused by the Evangelicals, who are now firmly ensconced in the governance of the United States, promise nothing but conflict, and Dan. 11:40-44 predicts conflict. This raises the question whether the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45 will emerge out of conflict by a supernatural event? Here the counsel of Elder James White is relevant:

Fulfilled prophecy may be understood by the Bible student. Prophecy is history in advance. He can compare history with prophecy and find a complete fit as the glove to the hand, it having been made for it. But in exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, where the history is not written, the student should put forth his propositions with not too much positiveness, lest he find himself straying in the field of fancy. (Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877)

Mindful of this wise counsel, the thoughts that follow are offered with the utmost caution; but with a sense of the need to be watchful against being caught unawares by the ultimate supernatural event predicted in Bible prophecy (Rev. 17:7-8; Isa. 14:12-14; Isa. 2:2-4 cited above.)

Elder Wm. H. Grotheer begins his Revelation seminar sermon, Part 3, with the following quotation:

The great Joseph Mede long ago remarked that “the Jews expected Christ to come when he did come, and yet knew him not when he was come, because they fancied the manner and quality of his coming like some temporal monarch with armed power to subdue the earth before him. So the Christians, God’s second Israel, looked [expected that] the coming of Antichrist should be at that time when he came indeed, and yet they knew him not when he was come; because they had fancied his coming as of some barbarous tyrant who should with armed power not only persecute and destroy the church of Christ, but almost the world; that is, they looked for such an Antichrist as the Jews looked for a Christ.” (Mede’s Works, p. 647.)-“Daniel and His Prophecies,” Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., “Introduction,” p. xvi. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906.

Perhaps the danger for our generation which believes that THE Antichrist in the person of Satan impersonating the TRUE Christ will come, is that we misjudge how near and sudden this stupendous event might be, and are caught unawares. While we may look for and anticipate the successful completion of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process as a necessary precursor to the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45, might fulfillment emerge suddenly out of widespread conflict in the Middle East?

Turning again to a statement of Elder Grotheer, in JERUSALEM - PAPAL POLICY, WWN 8(84) he writes: "It would appear that the Basic Law of Israel, and the policy of the Vatican are on a collision course. But should Satan coming as the Messiah in the outward splendor as the Jews have perceived the coming of the Messiah to be, and claim "the throne of his father, David," could Israel resist such an overwhelming "delusion?" There does not appear to be any elaboration of this statement elsewhere in his writings; but the statement seems to be very reasonable, given the obstinacy of the Israeli government and the strong convictions of the Zionists, Jewish and Christian.

Elder Grotheer based his observation on the certainty of Dan. 11:45 being fulfilled in spite of the intractable opposition of the Zionists. An investigative journalist based in Israel views the Vatican's designs on Jerusalem from a different perspective; but the scenario he presents of how this is being approached follows a strikingly similar track to that observed as possible by Elder Grotheer:-

The Vatican Agenda:

How Does The Vatican View The Legitimacy of Israel's Claims To Jerusalem?

Joel Bainerman

. . . What Does The Vatican Want?

It can't be that the Vatican is only interested in "access to their Holy Sites" in Jerusalem. They already have that as well as legal jurisdiction under Israeli law for their institutions and assets in Jerusalem. Also, when these "Holy Sites" were under the jurisdiction of the Jordanians from l948-l967, no Pope demanded the "internationalization of Jerusalem".

It is something else, which the Vatican wants. The Roman Catholic Church, need to have certain versions of events be played out for them to stand in front of mankind and proclaim: our Messiah has returned.” Of course, to the Jews, this Messiah will be as false as the first one was supposed to be. Don’t matter. This is the goal of the Vatican and this is what all Israelis need to worry about.

The Vatican/Roman Catholic’s version of events is this:

They know this isn't the end of the story that the Jewish G-d had in mind, but that doesn't mean they won't try and engineer their own ending to the story. So what if it is fraudulent. Doesn't matter, that is their game plan and that is what matters and that is what Israeli Jews need to be better informed about. It is important for everyone to know what The Vatican have up its sleeve because it directly relates to our existence and our future destiny as an independent nation. This a very powerful force this is scheming to get control of the Old City of Jerusalem so you better know why and how the Vatican intends to do this. Once you have all the facts and the chronological record you will be better informed deal with this issue and of foreign control over Israel's political existence and destiny.

First, you have to realize that for centuries The Vatican has attempted to obtain control of Jerusalem, which started with the Crusades. For them to convince the world that the Messiah they put on the world's stage is going to be accepted as genuine, they need to perform this play in the Old City. The story of this production is that this "Messiah" will merge the three monotheistic religions, usher in peace and harmony in the world, and solve the Middle East conflict. The location for this "production" will be in none other than the Old City of Jerusalem.

This so-called "Messiah" that will be proclaimed, will be a false one and it will insist that by having a "world government" (i.e., the United Nations) the world peace and harmony will be ushered in. This will be a lie, and a fraud, but never mind. In our world, reality isn't important. Public perceptions are. The end result is the stripping of Israel's sovereignty as an independent nation giving way to a "regional bloc of nations" in the Middle East. Israel will be pressured to accede to these demands by all world bodies and the superpowers on the claim that "this is the only way to solve the Middle East conflict). In order to the Jews to go along they will convince them that with the "Messiah" having appeared for the Jews, it is time to start rebuilding the Third Temple- what they call "Solomon's Temple". This version of events is widely available through a simple search on the Internet as there are many Christian groups and organizations (the majority of which who are very pro-Israel) who don’t buy into these beliefs and thus are against them. I didn’t come up with the theory- I am just bringing it to the attention of the Israeli public. . .

Reading the foregoing, it almost seems that Bainerman was aware of the prophecies concerning Jerusalem, not least of all Isa. 14:12-14; but there is no mention of Bible prophecy in his essay.

He set out a chronology of events which extends from October 1991 to July 2002, with no mention of the 1996 election in which Benjamin Netanyahu defeated Shimon Peres for the premiership. This ushered in the era of increasingly rightwing Zionist leadership under first Ariel Sharon and then Netanyahu, who has won the premiership four times, most recently in 2015. This course of events, coupled with unwavering support from Christian Zionists in the United States both at the grassroots and Republican government level, has hardened opposition to the "Vatican Agenda."

The chronology includes a segment on what Rome had achieved during the 1990s:

September, 1993

On the 10th of September, just three days before the signing of the Oslo Accords Washington, the Italian newspaper La Stampa reported that then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres concluded a secret deal with the Vatican to hand over sovereignty of Jerusalem's Old City to the Vatican. The agreement and it [sic] was included in the secret clauses of the Declaration Of Principles signed on September 13th, 1993 in Washington, DC.

In the same week that Israeli Foreign Minister and chief Oslo architect Shimon Peres signed the Declaration of Principles with Yasser Arafat in Washington, the Israel-Vatican commission held a special meeting in Israel. Under the Vatican agreement the Israelis would give over control the Old City to the Vatican before the year 2000. The plan also calls for Jerusalem to become the second Vatican of the world with all three major religions represented but under the authority of the Vatican. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel but the Old City will be administered by the Vatican. . .

Putting together Rome's objective, the challenge of Jewish Zionist governmental opposition, the apocalyptic ideology of the Christian Right now in the ascendancy in America combined with that of the Jewish "Temple Mount Faithful," it is reasonable to wonder whether Elder Grotheer's suggestion of how the impasse might ultimately be resolved was not prescient. Bainerman's thinking in his essay is also consistent with this idea.

Once again recalling James White's counsel, this is not a prediction. However, the possibility that there might be a sudden and totally unexpected realization of the Vatican Agenda by supernatural intervention demands close watching of the course of events in the United States and Israel.

3With the Trump presidency conflict with nation states of the Middle East has become conceivable, especially with Iran.


Giving "Life Unto the Image of the Beast" to Cause It to Speak

The Evangelical Christian Supremacists are making no secret of their unwavering support of the Donald Trump presidency, and we can anticipate similar support for any SUCCEEDING PRESIDENCY/PRESIDENCIES for which an impregnable foundation has been laid. The prophecies of Rev. 13 predict that the present theocratic wave cannot be rolled back. The Prophets of Baal are engaged in intense activity and America is increasingly identifiable as the False Prophet. The question remaining now is how rapidly the nation is advancing to the complete fulfillment of Rev. 13:15b-17? It is well to keep in mind the prophecy of Ellen G. White that "the final movements will be rapid ones":-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Nearly 100 Evangelical Leaders Met With White House Staff for 'Listening Sessions' Last Week

Donald Trump's White House expanded its engagement with faith leaders last week by holding three different listening sessions that featured nearly 100 different Christian leaders and activists, participants have told The Christian Post.

Just weeks after a gathering of about 30 evangelical leaders met for an all-day workday in Washington on July 10 that was highlighted by a prayer session over the president in the Oval Office, the White House Office of Public Liaison expanded its evangelical outreach by inviting faith leaders who have not yet been involved in previous meetings with the administration to voice their concerns and thoughts. . .

"The White House has continued to have listening sessions with evangelical leaders and they had three more this week. Almost 100 evangelicals [participated]," Moore, who heads a public relations company that serves many notable evangelical pastors, said Friday. "Each listening session was about two hours and involved briefings from administration officials and an opportunity for folks to express their thoughts on various issues." . . .

According to Moore, the listening sessions included quick briefings on various issues from officials in White House's legislative and judicial affairs departments. Most of the meetings, Moore added, consisted of open-table discussions between the leaders with White House officials in the room taking notes.

"It's a listening session. It's not about these leaders coming so they can be lectured to," Moore said. "It's about actually making an opportunity to come to the White House as citizens and faith leaders and talking about what was on their mind."

The meetings with White House officials gives the faith leaders the opportunity to learn details about issues that they wouldn't normally hear in the news. Moore said that one of the biggest areas of frustration amongst the leaders in the different meetings was the delay in judicial appointments. However, the faith leaders were told that the delay for many of these appointments was because of the Senate's "blue slip" tradition.

"The leaders expressed frustration when they learned about a blue slip system, which is an arcane Senate tradition, where a senator from a state in which an appointed judge resides would have to hand a blue slip of paper to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee as a courtesy before it proceeds in hearing," Moore said. "The Democrats are using the blue slips as kind of veto when it is just Senate tradition and there is no rule or anything. I would say a lot of the leaders zeroed in on judicial appointments and were surprised to hear the way in which the Democrats were being obstructionists as it relates to these judicial appointees."

Floyd added that besides judicial appointments, another issue that was brought up in the meetings he was in was Obamacare.

Moore asserted that as time goes on, there "will be more" of these types of meetings between administration officials and the faith leaders.

"What I understand is they intend on inviting lots and lots and lots of leaders to listening sessions among various constituencies," Moore said. "There will be more of them. They want this to be people's house and they want to make sure there is no problem getting in touch with them and expressing points of view and those points of view are taken into account."

Floyd agreed there will be "deeper engagement" between the White House and faith leaders.

"Regardless of what people say, ... there are two things we need to be encouraged [about]," he said. "First, this administration has proven that they care about what people of faith want and what people of faith are concerned about and they are addressing them. It is very obvious that they are addressing them. Secondly, this administration ... is zealous for people to pray for them. Obviously, they need it and we all need it in our country and they are very willing to pursue God about matters in this relationship and asking people to pray for them."

Moore states that the Trump administration officials want the White House to be "the people's house;" but it appears that in his mind this does not include the vast millions in this nation who have a jaundiced view of religion in government and the courts.

The frustration of the Evangelicals with delays in judicial appointments is particularly ominous. There is much that cannot be accomplished by legislation because of opposition by a majority of public opinion. The easier, and authoritarian, way to achieve the objectives of the Christian Supremacists is through the Courts. At all levels of the Federal Judiciary the increasing numbers of religio-political appointees can bend existing decisions to fit their Romanist and Christian Supremacist ideology. In addition, at the Supreme Court level there is the absolute power to overrule existing legal precedents or make transient decisions. Outstanding recent decisions of SCOTUS that have done lasting damage by advancing the cause of union of Church and State are Bush v. Gore, the Citizens United case, the Hobby Lobby case, and most recently in the Trinity Lutheran Church case. There are numerous other decisions that have contributed to the cause of promoting theocratic governance in America. The process of destroying the wall of separation between Church and State is far advanced.

The religio-political Evangelicals have declared their opposition to Obamacare on two grounds: (a) that it facilitates abortion and contraception, and (b) that it constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

Bankrupt in the knowledge of the Scriptures by the corrupting effect of the historical-critical method of biblical exegesis invented by the Church of Rome they, in common with other Protestants, were seduced into accepting Rome's tradition on abortion and contraception. Since the Protestants could not base their teaching on tradition, they eisegetically distorted the meaning of texts of Scripture into prohibitions against abortion and contraception that do not exist in the Bible.
Albeit specious, opposition to abortion (as applied to the apparent termination of a life in being,) and even contraception (encouraging promiscuity,) can be perceived as a moral issue. In reality, the whole issue revolves around the dogma of the Immortality of the Soul. This is most glaringly evident when the argument is made that a life in being begins at conception, and the debate rages about when "ensoulment" takes place.

There can be no perceptible moral basis for opposition to Obamacare on the ground that it constitutes a redistribution of wealth. What a travesty of the Christian faith, degraded to the level of a defense of the accumulation of wealth and power to the detriment of affordable health care for the poor and disadvantaged!:

Many Christians want you to preach against Obamacare: don’t do it.

In an article in the Aquila Report today Larry Ball argues that pastors need to start preaching about politics again, specifically in view of the Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Ball suggests that Christians are entirely at a loss about how to respond to this development, both because the national slide away from the constitution has been going on for so long, and because the church no longer teaches what the Bible has to say about these matters. Ball writes,

Christians have been kept in the dark for lack of good teaching. In essence the Constitution today is null and void. The only answer to the modern political debate on health care is a return to biblical law. . .

Ball goes on,

Conservative politicians, and even the Church, are unable to apply biblical law to the political issues of the day. We still seem to believe that the separation of Church and State voids the application of biblical law in the public square. . .

I have three basic problems with this line of thinking. First, why is it that political conservatives are so confident that the Bible gives them a platform from which to denounce government taxation policy? If the Bible says anything about the relationship between Christians and the state, it is precisely that believers should not imagine Christ’s kingdom to say anything that would remove Caesar’s authority over money and taxation. Wasn’t it Jesus himself who asked the Jews whose inscription was on their money? And whose inscription is on those dollars that fill the wallets, bank accounts, and pension funds of Americans? . . .

By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans prefer Obamacare to Republican replacements

Republicans racing to pass a bill that would overhaul the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) certainly understand that their efforts aren’t polling well. In survey after survey, a majority of respondents view their legislative proposals unfavorably. At the same time, survey after survey shows Obamacare as more popular than not. . .

More worrisome for Republicans hoping to pass a new bill is how the support broke out by demographic. Only among Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals and white men without college degrees did more Americans support the GOP bill than Obamacare. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Ex-Christian lambasts Evangelicals for cheering repeal of Obamacare in devastating Facebook post

With Republicans about to gut the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare — an atheist has come forward to explain that it was Christian Evangelical attacks of health care for all that drove him from the church seven years ago. . .

Horst noted that, despite the fact that he made a good living while being self-employed, he was well aware that one trip to the hospital or a severe illness could wipe out every penny his family had.

With that in mind, Horst said he was horrified when his fellow Christians came out so strongly against President Obama’s signature achievement that would help the poor and children receive healthcare so many other American’s enjoyed. . .

“In 2010 I had been a Conservative Evangelical Christian for all of my adult life. I began to realize that others around me despised the thought of allowing people like me the benefit of affordable health insurance. For some reason, all of the Christians that I knew thought that offering health insurance to people like me would put them at some kind of a disadvantage that they were not willing to accept. Frankly, they had been lied to so they believed those ‘others’ were going to get healthcare and make their own healthcare inadequate,” Horst wrote.

“As a Christian, I believed that I would be judged on the Final Judgment Day on how I took care of the ‘least of these’ as described in the Bible book of Matthew, chapter 25,” He continued. “I came to the sober realization that Christians around me had no such convictions. If they didn’t believe Jesus’ words as recorded in the Bible, why should I? Then one day I discovered I could no longer believe any of it.”

According to Horst, he now has come to believe that some of his former Christian friends are, “not followers of Jesus. Not the Jesus that the Bible speaks of, anyway.”. . .

The reaction of this ex-Evangelical described above is an indicator of the grievous harm that the Christian Supremacists must be doing to the perceptions of the Christian Faith by billions of other religions or no religion at all.

The Evangelicals are the ascendant political power in the emergence of Image to the Beast and giving life to the Image, and this is exactly as prophesied in Rev. 13. It is an Image, and not the Beast itself. However, Romanism permeates the ideology and actions of the Christian Supremacists. This extends to their opposition to big government, which is inspired by the Roman Catholic Natural Law principle of subsidiarity, which is wholly inadequate to cope with the problem of poverty in this modern, complex, sophisticated, technological world.

It is worthy of note that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in America has been dominated by right-wing conservatives for decades; but there has always been a "liberal" wing in world Catholicism ever since Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum. The current Pope is viewed by many as a "liberal." It is perhaps a reflection of his increasing influence within the USCCB that it has changed its attitude towards Obamacare, in contrast with the frustration of the Evangelicals that repeal has no as yet been accomplished:

Catholic bishops urge Congress to preserve health care coverage

(RNS) The U.S. Catholic hierarchy was one of the staunchest foes of President Obama’s signature health care law, nearly derailing its passage in 2010 over concerns about abortion funding and exacting a political toll that helped doom abortion-opposing Democrats who backed Obamacare while boosting Republican efforts to take control of Congress.

But faced with the prospect of the GOP following through on pledges to repeal health care reform, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops seems to be changing its tune.

On Wednesday (Jan. 18), the USCCB released a letter warning Congress not to overturn the law without providing an immediate replacement to provide continuing coverage for the millions who have been insured under the Affordable Care Act.

“We recognize that the law has brought about important gains in coverage, and those gains should be protected,” Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, Fla., chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, wrote to House and Senate members.

He said the bishops will examine proposals to amend or replace Obamacare but said that “for now that a repeal of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act ought not be undertaken without the concurrent passage of a replacement plan that ensures access to adequate health care for the millions of people who now rely upon it for their wellbeing.”

For those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, he said, a repeal “would prove particularly devastating.”

Update: U.S. bishops say Senate health care bill will ‘wreak havoc’ on families

On Thursday, Senate Republicans released their version of a bill aimed at repealing the Affordable Care Act, drawing swift condemnation from one prominent Catholic health group, which said it is “strongly opposed” to the measure. Catholic bishops took a more nuanced view, strongly condemning portions of the bill that they say harm the social safety net but praising language that would restrict funding for abortion providers. . .

Catholic bishops released a statement on Thursday evening saying that parts of the Senate proposal would “cause disturbing damage to the human beings served by the social safety net” and that it could “wreak havoc on low-income families and struggling communities, and must not be supported.” . . .

“It is precisely the detrimental impact on the poor and vulnerable that makes the Senate draft unacceptable as written,” he continued.

Bishop Dewane praised portions of the bill, however, which would temporarily freeze funding for Planned Parenthood. He lauded “language in the legislation recognizing that abortion is not health care by attempting to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortion or plans that cover it.”

Rome will never change in her opposition to abortion and contraception, which is an effective snare for millions of Christians who might otherwise be opposed to Romanism. On social policy she is flexible, and it is obvious that the pendulum is swinging to the side of the "liberals." Whether this will have an impact on the Evangelicals who are the active agents in forming the Image to the Beast remains to be seen. What is certain is the continuing fulfillment of the prophecy declared in Rev. 13:12.

The pendulum may swing from side to side; but the hour on the clockface advances inexorably towards the midnight which must precede the glorious dawning of eternal day.


On Monday, July 12, 2017, Religious Right Evangelical leaders prayed and laid hands on Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Clearly these contemporary prophets of Baal were shoring up their anointed one in the face of his declining poll numbers:

Photo surfaces of evangelical pastors laying hands on Trump in the Oval Office

A group of evangelical leaders met with President Trump on Monday and laid their hands on him as he bowed in prayer while meeting in the Oval Office.

The leaders met with Jennifer Korn, deputy director and liaison from the White House, for a day-long meeting to discuss several issues, including the Affordable Care Act, religious freedom, pending judicial nominees, criminal justice reform and support for Israel. During their visit the leaders paid a visit to the Oval Office where Vice President Pence and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, dropped in.

About 30 leaders received invitations to the White House around a week and a half ago and included many of Trump’s faith advisory council from his campaign, including Florida megachurch pastor Paula White, South Carolina megachurch pastor Mark Burns, former Republican representative Michele Bachmann and Southern Baptist pastors Jack Graham, Ronnie Floyd and Robert Jeffress.

Evangelicals, especially those who consider themselves more charismatic, often lay hands on individuals during prayer. In the New Testament, the apostles would lay hands on believers, often using it as a sign of responsibility or authority. Many Christians lay hands on those who are being ordained in the church.

In the prophet Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal, the miracle-working power was wrought by him under the power of the Holy Spirit. The prophecy concerning the modern prophets of Baal reveals a reversal of the miracle-working power, and this deceives "them that dwell on the earth;" but the destruction of this power as the False Prophet is described in Rev. 19:20.

Religious leaders pray over Trump in Oval Office

Evangelical leaders laid hands and prayed over President Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, and discussed several policy issues, the Washington Post reports.

Pastors at the meeting told The Post that the group discussed issues such as religious freedom, judicial nominees, criminal justice reform and the Affordable Care Act. Vice President Pence and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were also present at the prayer gathering.

The group included megachurch pastors Paula White of Florida and Mark Burns of South Carolina, former Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and three Southern Baptist pastors.

The laying of hands is a symbol of God's authority, practiced in many evangelical denominations. Jesus and his apostles used the sign throughout the New Testament to bless and heal people and to commission messengers of the gospel. Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne posted photos of the meeting on Facebook, and said he prayed for "supernatural wisdom, guidance and protection" for Trump. "Wow — we are going to see another great spiritual awakening," he said in the post.

That there are supernatural forces empowering Trump is an unquestionable fact. It is expressly predicted in Rev. 16:13-14. Note how this passage of Scripture and Rev. 19:20 clearly identify the two-horned beast of Rev. 13 as the False Prophet.

Trump has been embattled throughout the first six months of his presidency, and seems to be headed for certain impeachment unless he is able to head it off with the support of the Theocrats. How much damage his presidency will do to constitutional democracy in the United States, and above all in the spiritual realm by raising theocratic governance to a pinnacle of satanic power remains to be seen; but the Christian Supremacists have his successor waiting in the wings. American democracy and true religious liberty are under a siege that appears to be terminal in the light of Bible prophecy.

'A Visit Among Friends': Evangelical Leaders Pray Over Trump at Oval Office Meeting

A group of evangelical leaders prayed over President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, with Vice President Mike Pence in attendance as well.

Following a meeting hosted by the Office of Public Liaison on Monday, the evangelical leaders met with President Trump and administration officials in the Oval Office.

Johnnie Moore, president of the KAIROS Company and an attendee of the prayer meeting, snapped a photo of the laying of hands on Trump that is garnering immense attention on social media.

In a statement emailed to The Christian Post, Moore described the event as "a very special moment but it was also not an unusual one."

"Various ones of us have prayed with him many times and have been praying for him for a long time ... We believe we are a praying nation, and we begin by praying for our leaders," stated Moore.

"As you know, most evangelicals believe it's a sacred responsibility to pray for the president, and this is very much in our tradition as Americans who once took — and sometimes still do take — this responsibility seriously."

Moore also noted that while he and the other evangelical leaders had prayed for former President Barack Obama, "it's different with President Trump."

"When we are praying for President Trump we are praying within the context of a real relationship, of true friendship," continued Moore, calling it "a visit among friends."

"Evangelicals feel the door to the White House is as open as it has ever been before, even compared to Reagan according to several that were there whose career began back then."

It appears that since 2015 the spirits of Rev. 16:13-14 have inspired Evangelical leaders to claim "that God has given Trump 'an anointing for the mantle of government',” comparing his future role to that of Cyrus described in Isaiah 45:

‘Prophetic Prayer’ Claims God Has Given Donald Trump ‘Anointing for Mantle of Government’

A leadership and motivational speaker recently delivered what he called a “prophetic prayer” to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump via his attorney, claiming that God has given Trump “an anointing for the mantle of government.”

Lance Wallnau of Dallas posted a video on Facebook on Tuesday that showed the speaker encouraging Christians at an event in North Carolina to support Trump. He was surrounded by scores of attendees who cheered for the presidential candidate with their hands raised in the air.

“My dear Michael Cohen,” Wallnau states, referring to Trump’s attorney, “I am here with a group of people that are praying for and encouraging Mr. Donald Trump. These are the tribe; would you all encourage him!”

Then people then raised loud cheers for several seconds.

“God has given this man an anointing for the mantle of government in the United States and he will prosper,” Wallnau declares, the people then cheering again and clapping.

He said in his social media post that he won some of the attendees over for Trump after telling them that he recently realized that the 2016 election will select the 45th president, and he felt that God was telling him to read Isaiah 45 to “see who the 45th President of the United States should be.”

“This is what the Lord says to His anointed, Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him, as I strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him and gates that cannot keep closed,” Isaiah 45:1 reads.

[I] told them my experience and asked them to consider standing behind Mr. Trump as he continues to step into the role of a rough reformer like Luther to take on the Political and establishment high places,” Wallanu said. “He needs to continue his work as a divine wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness that has been like witchcraft muzzling and intimidating the Christian community.” . . .

Wallnau was among those present last month when over 30 members of the clergy met with Trump at his New York City tower and laid hands on him to pray for his potential presidency.

Prosperity preachers Kenneth Copeland, Paula White and TBN’s Jan Crouch were also present.

Lance Wallnau, Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, are all leaders in the charismatic movement. Jan Crouch (now deceased) also was a charismatic. The leaders of this delusional movement which is driven by the evil spirits of Rev. 16:13-14, 16, has recognized in Donald Trump and instrument for the advancement of the devil's ultimate purpose via his representative on earth, the Church of Rome.

There is one individual who can aptly be described as the High Priest of Baal, and that is Pat Robertson. In an essay titled The Despoiling of America, by Katherine Yurica, under the section heading "The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America" is the following statement:

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it. And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty. On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. . .

The High Priest of Baal followed up the prayer and anointing in the Oval Office by the prophets of Baal with a friendly interview, thus further reinforcing the anointing of Trump as the appointed leader of the Theocrats:

Amid controversy, Trump sits down with Pat Robertson for interview

President Trump, embroiled in a controversy over possible collusion with the Russians to influence the 2016 election, sat for an interview with the Rev. Pat Robertson, former Republican presidential candidate and host of the Christian television show “The 700 Club.”

The interview, which will be aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network on Thursday (July 13), is another example of the president’s sidestepping of the traditional news media for friendlier outlets.

Robertson, who founded CBN in 1961, was a vocal Trump supporter during the 2016 campaign. He defended the candidate’s lewd behavior in a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video as “macho talk” and has described Trump critics as “revolting against God’s plan for America.”

Robertson speaks not for the God of heaven; but for the God of this world. The events unfolding in the election and presidency of Donald Trump are clearly fulfilling prophecy. The predicted Image has clearly emerged from the shadows in the United States, mirroring the first Beast of Revelation 13. Although the anointing of Trump in the Oval Office was performed by Evangelicals as reported, these prophets of Baal are locked in tight embrace with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the first Beast. It is worthy of note that at least one prominent person who presented himself at the ceremony is the perfect embodiment of this satanic union, in his own words.

It appears that whether or not Donald Trump is impeached and forced out of the presidency, the nation is caught in the deadly claws of the dragon. Events are crying out for the undivided attention of historicist students of Bible prophecy.


From BibleGateway (NKJV):-

The Great Apostasy:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. . .

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:3-4, 8-12; italized and underscored emphasis added.)

The Apostle Paul states plainly, "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (Underscored and italicized emphasis added; cf. ANTI-CHRIST - WHO IS HE?.)

Compromise is evidence that the compromisers "did not receive the love of the truth," and the Apostle prophesies that God sends them "strong delusion, that they should believe the lie." This prophecy clearly applies to the times immediately preceding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The compromise reported in the following article is a part of the ecumenical movement's progress towards complete unity between Rome and the great Protestant movement which was once her nemesis. The compromisers who reject the truth and have pleasure in unrighteousness are condemned, as is Rome herself:-

Reformed churches endorse Catholic-Lutheran accord on key Reformation dispute

Amid ceremonies this year marking the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, one of Protestantism’s leading branches has officially said it now agrees with the Vatican on the main issue at the root of its split from the Roman Catholic Church half a millennium ago.

The World Communion of Reformed Churches, holding its once-in-seven-years worldwide General Council in Germany, signed a declaration this week endorsing the 1999 Catholic-Lutheran agreement on how Christians might be worthy of salvation in the eyes of God.

The ceremony took place in Wittenberg, where in 1517 Martin Luther unveiled the 95 Theses that launched the Reformation and with it centuries of dispute about whether eternal salvation comes from faith alone — the position of the [then] new Protestant movement — or if it also requires good works on Earth as Catholics argued. . .

This decision by the WCRC — representing 80 million members of Congregational, Presbyterian, Reformed, United, Uniting and Waldensian churches — marked another step in a gradual but remarkable reconciliation on this issue among Christians who once fought wars and declared each other heretics over just such questions.

The World Methodist Council formally endorsed the Catholic-Lutheran accord, known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, in 2006. The Anglican Communion is expected to do the same later this year. . .

The Joint Declaration effectively closes the centuries-old “faith versus works” debate by merging the Lutheran and Catholic views on salvation rather than setting them against each other.

“By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part,” its key passage said, “we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.”

Historic though it is, the resolution of this theological dispute will not soon lead to changes that people in the pews would notice, such as sharing Communion between Catholics and Protestants, or mutual recognition of each other’s ministers.

“While it brings us closer with the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans on this particular issue, it does not necessarily immediately move us closer in concrete ways that will be felt in our member churches,” said WCRC spokesman Philip Tanis.

A statement by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said the Wittenberg signing ceremony “must be seen as another important milestone on the journey towards the full visible unity of Christians; not yet the end of the road but a significant stage on the way.” (Underscored and italicized emphasis added.)

Jesus said, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men "(Matt. 15:9.) The Protestant compromisers in their delusion fail to recognize this spiritual reality. The Truth of God as it is revealed in the Bible is unchangeable and not subject to compromise. It is the Truth which brings the joy of salvation full and free:

The Review Begins - SALVATION BASICS

Salvation Basics

Are there two ways by which men may be right and acceptable to God? The signing of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" this past year has raised this question. At a news conference prior to the signing, Cardinal Cassidy said that the conferees, both Lutheran and Roman Catholic, found nothing in their contemporary teaching that was contrary to the "two traditional strands" of the Council of Trent and the Lutheran confessions. The Jesuit theologian, Avery Dulles, in a lecture on the Declaration captioned his analysis as - "Two Languages of Salvation."

Lars P. Qualben, in his textbook for college and seminary classes, lists four Reformation principles as set forth by Luther. Number one reads - "Man is justified by faith alone and not by works." (A History of the Christian Church, p. 216). In the same textbook, the position of the Council of Trent is given - "The doctrine of justification left room for work-merit." (ibid., p. 331) Reduced to simplest terms it is either salvation by faith alone or salvation by faith plus works. There is no way that these two positions can be reconciled. For Adventists it was the issue in 1888; and it is the same now involving most of those who claim to be "historic" Adventists, they placing themselves on the side of the Council of Trent.

In the solution of this question - Are there two ways by which men can be right and acceptable to God? - two other fundamental positions of the Reformation must come into play: 1) "The Bible is the only source and standard for faith and life;" and 2) "The Bible must be interpreted by the aid of the Holy Spirit." (ibid., p. 217) . . .

In Christ Alone . . .

"Justified Freely" . . .

By Faith Alone . . .

Sanctification . . .

"simul justus et peccator" . . .

Subjugation & Manifestation . . .

The 1888 Message . . .

Cf. What the Old Covenant Teaches; "More Than the Crucifixion"; Paul's Illustration of Righteousness by Faith







Supreme Court sides with religious institutions in a major church-state decision

The Supreme Court ended its term Monday with a major First Amendment decision, ruling that efforts at separating church and state go too far when they deny religious institutions access to government grants meant for a secular purpose.

In siding with a Missouri church that had been denied money to resurface its playground, the court ruled 7-2 that excluding churches from state programs for which other charitable groups are eligible is a violation of the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

“The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., brought the case because it was excluded from a state program that reimburses the cost of rubberizing the surface of playgrounds. The church scored high in the grant process, but Missouri’s state constitution, like those in about three dozen states, forbade government from spending public money on “any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” . . .

The court’s ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer was a narrow one, but experts said it is sure to bring more challenges from religious groups in other areas.

“School choice is on a great footing, a better footing today than it was yesterday,” said Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which advocates for private-school voucher programs. “The court’s reasoning sends a strong signal that just as the court would not tolerate the exclusion of a church from a playground resurfacing program, it will not tolerate the exclusion of a child from a school-choice program solely because they want to use a scholarship at a religious school.

Others disputed that summary. But groups supportive of the separation of church and state were disappointed by the ruling, and it drew a long and passionate dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sotomayor signaled the importance she places on the decision by reading part of her dissent from the bench.

The ruling “weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both,” Sotomayor wrote. She added, “If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”(Underscored emphasis added.)

The constitutional grounds for the State of Missouri's denial of the church’s application for a cash grant to subsidize the cost of resurfacing its playground with recycled scrap-tire material was stated in an ACLU article prior to the Supreme Court ruling:

The State of Missouri Was Right to Say No Church Playground Renovations on the Taxpayers' Dime

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, the Supreme Court will consider whether the state of Missouri violated the U.S. Constitution when it denied the church’s application for a cash grant to subsidize the cost of resurfacing its playground with recycled scrap-tire material. While, at first blush, this may appear to be a simple dispute about payments for playground improvements, it implicates one of our most essential, enduring constitutional commitments: the ban on direct government funding of houses of worship.

The lower court in this case properly rejected what it described as the church’s “unprecedented” claims, which would force state taxpayers to underwrite improvements to church property. Indeed, the state acted well within its authority, pursuant to a longstanding provision in the Missouri Constitution, to exclude the church from its limited, discretionary grant program. Like more than three-fourths of the states across the country, Missouri includes in its constitution heightened protections against government-funded religion. These provisions promote important anti-establishment aims and provide critical church-state protections. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s majority opinion in Locke v. Davey made clear over a decade ago, states undoubtedly can enforce their no-aid provisions to withhold government dollars from religious institutions or activities, without running afoul of the federal Constitution.

Yet even without its no-aid provision, Missouri had no choice here, because the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the direct payment of taxpayer funds to churches and other houses of worship. The court of appeals seemed to think otherwise, suggesting in passing that the state could have opted to give the church a competitive grant for playground resurfacing without violating the federal Constitution. But a closer look at history and precedent leads to only one conclusion: Missouri’s decision to exclude Trinity Lutheran Church from the grant program was not only permissible, but required by the Establishment Clause.

The use of government money to aid churches gravely concerned the framers of the Constitution and, in large part, animated passage of the Establishment Clause. The Framers recognized that forcing taxpayers to provide direct financial assistance to houses of worship violates religious liberty and jeopardizes the freedom to decide which faith, if any, to practice and support. In his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison, the principal architect of the First Amendment, warned that compelling taxpayers to pay even “three pence” to support clergy and churches would trample the rights of conscience by coercing religious devotion.

The nonestablishment principle helps fulfill the nation’s promise of religious liberty. It guards against compulsory support for religion. It also respects the increasing diversity of faith and belief in the U.S., allowing religious exercise to flourish without the corrupting influence of government and the power of the state’s sizable purse. The framers were keenly aware that taxpayer support for religious institutions can lead to religious divisiveness, pitting faith against faith, sect against sect, as they compete for shares of the government’s largesse. At the same time, state-funded religion invites government meddling and entanglement in matters of faith.

It is hardly surprising, then, that many devout religious adherents have ardently supported disestablishment for centuries. As the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty recently explained to the court, disestablishment in the United States “marked an essential step toward the protection of individual religious liberty” and “ensured that churches would not be funded through the coercive power of the state, but through the voluntary offerings of adherents, thus providing a constraint on government and a measure of religious liberty for individuals — to fund or refuse to fund religious institutions — that had long been denied.”

Against this historical backdrop, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that providing direct government aid to religious institutions, even as part of a general funding program, raises profound Establishment Clause concerns. To be sure, the court has, in some cases, upheld state aid to certain non-church religiously affiliated institutions, such as private schools and universities. Those circumstances, however, have been strictly limited, and the court has always assured that the aid would not be used for religious activities or later diverted to religious purposes. As the court has explained, there are “special Establishment Clause dangers where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions,” because this form of state aid “falls precariously close to the original object of the Establishment Clause’s prohibition.” With that in mind, the Supreme Court has never sanctioned direct cash support to a house of worship — and with good reason. . .

In the judgment of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to camouflage the violation of the Constitution with a specious disclaimer. However, the decision of the Supreme Court is seen for what it is: a chipping away at the wall of separation between Church and State:

States must support some church programs, high court rules

However the narrowly framed decision declined to say how far states can go to support school choice programs like vouchers.

The Supreme Court chipped away Monday at the traditional wall separating church and state, ruling 7-2 that states cannot exclude religious institutions from state programs that have a purely secular intent — in this case, making playgrounds safer.

However, the court framed its decision narrowly in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia vs. Comer, declining to say how far states could go to fund the school choice programs being pushed by President Donald Trump as part of his sweeping school choice agenda. . .

Still, religious rights and voucher proponents, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, celebrated the ruling as an incremental win, while most groups opposed to taxpayer funding of religious groups denounced it.

Roberts took pains to underscore the narrowness of the decision in a footnote, saying “this case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”

Significantly, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas objected to the footnote, arguing it made the ruling unnecessarily vague.

"I worry that some might mistakenly read it to suggest that only 'playground resurfacing' cases, or only those with some association with children’s safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy, are governed by the legal rules recounted in and faithfully applied by the Court’s opinion," Gorsuch wrote.(Underscored emphasis added.)


The process of chipping away at the wall separating Church and State has been in progress over a period of years, and particularly since the year 2000:

A Hole In The Wall (A year 2000 decision and a dramatic turning point)

Deeply Divided Supreme Court Allows More Tax Aid To Parochial Schools

By just glancing at the title page, defenders of church-state separation knew they were in trouble June 28 when the Supreme Court handed down a major ruling on parochial school aid: The decision was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thomas is a relentless advocate for public funding of religious enterprises. And true to form, the opinion he wrote that day knocked a gaping hole in the wall of separation between church and state, holding in a Louisiana lawsuit that the government may provide computers and other resources to religious schools.

In the ruling, Thomas outlined his belief that government has sweeping authority to grant public funds to religion a policy that, if ever adopted by a court majority, would surely lead to a high court blessing of school vouchers. The only reason his view is not law today is that Thomas was able to muster only three of his colleagues to endorse it. Joining Thomas in backing this radical approach were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Two others, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer, concurred with Thomas' result, but refused to accept his reasoning. Thus, while a six-justice bloc voted to uphold the parochial school aid under consideration, the decision apparently does not fling the door open wide to vouchers and other forms of more direct government assistance to parochial schools. There's no denying, however, that the Mitchell v. Helms decision may have propped the door open a crack.

At issue in the case was a federal program known as Chapter 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Now renamed Title VI, the program gives federal funds to public schools for purchasing computers, textbooks and other educational materials. But there's a catch: Public schools must share the largess with religious and other private schools.

That requirement led to a court challenge of Chapter 2 in 1985. Launched with legal support from Americans United, the lawsuit featured plaintiffs who are parents and taxpayers in suburban New Orleans, led by Mary "Neva" Helms of Jefferson Parish.

Helms was angry because local Roman Catholic schools were awash in federal and state money at a time when her daughter's public school was wanting. A second plaintiff, Marie Schneider, an active Catholic who sent her children to both public and parochial schools, shared Helms' opposition to tax aid for religious education.

At the time the case was filed, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts were more separationist in outlook, and the prospects for victory looked good. For a variety of reasons, however, the case got bogged down in a legal quagmire, languishing in the lower federal courts for more than a decade.

During that period, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush made a number of appointments to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, many of whom were decidedly hostile to church-state separation. The legal landscape began to change. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Note that plaintiff Helms was "angry because local Roman Catholic schools "were awash in federal and state money at a time when her daughter's public school was wanting;" also "a second plaintiff, Marie Schneider, [was] an active Catholic who sent her children to both public and parochial schools," and shared Helms' opposition to tax aid for religious education. Wherever the issue of State aid to parochial schools is raised it is Roman Catholic schools which are the major beneficiaries.


Also note the last two paragraphs. Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi-Arkansas under the late Wm. H. Grotheer recognized in the 2000 election campaign the shape of the Image to the Beast being formed. At the invitation of Elder Grotheer a layman wrote and Elder Grotheer edited an essay titled "The Forming of the Image To the Beast Is It Now Accomplished?" This was published as a 2001 WWN Special Issue. It evoked a storm of protest by mail, some objecting to so-called "liberal spin." The writers could not see that the fulfillment of prophecy cannot be recognized apart from past and current events; and therefore cannot be separated from the political scene. There was even a denial by some that the Image to the Beast is prophesied to be formed in America. Pray God that such are now few; otherwise they are far, far, behind the  march of events.

This website, with the approval of Elder Grotheer, published an essay in 2004 titled "THEOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP," in which the following (inter alia) was quoted from an essay titled The Despoiling of America, by Katherine Yurica, under the section heading "The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America":

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”

In the same essay, under the section heading "How Dominionism Was Spread," Yurica stated as follows:

The years 1982-1986 marked the period Pat Robertson and radio and televangelists urgently broadcast appeals that rallied Christian followers to accept a new political religion that would turn millions of Christians into an army of political operatives. It was the period when the militant church raised itself from centuries of sleep and once again eyed power.

At the time, most Americans were completely unaware of the militant agenda being preached on a daily basis across the breadth and width of America. Although it was called “Christianity” it can barely be recognized as Christian. It in fact was and is a wolf parading in sheep’s clothing: It was and is a political scheme to take over the government of the United States and then turn that government into an aggressor nation that will forcibly establish the United States as the ruling empire of the twenty-first century. It is subversive, seditious, secretive, and dangerous.

Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.” Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.” Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:

“Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.”

Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, “They cut and run if I mention the word ‘Dominionism.’” Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, “In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, “How to Participate in a Political Party.” It read:

“Rule the world for God.

“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

“Hide your strength.

“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.

“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.”

Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people “look to God and not to government for help.”

It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside “enemy,” which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society.

When one examines the progress of its agenda, one sees that Dominionism has met its time table: the complete takeover of the American government was predicted to occur by 2004.[14] Unless the American people reject the GOP’s control of the government, Americans may find themselves living in a theocracy that has already spelled out its intentions to change every aspect of American life including its cultural life, its Constitution and its laws. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The knowledge of the plot described above and how it is being implemented is essential to an understanding of what is now happening in relation to the constitutional separation of Church and State in the United States of America. The "wall" is crumbling, and the process is far advanced in many ways, including State aid to parochial schools:


In his recent RD piece, law professor Bruce Ledewitz does a good job telling the story of the trend toward diminished protections for the free exercise of religion over the past couple of decades of federal jurisprudence. But it’s not the whole story.

He is correct in asserting that the courts have—due in large part to Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority in 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith decision—increasingly come to treat the free exercise of religion as just another right, due no more heightened level of protection from government encroachment than any other civil right.

But there are two clauses that protect religious liberty in the First Amendment: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. During the same period in which the courts have lowered the bar for protecting the free-exercise principle, they’ve also cut back significantly on protections for the flipside of the coin, the anti-establishment principle.

The combined trends, say many advocates, endanger the lofty constitutional pedestal on which religious liberty has rested. And, if they go unchecked, Americans may one day be forced to re-learn the difficult lessons from centuries of European history that inspired the nation’s founders to protect the “First Freedom” (literally, the first 16 words of the First Amendment) by creating a clear—and unique, at that time, in the annals of human history—institutional separation between religion and the state.

“Unfortunately, the clauses have been watered down to suggest religion needs only to be treated the same as other interests,” said Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty Executive Director Brent Walker, in a written statement for my recent Associated Baptist Press story on the topic. “In fact, often religion should be treated differently—to ensure free exercise by lifting governmentally imposed burdens and prevent establishments by prohibiting government sponsorship of religion. Religion is special and is treated specially by the First Amendment. We must recognize its uniqueness if religious liberty in this country is to be vital over the next decade.”

There was broad agreement across the ideological spectrum (from the ACLU to the Southern Baptist Convention) in the religious-liberty community that Smith spelled trouble for the Free Exercise Clause. As a result, coalitions of odd bedfellows have tried, with mixed success, in the years since 1990 to remedy the decision’s most pernicious effects via legislation (such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act).

But, when it comes to the Establishment Clause side of the trend, consensus breaks down. That’s because the Smith decision is probably the only church-state opinion Scalia ever penned that religious conservatives don’t like. Yet the trend toward a religion-is-just-another-interest view of the law can work in the (short-term) favor of many conservative religious leaders and advocacy groups.


The following article provides further insight into the religio-political forces driving the crumbling of the wall of separation between Church and State in America, although the author does not look with disfavor on the process ("the revived cooperation between church and state may be an inevitable and perhaps even healthy result of treating religion as just another aspect of identity politics in a multicultural age"):

Is Nothing Secular? (A year 2000 article.)

Whatever else it achieves, the presidential campaign of 2000 will be remembered as the time in American politics when the wall separating church and state began to collapse. George W. Bush set the tone by raising the likelihood of his candidacy after a prayer breakfast and later declaring that his favorite political philosopher was ''Christ, because he changed my heart.'' Not to be outdone, Al Gore boasted that he decided important questions using the religious shorthand ''W.W.J.D.'' -- for a saying,'' he explained, ''that's popular now in my faith, 'What would Jesus do?' ''

Bush and Gore have enthusiastically endorsed a provision of the 1996 welfare-reform bill called charitable choice, which allows faith-based organizations to administer welfare programs with public funds, as long as there are secular alternatives. And then there is the explosive issue of publicly financed vouchers for parochial and secular private schools, which all of the Republican candidates have embraced. Although Gore opposes vouchers, his Democratic opponent, Bill Bradley, provisionally supports them.

It's not just the candidates who are eroding the wall between religion and public life; the courts, by and large, are giving their blessing. At the end of December, a federal district judge in Cleveland struck down a voucher program passed by the Ohio Legislature, and many observers expect the issue to be reviewed eventually by the Supreme Court. If and when the justices finally agree to resolve the constitutionality of vouchers, they will do so against a backdrop of decisions that have been chipping away at the wall between church and state over the past decade. Four justices are poised to uphold vouchers, four justices seem determined to strike them down and the justice with the swing vote -- Sandra Day O'Connor -- has, as usual, refused to reveal her hand.

The real possibility that the court could uphold a vouchers program -- and may also decide later this year that the Constitution protects, rather than prohibits, student-led prayer at high-school sports events -- has put defenders of strict separation between church and state in an apocalyptic mood. ''Vouchers has the potential to be a watershed issue,'' says Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, maintains that ''we're just one or two votes away on the Supreme Court from a radical redefinition of what church-state separation means.'' The next president, through the justices he appoints if openings arise, will decide just how much of a wall is left standing.

One thing is clear: the era of strict separation is over. For a surprisingly brief period, from the early 1970's to the late 1980's, strict separationism commanded the support of a majority of Supreme Court justices. During the separationist era, even after-school prayer disappeared from public schools, as did crèches from City Hall Christmas displays unless they were accompanied by plastic animals. Religious conservatives complained that the courts had banished religion from American
public life and were enforcing a rigidly secular ideology that prohibited the faithful from expressing their beliefs except behind closed doors. But thanks to a paradigm shift in the courts that religious conservatives have been slow to acknowledge, traditional defenders of church-state separation are increasingly on the defensive, legally and politically.

The Supreme Court is on the verge of replacing the principle of strict separation with a very different constitutional principle that demands equal treatment for religion. And far from threatening public life, or for that matter religious liberty, the revived cooperation between church and state may be an inevitable and perhaps even healthy result of treating religion as just another aspect of identity politics in a multicultural age.

How the wall went up and why it came down is in large measure the story of the relationship between Protestants and Catholics in America. It is no coincidence that the candidates who have seemed to be running for preacher rather than president -- from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush and Al Gore -- have been from the South. (Carter and Gore are Baptists; Bush is a Methodist.) For the most important political factor in the rise and fall of church-state separationism is the realignment of Southern Protestants, who used to oppose state aid to religious education but now support it. For most of this century, Southern Democrats from conservative and evangelical churches with a strong tradition of walling themselves off from the state feared the effects of government aid to parochial schools. But by the 1980's and 90's, white Southerners were Republican rather than Democratic, and in the wake of Supreme Court decisions banning school prayer and legalizing abortion, they felt more alarmed by what they perceived as creeping secularism than by the threat that public funds might lead to the growth of the Catholic Church. ''The historic conflict was Protestant-Catholic, and although evangelicals were the last to get the word, that conflict is pretty much dead,'' says Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas Law School. ''The alignment today is the religiously intense against the secular, and with respect to that fight, evangelicals and conservative Catholics are now on the same side.''

The reversal of Southern Protestants on the question of state aid to religion is part of a broader religious realignment involving the rise and fall of anti-Catholicism. From the mid-19th to the mid-20th century, the effort to keep public funds out of ''sectarian'' schools was largely driven by Protestant suspicion of Rome. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

The answer to the question "is nothing secular" is "no" according to Rome. This was the dictum Pope John-Paul as recorded by Malachi Martin:

No human activity escapes the religious dimension, he said; but especially important are the activities that constitute the sociopolitical life of men and women wherever they reside. Indeed, the note that dominated and animated that encyclical document was John Paul's insistence that the hard, intractable problems of the world—hunger, violation of human dignity and human rights, war and violence, economic oppression, political persecution—any and all of these can be solved only by acceptance and implementation of the message of Christ's revelation announced by the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. (Underscored and italicized emphasis added.)

Rome's "New Evangelization" specifically targets the secular State. Do a search in THE NEW EVANGELIZATION FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH and note how many times the term "secularization" appears. Rome asserts that: "The influence of secularization in daily life makes it increasingly difficult to affirm the existence of truth, which, realistically speaking, eliminates the question of God from a person's examination of self." It is open to question that this phenomenon of modern life is primarily attributable to secularization, especially since her concept of "truth" is a corruption of the true gospel, and much of the immorality in the contemporary culture is the result of the near extinction of true Protestantism. In any event, it is critically important to note that Rome's solution is the imposition of her teachings.

A number of influential Roman Catholic organizations in America exist to promote an increased role of religion in public policy and turn back the influence of secularism.

Katherine Yurica focused attention on the dominionist plot to take over the government of America. She recognized that the Republican party had been taken over by Theocrats, but she did not direct attention to the convergence of interests between the Dominionists and the Roman Catholic Church. This website has sought to alert Christian students of the prophetic Word to the insidious manipulation of "Protestant" Dominionists by the Roman Catholic Church, which created a "Christian Right" coalition through a progression of religio-political movements.

In Chapter 24 of Facts of Faith, by Christian Edwardson, titled The United States in Prophecy under the section heading A Sad Change the author wrote:

We wish we could close the picture here, and leave its unmarred beauty lingering in our minds; but, sad to say, there is another chapter to it that must be read. The prophet continues: "He spake as a dragon." Rev. 13:11. A nation speaks through its laws. This prophetic statement, therefore, reveals that a great change in policy is to come over our beloved country. The "dragon" is a symbol of pagan Rome, that persecuted the early Christians during the first three centuries. (Rev. 12:1-5, 11.) And a similar persecution will be inaugurated against the "remnant" church, for we read: "The dragon was wroth with the woman [church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev. 12:17. And he has "great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." Verse 12. Here we see what is meant by speaking "as a dragon," and we also see upon whom this persecution will come; namely, upon commandment-keepers.

This prophecy also reveals what influence will be brought to bear upon our lawmakers and people to produce this sad change. We have already seen that "the first beast" of Rev. 13:1-10 represents the Papacy, and by reading the eleventh and twelfth verses we see that the effort of the lamblike beast will be to cause "the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." That is: The whole trend is Romeward, therefore it must be Rome that is working in disguise to bring about such a trend. And now as to the facts in the case. [The author continues with quotations from Roman Catholic sources.] (Italicized and underscored emphasis added.)

God has not left us without a clear road map of prophecy. It cannot continue without end into the future. There comes a time of present fulfillment. The warnings should be obvious that now is the time of fulfillment of Rev. 13:14b-15a. This analysis does not presume to be able to identify the "miracles;" but the Image to the Beast and its making "by the consent of the voting electorate is too well-defined to be ignored. How soon will fulfillment of the rest of Rev. 13 be completed? The admonition of Jesus is to "Watch" (Luke 21:36.)


Pence-Kobach voting commission alarms states with info request:

A Trump administration letter requesting data from all 50 state's voting rolls has put some states and voting rights advocates on edge after many were already wary of the aims of the President's commission on voting.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's vice chairman, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, sent a letter to each state Wednesday asking a series of questions soliciting feedback about election administration, voter fraud and the integrity of the process. CNN obtained a copy of the letter sent to Maine's secretary of state.

Kobach also requested that each state provide "publicly available voter roll data" as allowed under each state's laws, which could include full names of registered voters, dates of birth, party registration, last four digits of Social Security numbers and voting history. . .

The Connecticut secretary of state, Democrat Denise Merrill, said she would share information that is publicly available "in the spirit of transparency," while also protecting private voter information. But she also criticized Kobach's track record and expressed concern in an ulterior motive.

Civil rights and voting rights advocates were also concerned. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, a former Obama Justice Department official, blasted the request from Kobach as "massively irresponsible" and questioned whether it might run afoul of certain laws, in a post on the legal blog Take Care.

Trump election panel asks all 50 states for voter roll data

The vice chairman of President Trump’s commission on election integrity sent a letter to all 50 states Wednesday requesting information on their voter rolls.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is seeking several pieces of information about voters, including their names, birthdays, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers and their voting history dating back to 2006.

The letter, sent to the secretaries of state of all 50 states and obtained by The Hill, directs states to turn over “publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.” . . .

Jason Kander, the head the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Protecting American Democracy from the Trump Administration, blasted the letter in a statement, calling it “very concerning.”

"It's obviously very concerning when the federal government is attempting to get the name, address, birth date, political party and Social Security number of every voter in the country,” Kander said. “ I certainly don't trust the Trump Administration with that information, and people across the country should be outraged."

Given the activities of the Vice-Chairman of the Commission, there is a consensus that this is an attempt to develop a national voter suppression system; and this may well be a primary objective, which of itself would contribute to achieving the desired dictatorship of the Religious Right. This is clearly a means to identify opponents. It also should not be overlooked that Christian Supremacist Mike Pence is the Chairman of the Commission. Students of the final apocalyptic prophecies of Rev. 13 can reasonably suspect a possible probing for an avenue to prepare a national registry of households and individuals to facilitate the passage and enforcement of the law predicted in Rev. 13:14.


Chaos was predicted under a Donald Trump presidency, and chaos has been rampant under the Trump presidency. In the face of chaos, it is difficult to discern a clear pattern. This is particularly so in relation to events related to the future of Jerusalem. Because of the difficulty of discerning a clear path to the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45, there may be a temptation to relax vigilance in watching the unfolding events concerning the City. This would be a mistake. We have already seen sudden and dramatic changes in the USA during the past year, clearly suggesting an acceleration of the final events prophesied in Rev. 13. What is about to happen in Palestine, especially in relation to Jerusalem, is difficult to see; but nevertheless requires watchfulness. Donald Trump's commitment to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem promises to provoke unimaginable chaos. It should not be ignored that the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order can be associated with chaos (Cf. Donald Trump: secret Jesuit agent for Commander-in-Chief?.) Of all powers on earth Rome is always well positioned to take advantage of chaos, whether or not generated by her agents, to advance her aims and objectives. A. T. Jones, enlightened by the prophetic Word, perceived this in the time of Leo XIII over a century ago. Now the prospect of unimaginable chaos in Palestine is recklessly disregarded by the US Congress, motivated in large degree by the ideology of the Evangelical Religious Right, a religio-political power created by the USCCB:-

From [D]@google.com:

US Senate passes resolution marking Jerusalem unification

The non-binding Senate measure was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Marking 50 years since the start of the Six Day War, the US Senate on Monday passed a resolution celebrating Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” and calling on the Trump administration to move the American Embassy there.

The nonbinding measure was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chamber’s top-ranking Democrat, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 90-0.

By passing the resolution, the Senate reaffirmed its support for the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which compels the State Department to relocate its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the capital.

US President Donald Trump waived that requirement last week, citing national security interests, as every president has done every six months for the past 22 years.

For the time being at least, Donald Trump has chosen caution over recklessness, despite pressure from the US Congress. Will this last? There is no end of Congressional pressure in sight.

Senate prods Trump to move Israeli Embassy to Jerusalem

The Senate overwhelmingly agreed on Monday night to nudge President Donald Trump to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a campaign promise that he punted on last week.

The Senate voted 90-0 on a resolution marking the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem's reunification. The measure includes language that "calls upon the president and all United States officials to abide by" a 1995 law that urged then-President Bill Clinton to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Interestingly, the following report suggests a linkage between the status of Jerusalem and settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis which preserves an opening for realization of the papal policy:

Senate unanimously passes bill marking 50 years since Jerusalem reunification

With a vote of 90-0, lawmakers of Capitol Hill’s upper chamber say ‘Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel’

The US Senate unanimously passed a resolution on Monday that commemorates the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Co-sponsored by 17 senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D), the text calls on the legislative body to recognize the half a century landmark since Israel captured the eastern part of the city during the 1967 Six Day War.

“Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected,” the resolution states, adding that “there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for 3 millennia.”

It also says that “Jerusalem is a holy city and the home for people of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths.”

Furthermore, the text advocates a two-state outcome based on direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The bill’s passage was “applauded” by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and embraced the liberal advocacy group J Street.

J Street’s Vice President of Government Affairs Dylan Williams tweeted that the resolution affirmed “long-held US policy that Jerusalem’s status is to be decided by the parties in 2-state negotiations.”

With the possibility of unimaginable chaos being averted if Trump continues to sign the six monthly waivers of the 1995 law, the foregoing article seems to contain the suggestion of a blueprint for the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45. The question that arises is whether Rome will achieve her presence in Jerusalem through a peaceful process; or whether the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45 emerges out of chaos.


Pope Francis is taking a stand against the populist authoritarianism that is spreading across the globe. 1 It is fair to say that the phenomenon challenges Rome's hegemony.

The Pope's message in a talk to the annual conference of the Technology, Entertainment, Design media organization held in Vancouver, British Columbia, seems to take aim directly at Donald Trump as well as other leaders:

Pope tells leaders in first TED talk: act humbly or power will ruin you

He sits behind a desk rather than pacing around a stage, but the power of his message is not diluted. Pope Francis has made a surprise TED talk, beamed from the Vatican to Vancouver, calling for leaders to act with humility and tenderness.

The first pontifical TED talk, which lasted 18 minutes, featured Francis dispensing advice to politicians and leaders of big business, as well as talking about his own background as the son of migrants. . .

He concluded with a direct message to people in positions of power: “The more powerful you are, the more your actions will have an impact on people, the more responsible you are to act humbly. If you don’t, your power will ruin you and ruin the other.”

The pope also quoted an Argentinian proverb: “Power is like drinking gin on an empty stomach. You feel dizzy, you get drunk, you lose your balance, and you will end up hurting yourself and those around you if you don’t connect your power with humility and tenderness.”

Is the Pope the Anti-Trump?

ONE emerged from a crisis conclave, the other was elected after the strangest campaign in recent American history. Both have upended traditions and reached outside the usual channels to speak to the concerns of ordinary people. Donald J. Trump and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the president and the pope, are the world’s most famous populists. But they are in conflict. . .

The pope’s populism is not intended for popularity — a fickle thing, and anyhow, his soars far above any politician’s — but proximity. This is a pope who likes to come in close.

As Europe’s borders stiffen and nativist movements gain footholds in elections, such bold assertions of universal humanity, backed by action, have made Francis a bridge maker in an age of wall building. In part because he anticipated the current political crisis long before it happened, his Greek-chorus commentary on the upheavals

matters. . .

Populist politicians, the pope said, promise to “give us back our identity and defend us with walls, with wires.” In a letter to Modesto, Calif., community organizers in February, he deplored political leaders who rely on “fear, insecurity, quarrels and even people’s justified indignation, in order to shift the responsibility for all these ills on to a ‘non-neighbor.’ ”

Pope Francis and President Trump provide rich material for contrast. One is, notwithstanding his weaknesses, a spiritual leader of extraordinary maturity; the other, his strengths aside, is a thin-skinned, petulant narcissist. One is a celibate who lives in simplicity and austerity, embracing the disabled and the diseased; the other is a thrice-married germophobe who lived in a gaudy gold tower and mocks the feeble.

And yet: The world’s two most compelling populists have more in common than some might admit. Take, for example, their extraordinary capacity for connection, bypassing traditional methods; their defiance of convention, even their iconoclasm; or their delight in challenging existing elites on behalf of the people. Both seem energized by opposition, even if they respond to it differently — Mr. Trump by ranting and belittling his critics; Francis never directly, but gently, in pointed asides.

Politically, too, they share a beef with globalism. Both, in the broadest sense, are nationalists. When Stephen K. Bannon, the White House chief strategist, says the United States is “not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders” but rather “a nation with a culture and a reason for being,” he says nothing Francis has not expressed often. . .

Throughout his papacy, Francis has criticized the lack of that higher purpose in the technocratic liberal administrations of Europe and the Americas that have dominated since the 1980s. He deplores the way political principles have been replaced by market logic and how governments have failed to defend the interests and values of ordinary people. Speaking to Jesuits in Rome last October, he lamented the loss of “big politics,” the craft of making unity out of diversity and creating what he calls a “culture of encounter,” a society that integrates everyone — rather than a “throwaway culture” in which the poor and the unwanted are cast off. . .

Because both pope and president are critics of a neoliberal globalism that weakens local ties and benefits educated elites at the expense of the common man, the diametrical opposition of their visions is all the more striking.

The Trump-Bannon response is to chafe at the wounds of popular resentment, promising to relieve it by building walls, raising tariffs, shutting out migrants and dismantling the state to release the energies of popular capitalism. They underpin this plan with a commitment to nurture and promote a culture that is defined as white and Christian, framing globalist media elites as “enemies of the American people,” and Muslims and other foreigners as potential terrorists who dilute or threaten that culture. . .

In Francis’s post-neoliberal future, the poor of the world act with the church and civil-society organizations to create an economy that serves human flourishing, while calling on states to receive migrants in solidarity. In Mr. Trump’s post-neoliberal future, former chief executives, billionaire hedge-fund managers and real estate moguls dismantle the state to make capitalism yet more liquid, but use the state to stiffen borders.

That said, the kernel of the rift between the pope and the president is ultimately religious. Mr. Bannon believes the Catholic Church has to be rescued from Francis, whom he sees as part of the global elite (a description that would certainly surprise the pope). Mr. Trump’s chief ideologue has formed a curious alliance with Pope Francis’s archcritic, Raymond Burke, an American cardinal based in Rome, in their shared conviction that “Christian culture" is engaged in a deadly rivalry with Islam — the Samuel Huntington thesis, shared by the Islamic State, of an enduring “clash of civilizations.”

The author's statement that: "Politically, too, they share a beef with globalism" could be misleading. Globalism is at the heart of the Holy See's policies and actions, as manifested by the Pope's manic pursuit of ecumenical union of churches, religions, and nations. The following report captures the nuanced position of Pope Francis on globalism:

Pope Francis Weighs in on Merits of Globalization

Pope Francis has mostly stuck to his prepared remarks during his trip to the United States, but on Saturday afternoon he diverged.

In a speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, the pope veered from a discussion of religious freedom and immigration and into a debate about the merits of globalization. Cultural homogenization, he warned, is not healthy, but working together is good for the world.

“If a globalization tries to make everybody even, as if it were a sphere, that globalization destroys the richness and the specificities of each person and each people,” he said. “If a globalization tries to unite everyone, but does so respecting each individual, each person, each richness, each specificity, respecting each people, that globalization is good and it enables us to keep growing and take us to peace.”

Speaking with passion on the subject, the pope said that when people are unified in a way that allows them to maintain their identities, they are strengthened.

“It is excellent, because people may grow,” he said. “It gives dignity to every man and women. It gives rights.”

Here is a description of the unity in diversity which is essential to Rome's objective of global domination. The statement in "Is the Pope the Anti-Trump?" above that: "In Francis’s post-neoliberal future, the poor of the world act with the church and civil-society organizations to create an economy that serves human flourishing" is significant. This identifies with the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine, and specifically the principle of Subsidiarity. 2

Not surprisingly, given the powerful influence of the Roman Catholic Church, "Is the Pope the Anti-Trump?" does not mention that the papacy and the Pope himself are authoritarian (Cf. Vatican City State; Vatican City: The Last Absolute Monarchy.) No matter how benign this Pope may appear to be, the annals of history are replete with the tyrannical policies and actions of Papal as well as Imperial Rome, (Cf. A Persecuting Power; ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER KILLED BY THE PAPACY IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND LATER; CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE.) Persecution of dissenters flowed from Rome's autocratic claim to rule by divine right. The Church of Rome has hidden the dragon's claws, but she has not changed.

Following Pope Francis' talk to the annual conference of the Technology, Entertainment, Design media organization, he went to Egypt in furtherance of his promotion of ecumenical union; where he again denounced ‘Demagogic’ Populism as well as sectarian violence:

'He brought his blessing to Egypt.' Pope Francis embraces Muslim leaders in two-day visit

Pope Francis left Egypt charmed after a high-stakes, two-day visit during which he embraced Muslim leaders, challenged religious extremists and waved to fans from a blue Fiat instead of his armored popemobile. . .

In Cairo, Francis Takes On ‘Demagogic’ Populism and Violence Masked as Piety

The pope invoked Egypt’s “glorious history” as an ancient cradle of civilization to argue on Friday that the delivery of a more peaceful future required a new civility that appreciated differences, resisted the violent path of close-minded absolutism and condemned extremists who camouflage terror in religious language.

“An education in respectful openness and sincere dialogue with others, recognizing their rights and basic freedoms, particularly religious freedom, represents the best way to build the future together, to be builders of civility,” the pope said in a speech at a conference hosted by Al Azhar, perhaps the most influential center of Muslim learning and religious formation in Sunni Islam. . .

Francis also seemed to be pointing his message at the world powers. In a time where anti-establishment forces are gaining in Europe and the United States, the pope seemed to have a sharp message for Western leaders who have found electoral support in antagonizing Islam. “Demagogic forms of populism are on the rise. These certainly do not help to consolidate peace and stability,” he said. . .

Muslim clerics poured out of the hall where Francis spoke, its walls covered in geometric Islamic patterns, and offered rave reviews of the pope’s address.

Many saw his outstretched hand as a powerful repudiation of the view, prevalent in parts of Western society, that Islam and violence are intimately intertwined.

“This was more than just a meeting between two people — it was a meeting of religions. I loved the logical way that Francis spoke,” said Ahmed Ramzy el Sabbagh, a cleric in the red-and-white skullcap worn by scholars at Al Azhar.

This visit of the Pope to Egypt clearly served the double purpose of advancing ecumenical union of religions and also to deliver "a sharp message" to "the anti-establishment forces" gaining influence "in Europe and the United States," and the "Western leaders who have found electoral support in antagonizing Islam." In this context, Donald Trump is by far the most important of these Western leaders. Will there be an increasingly more adversarial relationship between him and Pope Francis?

1 It is reasonable to think that Putin's Russia would be excepted, since ecumenical union with the Russian Orthodox Church is at stake.

2 Quadragesimo anno presents these “spheres” as occupying the space between the poles of individual and State: "...things have come to such a pass through the evil of what we have termed “individualism” that, following upon the overthrow and near extinction of that rich social life which was once highly developed through associations of various kinds, there remain virtually only individuals and the State. This is to the great harm of the State itself; for, with a structure of social governance lost, and with the taking over of all the burdens which the wrecked associations once bore. the State has been overwhelmed and crushed by almost infinite tasks and duties." These associations or “lesser societies” are encouraged because they are the vehicle by which society functions most effectively and corresponds most closely with human dignity. Examples of these associations today would include the family, unions, nonprofit organizations, religious congregations, and corporations of all sizes. (Underscored emphasis added; from Subsidiarity (Catholicism).)


In the world of 2017 truth is stranger than fiction. There are reasons in the spiritual realm which shed light on mysterious developments in the relationship between the United States and the papacy together on the one hand, and Putin's Russia on the other:-

In 2 Thess. 2 the Apostle Paul predicted a time of "strong delusion," and he linked it directly to the papacy (verses 3-10a,) and failing to receive the love of the Truth. This failure to receive the love of the Truth stretches back into past centuries, but has been particularly prevalent since the beginning of the final phase of Jesus' ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. There has been a greatly accelerated process of spiritual declension and increasing ignorance of Bible Truth since then, inevitably linked with increasing ecumenical union between the Protestant churches and the Church of Rome. Can anyone doubt that Paul's prophecy is meeting its ultimate fulfillment now, in our time? There are also other major prophecies which establish this fact with certainty.

Delusion is rampant on every side and the author is Satan, by every agency available to him. The following prophetic statement is found in Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2, published in 1858:

I have been shown that Satan has not been stupid and careless these many years, since his fall, but has been learning. He has grown more artful. His plans are laid deeper, and are more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity. The power of Satan now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles. His power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away. (2 SG, p. 277; underscored emphasis added)

Consider how much more Satan's power to deceive has increased since 1858! He has been studying the human mind for millenia. Ellen G. White has made this statement about the influence of Satan on the unregenerate human mind:

For thousands of years Satan has been experimenting upon the properties of the human mind, and he has learned to know it well. By his subtle workings in these last days, he is linking the human mind with his own, imbuing it with his thoughts; and he is doing this work in so deceptive a manner that those who accept his guidance know not that they are being led by him at his will. The great deceiver hopes so to confuse the minds of men and women, that none but his voice will be heard." (2SM 352.3; underscored emphasis added)

Jesus said of the devil that he "abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44b.) If none but Satan's "voice will be heard," we know from the words of Jesus that nothing but a flood of lies can be expected.

The major prophecy predicting the release of such a flood of lies that produces gross delusion, free from restraint by God, is found in Rev. 16:13-14. It is glaringly being fulfilled in our time. The catalyst was fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy of Luke 21:24. Elder Wm. H. Grotheer has written concerning the fulfillment of this prophecy:

The very least that this fulfilled prophecy of Jesus is saying is that God is no longer restraining the power of Satan in his control of the nations of earth. Even though Satan declared that he possessed such power and could delegate it to whomever he chose (Luke 4:6), the book of Daniel draws the curtain aside and reveals that God "ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will" (Dan. 4:17). When kings and rulers resisted His purposes, Michael, to whom all earthly authority is given (I Cor. 15:27), comes Himself to influence the outcome of human events (Dan. 10:13). That time is now past, and God has stepped aside and Satan is working his will in the nations of earth. (What is the Fulfilled Prophecy of Jesus Saying?)

That this assessment "holds water" has clearly been established by the march of events since 1980. Among the many manifestations of satanic influence is a delusion concerning Russia and its despotic, murderous President, Vladimir Putin:

The religious right has an unholy crush on Vladimir Putin

Liking Vladimir Putin? Trump and top conservatives have something in common

One of the notable developments in right-wing-watching in recent years has been how enthusiastically many Religious Right leaders have embraced Russia’s anti-democratic president, former KGB official Vladimir Putin. It seems even more remarkable that the Republican Party’s presidential nominee has been lavishing praise on Putin even as Russia maneuvers to diminish America’s influence in the world.

As president, Putin has consolidated his power through attacks on the independent media, the persecution of political opponents, and restrictions on civil society. He has annexed Crimea, supported violent separatists in Ukraine, fostered anti-democratic right-wing forces in Europe, and made the weakening of NATO a major strategic imperative.

None of that has kept Donald Trump from praising Putin and welcoming Putin’s praise for him. In Wednesday night’s forum on national security issues, Trump said, “I think I would have a very, very good relationship with Putin. And I think I would have a very, very good relationship with Russia.” When asked about some of Putin’s troubling actions, Trump didn’t criticize the Russian president, suggesting instead that he could “start naming some of the things that President Obama does at the same time.”

Trump went on to praise Putin’s leadership and pooh-pooh concerns about Putin’s authoritarianism: “I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing—the man has very strong control over a country.” Then on Thursday, Trump appeared on RT, a network operated by the Russian government, to slam American media and U.S. foreign policy and dismiss as “unlikely” the idea that the Russian government was involved in hacking the DNC’s email as American intelligence agencies believe.

Some conservatives have criticized Putin’s anti-democratic actions and strategic aims, and some Republicans were not happy about Trump’s recent remarks. But his running mate Mike Pence said it is “inarguable” that Putin is a stronger leader than President Obama.

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a Trump supporter, told CNN that Putin is a better leader for Russia than President Obama has been for the U.S., praising the increase in “hyper-nationalism” in Russia. Conspiracy-theory-promoting radio host Alex Jones, whose “amazing” reputation Trump has praised while appearing on his show, has expressed his admiration for Putin’s promotion of homeschooling and “masculine men.”

Trump will find himself in friendly company at this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, an annual political gathering for the Religious Right. As Right Wing Watch has documented extensively, many U.S. religious conservatives have been cheerleaders for Putin because of his government’s anti-gay policies and his public support for “traditional values” and “Christian civilization.” Brian Brown, who heads both the National Organization for Marriage and the World Congress of Families, actually traveled to Russia a few years ago to testify on behalf of anti-gay legislation there.

As Right Wing Watch noted last year:

Evangelist Franklin Graham hailed Putin as a hero for taking “a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of any gay and lesbian agenda” even as “America’s own morality has fallen so far on this issue”; Bryan Fischer called Putin a “lion of Christianity” and called upon U.S. lawmakers to adopt similar speech prohibitions; Matt Barber marveled that Putin was able to “out-Christian our once-Christian nation”; Sam Rohrer called Putin “the moral leader of the world”; Scott Lively lavished praise on Putin for “ championing traditional marriage and Christian values ”; and Rush Limbaugh applauded Putin for stopping “a full-frontal assault on what has always been considered normalcy.”

In fact, Franklin Graham went to Russia just last fall, where he met with Putin, slammed President Obama for supporting “policies that contradict the teachings of God” and praised the Russian president for “protecting Russian young people against homosexual propaganda.” Graham reportedly said, “I call for prayers for the president of Russia, who is protecting traditional Christianity.” Graham also praised Russian involvement in Syria, which the Russian Orthodox Church has called a “holy battle.”

Putin has developed a mutually beneficial partnership with the Russian Orthodox Church, promoting Orthodoxy as a crucial element of Russian nationalism and a vehicle for extending Russian power and undercutting U.S. influence. Some American Religious Right leaders are taken with Putin’s promotion of a Christian state; the director of last year’s World Congress of Families summit, Janice Shaw Crouse, embraced the blasphemy-law prosecution and jail sentences given to members of the band Pussy Riot for protesting in a cathedral. . .

One can perceive a clever ploy of Satan to use outrage at the flouting of Christian moral standards as a means of empowering State religion and absolute power to persecute. The Religious Right's admiration for Putin's Russia reveals their own disposition and plans to achieve theocratic dictatorship in America:

Why the Christian Right Shares Trump’s Affection for Putin

There are all sorts of theories about Donald Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin’s Russia, ranging from shadowy business dealings with Putin or pro-Putin entities, to Russia’s alleged material aid in promoting Trump’s presidential candidacy, to the personal affinity between two men who yearn for recognition as world-historical figures. A related question is why so many Republicans — who four years ago were cheering Mitt Romney’s prophecies of a new Cold War struggle with Russia — have accepted Trump’s Russophilia.

But as Peter Beinart points out at The Atlantic, there is actually a strain of conservatism in which a fondness for post-communist Russia and its leader are not at all out of place . . .

That’s right, Donald Trump and his alt-right fanbase are hardly the only Americans who deeply admire Vladimir Putin: He has a fairly large fan club among politically active U.S. Christian conservatives.

It includes some pretty big names, like conservative Evangelical leader Franklin Graham, National Organization for Marriage leader Brian Brown, and American Family Association spokesperson Bryan Fischer. In almost every case it has been his distinctive combination of homophobia and Islamophobia that has made Putin one of the Christian right’s favorite international figures. The cultural conservative preference for authoritarian Christian Slavs who are fighting Muslims has, as Beinart notes, carried over from the Serbs to their traditional sponsors in Moscow, and most especially to the former KGB officer who has revived Russia’s pre-communist tradition of militantly traditionalist Christianity. . .

Meanwhile, Putin’s long war with Chechen Muslim separatists has earned him Christian admiration along the lines Beinart is talking about. And Russia’s long-standing partnership with Syria’s Assad regime — regarded as the protector of the country’s ancient if dwindling Christian minority, threatened by virtually every Islamic group in the region — has recently given Putin some additional Western Christian street cred. Putin’s own association with end-times speculation hasn’t hurt, either.

So the cultural conservative affinity with Putin’s Russia goes a little deeper, and is more religious in nature, than Beinart’s analysis suggests. But there is one problem in Russia that could drive a wedge between Trump and his conservative Evangelical fans: the tradition of Russian Orthodox Church intolerance toward competing Christian faith communities, which very recently popped back up in a law on proselytization signed by Putin in July . . .

This law is one of the reasons conservative Evangelical writer Eric Metaxas, who got a lot of attention this fall for claiming that like-minded people had a religious obligation to vote for Donald Trump, isn’t buying into any “man-crush” when it comes to Putin . . .

So there is a paradox at the center of Christian-right attitudes toward Putin’s Russia: His own conspicuous traditionalist Christianity, which makes him an ally against gay and Muslim agendas, makes him an enemy of conservative Evangelicals in his own country. Since Putin’s not likely to abandon his position favoring a near-monopoly for the Russian Orthodox Church, that makes him disappointing as a heartthrob for the Focus on Family crowd. But there’s still Donald Trump. (Underlined emphasis added; Cf. Can Evangelicals Help Trump Thaw Relations With Russia?)

It is to be expected that the Church of Rome has a deep interest and involvement in developments between Russia and the West. Strange questions arise out of Pope Francis' relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin's Russia:

The Pope, the Patriarch, and Putin’s ‘Peace’ Gambit

The Kremlin hopes Pope Francis will say things that soften its image, and enlisted the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to try to persuade him.

The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, flew from icy Moscow to the warmth of Havana on Thursday for an historic meeting at the airport with Pope Francis. This was the first time leaders of these two great Christian churches have met, much less embraced, in almost 1,000 years, after long and bitter divisions over dogmatic and canonical issues.

But momentous as the meeting may appear in ecclesiastical terms, much of the impetus for it was purely political at a moment of dangerous confrontations and delicate diplomacy between Russia and the West. As some influential voices in Moscow have started talking about the risk of a Third World War, the pope and the patriarch spoke of the need to protect "the future of human civilization."

In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked the Moscow patriarchate to play a diplomatic role, to help convince Pope Francis—whose good offices did much to end the decades of hostility between Cuba and the United States—that he should help smooth the way for better understanding between Washington and Moscow.

According to one official close to the Kremlin, who spoke privately to The Daily Beast, the message is supposed to be that Russia is kind-hearted, that it cares about Christians everywhere, and that the West should be careful not to provoke a widening war. The official claimed the patriarch might also complain about “irresponsible American politicians,” including Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who has taken the point on U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Did the pope just kiss Putin’s ring?

Russia wants its people to believe that Western publics are not as hostile as their leaders. Pope Francis just helped

TO HIS millions of admirers, Pope Francis seems possessed of an almost angelic spirituality. But after his meeting with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill on February 12th, some were left wondering whether the pontiff had rushed in where angels fear to tread. The meeting with his Russian counterpart drew Francis deep into geopolitics, and led him to condone Russia’s foreign policy and critique the West’s in ways that have infuriated some of the Catholic church’s supporters.

It is easy to see why the meeting appealed to Francis. Reconciliation is at the core of his world view. “Bridges last, and help peace. Walls do not,” he told an interviewer from Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily, before the meeting. With militant Islamism going from strength to strength and Christians in the Middle East being persecuted for their beliefs, Catholic leaders privately lament that many churches are divided over theological issues to which most lay Christians are indifferent. They will be heartened to see that the first non-ecclesiastical issue dealt with in the joint declaration issued at the end of the meeting was the plight of Christians in the Middle East and north Africa. . .

The clergymen’s encounter is only the first step on a long road toward mutual understanding between their two churches. For Russia’s government, however, it is a diplomatic victory. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin often operate in tandem, and Patriarch Kirill could not have agreed to meet the pope without the blessing of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Mr Putin has emphasised that Orthodox Christianity is a pillar of Russia’s national identity, appealing to conservative religious values to shore up his rule. When speaking on world affairs, the church is not an independent institution but, to some degree, an extension of the Russian state.

Russia’s ambassador to the Vatican said Francis and Mr Putin shared a “mutual affection”. That may or may not be true. But Francis made clear in his interview before the meeting that on certain issues he agrees with Mr Putin and disagrees with America and its allies. Speaking much more specifically than popes usually do on geopolitical matters, Francis contended that the disastrous outcome of the invasion of Iraq and the disappointing upshot of the Arab spring were predictable. His remarks on Iraq were not terribly controversial (popes routinely denounce the use of force), but the mention of the Arab spring seemed to suggest that the region’s strongmen should have been left in place. On Libya, where Western powers helped to bring down former dictator Muammar Qaddafi, the pope was explicit: “The West ought to be self-critical.” And he continued: “In part, there has been a convergence of analysis between the Holy See and Russia.”

Francis did add that one should not go too far in endorsing the Kremlin’s views, because Russia “has its interests”. That is an understatement. Mr Putin has faced implacable hostility from Western states since his intervention in Ukraine. In response, says Alexander Baunov of the Moscow Carnegie Centre, he is attempting to “show that the traditional, religious West is less hostile”. The meeting with Francis has helped to underscore Russia’s renewed standing as a global power. Mr Putin’s spokesman called it “a mutual step forward” between Russia and the West.

From the United States under Donald Trump to the papacy under Pope Francis, a complicated panorama of both conflicting and converging interests is displayed. This includes conflict with the Muslim world, which raises the question whether it is a precursor to the fulfillment of Dan. 11:40-44 - or is fulfillment already unfolding? One certainty is that Vladimir Putin's influence is bound to fade. Rev. 13 establishes conclusively that the United States remains the dominant political power until she cedes it completely to Rome, and ultimately to Satan. An evil, supernatural master manipulator is in control of the minds of the participants, and will ultimately sort out the morass to achieve his purpose.

As to the collective pseudo-Christian Religious Right in America, they have made a pact with the devil. They will reap their due reward for destroying the last vestiges of true Christianity in the world at large, with the exception of a remnant (Rev.12:17) - Christ's "little flock" (Luke 12:32.) The due reward of the "False Prophet" is coming in calamities before the end, and final destruction by fire together with the first beast of Rev. 13, when the true Christ is revealed (Rev. 13:11-14; 19:20.) This is the true spiritual reality!



There are indications that the Donald Trump administration may be under pressure to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:-


From [D]@gmail.com:


An official United States delegation led by Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is briefly visiting Israel on Saturday and Sunday [March 4-5, 2017] to study the possibility of relocating the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

"The delegation is in Jerusalem to learn first hand what it will mean to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” said Ruth Lieberman, a friend of DeSantis and a political advisor in Israel.

DeSantis chairs the subcommittee for National Security for the US House Oversight Committee. . .

US President Donald Trump had promised to relocate the embassy during his campaign for the White House. But since his January 20th inauguration, his lukewarm statements about the matter led many to speculate that he would not make good on his pledge.

The delegation’s visit is the first sign that there might be some movement on the issue.

Congressman tours possible embassy sites in Jerusalem, confident Trump will move embassy

Rep. Ron DeSantis told reporters Sunday he is confident President Donald Trump will move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The latest six-month Presidential waiver on a congressional order to switch the embassy location, signed by President Barack Obama at the end of last year, expires in May.

DeSantis told reporters he did not expect Trump to follow the lead of all his predecessors and sign a further six-month extension.

"He's in a position where he's either going to follow his campaign promise or he's actually going to have to sign this wavier, and I just think knowing the President, he has been a man of his word," the Florida Republican said. "I don't think that he's going to, on the same month where people here in Jerusalem are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem Day, sign the waiver. I would bet that he would not do that and he would announce that the embassy would be moving." . . .

Every president since 1995, when Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy act, has used the presidential waiver to decline moving the embassy as called for by the law, citing national security interests. Ordered by Congress, the Presidents reviewed the legislation every six months.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would mean that the US effectively recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, overturning decades of US foreign policy, and, many argue, would effectively signal the end of efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The authority of a congressional committee to be engaged in this activity is open to question. It bears the marks of a strongarm tactic. This authority appears to be vested in the State Department:

Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations

The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) directs the worldwide overseas building program for the Department of State and the U.S. Government community serving abroad under the authority of the chiefs of mission. In concert with other State Department bureaus, foreign affairs agencies, and Congress, OBO sets worldwide priorities for the design, construction, acquisition, maintenance, use, and sale of real properties and the use of sales proceeds.


Congress passed a law in 1995 to force the Executive Branch's hand on this delicate issue:

Jerusalem Embassy Act

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened. . .

Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch's constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.

Why is Congressional sentiment so much at odds with the official foreign policy of successive U.S. presidents? Certainly Jewish lobbying and campaign contributions are one reason. The U.S. presidents who have baulked at implementing the Jerusalem Embassy law have themselves made campaign promises to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but then stalled the implementation of the law when faced in office with the realities of a very complex issue.

The law was passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes in both chambers of Congress. The votes of Democratic legislators can probably be explained on purely political grounds. They cannot afford to cede the support of Jewish voters to the Republican Party. However, it is highly likely that there is also a religio-political reason for the congressional action, given the Christian Zionist/Religious Right domination of the Republican Party:

Congress Urges Trump to Move U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem

A delegation of more than 100 members of Congress wrote to President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday, urging him to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem "as soon as you take office," according to correspondence obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The lawmakers wrote to back Trump's campaign pledge to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a policy shift the Obama administration has opposed.

The letter comes days before Trump is to take office. It follows a series of United Nations resolutions supported by the Obama administration condemning Israel for building homes in Jerusalem neighborhoods. . .

The letter, spearheaded by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), urges Trump to send a message to the world that the United States views Jerusalem as "the eternal capital of the Jewish people," according to the missive.

The move would be a decisive break with the current White House, which has long maintained that Jerusalem is not part of Israel. . .

"Israel is one of the United States' closest allies and stands alone in the Middle East for its commitment to democratic ideals. Moving the embassy will strengthen the unique alliance between Israel and the United States and send a clear message to the world that we support Israel in recognizing Jerusalem as its eternal capital," they write. . .

DeSantis told the Free Beacon in a statement that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would send a clear message that America stands with the Jewish people and does not view their claims to Jerusalem as illegitimate.

"Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the U.S. should maintain its embassy in Israel's capital city," DeSantis said. "For decades, the State Department has indulged the conceit that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, even though the Jewish presence in Jerusalem goes back thousands of years. I encourage President Trump to send a message to the world that the United States stands with our friends in Israel by relocating our embassy to Jerusalem." (Underscored emphasis added.)


Clearly it is theology that drives the Christian Zionist/Religious Right position on Israel's claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem:

Pro-Israel Christians Rally in Support of US Embassy Relocation to Jerusalem

Aside from its centrality to Jewish history, and its role as Israel’s capital, Jerusalem is also a holy place for many Bible-reading Christians. As such, prominent pro-Israel Christian organizations are lining up to express their support for President Donald Trump’s campaign vow to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and to hold the president accountable for his words. . .

“Hundreds of millions of Christians around the world understand from their Bible the spiritual significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and that it was established as the capital of Israel some 3,000 years ago by King David,” Michael told JNS.org, adding that Christians “believe the spiritual law of blessing established in Genesis 12 that God will bless those who bless the Jewish people.”

Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, an evangelical Christian organization, and the president of the Christians in Defense of Israel ministry, echoed Michael’s assessment.

“Support for Israel comes from both the Bible, which clearly establishes that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews, and from history that confirms the continuity of the connection between Israel and the Jewish people,” Staver told JNS.org. “To deny recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is antisemitic.” . . .

“Support of Israel was one of the motivating factors in the historic evangelical voter turnout for President Trump in this past election,” said Pastor Mario Bramnick, president of the Hispanic Israel Leadership Coalition, a leading pro-Israel Latino Christian initiative. “As evangelicals, we support President Trump’s resolve in moving the embassy to Jerusalem. We believe that the land of Israel, with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, was given by God to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by way of an eternal covenant, and that no president, prime minister or monarch has any authority to take it away.”


The Christian Zionist/Religious Right advocacy of the relocation of the U.S. Embassy ignores the potential for an eruption of conflict in the Middle East:

Why moving US Embassy to Jerusalem is no way to start a presidency

The possibility of US President-elect Donald Trump's administration actually carrying out his campaign "promise" to move the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem exposes a Pandora’s box of complications that would destroy what little chance exists of a mediated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The genuine worries raised by that specter have only grown following Trump's announcement that he will nominate pro-Israeli-settler, right-wing Jewish bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman as his ambassador to Israel. Friedman welcomed the news by saying he plans to work out of a new embassy office in Jerusalem.

The concern comes not only from Palestinian politicians; it comes from Palestinian, Israeli and US legal and academic experts. Camille Mansour, former professor of international relations at Paris University, told Al-Monitor that if it does take place, the US move will have a devastating effect in a number of areas.

“It is a clear abandonment of the corpus-separatum issue, which Jerusalem has enjoyed since before 1947," he said. A number of consulates were based in Jerusalem — US, Italian, English, Turkish, Spanish, French and Belgian — "based on this separate recognition of the city."

Corpus-separatum refers to a city or region with special legal and political status. The designation falls short of bestowing sovereign status, or that of an independent city-state.

Hanna Issa, a Palestinian expert on international law and a resident of Jerusalem, told Al-Monitor the United Nations has in various ways stressed the special status of Jerusalem. “This definition was made clear in the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Resolution 181, and a year later, the status of Jerusalem was reaffirmed in a separate resolution, UNGA 303, in December 1949,” he said.

In the 303 resolution, Jerusalem and its nearby towns of Bethlehem and Beit Sahour were declared part of a UN-supervised international city. Issa noted that the US would not only be going against its own positions, it would be in direct violation of numerous other UN resolutions. He cited 11 UN Security Council resolutions that all say East Jerusalem is an occupied territory "and reject the annexation of East Jerusalem to Israel.”

Gershon Baskin, an Israeli researcher and co-chair of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information, told Al-Monitor he can’t understand why a US move is even being considered. “Until now, not one country has recognized any part of Israel. I think that the international community, the US included, has indicated that the issue of Jerusalem must be resolved by Israel and Palestine, and that unilateral action would not gain Israel recognition of Jerusalem as its capital.” . . .

Any controversial decision regarding the highly sensitive issue of Jerusalem will have negative effects locally, regionally and internationally. When former Jerusalem Mufti Ekrima Sabri delivered his sermon Dec. 16 in Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, he said that meddling with Jerusalem is like playing with fire. This is not only true on the popular level; reversing decades of US and international law and practice regarding Jerusalem would have legal and diplomatic fallout.

Trump's smartest strategy will be to avoid beginning his term with a colossal mistake.

Should Christians Support Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?

Donald Trump's campaign manager is saying this week that a "very big priority" for the incoming president is to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, citing Jewish-American and evangelical support. But not everyone is so enthused with the idea.

In a Monday radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said that the incoming president has "made it very clear during the campaign, and as president-elect," that he would indeed relocate the U.S. embassy, according to the Times of Israel Sunday. Conway also told Hewitt that many Jewish-Americans prefer this and that "evangelical Christians always have Israel at the top of their list when you ask what's most important to them."

Yet much larger issues remain beyond simply transferring America's diplomatic headquarters there from one Israeli city to arguably the most disputed piece of land on the planet.

The Christian Post asked Robert Nicholson, executive director of the New York City-based Philos Project, a nonprofit organization working to revive an intellectually rigorous Christian approach to foreign policy, how Christians should engage this thoughtfully.

"Insofar as we are building a real partnership between the United States and Israel, it makes perfect sense that we would respect the statements and wishes of the Israelis themselves," Nicholson said in a Tuesday phone interview, adding that in the minds of many Israelis and Americans, Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

"Yet for all intents and purposes moving the embassy will not actually change much on the ground. There's an idea that we could inflame the Islamic world, but I actually don't think that is so much of a concern. If anything it is more symbolic to move the embassy," he continued. . .

In 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act which unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and required that the American embassy move there by May 1999. The legislation also granted the U.S. President the power to delay the move for six months and Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all done so over the years because of security reasons. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Meanwhile, J Street, a liberal Jewish advocacy group that is an ardent proponent of the two-state solution, continues to assert that the embassy relocation is unwise and portends many dangers.

Writing yesterday on their website, J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami called Jerusalem a "powder keg."

"Even minor changes of the status quo in fact or law have immense symbolic impact and carry the potential to spark violence," he said.

"A decision to move the United States embassy — with its implication that the US recognizes Israel's annexation of Jerusalem — could well spark unrest and violence not only in Jerusalem but across the Arab and Muslim worlds."

"All but the most reckless of American policy makers easily grasp the dangers of making this symbolic and inflammatory move," Ben-Ami said.

Objectively, all of the warnings against the proposed move make perfect sense. What in the world is wrong with the thinking of the Religious Right "Christians" who are clamoring for a "symbolic and inflammatory move." One's mind is directed to the prophecy of the Apostle Paul: "because they received not the love of the truth . . . God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" (2 Thess. 2:10-11.)

While the Trump administration is busily engaged in roiling the waters of controversy and provoking conflict, the Christian who is committed to the historicist unfolding of Bible prophecies will note the spiritual realities of these times. First, sound Seventh-day Adventist expositions of prophecy, have identified global turmoil and conflict as a sign of the final days of earth's history. At the same time, the great prophecy of Daniel 11:45 will be fulfilled (Cf. FJERUSALEM - PAPAL POLICY cited above; and N.B. REDEMPTIONIS ANNO.) Is this fulfillment going to emerge out of the turmoil and conflict likely to be provoked by the Trump presidency, including the Jerusalem Embassy issue?




"What the Jesuit Order is for the left wing of the Roman Catholic Church, Opus Dei is for its right wing. (Hegelian politics at its finest, for the Roman Catholic Church cannot lose if it has strong ties with both ends of the political spectrum!)" (From Opus Dei in the USA)

To understand the uninterrupted forward movement of the Church of Rome in it objective of world domination, it must always be kept in mind that it "cannot lose if it has strong ties with both ends of the political spectrum." This is a particularly relevant principle at the present time; because there is a movement within the church which is even more extreme right-wing than Opus Dei, and it has set itself in opposition to Pope Francis' policies, worldwide and within the Vatican. Thus, reaction to Donald Trump's election to the US presidency was not uniform in the Vatican; and this was probably a reflection of the ideological differences within the hierarchy. Pope Francis is a Jesuit, and consistent with the opening quotation above, there is a widespread belief that he is a Socialist, although disputed by some. In the very same articles, the right wing nature of American Catholicism is contrasted with Francis' apparent left-wing leanings:

The pro-socialist viewpoint -

Pope is an anticapitalism socialist — thank God

Commentary: Conservatives right to worry about ‘radical’ Pope Francis

Thank God, Pope Francis really is an anticapitalist, socialist and revolutionary. Read his lips. He smiles. He drives a Ford Focus. The Vatican police report that he sneaks out at night wearing black, meets strangers, society’s rejects, the “homeless, addicted, refugees, indigenous, the elderly, migrants,” the unemployed. . .

Conservatives everywhere — from the GOP, Wall Street bankers, Big Ag and every climate denier, to union-busing politicians, Big Oil billionaires and traditional growth economists — every conservative should be concerned about this gentle pontiff’s deceptively disarming charm, his happy smile. He says he has no “political ideology.” He’s that good a diplomat. Yet his own words clearly brand him an anticapitalist, a socialist and a leader with a revolutionary mission. Thank God, because the world needs him.

The pope has a divine mandate to radically alter American politics

The pope’s words clearly reveal a man who’s been on top of financial, economic and political trends for a long time, worldwide and in America. This pope promises to radically transform an American political landscape that for many years has been dominated by the conservative capitalist ideology of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yes, Pope Francis is challenging generations of right-wing conservative ideology. . .

But far more dangerous for American conservatives, this new pope’s message will be regularly delivered by those clerics to America’s power elite: Six of the nine members on the Supreme Court are Catholics, including the chief justice. Three Catholics are in the direct constitutional line of succession if the president dies. Twenty-four of our 100 Senators are Catholic. So are 163 of the 435 members of the House. Add in their Catholic spouses, children, parents and friends, and this new pope is himself a global superpower. His radical, revolutionary “exhortations” will be influencing billions of all faiths worldwide, demanding not pious rhetoric but action to solve world problems. . .

The anti-socialist viewpoint -

Repeat after me: Pope Francis is not a socialist

Pope Francis has decried the manner in which many businesspersons fail to consider the plight of low-wage workers and the unemployed, the growing income inequality in many countries including the United States, and warming weather patterns. Thus, some American conservatives consider these enunciations as evidence that Pope Francis is a socialist, arguing that he should keep to his own fiefdom, take care of Catholic souls, and leave economic policy to business people.

Those views are wrong. Francis is not a socialist, although he often says too much of the world’s political and economic leadership rule at the expense of the rest of society with disastrous consequences.

A viewpoint falling between pro-socialist and anti-socialist -

A New Path for the Pontiff?: Pope Francis and Socialism

In his encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II wrote, “A person who is deprived of something he can call ‘his own’ and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.” This declaration speaks to the history of the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and socialist movements, which has been both extant and strained since the 19th century. Pope Francis has since taken a different stance in addressing socialism and the liberalist movement surrounding it, seemingly thawing the cold nature of this historically uncomfortable relationship between socialism and the historically more traditionalist Catholic Church.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as the “political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Though socialism has vastly differing connotations depending on one’s own ideology, it can almost always be interpreted as opposing unfettered market forces.

In 1878, thirty years after the publication of Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto and in the middle of a depression in the United States and Western Europe, Pope Leo XIII condemned “socialists, communists, [and] nihilists” for being part of “the deadly plague” corrupting society and “leading it on to the verge of destruction.” Leo denounced these activists for seeking to “debase the natural union of man and woman” and “assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law.” This centralization of economic power would have hurt the clout of local authorities, whom the Catholic Church has historically tended to support.

In 1891, amid another time of economic stagnation in parts of the West, Leo affirmed that “working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers—that is truly shameful and inhuman.” Leo adhered to the philosophy of earlier saints such as Thomas Aquinas while showing compassion to the 19th-century poor urban population. Aquinas’s philosophy developed what later Catholic philosophers would further develop and call subsidiarity: the principle that local, competent authorities should take priority in making decisions and settling disputes before more centralized ones do. Under this view, long espoused by Republicans and states’ rights activists, central authorities should only undertake tasks that local ones cannot do effectively. Because the central planning of socialism contradicts this principle of subsidiarity, there has historically been little room for it in the minds of Catholic popes. . .

While Francis’s predecessor Benedict XVI wanted governments to allow the Church to show benevolence to those suffering, Pope Francis wishes to attack the causes of poverty at their source at what he sees as the source, which he views as capitalist markets. Thus, it can be expected that Francis will do more in the future to attempt to bring about his vision, which while not explicitly one of socialism, is still one that emphasizes governments and corporations as holding the solutions, rather than local entities and the Church. . .


Wherever Pope Francis falls in the political spectrum between socialism and conservatism, he has made it clear that he is opposed to unbridled capitalism, and it is obvious that he thereby falls afoul of the ideology and policies of the American Catholic hierarchy which inspires both the Religious Right and the Republican Party. At present right-wing conservatism appears to be in the ascendancy. A startling feature of the present religio-political reality in the United States is the emergence of the right-wing ideology that is even more extreme than that of Opus Dei, and the control which it exercises over President Donald Trump. This is the religio-political ideology known as "Radical Traditional Catholicism." The following report emphasizes its anti-semitism, but there is much more to it than that:


Radical traditionalist” Catholics, who may make up the largest single group of serious anti-Semites in America, subscribe to an ideology that is rejected by the Vatican and some 70 million mainstream American Catholics. Many of their leaders have been condemned and even excommunicated by the official church.

Adherents of radical traditional Catholicism, or “integrism,” routinely pillory Jews as “the perpetual enemy of Christ” and worse, reject the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, and sometimes even assert that recent popes have all been illegitimate. They are incensed by the liberalizing reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, which condemned hatred for the Jews and rejected the accusation that Jews are collectively responsible for deicide in the form of the crucifixion of Christ.

Radical traditionalists are not the same as Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” — people who prefer the old Latin Mass to the mass now typically said in vernacular languages — although the radicals, as well, like their liturgy in Latin. They also embrace extremely conservative social ideals with respect to women.

Some claim that radical traditionalist Catholicism is the true Catholic Church. (Perhaps history bears this out, and the ideology merely unmasks the real identity of the papacy):

To be Catholic is to be a "radical traditionalist"

One cannot be Catholic without being traditional. If one is Catholic one must be radical. The word comes from the the Latin radix, meaning root. How can Catholic be anything but radical, particularly living within this secular world and the new “pagan ideology” that has taken over parts of the Church as so aptly phrased by Bishops Schneider.

The reason that we are labelled such is that we are right. Those who put these labels on us are conflicted and schizophrenic because on one hand, they might like a little Latin Mass once or twice per year but on the other hand they have become “pagan Catholics” as our Holy Father so aptly called them a few days ago. If all you can do is look away from the real problems and crisis facing the Church and mock and deride then you are nothing more than a coward and part of the problem; and this goes for you if you are laity or priest or a bishop. You are lukewarm and you will be spat out on the last day. . .

If you are not a radical traditionalist, then you are simply, not Catholic.

However this may be, those in control at the Vatican do not take kindly to the propagation of radical traditional Catholicism. This is documented by the following article:

Radical Catholic blogs may be a cesspool, but saying so won’t help

Earlier this month, Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, who serves as an English-language aide to the Vatican Press Office, launched a fierce attack on radical traditionalists in the Catholic blogosphere.

As reported by the Catholic News Service, Rosica stated, “Many of my non-Christian and non-believing friends have remarked to me that we ‘Catholics’ have turned the Internet into a cesspool of hatred, venom and vitriol, all in the name of defending the faith!” . . .

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, too much preaching and catechesis focused only on peace and justice issues, or presented a subjective and sentimental understanding of the Catholic faith. Pastors and catechists are not the only ones at fault. The Catholic faithful themselves have too often preferred a fuzzy, feel-good message.

Indifference, and indifferentism, have produced a notoriously lax and ineffectual form of American Catholicism.

Catholics who are looking for a faith with rigor, discipline and a tough line are invariably drawn to the traditionalist message. It is possible to find a strong, joyful traditional Catholic witness that combines clarity and charity, and those who relish Catholicism with grit should search out such communities.

Unfortunately, such teachers and parishes are hard to find, and too often the “Church of the Internet” takes over. Self-appointed online teachers fill the vacuum, and a poisonous, self-righteous extremism takes the place of true, simple, and humble piety.

When even the Vatican views Radical Traditional Catholicism with horror at their extremism, how alarmed should Bible Christians who believe the prophetic Word be about its controlling influence in the Trump White House! The White House Chief Strategist and Senior Adviser to the President is a Radical Traditional Catholic:

Stephen Bannon’s worldview is deeply troubling

Standing squarely behind President Trump and whispering in his ear is his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, who is shaping up to be the second most powerful person in the White House.

Bannon is the former editor of the right-wing Breitbart website (a platform for far-right extremists) and is the architect of Trump’s cruel and chaotic visa ban. He has become so powerful that liberal and conservative pundits alike speak of the Bannon Regency and (only half in jest) of “President” Bannon. . .

Yet Bannon’s radical worldview should unnerve anyone who still thinks American democracy is based on religious and political tolerance. And his outlook clearly syncs with Trump’s gut instincts. So the Breitbart provocateur has become the White House ideologue-in-chief.

Thus it behooves those who believe in traditional American values to scrutinize Bannon’s sayings and doings (although he likes to operate in secret). A good place to start is the speech he gave to a Catholic conference on poverty in the Vatican in 2014. The conference was hosted by a conservative Catholic group close to Cardinal Raymond Burke, a voice of Catholic orthodoxy and traditionalism who has publicly clashed with the inclusive views of Pope Francis.

In his remarks Bannon railed against the decline of capitalism, the church, and the West, a trio of crises, he said, that underlay the rise of populist anger. Himself a member of the elite, as a Harvard grad and former Goldman Sachs banker, he denounced the crisis of “crony capitalism” that had cheated the middle classes in the United States and Europe. (Note that Trump has filled his cabinet with crony capitalists and Goldman Sachs bankers with no sign of protest from Bannon.)

As for the cure, this self-styled provocateur claims it lies in political upheaval. . .

Bannon has established ties with an opponent of Pope Francis within the Vatican:

Steve Bannon Carries Battles to Another Influential Hub: The Vatican

When Stephen K. Bannon was still heading Breitbart News, he went to the Vatican to cover the canonization of John Paul II and make some friends. High on his list of people to meet was an archconservative American cardinal, Raymond Burke, who had openly clashed with Pope Francis.

In one of the cardinal’s antechambers, amid religious statues and book-lined walls, Cardinal Burke and Mr. Bannon — who is now President Trump’s anti-establishment eminence — bonded over their shared worldview. They saw Islam as threatening to overrun a prostrate West weakened by the erosion of traditional Christian values, and viewed themselves as unjustly ostracized by out-of-touch political elites. . .

While Mr. Trump, a twice-divorced president who has boasted of groping women, may seem an unlikely ally of traditionalists in the Vatican, many of them regard his election and the ascendance of Mr. Bannon as potentially game-changing breakthroughs.

Just as Mr. Bannon has connected with far-right parties threatening to topple governments throughout Western Europe, he has also made common cause with elements in the Roman Catholic Church who oppose the direction Francis is taking them. Many share Mr. Bannon’s suspicion of Pope Francis as a dangerously misguided, and probably socialist, pontiff.

Until now, Francis has marginalized or demoted the traditionalists, notably Cardinal Burke, carrying out an inclusive agenda on migration, climate change and poverty that has made the pope a figure of unmatched global popularity, especially among liberals. Yet in a newly turbulent world, Francis is suddenly a lonelier figure. Where once Francis had a powerful ally in the White House in Barack Obama, now there is Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon, this new president’s ideological guru.

For many of the pope’s ideological opponents in and around the Vatican, who are fearful of a pontiff they consider outwardly avuncular but internally a ruthless wielder of absolute political power, this angry moment in history is an opportunity to derail what they see as a disastrous papal agenda. And in Mr. Trump, and more directly in Mr. Bannon, some self-described “Rad Trads” — or radical traditionalists — see an alternate leader who will stand up for traditional Christian values and against Muslim interlopers. . .

Mr. Bannon publicly articulated his worldview in remarks a few months after his meeting with Cardinal Burke, at a Vatican conference organized by Mr. Harnwell’s institute.

Speaking via video feed from Los Angeles, Mr. Bannon, a Catholic, held forth against rampant secularization, the existential threat of Islam, and a capitalism that had drifted from the moral foundations of Christianity.

That talk has garnered much attention, and approval by conservatives, for its explicit expression of Mr. Bannon’s vision. Less widely known are his efforts to cultivate strategic alliances with those in Rome who share his interpretation of a right-wing “church militant” theology. . .

While not the primary emphasis of this analysis, it is worthy of note that the Radical Traditionalist Catholics oppose the secular state, as well as Islam which is regarded as an existential threat to Christianity. Of course, opposition to the secular state includes the entire spectrum of ideologies in the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic-Evangelical alliance which dominate the political scene in America:


The State must be Openly, Publicly, and Officially Christian

But the Crusades and the Inquisition and the KKK and the Religious Right combined are but a drop in the bucket compared to the denial of civil rights occasioned by the Secular State. Secularism, not Christianity, has made the 20th century the most violent century in recorded history. Everyone can see that the Inquisition and the Crusades were evil; only a few have come to see secular government as an even greater evil. (Italics emphasis in the original.)

Steve Bannon is an opponent of the secular state:

Why Steve Bannon wants to destroy secularism

Just what does Steve Bannon believe? For some, his thinking can be boiled down to racism. For others, he is merely a sinister opportunist taking advantage of Trump and the “alt-right”, a far-right movement in the US, for economic gain and fame. But what if he is fundamentally driven by something else? Like: religion.

During a 2014 conference hosted by the very conservative Human Dignity Institute at the Vatican, Bannon laid out his belief in “traditionalism”. To him, it signifies, among other things, a third-way attempt to counter the “crony capitalism” of neoliberalism, and the “state sponsored capitalism” of the Soviet Union and China.

His traditionalism is predicated on a rather speculative historical argument. He argues that a form of “enlightened capitalism” defined western political economies from the second world war until roughly the downfall of the Soviet Union. This type of capitalism was predicated on the Judeo-Christian tradition, which, for reasons Bannon does not explain, was adequately able to represent the culture and economic interests of the working classes.

However, increasing secularization in the west eroded the Judeo-Christian tradition. This set the stage by the 1990s for enlightened capitalism to be supplanted by a new form of political economy, namely neoliberalism. The defining feature of neoliberalism, as Bannon describes it, involves the establishment of an international class of political and corporate elites – the “Davos party” – who presumably lack the values necessary to represent the economic and cultural interest of anyone else besides themselves.

This religious worldview provides one compelling explanation as to why he is willing to work with the political fringe. What is driving the populist movement is, according to him, primarily a reaction to neoliberalism. A return to Judeo-Christian traditionalism will allow for the necessary economic forms that will pave the return to enlightened capitalism, which in turn will “wipe out” the racist elements of right-wing parties. It will also provide the necessary virtues, Bannon argues, to resist the global threat of “radical Islam”.

His alleged Leninism is to be found here. He aims to destroy the political establishment and infuse the re-established state with Judeo-Christian traditionalism. This will aid in redirecting the central bureaucratic state away from globalism and towards economic nationalism.

Perhaps Bannon’s apocalyptic worldview will have little influence on Trump. Regardless, it is a dangerous ideology that entails a number of dubious political assumptions. His repeated claim that the racial fringe will be washed out by the political revolution to come is pure naivete.

More problematic is the question of where Bannon derives his understanding of traditionalism. There are plenty of traditionalists Bannon could mention who have pointed out the shortcoming of liberalism: the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre or even the theologian John Milbank come to mind.

Instead he references none other than Julius Evola – one of the intellectual godfathers of European fascism who promoted a spiritual type of racism – whose reception in Russian under Putin has inspired a traditionalist movement from which Bannon believes there is much to learn.

The most bothersome feature of Bannon’s talk is the fact that a Catholic group at the Vatican responded to it with enthusiasm. Their questions demonstrate that they knew Bannon’s desire to make his message receptive to rightwing populist parties. Excitement over his idea of a renewed Judeo-Christian Europe seemingly trumped such concerns. This is same political ideology that galvanized evangelicals to vote for Trump.


Steve Bannon may be the only "radical traditionalist" Roman Catholic in the White House; but there is a strong and influential Catholic presence. The following article in a Catholic publication reveals both the influential Catholic presence in the White House and an overwhelming involvement of right-wing Catholics in the transition from the election to the inauguration:

Trump’s Catholics: Who Is Part of the Church Flock?

The prominent staff picks include Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon.

Donald Trump has named several Catholics to advise him in his inner circle and serve in his cabinet following the presidential oath of office on Jan. 20.

Some of those Catholics — such as Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager who will be a counselor to the president — come to the administration with solid pro-life credentials and are respected in Catholic circles. Others, such as Stephen Bannon, a chief strategist for Trump who also served on the campaign, bring a fair share of controversy.

But overall, Jay Richards, a professor at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business and Economics, told the Register that he is “cautiously optimistic” with the team Trump is assembling.

“I’m very impressed, not just with the Catholics in the transition, but with the transition overall,” said Richards, who is also executive editor of TheStream.org, an internet media outlet that, according to its website, promotes “freedom, smaller government and human dignity.” . . .

Kellyanne Conway

Richards said he was especially pleased that Conway, who declined an offer to be the White House press secretary, will have a close advisory role in the Trump administration.

“She will be much more valuable giving advice as a counselor than if she were the press secretary, reciting talking points all day,” said Richards, who like many other observers credits Conway with saving Trump’s campaign when she joined it last summer as a special adviser.

“Kellyanne is the reason he won. His campaign was at a lull when she came on board, and she changed it a lot,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, who told the Register that the presence of Conway and other pro-lifers in key roles signals that pro-lifers will have “a seat at the table” in the Trump White House. Said Hawkins, “So far, Trump is appointing people with solid pro-life credentials to important positions, and, for me, that is a positive sign that he is going to keep his promises to pro-lifers and the pro-life movement.” . . .

Steve Bannon

Meanwhile, Bannon, who joined the Trump campaign around the same time as Conway, brings with him considerably more baggage. . .

Bannon, a former U.S. naval officer who went on to work as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs before leaving the financial world for media, told Bloomberg News that he grew up in a “blue-collar, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats.” . . .

Describing himself as a Ronald Reagan admirer, Bannon has said he is not a white nationalist, but rather an “economic nationalist” suspicious of the political and financial elite. In June 2014, he gave a talk at the Vatican, sponsored by the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, where he blamed the 2008 financial crisis on the greed of the banking industry and added that he opposed bailouts for that industry. In the same talk, Bannon said the West was facing a crisis of capitalism after losing its Judeo-Christian foundations. He added that secularism had sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals. . .

Sean Spicer

Sean Spicer, another high-profile Catholic member of the Trump team, will be front and center as the new White House communications director. He has been the Republican National Committee’s communications director since 2011 and a chief strategist since 2015. He also worked as a senior communications adviser for Trump during the transition. . .

Andrew Bremberg

Meanwhile, at Franciscan University of Steubenville, the administration and faculty are just as proud of Andrew Bremberg, the incoming director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, who earned his bachelor’s degree at Franciscan before attending law school at The Catholic University of America. . .

Andrew Puzder

Andrew Puzder, the president-elect’s nominee for labor secretary, is, like Bannon, a somewhat controversial pick. . .

In August 2016, Puzder delivered a speech in Chicago, before Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles and members of the Catholic Association of Latino Leaders, on the topic of free enterprise, which he said enables people to use their God-given talents. “My Catholic upbringing taught me that jealousy and resentment were wrong and that if I put my faith in God and worked hard to fulfill my potential, everything else would take care of itself,” said Puzder, who added that only in the United States could a “working-class Catholic kid” like himself aspire to success with a realistic chance of achieving it. . .

Michael Flynn and Others

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Michael Flynn will serve as Trump’s national security adviser. Flynn, a lifelong Democrat until throwing his support behind Trump, grew up in Rhode Island in an “Irish-Catholic family of blue-collar Democrats,” according to Politico. . . [Flynn is now out.]

The Trump team also includes U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., who is the incoming director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mulvaney has been a member of the congressional Pro-Life Caucus. On his website, Mulvaney said he has been “committed to standing up for the lives of the unborn in Congress.” . . .

Mulvaney has also been active in his local community as a founding member of the Indian Land Rotary, a youth baseball coach and a parishioner of St. Philip Neri Catholic Church. He is also a founding member of Our Lady of Grace Catholic Mission in South Carolina and has been credited for his outreach to the Latino community. . .

Retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly, the incoming secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, grew up in an Irish-Catholic family in Boston.

We are thirty-seven years beyond the beginning of the Ronald Reagan presidency. Consider the presence of Roman Catholics in the Reagan administration, the influence of the Vatican, and collaboration between the American Bishops and Reagan's presidency! Roman Catholic domination of American politics is now so far advanced that even a presidency that is hostile to the agenda of the present Pope nevertheless continues that domination. The extent of Roman Catholic influence over the transition to the Trump presidency brings that domination into stark relief.


First, consider the valuable information on "Roman Catholic Rightists" (Rome's religio-political army "legates") provided by the following 1996 report:


Organizations Press For Anti-Liberal Causes

LITTLE HAS BEEN written in the public press about far right Catholic organizations. Instead, major publicity has been given to Protestant fundamentalist organizations like Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. Yet there is an extensive network of extremist Catholic groups who function on their own or whose members collaborate with the better known groups led by Protestants.

Among the well-known Catholic far right leaders are such persons as Patrick Buchanan, Republican candidate in the 1996 presidential primaries; William Bennett, who managed Lamar Alexander’s 1996 presidential campaign; Phyllis Schlafly, who heads the Eagle Forum; attorney William Ball, perennial defender of aid to parochial schools; William F Buckley, editor of National Review; Robert Dornan, member of Congress and 1996 Presidential candidate; William E. Simon, former Treasury Secretary; and Paul Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation and the Heritage Foundation. [Cf. The Heritage Foundation.]

The Catholic right wing is basically built around issues set forth by the Vatican, including abortion, the role of women, opposition to contraceptive re search, and various matters pertaining to sex, such as family planning, sex education in the schools, homosexuality, and aid to parochial schools. In one sense they are led by the Vatican’s chief agents in the U.S.: Cardinals John O’Connor, Bernard Law, Anthony Bevilacqua, James Hickey, Roger Mahoney, and Joseph Bernardin. Cardinal O’Connor, for example, is the ecclesiastical advisor of The Catholic Campaign for America; and Cardinal Law, the episcopal advisor of Women Affirming Life. . .

No discussion of Catholic rightists is complete without mentioning the role of Paul Weyrich, a deacon in the Roman Catholic Church who founded the Heritage Foundation, [cf. Heritage Foundation for right-wing identification] and the Free Congress Foundation (FCF) whose major media project is National Empowerment Television which William Bennett chairs. Both Heritage and FCF were funded initially by the Coors beer family of Colorado. In the 1980s the FCF developed a Catholic Center “which played an important role in the development of a self-consciously Catholic wing of the Religious Right,” according to A New Rite.

Russ Bellant in The Coors Connection cites Weyrich’s connection with Laszlo Pastor, “a convicted Nazi collaborator” for his role in World War II, Weyrich’s activities in Chile where Pinochet was the military dictator, and support through The Freedom Fighter of Renamo, which the State Department estimated massacred about 100,000 Mozambicans.

One of Weyrich’s major contributions to right wing politics was to persuade televangelist Jerry Falwell to form the Moral Majority and get into politics. Another major contribution of Weyrich was to persuade Pat Robertson also to get involved in politics, according to Richard Viguerie in his book, The New Right. Falwell indicated that the Moral Majority had a membership of 30 percent Roman Catholics and 20 percent fundamentalists; the rest were Mormons, Jews and others. Ralph Reed claimed that the Christian Coalition’s 1995 Catholic membership was 16.3 percent. There are clear interconnections. . .

Particularly worthy of note in the context of Roman Catholic influence over the Trump presidency is the reference to Paul Weyrich as a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation (there are many references on this website to the prominent, if not dominating, role of Weyrich in the Religious Right movement.) This identifies the Foundation as a right wing Catholic organization. It is not clear in the following report how many of the persons listed in the "Breakdown" section are also members of the Heritage Foundation, but many are, and in any event they have all been influential in the Trump presidency transition, and continue to wield influence in the presidential administration:

Trump's Jesuit/Catholic transition team responsible for making cabinet appointments and policy decisions

Heritage Foundation transition team advisors

Now, the transition is getting an assist from Heritage Foundation officials including Becky Norton Dunlop, a distinguished fellow at the foundation; former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, a distinguished fellow emeritus at Heritage; Heritage national security expert James Carafano; and Ed Feulner, who helped found Heritage. Rebekah Mercer, a Heritage board member and major pro-Trump donor, is on the transition team’s 16-member executive committee, and a transition team source said she is working with Heritage to recruit appointees for positions at the undersecretary level and below (though she has struggled to find people interested in taking lower-level jobs, according to a New York Times report).

The transition team also includes other prominent activists and thinkers with close ties to Heritage, such as former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the activist involved with several conservative groups who is running Trump’s domestic transition team. He has written for Heritage and has personal relationships with many at the organization. . .


Mike Pence, self-described "evangelical Catholic"

Chris Christie, Roman Catholic

Newt Gingrich, Roman Catholic, Council on Foreign Relations

Michael T. Flynn, Roman Catholic

Rudy Giuliani, Roman Catholic, 9/11 coadjutor, alleged Knight of Malta

Jared Kushner, fan of the Count of Monte Cristo ("Count of the Mount of Christ;" story about the Jesuit General getting revenge on all of the Order's enemies during its suppression) [This one seems to be somewhat of a stretch.]

Steve Bannon, chief strategist and Senior Counselor for the Presidency of Donald Trump, former executive chair of Breitbart News, Jesuit-trained from Georgetown

Lou Barletta, Roman Catholic

Chris Collins, Roman Catholic

Tom Marino, Roman Catholic

Devin Nunes, Roman Catholic

Anthony Scaramucci, Roman Catholic, Council on Foreign Relations

Eric Trump, Jesuit-trained from Georgetown and serves as board member of Georgetown's Business, Society, and Public Policy Initiative

Ivanka Trump, attended Jesuit Georgetown for two years

David Malpass, Jesuit-trained from Georgetown, Vice President of the Council for National Policy, leading appointment selections for positions involving economic issues

Keith Kellogg, trained by Jesuit at Santa Clara University, leading appointment selections for positions involving national defense issues

Michael Catanzaro, trained by Jesuits at Fordham University and St. Ignatius High School, leading the policy implementation team for energy independence

Andrew Bremberg, graduate of Catholic University of America Executive Legal Action Lead

James Carafano, Jesuit-trained from Georgetown University , reported to be the primary aide to the State Department of Trump administration transition team

Ed Feulner, Roman Catholic former President and founder of Heritage Foundation; Jesuit-trained from Regis and Georgetown Universities

Ken Blackwell, Jesuit-trained from Xavier University, leading appointment selections for positions involving domestic issues.

Boris Epshteyn, Trump's foremost spokesman; Jesuit-trained from Georgetown.

The Heritage Foundation has been Roman Catholic from its founding. A Jesuit connection is also suggested by the educational backgrounds of many of the people associated with the organization.

The role of the Heritage Foundation in the transition and administration of the Trump presidency is confirmed by numerous major publications. A sampling follows:

The D.C. Think Tank Behind Donald Trump

In early December, Mike Pence took the stage in the Presidential Ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. “We did it,” the incoming vice president told the cheering crowd. Donald Trump, he said, had secured a mandate. “It was a victory,” Pence insisted, “that was born of ideas.”

That may seem far-fetched, given that Trump’s worldview relies more on bravado than briefing books. But in fact, the new administration is pursuing a right-wing agenda that rests squarely on a long tradition of conservative ideas: repealing Obamacare, rolling back government regulations, tightening immigration laws, tilting the Supreme Court to the right. And no group is more responsible for helping to craft Trump’s agenda than the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that hosted the party where Pence delivered his remarks. “I’m trying not to be too giddy,” Jim DeMint, the foundation’s president, confessed that night.

The Heritage-Trump alliance is one of the more improbable developments in an election season that was full of them. A year ago, Heritage’s political arm dismissed Trump as a distraction, with no track record of allegiance to conservative causes. Today the group’s fingerprints are on virtually every policy Trump advocates, from his economic agenda to his Supreme Court nominees. According to Politico, Heritage employees acted as a “shadow transition team,” vetting potential Trump staffers to make sure the administration is well stocked with conservative appointees. At a Heritage event shortly after the election, John Yoo, author of the notorious Bush-era memos authorizing torture, trotted out a series of one-liners about the foundation’s influence. “I’m surprised there are so many people here, because I thought everyone at Heritage was working over at transition headquarters,” Yoo joked. “I asked the taxicab driver to take me to Trump transition headquarters, and he dropped me off here instead.”

The partnership between Trump and the Heritage Foundation represents a return to prominence for the conservative think tank. For decades, Heritage was the preeminent policy shop in Washington. Founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner, two Republicans who were tired of organizations that refused to get their hands dirty by meddling in politics, it pioneered a new approach, one specifically oriented around right-wing advocacy rather than nonpartisan research. The agenda-shaping worked. “Of a sudden,” the Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed in 1980, “the GOP has become a party of ideas.”

Trump’s shadow transition team

The Heritage Foundation has emerged as a driving force as Trump tries to staff up the federal government.

A year ago, the political arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation dismissed Donald Trump as a big-government enthusiast and left-wing sympathizer.

Now, the Heritage Foundation has emerged as one of the most influential forces shaping President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, embedding the veteran Washington group into the operation of a candidate who ran loudly against the Beltway. . .

Part gatekeeper, part brain trust and part boots on the ground, Heritage is both a major presence on the transition team itself and a crucial conduit between Trump’s orbit and the once-skeptical conservative leaders who ultimately helped get him elected.

Heritage is “absolutely the fulcrum, and essential to staffing the administration with people who reflect Trump’s commitments across the board,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent group that opposes abortion rights. “I can say it’s been a source of great confidence during the election to know that principled people were planning for a Trump administration.” . . .

It is not an exagerration to state that the Roman Catholic presence in the governance of the United States is now ubiquitous, notwithstanding the contest between Pope Francis and his right-wing opponents. The division between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" even exists within the ranks of his Jesuit Order:

The Pope and the Jesuits

When Jesuit journals publish articles undercutting papal positions or when individual Jesuits do the same in public pronouncements, they promote a concept of the Church quite different from that of the Church’s leader — the man to whom Jesuits take a special vow of obedience.

The Society of Jesus is one of the great glories of the Roman Catholic Church but like so many other one time bulwarks of the faith it has in recent times been riven by internal dissent. . .

It is one thing to survive the pen of Pascal and the persecution of politicians, but for Jesuits to come into collision with the Pope, given their special mission, contributes mightily to the current crisis in Catholicism. . .

The post-conciliar [Vatican II] upheaval in the Church was not a “grass-roots” movement from the pews. It originated primarily among the priests and religious. It was they who proved to be the most discontented classes, and their discontent eddied outward until it engulfed the whole Church. Inevitably, the Jesuits were crucial to this process.

The image of the Jesuits has often been a contradictory one. Sometimes the Society has been portrayed as made up of extraordinarily crafty reactionaries, serving the interests of the Church ruthlessly but deviously. Often, however, it has been perceived as the Church’s “premier” liberal order, not hampered by the narrow kinds of orthodoxy and piety which afflict ordinary Catholics.

Both images can be entertained, because the Jesuits are a diverse group of men. In the post-conciliar period especially, they have been the leaders of increasingly radical efforts to reshape the Church, ultimately beyond all recognition, and simultaneously the leaders of movements to defend and strengthen orthodox Catholicism. . .

Just as Jesuits began to discover psychology in a way they had scarcely known before, so also many began to chafe at what they regarded as the narrowness of their own training — mainly the classics and neo-Scholastic philosophy and theology (although many Jesuits had for some time been doing graduate work in secular disciplines in the most prestigious universities). There was a heightened desire to confront the modern world at the point of its greatest brilliance. Young Jesuits (as well as some older ones) became sympathetically engaged with Hegel, Marx, the Existentialists, and modern Protestant theology. as well as with the social sciences. As with psychology, however, a long thirst seemed to make it difficult for many Jesuits to drink in moderation. An “openness” to newer modes of thought soon became, for many, a wholesale acceptance of systems which could be reconciled with Christianity only with difficulty if at all, and a concomitant compulsion to brush aside almost everything from the Catholic past as irrelevant at best, perhaps even false and pernicious. . .

Under such conditions it was not only impossible to maintain the traditional Jesuit esprit, and the institutional arrangements which went with it, but also difficult to articulate new visions which could command wide assent. Not only was the Society deeply divided between “liberals” and “conservatives” (not entirely along the lines of age), those who favored innovation could no longer agree even among themselves as to what kind.

Thus, an array of Roman Catholic publications portray an institution riven by controversy, with "conservatives" pitted against "liberals," and a "liberal" Jesuit Pope opposed even within his own Jesuit Order. The Radical Traditionalists have their presence within the Vatican, and even at the very highest level of the Donald Trump presidency, although Trump is not a Roman Catholic or to all appearances a man of strong ideological convictions. Nevertheless, the Church of Rome holds all of the levers of power in the United States of America. Hegelian politics is alive and well in the Church of Rome and in America. What comes next?!



Fear and rage continue to reign in America over the presidency of Donald Trump. There is deep concern over the chaos being created, and the authoritarian style of governance manifested by his administration within the first month since his inauguration.


The following reports need no comment:

A 'presidency in chaos': Legendary investigative journalist Carl Bernstein says Washington is already losing faith in Trump

Prominent investigative journalist Carl Bernstein says President Donald Trump's administration is in chaos less than two weeks after Trump took office.

"It's apparent to all but his most serious defenders and those who are his greatest advocates," Bernstein said on CNN on Monday night.

"Republicans on Capitol Hill who I'm talking to who are doubting his abilities," Bernstein said, "doubting even his stability under pressure. This is an extraordinary series of events." . . .

Donald Trump’s world of chaos

People who voted for Donald Trump often said that they did so because he would “stir things up.” That he would create change and upend the entrenched system. They said he would end “political correctness” and speak his mind. They said that he would not play the same old games and would instead make deals around the world that would “make America great again.” Well, so far it has not exactly worked out that way.

Only a week into his presidency and Mr. Trump has created a world of chaos. Health care, the environment, police enforcement, the economy, international relations and more have been upside down at a time when the world desperately needs stability and peace. Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, Middle East, Mexico, the streets of the USA, all in chaos. . .

Trump picks up the phone, sets off diplomatic chaos

Diplomats say Trump’s combative calls with Mexico and Australia are reverberating around the world.

Donald Trump is sowing diplomatic chaos around the world just two weeks into his presidency, as he feuds with world leaders and defends an unpredictable style that has alarmed friends and foes alike.

Foreign diplomats and State Department officials expressed shock Thursday over reports that Trump lashed out in phone calls at the leaders of Mexico and Australia, whose prime minister, a close U.S. ally with whom presidents rarely argue, Trump reportedly hung up on after a surprise haranguing. . .

Trump tried to tamp down the uproar over his contentious phone calls with foreign leaders on Thursday, spinning them as the actions of a strong leader reasserting America abroad.

“When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having, don’t worry about it,” Trump said during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. “We have to be tough. ... We’re taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It’s not going to happen anymore.”

“The world is in trouble, but we’re going to straighten it out, OK? That’s what I do, I fix things,” Trump added.

Diplomats and experts say Trump’s recent behavior likely has some foreign governments recalculating their approach to phone calls and meetings with the U.S. president.


The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter

And it’s not gender, age, income, race or religion.

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

This is an ominous report, and frightening to those who are not prepared for the apocalyptic fulfillment of Rev. 13. The most obvious democratic means of getting rid of Trump is by voting him out of office; but his "fan base" may be growing. It seems increasingly likely that the final obliteration of religious liberty and individual freedom in America may be getting very close. Parallel events in Palestine must follow (Dan. 11:45.) Meanwhile, events in the United States are undoubtedly striking fear in the hearts of many. Nevertheless, faith in Jesus Christ sustains believers by His perfect love which casts out all fear (1 John 4:18.)

Donald Trump invites authoritarianism to America

America’s scary flirtation with authoritarianism threatens its democratic foundations—and it’ll take a concerted global effort to push back

If you’re not worried right now, you’re not paying attention. Or perhaps you’re a partisan whose capacity to warp reality to fit your world view is on par with the ability of large bodies to significantly alter space-time. Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States was abnormal, and the very early days of his administration have given us more reason to be concerned about the future of America and the global order than we had even in the tumultuous months following his victory.

Politicians, academics, commentators, and journalists have regularly compared Trump’s rise to that of fascist and authoritarian leaders. In the halcyon days of only a year ago, it was impolite at best—and absurd at worst—to mention either fascism or authoritarianism in a conversation about mainstream American politics. Indeed, back then, Godwin’s Law marked the outer limits of civil discussion: the claim that the longer a discussion (on the Internet) continues, the more likely it is that Hitler will be invoked as a comparison meant to criticize another’s extremism. Now, epithets such as “Hitler” or “Nazi” or “authoritarian” are just plausible enough that they betray a reasonable, growing anxiety.

Politicians, academics, commentators, and journalists have regularly compared Trump’s rise to that of fascist and authoritarian leaders. In the halcyon days of only a year ago, it was impolite at best—and absurd at worst—to mention either fascism or authoritarianism in a conversation about mainstream American politics. Indeed, back then, Godwin’s Law marked the outer limits of civil discussion: the claim that the longer a discussion (on the Internet) continues, the more likely it is that Hitler will be invoked as a comparison meant to criticize another’s extremism. Now, epithets such as “Hitler” or “Nazi” or “authoritarian” are just plausible enough that they betray a reasonable, growing anxiety.

At best, Trump exercises authoritarian tendencies. (At worst, he and his supporters’ words and actions come disconcertingly close to authoritarianism’s most virulent and nationalist variety, fascism.) Authoritarianism, to slightly adapt political scientist Juan Linz’s definition, is a way of governing marked by severe limits to freedom—the centralization of authority in the hands of a single leader or small group of leaders who may use power to benefit personally (for instance, by using the state to generate personal wealth), and impose limits on civil society. As a way of directing the affairs of state, authoritarianism is enabled and sustained by force—or the threat of force—and is further underwritten by supporters who demonstrate a deep, often emotional attachment to the leader and the regime. . .

Since then, Trump has declared his inauguration a “National Day of Patriotic Devotion,” ordered the construction of a border wall with Mexico, advocated torture, silenced government agencies, launched an investigation into (non-existent) voter fraud, and doubled-down on his promise to ramp up deportations while also limiting entrance to the United States by refugees and Muslims. At the same time, his advisers have been disputing reality, with one, Kellyanne Conway, claiming the existence of “alternative facts.”

In a November essay, political theorist Jacob Levy highlighted that the power to speak untruths and to make others repeat them is a time-worn tactic of oppression: “Saying something obviously untrue, and making your subordinates repeat it with a straight face in their own voice, is a particularly startling display of power over them…Arendt analyzed the huge lies and blatant reversals of language associated with the Holocaust. Havel documented the pervasive little lies, lies that everyone knew to be lies, of late Communism. And Orwell gave us the vivid ‘2+2=5.’ ” . . .

Donald Trump Is Becoming an Authoritarian Leader Before Our Very Eyes

The administration's many lies this weekend should frighten all Americans.

Some observers have warned journalists against an “alarmist” response to Trump’s early actions, lest the media too quickly exhaust our capacity for outrage and cause readers, especially those inclined to give the new president a chance, to tune out. “The danger for the established press,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in a column over the weekend, “is the same danger facing other institutions in our republic: That while believing themselves to be nobly resisting Trump, they end up imitating him. Such imitation will inspire reader loyalty and passion—up to a point. But beyond that point, it’s more likely to polarize than to persuade, which means it often does a demagogue’s work for him. Fellow journalists, don’t do it.”

That column appears to have been completed before the weekend’s events, though; it makes no mention of Trump’s speech or Spicer’s briefing, which ought to change the calculus on the merits of press alarmism. The new administration’s bewildering boasts and outright lies are what make it so frightening, as they’re early signs of what many of us in the media have warned about for months: authoritarianism. . .

While Trump’s antics might have impressed his fans watching from home, they seem to have done little to assuage worries in the agency. The New Yorker interviewed a variety of intelligence experts, including John MacGaffin, a high-ranking veteran of the agency. “What self-centered, irrational decision process got him to this travesty?” MacGaffin told the magazine. “Most importantly, how will that process serve us when the issues he must address are dangerous and incredibly complex? This is scary stuff!”

Trump’s self-centered decision process is authoritarianism, and it’s anything but irrational. He campaigned in an authoritarian style, with rallies where he riled up large crowds to jeer at the press and protesters. One of the defining tactics of his campaign was disinformation, coupled with accusations of the same against the media. That hasn’t changed now that Trump is president. The administration’s unified anti-press and anti-fact message over the weekend is part of a deliberate, ong-term strategy that was hatched many months ago, and is only likely to intensify. The president will wage a rhetorical war against the media, with the intent of delegitimizing one of the few institutions that can hold him accountable, and he will wage it with his most effective weapon: Lies, damned lies, and false statistics.

Trump is following the authoritarian playbook (Pre-inauguration article.)

In less than a week, America will embark on a new political experience: rule by an authoritarian President. Donald Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million. So, for every American who looks forward to the Trump era, there is likely another who fears he will lead us into ruin.

What can we expect from Donald Trump, based on his words and actions over the 19 months since he declared his candidacy?

Many Americans were initially confused by Trump and his unorthodox behavior, or dismissed him as a joke. I have spent decades studying authoritarian and fascist regimes and saw in Trump a deeply familiar figure: the strongman who cultivates a bond with followers based on loyalty to him as a person rather than to a party or set of principles.

Such individuals inevitably seek to adapt the political office they inhabit to serve their needs. They are clear from the start about this intention, refusing to submit to shared customs and norms -- such as releasing tax returns -- that would mean they were submitting to the will of the political class. Anyone who believes that Trump will morph into anything resembling a traditional politician will be sorely disappointed. Authoritarians never pivot. . .

Trump has followed the authoritarian playbook in targeting the media. And once in power he's very likely to step up his attempts at intimidation.

Strongmen show aggression to the press as part of a slow-drip strategy of discrediting all information that is not dispensed by their close allies. Many were surprised at Trump's rude treatment of CNN at his recent press conference. Calling the media outlet "fake news," he refused to allow reporter Jim Acosta to ask a question. This was classic authoritarian posturing. . .

Trump And Authoritarian Propaganda (Pre-election article.)

The President’s (Obama's) comforting belief that he could persuade most people to come round to his viewpoint if only he could have a chance to sit down and reason with them is challenged by Jason Stanley, a professor of philosophy at Yale and the author, most recently, of How Propaganda Works in a New York Times article entitled “Beyond Lying: Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Reality.” . . .

Trump, according to Stanley, is a practitioner of something else again: authoritarian propaganda. This is a form of communication in which a leader concocts a fiction that offers a narrative explaining why the problems that trouble whole groups of people have a simple origin and an even simpler solution. The explanation of the problems is inevitably that some other group or groups in conspiracy with a corrupt elite are responsible for them. The solution is even simpler—namely to elect the author of the fiction as the new leader who will eliminate the elites and the other groups, thus solving the problems. The constant repetition of the fiction is a key to getting it accepted.

Stanley quotes from The Origins of Totalitarianism, in which Hannah Arendt writes:

Like the earlier mob leaders, the spokesmen for totalitarian movements possessed an unerring instinct for anything that ordinary party propaganda or public opinion did not care to touch. Everything hidden, everything passed over in silence, became of major significance, regardless of its own intrinsic importance. The mob really believed that truth was whatever respectable society had hypocritically passed over, or covered with corruption.” . . .

In the world of authoritarian propaganda, says Arendt, “the modern masses do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience.” Once people have embraced the fiction, the only thing that will be listened to is whatever is consistent with it. Conflicting facts are dismissed without thinking, as Trump himself demonstrated during the debates with his repeated cries of, “Wrong!” . . .

What gives authoritarian propaganda its mystifying plausibility is that it claims to expose to the public view what was previously secret. It attaches itself to those aspects aspect of social and political life that are hidden from the public view, such as the corridors of Washington, the machinations of Wall Street, the deliberations of the FBI. They are perfect subjects on which to concoct conspiratorial fictions. The resulting narratives, which claim to reveal hidden truths, “then acquire the reputation of superior ‘realism’ because they touch upon real conditions whose existence is being hidden.” In this way, the spinner of patently absurd fabrications becomes accepted by millions as a trusted truth-teller.

“Totalitarian movements,” writes Arendt, “conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations. The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda… lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.”. . .

In this susceptibility to the acceptance of falsehoods the working of Satan on human minds is revealed. (Cf. SPIRITUAL DIMENSION . . .)


To the rational mind it would seem to be unlikely from the way that the Trump presidency has started, and his low approval ratings, that he could possibly win re-election. Even if his re-election were doomed, to a majority of Americans the prospect of four years under his presidency is frightening.

Even before Trump won the presidential election, conservative publications openly recommended his impeachment after his usefulness to Republicans might be exhausted. Now it appears that they might not be able to wait:

Americans Now Evenly Divided on Impeaching Trump

PPP's new national poll finds that Donald Trump's popularity as President has declined precipitously just over the last two weeks. On our first poll of his Presidency voters were evenly divided on Trump, with 44% approving of him and 44% also disapproving. Now his approval rating is 43%, while his disapproval has gone all the way up to 53%. If voters could choose they'd rather have both Barack Obama (52/44) or Hillary Clinton (49/45) instead of Trump.

Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump's impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that's gone up already to 83/6.

Here are the reasons things are going bad for Trump:

-Voters think he's over reaching to make a country safe...that they already consider to be safe. . .

-Voters are concerned by the implications of Trump's fight with the Judiciary. . .

-Voters don't like the people Trump has surrounded himself with. . .

-Voters continue to have a lot of basic transparency concerns when it comes to Trump. . .

-Voters are concerned that in the realm of foreign policy, Trump likes who they don't like and doesn't like who they do like. . .

-Voters are concerned about Trump taking away Obamacare. . .

-Voters are increasingly taking the media's side in his fights with them. . .

This is how badly the Trump presidency is shaping up during its first month. One Congressman has already taken the first step in the process of impeachment:

The Long Road To Impeach Trump Just Got Shorter

The momentum to impeach President Trump is accelerating.

On Thursday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) filed a “resolution of inquiry” that amounts to the first legislative step toward impeachment.

A new poll shows that registered voters are evenly split, at 46-to-46 percent, on whether they “support” or “oppose” impeaching Trump. Just two weeks ago, the pro-impeachment figure was 35 percent.

Since inauguration, more than 800,000 people have signed a petition in the first stage of the Impeach Donald Trump Now campaign, which will soon involve grassroots organizing in congressional districts around the country.

Under the Trump presidency, defending a wide range of past gains is both necessary and insufficient. Fighting for impeachment is a way to go on the offensive, directly challenging the huge corruption that Trump has brought to the White House.

From the outset, President Trump has been violating two provisions of the U.S. Constitution — its foreign and domestic “emoluments” clauses. In a nutshell, both clauses forbid personally profiting from presidential service beyond receiving a government salary. . .

Legal Scholars: Why Congress Should Impeach Donald Trump

It has been widely acknowledged that upon swearing the Oath of Office President Donald Trump would be in direct violation of the foreign-emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Never heard of the foreign-emoluments clause? You’re not alone. It’s tucked away in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. It's clause number 8. It states, in pertinent part: "... no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

This clause was included in the Articles of Confederation and, later, in the Constitution itself. It was borne out of the Framers’ obsession with preventing in the newly minted United States the sort of corruption that dominated 17th and 18th century foreign politics and governments — characterized by gift-giving, back-scratching, foreign interference in other countries and transactions that might not lead to corruption but, nonetheless, could give the appearance of impropriety.

Where Trump runs afoul of the foreign-emoluments clause is that, first and foremost, he is a businessman with significant financial interests and governmental entanglements all over the globe. Indeed, as Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe stated at the Brookings Institution, “Never in American history has a [President] presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump.” Moreover, Trump’s businesses dealings are veiled in complicated corporate technicalities and lack transparency. . .

Prominent conservative columnist David Brooks has also questioned whether President Trump can survive a full term:

What a Failed Trump Administration Looks Like

I still have trouble seeing how the Trump administration survives a full term. Judging by his Thursday press conference, President Trump’s mental state is like a train that long ago left freewheeling and iconoclastic, has raced through indulgent, chaotic and unnerving, and is now careening past unhinged, unmoored and unglued.Trump’s White House staff is at war with itself. His poll ratings are falling at unprecedented speed. His policy agenda is stalled. F.B.I. investigations are just beginning. This does not feel like a sustainable operation.

On the other hand, I have trouble seeing exactly how this administration ends. Many of the institutions that would normally ease out or remove a failing president no longer exist.

There are no longer moral arbiters in Congress like Howard Baker and Sam Ervin to lead a resignation or impeachment process. There is no longer a single media establishment that shapes how the country sees the president. This is no longer a country in which everybody experiences the same reality.

Everything about Trump that appalls 65 percent of America strengthens him with the other 35 percent, and he can ride that group for a while. Even after these horrible four weeks, Republicans on Capitol Hill are not close to abandoning their man.

The likelihood is this: We’re going to have an administration that has morally and politically collapsed, without actually going away.

The likelihood of "an administration that has morally and politically collapsed, without actually going away" raises the question whether this would be an impediment to the advancement of the Dominionist Theocrats' domination of America. There is strong evidence to the contrary which was published before the presidential election:

How Dominionists Gained Control Of The Trump Campaign (Pre-election article.)

Whether Donald Trump knows it or not, Dominionists are now in control of his presidential campaign. In recent weeks, Trump has appointed Stephen Bannon to the position of campaign CEO and Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager. Both of these individuals are members of the Council For National Policy, a secretive Dominionists organization. In fact, Kellyanne Conway sits on the executive committee.

Dominionists believe that America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state. Ted Cruz’s father is a Dominionist preacher. They mix well with Christian Reconstructionists who want to impose strict biblical laws on America including execution for adultery, blasphemy, and homosexuality. These two fringe religious groups make up the majority of the Council’s 500 member base; along with a colorful array of extreme activists on the far right. The Council’s goal is to manipulate government agenda from within. . .

If you’re still not convinced the Dominionists have taken over the Trump campaign guess where Kellyanne Conway used to work before making her move over to Trump. She managed Ted Cruz’s biggest Super PAC called Keep The Promise 1, where she raised over $16 million dollars from just one source; New York City hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.

Together these two ran millions of dollars in anti-Trump ads in defense of Ted Cruz. But once Trump won and Cruz dropped out Mercer switched horses, changed the name of the Super PAC and re-focused on anti-Hillary ads for Donald.

And all of this overseen by the Council For National Policy, which was founded in 1981 by fundamentalist Baptist pastor Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind book series and the head of the Moral Majority organization. . .

As the council grew, it entertained some far right wing extremists including Ku Klux Klan members Richard Shoff and Lawrence Pratt along with Michael Peroutka who served on the board of the League of the South, a neo-Confederate hate group that advocates for a newly seceded South ruled by white people. . .

The prospect of Trump being impeached might bring relief to the minds of secular Americans, but it can bring no comfort to Seventh-day Adventists who are following the unfolding of the prophecies of Rev. 13. One article which suggests a way to neutralize President Trump short of impeachment brings to view the intensified menace awaiting the nation when this is accomplished:

Don’t look now: It’s President Pence! Donald Trump can be deposed, even without impeachment

Given Trump's erratic behavior in his first few days, Washington is starting to murmur about the 25th Amendment

Donald Trump is in over his head. This comes as no surprise to the millions of people who could see that he was unprepared and unfit for the job of president of the United States and voted against him. He’s basically a celebrity heir to a fortune who was so entitled that he believed his privileged existence proved he was competent to run the most powerful nation on Earth. That’s the attitude of an aristocrat who ascended to the throne without having any idea what it actually takes to rule. History’s full of such men. It doesn’t often work out well.

Trump managed to convince enough voters in just the right places that his “business success,” born mostly of hype and relentless public relations over many years, qualified him for the Oval Office. Since the Protestant work ethic and the philosophy of virtuous capitalism still permeate American culture, it’s not uncommon for people to equate financial success with superior intelligence and character. Many individuals among the public undoubtedly assumed that Trump’s persona at the rallies was somewhat of a salesman’s act, that he was playing the role of demagogue to rile up the crowd. They assumed that behind closed doors he was a smart and able businessman, making tough decisions on the fly, handling many issues at once.

Those voters did not see what millions of others felt instinctively and that explains the shocked reaction and immediate resistance to his election: Trump’s incessant bragging, his lack of empathy or remorse, his pathological lying and even his bizarre appearance have been signs of an unstable personality. It was obvious to many of us that something was not right. . .

So what happens if President Trump cannot pull himself together and continues to psychologically unravel? There is a remedy other than impeachment. Even conservatives like David Frum have been talking about it for a while:

So what happens if President Trump cannot pull himself together and continues to psychologically unravel? There is a remedy other than impeachment. Even conservatives like David Frum have been talking about it for a while . . .

The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and provides for the replacement of the vice president if the office becomes vacant. (So it led indirectly to the presidency of Gerald Ford, the only American president who was never elected to any executive office.) But Section 4 is about something else entirely:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. . .

It’s obvious that Trump has a narcissistic personality, which in itself is not disqualifying. He’s not the first president to have one; nor will he be the last. But his issues seem to run deeper than that. Some observers have suggested that he shows the characteristics of classic psychopathy. And there are plenty of people who see his behavior as blatantly self-destructive.

Of course it’s an extreme long shot that members of Trump’s Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress would ever take such a drastic step. (Although it’s not at all hard to imagine that in their hearts many of them would prefer President Mike Pence.) This would only happen if Trump really started to behave in a unhinged fashion. After all the bizarre behavior he has exhibited over the past 18 months, one cannot help but wonder: What could possibly count as going too far? It’s almost too terrifying to imagine.

The fact is that Pence is not just waiting in the wings. There is evidence that he is exercising influence over the President:

Mike Pence Pulls President Trump’s Strings

Do you think Donald Trump is just Mike Pence’s puppet?

Interesting idea, right? Particularly since the very idea would make our new president totally nuts. Hehehehe.

And it’s possible. Trump is not a man who concentrates on policy issues. So far, the parts of the job that have obsessed him most are crowd size and vote size. And yeah, the wall. But there has to be somebody behind the scenes deciding the non-ego questions. Pass the word that it’s Pence.

The best early evidence is reproductive rights. Not an issue Trump seemed all that interested in during the campaign — you generally had to sort of poke him to bring it up. Yet one of the first things he did as president was to sign an order that will eliminate American aid to international health programs that provide information on abortion.

Every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has issued the order, which is often referred to as the global gag rule. But Trump’s seems much worse. The Reagan-Bush-Bush version covered family planning programs. Trump’s targets global health in general.

So when it comes to combating the Zika virus in South America, we’ll only be helping organizations that are willing to order their staffs never to bring up the fact that abortion exists. We’re talking about a potential loss of billions of dollars in American aid.

I know some of you are having trouble giving the president credit for anything right now. But this doesn’t sound like him.

If a woman Trump knew was pregnant and learned she had a virus that could cause terrible brain damage to the fetus, his immediate reaction would not be barring everybody from mentioning the word abortion. The only politician who would behave like that would be someone who had spent his entire career trying to impose his deeply held conservative religious values on people who had different beliefs.

That would be Mike Pence. This is the guy who, as a member of Congress, co-sponsored a bill that would allow hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women who would die without the procedure. Whose war against Planned Parenthood when he was governor of Indiana led to the closing of five clinics. (None of them did abortions. They did, however, provide testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and one of the counties where a clinic was closed suffered a big H.I.V. outbreak.) . . .


Mike Pence Will Be the Most Powerful Christian Supremacist in US History

The election of Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the souls of compassionate, humane people across the country and the world. Horror that a candidate who ran on a platform of open bigotry, threats against immigrants and Muslims, and blatant misogyny will soon be president is now sinking in. Trump appointed a white nationalist, Steve Bannon, as chief White House strategist — which was promptly celebrated by the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. Bannon and other possible extremist Trump appointees, such as John Bolton, a neocon who believes the U.S. should “bomb Iran,” and the authoritarian Rudy Giuliani, are now receiving much deserved public scrutiny.

The incoming vice president, Mike Pence, has not elicited the same reaction, instead often painted as the reasonable adult on the ticket, a “counterbalance” to Trump and a “bridge to the establishment.” However, there is every reason to regard him as, if anything, even more terrifying than the president-elect.

Pence’s ascent to the second most powerful position in the U.S. government is a tremendous coup for the radical religious right. Pence — and his fellow Christian supremacist militants — would not have been able to win the White House on their own. For them, Donald Trump was a godsend. “This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn’t mean it may not be God’s candidate to do something that we don’t see,” said David Barton, a prominent Christian-right activist and president of Wall Builders, an organization dedicated to making the U.S. government enforce “biblical values.” In June, Barton prophesied: “We may look back in a few years and say, ‘Wow, [Trump] really did some things that none of us expected.’”

Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.

“The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That’s the only legitimate government,” contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” “So when they speak of business, they’re speaking not of something separate from God, but they’re speaking of what, in Mike Pence’s circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained.”

One of Trump’s sons, Don Jr., reportedly said that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy, while Trump would focus on the vague mission of “Making America Great Again.” Trump’s campaign subsequently claimed the story was “made up,” though Trump has consistently denied saying things he is on record as saying, so who knows? In any case, the implications of a Pence vice presidency are vast. Pence combines the most horrid aspects of Dick Cheney’s worldview with a belief that Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” novels are not fiction, but an omniscient crystal ball.

How the GOP foisted Pence on Trump is undoubtedly a fascinating story that hopefully will some day be revealed. Obviously, Pence gave Trump badly needed credibility with evangelical voters and the GOP establishment, but Pence’s selection portends a governing apocalypse.

A "governing apocalypse" is indeed what America is facing, whether under the Trump presidency or a successor Pence presidency. There are dark days ahead, embracing terminal prophecies yet to be fulfilled; but beyond is the "glorious appearing" (Titus 2:13) of "the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" Matt. 24:30 (last part.)







As the shock over Donald Trump's election to the presidency of the United States attests, his victory could not have been anticipated. Similarly, it could not have reasonably been anticipated that he of all persons would focus attention on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the status of Jerusalem before he was even sworn into office. Trump's personal history raises the specter of the ultimate cruelties predicted in the closing verses of Rev. 13, and this is underscored by the commitment of his vice-president to Dominionists theocracy. Given that Palestine, and Jerusalem in particular, are central to the next great prophecy of the end awaiting fulfillment, Trump's interest in the complex Arab-Israeli question and the status of Jerusalem commands attention. Is his intervention likely to cause widespread upheaval and massive obstruction of a settlement? On the other hand, could it trigger events that force an end to the present impasse in the peace process? Is it going to further delay progress towards the objective of a Vatican presence in Jerusalem or cause international intervention to force a conclusion in Rome's favor? Donald Trump is promising to dive into a diplomatic quagmire which appears to have stymied the Vatican and the US government alike:-


It was in February, 2014, that this promising report on Vatican-Israeli negotiations was published:

‘Thoughtful and constructive’ meeting between Vatican, Israeli diplomats

Representatives of the Holy See and the State of Israel met in Jerusalem on February 11 to continue negotiating a diplomatic accord establishing the legal and economic rights of Church institutions in the Holy Land.

Noting that only a few issues remain, both parties issued a joint statement in which they “took note of the progress achieved, in a thoughtful and constructive atmosphere, since the last plenary of June 2013.”

The parties are scheduled to meet again at the Vatican in June.

The June meeting did not take place, and no further plenary meetings were held up to the end of 2016. There had been no significant evidence of progress in Vatican-Israeli negotiations published after early 2014; but there were regular meetings of the working group:

Israel’s new ambassador to the Holy see presents credentials. Regional cooperation ministry announces new initiatives

And finally, he mentioned the forthcoming colloquium of the Bilateral Permanent Working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel due to meet in Jerusalem November 7. Ever since the Fundamental Agreement was signed December 30, 1993 this Commission has been meeting at least twice a year in Rome and Jerusalem, but as yet, certain aspects of the Agreement’s practical applications have not reached a consensus on both sides. “Our government is optimistic and determined that the remaining technical issues still being negotiated by both parties will be resolved this time, with a definitive signature, before the end of 2016. The Israeli government would really like to see this process completed.”

Now, in January, 2017, a meeting in plenary session has been held:

Bilateral Commission between Vatican and Israel holds new meeting

A meeting took place today, 18 January, in Jerusalem, as part of the long negotiation process, which continues "in a thoughtful and constructive atmosphere”

The Bilateral Permanent Working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel held new plenary meeting today, 18 January 2017, in Jerusalem, the Vatican says in a statement. It was held in order “to continue negotiations pursuant to the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel of 1993, Art. 10 paragraph 2”. As is known, the Holy See and the State of Israel have been engaged in a decades-long negotiation process regarding the legal status of the Catholic Church as well as fiscal questions. The meeting was chaired by Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s Minister for Regional Cooperation and Mgr. Antoine Camilleri, Vatican Undersecretary for Relations with States. The statement adds: “The Plenary welcomed the progress accomplished at the working level regarding the negotiations pursuant to Art. 10 paragraph 2, and is pleased that they continue in a thoughtful and constructive atmosphere. The Plenary further acknowledges the work of the Ministry of Justice regarding the implementation of the 1997 Bilateral Legal Personality Agreement.” The Vatican and Israel “have agreed on future steps, in view of the next Plenary meeting scheduled for March 2017, in Vatican City”. After the commission’s meeting, the Holy See and the State of Israel held a bilateral consultation session at the ministry of foreign affairs, where “the delegations discussed “matters of common interest and explored new opportunities for cooperation”.

Israel and Holy See officials meet in Jerusalem

Israel/Catholic bilateral commission meets at plenary level in Jerusalem; next meeting to be held in Vatican City.

Aware of the need to normalize relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, the Holy See and Israel decided in 1992 to establish a commission to examine issues of common interest.

This so-called Bilateral Permanent Working Commission met again yesterday in Jerusalem to continue negotiations pursuant to the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel of 1993.

The agreement between the Holy See and Israel is a treaty signed on 30 December 1993. The agreement deals with the property rights and tax exemptions of the Roman Catholic Church within Israeli territory. It did not resolve all issues, and the parties continue to meet in an attempt to resolve outstanding problems.

This new plenary meeting raises interesting questions. Is it reflective of anxiety on the part of the Vatican over actions that the Trump administration is about to take? The Netanyahu government would not share that anxiety.

The meeting might suggest that progress has been made between the parties over the last three years; however, the following reports suggest that Rome's expansive view of the ultimate objective is a major stumbling block:

Holy See-Israel: painstaking resumption of negotiations

Deliberations of the Holy See-Israel bilateral commission are set to resume today in Jerusalem after being stalled for a long time. The resumption, permitted by the Olmert government, has raised hopes even in the Vatican that the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel that dates back to the distant 1993, may finally be implemented. . .

Asia News asked the Honorable Oded Ben Hur, Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, why the process has been riddled with delays and difficulties.

The ambassador said the difficulties could be attributed to the fact that the Catholic Church believes these accords should be considered as international treaties and absorbed as such into Israeli law. In Israel, there is unwillingness to accept these accords as a proper international treaty whose norms are not liable to unilateral changes by the Israeli legislator. For Israel, it seems, there can no international treaties that could condition the exercise of national legislative power.

Holy See-Israel delegation speeds up work ahead of pope's visit to Holy Land

The next round of meetings has been scheduled: four in just three months, after years of inaction. The date of the plenary assembly has been moved up, and everything will be completed before May of 2009, when Benedict XVI is expected to arrive in the Holy Land.

The permanent bilateral commission between the Holy See and the state of Israel today concluded its plenary meeting at the foreign ministry in Jerusalem, and decided on a packed schedule of meetings, leading to hopes that some conclusion might be reached before the probable visit of Benedict XVI to the Holy Land in May of 2009.

In the statement released at the end of today's meeting, it is affirmed that "the working-level Commission will hold meetings on 15 January, 18 February, 5 March and 26 March." This is rather unusual, if one considers that the dialogue has been proceeding at a very slow pace for about 10 years, and for almost 5 years (from 2002-2007) has been at a halt. . .

Whatever may have been happening behind the scenes in the Bilateral Permanent Working Commission over the three-year period between February, 2014, and January, 2017, Jewish religious leaders have sung the praises of Pope Francis (cf. Religious leaders in Palestine . . . ) Simultaneously, this has been accompanied by a process of improving relations with the Palestinians (cf. In the wake of the fallout . . . ; The Israeli government may yet voluntarily make concessions . . . " However, the Israeli right-wing government posture has been to make a peace settlement more difficult (cf. The devils know the prophecies . . . ) Compounding the seemingly intractable problem is the involvement of America's Christian Zionists; (cf. This concise definition of “Christian Zionism . . .  in the Jewish Virtual Library)

The last attempt of the United States to broker a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis failed in April, 2014 after nine months of negotiations; (cf. The Explosive, Inside Story of How John Kerry Built an Israel-Palestine Peace Plan—and Watched It Crumble for a comprehensive history of the difficulties and complexities.)


Into this complicated impasse Donald Trump is making his entrance in a manner that conjures up the metaphor of a bull in a china shop:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Trump aide on moving US Embassy to Jerusalem: 'A top priority'

US President-elect Donald Trump top aide, Kellyanne Conway, clarifies during radio interview that Trump still intends to transfer US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as he promised to do during his campaign.

Though he has refrained from making many public statements on the matter since his election, US President-elect Donald Trump's senior aide Kellyanne Conway reiterated his plan to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Speaking to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt about moving the embassy to Jerusalem on Monday, Conway said, "That is very big priority for this president-elect, Donald Trump. He made it very clear during the campaign, Hugh, and as president-elect I've heard him repeat it several times privately, if not publicly.”

While former US presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush reneged on their own statements to move the embassy to Israel's capital after they had become presidents, Conway believes Trump will follow through on his promise.

“It is something that our friend in Israel, a great friend in the Middle East, would appreciate and something that a lot of Jewish-Americans have expressed their preference for," she said. "It is a great move. It is an easy move to do based on how much he talked about that in the debates and in the sound bites.”

How simple Trump's aide makes it sound! Trump and his current advisers seem to follow their own counsel and ignore sober analysis and legitimate warnings:

Trump has 'every intention' of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders hail election of Donald Trump, whose campaign promises would overturn decades of US foreign policy

Israeli government ministers and political figures are pushing the US president-elect, Donald Trump, to quickly fulfill his campaign promise to overturn decades of US foreign policy and recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv.

Their calls came as one of Trump’s advisers on Israel and the Middle East, David Friedman, told the Jerusalem Post that Trump would follow through on his promise.

‘It was a campaign promise and there is every intention to keep it,” Friedman said. ‘We are going to see a very different relationship between America and Israel in a positive way.”

Other political figures – including Israel’s controversial far-right education minister, Naftali Bennett – went further, suggesting that Trump’s election should signal the end of the two-state solution and aspirations for a Palestinian state. . .

The status of Jerusalem is one of the thorniest issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians see Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, while the Israelis call the entire city their eternal indivisible capital.

Will Trump move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem?

'It’s hard to come up with a single act that would make the Middle East burn more than it is burning right now,' a former peace negotiator says.

Donald Trump wasn’t the first winning candidate to call for moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, but unlike previous presidents, he just might keep his promise.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made similar pledges during their campaigns, only to backpedal once in the Oval Office -- sobered by the potential for diplomatic blowback across the Arab world.

But Trump has done what few of his predecessors have: emphasize the issue loudly and proudly afterwards. His campaign adviser on Israel, Jason Greenblatt, told Israel’s Army radio in a post-election interview that Trump was “going to do it,” and his campaign manager on Monday called the move “a very big priority for this president elect.” . . .

Thanks to a law signed by Bill Clinton, Trump will face a decision on whether to move the embassy within his first six months in office. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 mandates that the U.S. Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or risk a massive cut in State Department funding, but allows the president to postpone the move for reasons of national security.

Since the law’s passage, successive presidents have issued such a waiver every six months. The most recent one, signed by Obama on Dec. 1, expires in May 2017, meaning it will be up to Trump to decide the embassy’s fate.

During the campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, naming it the “eternal capital of the Jewish people” in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. But on other occasions, he also indicated he wanted to be a neutral arbiter between Israelis and Palestinians, and has floated his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, as some sort of peace envoy. . .

Those who’ve worked on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations say that moving the embassy would effectively kill the peace process.

“It would essentially validate the view that all of Jerusalem now belongs to Israel,” said Aaron David Miller, a former peace negotiator and scholar at the Wilson Center.

Even if negotiations were to proceed, the decision could undermine Trump’s wish to be a neutral arbiter.

“A U.S. administration would be seriously harming its potential role, as it has historically played, as a so-called ‘honest broker’ between the Israelis and the Arabs,” said Edward Djerejian, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and ambassador to Israel under the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations.

The status of Jerusalem, particularly East Jerusalem, is fervently contested in the international community. The United Nations intended the eastern portion of the ancient city to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. In 1967, Israel annexed the entire city.

In 1980, the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a law that declared, “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.” The U.N. Security Council condemned the move as a violation of international law, with the United States abstaining.

The majority of U.N. member states do not recognize Israel’s claim over the entire city as the capital. As a result, no country has its main diplomatic mission located in Jerusalem, with their embassies instead located in Tel Aviv and its suburbs. The United States maintains a consulate in Jerusalem that focuses on Palestinian issues.

Will Donald Trump, like Bill Clinton and George Bush who "made similar pledges during their campaigns, only to backpedal once in the Oval Office [be] sobered by the potential for diplomatic blowback across the Arab world"? A preview of the diplomatic blowback has already been given by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:

US embassy Jerusalem move 'assault' on Muslims: mufti

Muhammed Hussein says in sermon at Al-Aqsa that the proposed relocation by US President-elect Donald Trump is an aggression on all Muslims and Arabs, not just on Palestinians.

Jerusalem's Grand Mufti on Friday branded plans by President-elect Donald Trump to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem an "assault" on Muslims across the globe.

"The pledge to move the embassy is not just an assault against Palestinians but against Arabs and Muslims, who will not remain silent," Muhammad Hussein said in a sermon at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City. On Tuesday, Palestinian leaders called for Friday prayers at mosques across the Middle East this week to protest Trump's campaign pledge.

There have been warnings that the move would constitute recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and could inflame tensions in the Middle East and possibly sink what remains of peace efforts. "The transfer of the embassy violates international charters and norms which recognize Jerusalem as an occupied city," Hussein said in his sermon, avoiding mentioning Trump by name. The Palestinians regard east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, while Israel proclaims the entire city as its capital. The city's status is one of the thorniest issues of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel conquered the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 in the Six-Day War. It later annexed east Jerusalem in a move never recognized by the international community.

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has also added his voice in warning against the Trump proposal; and it may be significant that he spoke while at the Vatican to open a Palestinian embassy. It is easy to deduce the position of the Vatican. Trump threatens to provoke the ire of the Vatican by his promised embassy move. It is reasonable to make this deduction from the place and circumstances of President Abbas' statement:

Abbas warns over Trump US Israel embassy move

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas warned Saturday that moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem would deal a huge blow to hopes for Middle East peace.

Commenting as he opened a Palestinian embassy at the Vatican, Abbas added that anything which legitimised the "illegal Israeli annexation" of Jerusalem would "bury the hopes for a two-state solution, and fuel extremism in our region".

The Palestinian leader held a private meeting with Pope Francis before inaugurating the diplomatic mission, located in a building facing the Vatican that also houses the embassies of Peru and Burkina Faso. . .

In a separate English-language statement, he hailed the Vatican's hosting of a Palestinian embassy.

"We are very grateful about the role that the Holy See has played for a just and lasting peace in the Holy Land, and for having opened an embassy of Palestine in the Vatican for first time," he said.

But Abbas expressed concern about Trump's pledge during the election campaign to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the American embassy there.

- 'Fuel extremism' -

Such a step would be a historic break with US policy, and with most of the international community, over the status of Jerusalem, also claimed by the Palestinians as capital of their future state, an issue to be settled by negotiation.

"Any attempts at legitimising the illegal Israeli annexation of the city will destroy the prospects of any political process, bury the hopes for a two-state solution, and fuel extremism in our region, as well as worldwide," Abbas said.

Donald Trump is in opposition to the papacy's aspirations in Palestine and Jerusalem simply by his reliance on the support of Religious Right forces which favor the incorporation of the West Bank into the State of Israel:

‘Onward Christian Zionists’: Trump, Israel and the Inauguration

While US support for Israel has never been stronger (witness the 38 billion dollar aid package signed by the president in December) the perception among many in the US and Israel is that the Obama administration has been inimical to Israel’s best interests, and that the Trump team will be more ‘pro-Israel’ than any preceding administration. If the inauguration plans are any indication, ‘Israel advocates’ will be front and center at the inauguration and throughout Trump’s presidency.

To some extent the differences between Obama and Trump on Israel are matters of rhetoric and style. While Democrats, having recognized and solidly backed Israel since the days of Harry Truman –and having developed the ‘special relationship’ (his words) under Jack Kennedy–speak of Israel in terms diplomatic and contractual, recent Republican administrations, influenced by the Christian Right, speak of Israel in terms tinged with religiosity.

Thus David M. Friedman, Trump’s choice for the next ambassador to Israel, referred recently to Jerusalem as “Israel’s eternal capital “–a phrase popularized by Netanyahu and his government officials. Hearing this from a man soon to be an American diplomat, I wondered whether the Trump appointee to the Quai D’orsay will refer to Paris as ” France’s eternal capital.”

In Washington a ‘biblical ‘ view of Israel has been developing for decades and I expect that pronouncements issuing from the new team at the White House will reflect this rhetorical trend. In the early 1980s, with the rise of the so-called “Moral Majority” and the election of Ronald Reagan, political rhetoric about Israel and the Middle East became tinged with scriptural references. Reagan spoke of ‘ Armageddon’ in more that one address, and according to historian Michael Oren (later Israeli ambassador to Washington) “Reagan in fact revered Israel…Raised in the restorationist-minded Disciples of Christ church and closely associated with pro-Zionist American evangelicals, he was religiously attached to Israel.”

And in case Reagan and his Republican successors slipped in their commitment to “biblical” Israel, and to the Israeli Right’s vision of a “Greater Israel “that included the disputed Palestinian territories, Falwell and his Religious Right colleagues were sure to remind them–and in tones that were themselves quite biblical. In 1982 Jerry Falwell told Ronald Reagan that the president had to be supportive of Israel and its policies. Why? “Because God’s attitude toward the nations is dictated by the nations attitude toward Israel.” Jerry Falwell died in 2007, but his son Jerry Falwell Jr, can be counted on to remind Trump of his responsibilities.

And while Trump actual opinions on any issue remain a mystery (an ‘eternal mystery‘ perhaps) the political and social opinions of the Vice President-elect , Mike Pence, are well known. Especially when it comes to the US relationship to Israel. He has dubbed Israel “our most cherished ally.” . . .

Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem flies in the face of long-established Vatican policy.

The Vatican has also clearly signaled opposition to Donald Trump's Jerusalem plan at the time of Abbas' visit:

From [D]@gmail.com:

Pope meets Palestinian leader; Vatican calls Jerusalem holy:

The Vatican stressed the sacred nature of Jerusalem on Saturday as the Palestinian leader warned that prospects for peace could suffer if the incoming Trump administration goes ahead with plans to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The developments came as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with Pope Francis and inaugurated the Palestinian embassy to the Holy See. . .

The Vatican has long sought an internationally guaranteed status for Jerusalem that safeguards its sacred character. In its communique after the Abbas meeting, the Holy See didn't refer to Jerusalem by name but said during the talks "emphasis was placed on the importance of safeguarding the sanctity of the holy places for believers of all three of the Abrahamic religions." . . .

During the meeting, Abbas presented Francis with gifts recalling Christianity's birthplace in the Holy Land, including a stone from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and documentation about the ongoing restoration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

The following report provides insight into the clever political maneuvering of the Vatican in Palestine:

What’s behind Pope Francis’ meeting with the Palestinian president

Pope Francis' private audience with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas this Jan. 14 will be a delicate diplomatic moment for the Holy See. Mahmoud Abbas heads to Rome to inaugurate the new Palestinian embassy to the Holy See, one year after the Holy See-Palestine agreement took effect and made official the Holy See's recognition of the State of Palestine.

This visit will prove how Vatican diplomacy is able to walk a thin line. The Holy See is in dialogue with both Palestine and Israel. It has been criticized by the Israeli state for the recognition of the State of Palestine that was part of the comprehensive agreement.

However, it would be wrong to think that the Holy See's position is imbalanced. At a recent Catholic-Jewish joint meeting, the Holy See backed a final document that implicitly criticized a UNESCO resolution that failed to call by their Hebrew names some of the most sacred places of Jerusalem, like Temple Mount.

At root, the Holy See does not officially take any stance for one party or the other. Rather, it looks attentively to the events in the Holy Land and advocates for a peaceful solution of the conflict.

Yet in his speech delivered to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See Jan. 9, Pope Francis underscored that the Holy See renewed its urgent appeal for the resumption of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians towards “a stable and enduring solution that guarantees the peaceful coexistence of two states within internationally recognized borders.”

A Middle East peace conference just ended has also weighed in against Donald Trump's plan:


Just five days before Trump is sworn in, the conference provides a platform for countries to send a strong signal to the incoming American president.

French President Francois Hollande signaled to US President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday that a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians is the only solution. Paris has warned him that plans to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem could derail peace efforts.

Some 70 countries, including key European and Arab states as well as the permanent members of the UN Security Council, gathered in Paris in the presence of US State Secretary John Kerry and the European Union's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, among others.

Hollande said in his opening speech that the summit was "a warning".

"Because the two-state solution, the one upon which the international community agreed, and this for several years, appears threatened."

But, just five days before Trump is sworn in, the conference provides a platform for countries to send a strong signal to the incoming American president.

Trump has pledged to pursue more pro-Israeli policies and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv, where it has been for 68 years, to Jerusalem, all but enshrining the city as Israel's capital despite international objections.

Hollande said there was no going back on the 1993 Oslo peace accords that were meant yield a two-state solution. . .

It is interesting to note that the Oslo Peace Accord and the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel were reached in the same year of 1993 - the Peace Accord signed in September, and the Fundamental Agreement in December. This underscores how the two are inextricably connected.

In the context of world politics, Donald Trump's promised impetuous action is clearly causing widespread alarm. It is highly unlikely that he begins to understand the geopolitical and religiopolitical complexities of the Middle East which impact on the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine (cf. Geopolitical Dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict;. The Middle East conflict—a brief background; The Israel-Palestine conflict is not just about land. It’s a bitter religious war.)

The inauguration of Trump threatens, and perhaps promises, chaos: Only one week left until President Trump. Buckle up (article dated 1/14/17) - "the impending Trump presidency will almost certainly be complete chaos." Also, note the significance of this analysis: What The Trump Era Will Feel Like: Clues From Populist Regimes Around The World.

If Donald Trump carries out his declared plan to pursue more pro-Israeli policies including the proposed moving of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he will be flying in the face of the almost universal policy of Western nations and the interests of the Vatican:

The controversial sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem

No U.S. president has ever officially acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem since the state of Israel was first recognized by President Harry Truman in 1948. The United States, along with most of the international community, has taken the position that no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem until its status is negotiated in a Middle East peace deal.

Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have repeatedly tried to force a different policy, first seeking to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and then mandating that the State Department allow U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their place of birth in 2002. . .

The refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli territory is a near universal policy among Western nations. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, three U.S. presidents have declared that Jerusalem's final status can only be determined through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. At any time since 1948, a president could have moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. None has. . .

A dozen U.S. interests far more important than the country of origin Americans want stamped on their passports would be seriously damaged by a shift in American policy on Jerusalem. They include U.S. credibility on the world stage and its relations with a quarter of a billion Arabs and 1.6 billion Muslims, almost a quarter of the world's population.

Recognizing Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem would also be a powerful recruitment tool for terrorist groups such as the Islamic State group, which is adept in recruiting fighters worldwide to its murderous cause. It would likewise seriously undermine international law, which is very specific on the territorial status of East Jerusalem. . .

The only solution for Jerusalem, as opposed to the fantasies of Israeli expansionists, is through political negotiations to share the city politically between Israel and a future Palestinian state with open and unimpeded access guaranteed for all faiths to their holy places.

Writing in the U.S. Jewish weekly Forward, Jay Michaelson explained how claims of sovereignty over Jerusalem are part of a larger pattern of Israeli expulsion of Palestinians and expansion of Israeli control of the Palestinian West Bank: "The current Israeli definition of 'united Jerusalem' is now used to justify home demolitions, land confiscation, and an expansion of municipal boundaries that now stretches the city (and the imagination) from Ramallah to the Judean Desert." He concludes, "That is exactly the 'Jerusalem' that should not be recognized by international law."

No amount of insisting that all of Jerusalem is Israel's "undivided and eternal capital" will change the reality that it never will be. It is only when Palestinian-Americans born in Jerusalem can get their passports to read "Jerusalem, Palestine" that equal recognition should be given to Israeli-Americans born in Jerusalem, too. [Jesuit Fr. Drew Christiansen, a professor of ethics at Georgetown University, was co-author of this article.]

The Church of Rome has an objective for Jerusalem, and this is revealed in the prophetic word. The identification of the papacy as the "he" of Daniel 11:45, is logical. The prophecy predicting the establishment of a papal presence in Jerusalem is certain, verified by longstanding Vatican policy:

Vatican policy promotes access to Jerusalem, self-determination for all

The Vatican's hopes for a peace-filled world and its defence of the right to religious freedom have supported its consistent position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for 70 years.

The key concern of the Holy See, and of the Catholic Church as a whole, since the Middle Ages has been for the Christian holy sites and Christian communities present in the Holy Land from the time of Jesus. The vast majority of Christians in the region are Palestinians.

More recently, it has supported the "two-state solution" with independence, recognition and secure borders for both Israel and Palestine.

While support for the two-state system evolved over time, the Vatican consistently has called for a special status for Jerusalem, particularly the Old City, in order to protect and guarantee access to the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

As Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations, told the U.N. General Assembly in November: "The Holy See views the holy city of Jerusalem as the spiritual patrimony of the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

Since the early 1990s, the Vatican has seen as separate issues the need for a special status for the city and questions over the political sovereignty or control of Jerusalem. The political question, it has insisted, must be the result of negotiation.

The internationally unsettled status of Jerusalem and its central importance to Jews, Muslims and Christians explains why, while recognizing the state of Israel, no nation has its embassy in the holy city.

Before his inauguration, President-elect Donald Trump said he would move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said the same thing during their campaigns for election, although once in office, they did not carry through with the move, citing its potential negative impact on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. . .

Some observers think Trump is more serious about having the embassy in Jerusalem.

"At this point we are in a wait-and-see pattern," said Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, New Mexico, who was in Jerusalem in mid-January together with 12 other bishops from North America and Europe.

Bishop Cantu, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on International Justice and Peace, told Catholic News Service that Trump's promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem poses a "serious problem" to any possible two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We are hoping that other, clearer minds will convince the president-elect to change his mind," he said, promising the U.S. bishops would engage with the new administration in "as friendly a way as possible."

"We will share with him our concerns based on the dignity of every human person and also based on the rights of the Palestinians to exist as a free and sovereign state living in peace next to a free and sovereign Israel," Bishop Cantu said.


There is an existing tense stand-off between Western nations in agreement with the Vatican and the Jewish and Christian Zionists of Israel and the United States. Donald Trump threatens to cause the stand-off to flare up into a conflagration which will not be confined to the Middle East (think of the aid to terrorist recruitment in the Muslim world.) This would obviously not be conducive to a peaceful settlement of Palestine-Israeli conflict and a resolution to what already seems to be an intractable problem of sovereignty over Jerusalem. This raises the question: how will the process of fulfillment of Daniel 11:45 proceed? Here the counsel of James White needs to be followed:

"Fulfilled prophecy may be understood by the Bible student. Prophecy is history in advance. He can compare history with prophecy and find a complete fit as the glove to the hand, it having been made for it. But in exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, where the history is not written, the student should put forth his propositions with not too much positiveness, lest he find himself straying in the field of fancy. . . . Positions taken upon the Eastern question are based upon prophecies which have not yet their fulfillment. Here we should tread lightly, and take positions carefully, lest we be found removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement."—Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877.


We can be sure that a specific prophecy will be fulfilled; and with sanctified judgment know when it has been fulfilled, by which our faith is confirmed (cf. John 13:19.) By sound exegesis the ultimate event can be identified; but how it will be fulfilled cannot be predicted. In the case of Daniel 11:45 the Vatican and world powers may be able to find the way forward through confrontation and conflict. On the other hand it may require the intervention of the false Christ promising peace. What the current murky conditions emphasize is that it is absolutely essential to "watch," as Jesus Himself repeatedly admonished his followers to do, Luke 21:34-36 being one instance of this admonition.

NEWS BRIEFS - Advance of Ecumenism:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Cardinal Kasper: Pope’s ‘next declaration’ should allow ‘shared Eucharistic communion’ with Protestants

“I hope that the next declaration opens the way for shared Eucharistic communion in special cases.” With these words, Cardinal Walter Kasper expressed his wish for ecumenical “progress” in the form of “intercommunion” in an interview with Italian newspaper Avvenire on December 10.

“Personally, I hope that we can use an unofficial text, prepared by a commission in the bishops’ conference of the United States, regarding this subject,” he explained.

On October 31, Pope Francis visited Lund, Sweden, a city in a country with a large Lutheran population, to commemorate the anniversary of Martin Luther’s Reformation. This anniversary – far from being a joyful observance considering the separation Luther created caused long-lasting wounds in the Church – was preceded by countless preparations, including a visit of a Luther statue in the Vatican and a climate of anticipation for intercommunion by the Pope himself.

Just about a month later, in the Avvenire interview, Cardinal Kasper has gone a step further, stating that, for him, intercommunion is just a matter of time. “On the one hand, Lund has confirmed the ecumenical process and the results of the proceeding dialogue; on the other hand, it has given it a new thrust.”

There is significance in the above report. Read this statement and consider what it says about the "Protestant" churches involved in the ecumenical movement. The Church of Rome is declaring to the world the irreversible seduction of the churches once entitled to be identified as Protestant. The percentage of the Protestant churches that constitute the "special cases" is not revealed. However, the statement that "intercommunion is just a matter of time" demonstrates confidence that the complete demise of Protestantism is imminent. In fact, it can be argued reasonably that Protestantism as a force against Romanism has been dead for some time. There is a remnant of resistance to be sure, but Rome now stands triumphant over the Protestantism which she set out to destroy in the Counter-Reformation.

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. (Romans 13:11.)

From [D]@gmail.com:

Vatican-Muslim dialogue to restart in April, Vatican says

The Vatican and the prestigious Sunni Muslim center of learning, Al-Azhar, are expected to formally reopen talks next year after a five-year lull.

Officials from the Vatican's office of interreligious affairs are going to Cairo this weekend for a preparatory meeting to lay the groundwork for the official restart of talks, scheduled for late April in Rome.

The Vatican announcement Friday comes after Pope Francis and the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sheik Ahmed el-Tayyib, met at the Vatican in May and embraced. It marked a turning point after Al-Azhar froze talks with the Vatican in 2011 to protest comments by then-Pope Benedict XVI.

From [D]@gmail.com:

Pope Francis targets deal with China in year of mercy

Agreement on issue of Vatican’s right to appoint bishops in China would be biggest diplomatic feat of Francis’s papacy

For more than 50 years the Vatican’s relationship with China has been intractable. But if Pope Francis has his way, a deal to bridge what many believe is an insurmountable divide between the Roman Catholic church and the communist Chinese government could be announced within the next 30 days.

According to one person who has closely followed developments, the pope would like to seal a deal before the conclusion on 20 November of the Holy Year of Mercy, which was called by the pontiff to celebrate acts of forgiveness.

Any agreement that solves the thorniest issue between the two sides – the Vatican’s right to appoint its own bishops in China – would represent the most consequential diplomatic feat of the Francis’s papacy.

It would also spur a debate about whether Francis – a Jesuit who has always promoted the importance of “encounters” but has declined to meet the Dalai Lama – has been too willing to ignore concerns about human rights and religious freedom for the sake of furthering the Vatican’s own interests in a country that is officially atheist. . .

Since his election in 2013, there have been subtle signs that the relationship between the Vatican and Beijing has warmed. There was the telegram Francis sent to President Xi Jinping as his papal plane flew in Chinese airspace on the way to Taiwan in 2014, and the gift of a silk print, symbolic of Christianity’s presence in China, that was reportedly given to the pope this month by a representative of Xi, though the accuracy of that story has not been confirmed. . .

N.B. Ecumenism embraces international relations (ASTONISHING DIMENSION OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT.)

From [D]@gmail.com:

Pope urges all Christians to journey together towards unity

Pope Francis revealed on Thursday that the search for Christian unity is one of his principle concerns, one that he prays may be shared by every baptized person. The Pope’s words came as he met in the Vatican with participants at a plenary session of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The meeting, from November 8th to 11th is exploring the theme “What model of full communion?”

In his words to the group of ecumenical experts from across the globe, the Pope recalled the many important encounters he has had this year with leaders of other Christian communities. In particular he recalled his recent visit to Lund in Sweden to jointly preside at a Lutheran-Catholic commemoration of the start of the Protestant Reformation. That visit, he said, reminded him of the so called ‘Lund Principle’, formulated by the World Council of Churches back in 1952, which states ‘churches should act together in all matters except those in which deep differences of conviction compel them to act separately’.

Pope Francis stressed that Christian unity is an essential requirement of our faith, a journey of personal and community conversion to the will of Christ. He warned against three false models of communion, starting with the belief that we can achieve unity through diplomatic maneuvers or human efforts alone.

Unity, he insisted, is a gift from God and our task is to welcome that gift and make it visible to others. Rather than just a goal to be achieved, he said, we should see the search for unity as a journey that we undertake together with patience, determination, effort and commitment, knowing that all of us are sinners for whom God has infinite mercy. Remember, he said, that when we work, pray and serve the needy together, we are already united.

From [D]@gmail.com:

Ecumenical autumn: Pope's calendar filled with dialogue opportunities

Even as developments within Christian denominations seem to be solidifying differences that would make full unity difficult, there is no sign that the desire to meet and dialogue is waning. And, in fact, divided Christians are finding more opportunities to pray together and engage in joint work to help the poor and needy.

Pope Francis will open his season of ecumenical engagements Sept. 20 when he joins other Christian leaders and representatives of other religions in Assisi to commemorate the 30th anniversary of St. John Paul II's interreligious peace gathering. Ten days later, Pope Francis flies to Georgia, a predominantly Orthodox nation. In October, he will meet and pray with Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury and, at the end of the month, he will fly to Sweden to take part in ecumenical events launching commemorations of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

Acknowledging where churches and Christian communities diverge is an obvious first step in a dialogue to overcome differences. But a relationship that stops there gives the wrong impression that church-dividing issues are more important than the central beliefs of Christianity they profess together in the Creed.

From [D]@gmail.com:

Jerusalem Interfaith Event to Bring Together Leaders of Abrahamic Faiths

A new interfaith and spiritual gathering of Christians, Jews and Muslims will take place in Jerusalem this September.

“Amen-A House of Prayer For All Believers”, part of the 2016 Mekudeshet Festival from September 4-23, is an initiative created by the Jerusalem Season of Culture, an annual festival in Jerusalem, to bring together the world’s three major faiths “who share a belief in one God and a boundless love for Jerusalem to dialogue, study, sing and pray together in one temporary house of worship,” said a press release.


















Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, shocking the nation and the world, with one notable exception being Vladimir Putin. The headlines and the news reports tell the story, and we ignore them at the peril of being overrun by the tide of events because of inattentiveness. Just the upheaval alone speaks volumes in the light of what A. T. Jones pointed out in his perceptive sermon on the Papacy:-

Donald Trump’s Victory Is Met With Shock Across a Wide Political Divide

The American political establishment reeled on Wednesday as leaders in both parties began coming to grips with four years of President Donald J. Trump in the White House, a once-unimaginable scenario that has now plunged the United States and its allies and adversaries into a period of deep uncertainty about the policies and impact of his administration. . .

On campuses nationwide, students marched against Mr. Trump with signs bearing slogans like “Not my president,” and protesters in Oakland, Calif., smashed windows and set fire to garbage bins. On Wednesday night, thousands of people protested in several cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle and New York, where demonstrators converged in Midtown Manhattan in front of Trump Tower, the home of the president-elect. . .

Still, more than a third of Americans said in exit polls on Tuesday that they would be frightened of a Trump presidency. Among those who voted for Mrs. Clinton, the feeling was almost unanimous: 92 percent said Mr. Trump scared them.

Anxieties ran strong among Hispanics, African-Americans, Muslims, immigrants, women and others who had felt disparaged or demonized by Mr. Trump, who used harsh and racially charged language in ways that upended mainstream politics. The fact that Mr. Trump had been endorsed by a Ku Klux Klan newspaper, even if he rejected it, symbolized the sense of shock that he would now lead a vibrantly diverse democracy.

Across the World, Shock and Uncertainty at Trump’s Victory

The election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States has shocked the world — and has the potential to reshape it. . .

Álvaro García Linera, Bolivia’s leftist vice president, said the voters’ endorsement of Mr. Trump’s populist message shows how Americans, too, are questioning prevailing economic paradigms in “a passive revolution,” this time coming from the right.

Others expressed dismay with the election entirely.

“The excesses of this eccentric millionaire have proven that the number one enemy of the U.S. is not beyond its borders, but rather within,” wrote Vladimir Flórez, a Colombian cartoonist popularly known as Vladdo, in El Tiempo newspaper. “This threat called Trump is a product of American society; a nightmarish mutation of the American dream.”

For Europe, Trump’s Election Is a Terrifying Disaster

No one in Europe truly believed Americans would elect someone who seems so obviously unfit to lead the most powerful nation in the world. And yet, that is precisely what has happened, and now, across the Continent, people are trying to figure out what this will mean. Many fear that Donald J. Trump’s election might mean the end of the West as we know it. . .

But Mr. Trump’s election poses a new systemic and strategic risk. For seven decades, a politically stable United States has been a beacon of democracy and a cornerstone of the liberal world order. When democracy was seriously threatened in Europe, the United States stepped in and stopped the tide of authoritarianism. But now the United States itself has elected a demagogue who seems to have authoritarian tendencies and whose proposals — if he follows through on them — will have huge and disastrous consequences from Lisbon to Kiev.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany knows how grave the situation is. As she congratulated Mr. Trump on his victory on Wednesday, she also lectured him on the elements of liberal democracy that form the basis of the American-European relations. “Germany and America are bound by their values: democracy, freedom, the respect for the law and the dignity of human beings, independent of their origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political position,” Ms. Merkel said. “On the basis of these values I offer the future president of the United States, Donald Trump, close cooperation.”

As of this stage in the writing of this update, President-elect Trump had already begun to flex his authoritarian, racist, anti-democratic muscles by four controversial nominations for his Administration:

Steve Bannon

Fear rises that Bannon could bring the ‘alt-right’ into White House

Trump’s decision to appoint the Breitbart executive his chief strategist stokes warnings across the political spectrum.

Donald Trump's newly named chief strategist, Steve Bannon, came under fire Monday from a wide swath of American leaders and organizations, from conservative operatives to minority-rights groups, all of whom are deeply concerned that Bannon will foster an extremist “alt-right” mentality inside the hallways of the White House and normalize ideas that had thrived only on the fringes of society.

Before joining Trump's campaign as its CEO in August, Bannon served as executive chairman of Breitbart News, identifying his outlet this summer as “the platform for the alt-right,” a group known for white-nationalist and anti-Semitic politics. His appointment Sunday to one of the two most senior roles in the White House was Trump's first major staff announcement, and has united a spectrum of conservatives and liberals, Muslims and Jews alarmed by how much his ideas are likely to shape the administration of the president-elect.

Meantime, representatives from a number of ethnic and religious minority groups are pointing to controversial remarks from Bannon and, under his leadership, Breitbart, about everyone from Jews to African-Americans, arguing that “alt-right” is code for racism and bigotry.

“I know what the alt-right is all about,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a Jewish historian based at Emory University who was a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton. “It’s a bastion of white supremacists, white nationalists, anti-Semitic, racist, Islamophobic expression, and that a man who has been so closely connected with the alt-right, who has helped propel it into the mainstream, should have the ear of the president, I’m flabbergasted. I’m almost at a loss for words. So far, I find that the most depressing of almost anything I’ve heard thus far.”. . .


Mike Flynn, Jeff Sessions: Meet Trump's Latest Top Picks

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

Flynn — a controversial figure who has been known to eschew "political correctness" — is a Trump loyalist who stayed by the candidate's side even as other national security experts sharply criticized him during the campaign. . .

As speculation about Flynn's appointment spread Thursday night, critics highlighted some of his controversial past statements. In February, Flynn said on Twitter that "fear of Muslims is rational.". . .

Multiple senior intelligence officials told NBC News on Friday that they have deep reservations about Trump tapping Flynn for the post.

They described him as a "hot head" with an abusive leadership style who would threaten to purge subordinates who disagreed with him. One called him "shallow and reactionary."

Beyond his leadership style, the officials worried that his narrow views of important foreign policy hot spots could lead to long-term erosion of US power and influence overseas.

"He doesn't understand the magnitude of the job," said one former intelligence official.

Senator Jeff Sessions

When he first endorsed Trump, Sessions praised the then-GOP contender as someone who would finally fix illegal immigration. . .

As a current member of the Senate, it's unlikely that Sessions' Republican colleagues will try to block his nomination. But Democrats and liberal groups are sure to focus on Sessions' controversial past.

In the 1980s, Sessions was considered for a Ronald Reagan-appointed federal district judgeship in Alabama, but was blocked by the Senate after a black former deputy, Thomas Figures, accused him of making racially insensitive statements. Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama, said that Sessions had once warned him to be careful about what he said to "white folks."

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said in a statement that, "No Senator has fought harder against the hopes and aspirations of Latinos, immigrants, and people of color than Sen. Sessions."

Mike Pompeo

Trump Picks Pro-Surveillance, Tea Party Hawk Mike Pompeo to Lead CIA

Pompeo, a former U.S. Army officer, was elected to U.S. Congress in 2010 admist a Tea Party wave. Among other things, he opposes closing the Guantánamo Bay military prison, favors National Security Agency (NSA) domestic surveillance programs, and is an outspoken opponent of the landmark U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

Pompeo wrote on Twitter, "I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism."

He has also called for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to receive the death penalty and has mocked hunger striking detainees.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said Friday, "Congressman Pompeo's positions on bulk surveillance and Guantánamo Bay...raise serious civil liberties concerns about privacy and due process. These positions and others merit serious public scrutiny through a confirmation process. His positions on mass surveillance have been rejected by federal courts and have been the subject of several lawsuits."

Pompeo also drew fire in 2013 for stating on the House floor that Muslim leaders who do not denounce terrorist acts are "potentially complicit" in the attacks.

Pompeo's Tea Party identification exposes his connection to the right-wing Roman Catholic-Evangelical political alliance, dominated by the Roman Catholics. However, the degree of unity in this religio-political movement for the election of Donald Trump is somewhat enigmatic. Nevertheless, it does not require full comprehension of Rome's part in the election of Trump to be able to predict that she can, and will, take advantage of his presidency to advance, and perhaps complete, the totalitarian theocratic State towards which she and apostate Protestantism have been working assiduously for several decades. The combination of these four appointments to the Trump Administration is ominous. [There have been further questionable and ominous nominations since this passage was written, not least of all the heavy concentration of military men, all of which will probably be the subject of future documents on this page.]


It is noteworthy that in all of the reports cited above describing the fear sweeping the nation and the world because of the election of Donald Trump, there is no mention of the separation of Church and State. The same applies to most of the major news publications; and yet theocratic governance looms large in the immediate future, and this should be a major concern for all, believers and unbelievers alike, as the Trump inauguration approaches. Interestingly, the magazine of the liberals in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who bear a heavy responsibility for the Denomination's apostasy has recognized the menacing future:

Perspective: Trump and Clinton on Religious Minorities

When Donald J. Trump addressed the Republican National Convention one week ago today in Cleveland, Ohio he promised Evangelical Christians that for their support he would work to remove the wall separating Church and State:

At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community who have been so good to me and so supportive. You have so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans. We can accomplish these great things, and so much else. All we need to do is start believing in ourselves and in our country again. It is time to show the whole world that America is back, bigger, and better and stronger than ever before.

The statement brought wild cheers from the Republican audience and foreshadowed a Trump White House in which the religious majority (Evangelicals made up just over 25% of the U.S. population in 2014) would enjoy greater prominence and empowerment.

By contrast, Donald Trump has on several occasions disparaged religious minorities for his political advantage, notably Muslims and Seventh-day Adventists.


There are publications which sounded the warning before the election:

Donald Trump Will Lead a Theocratic Party Into the Election

Before the Republican National Convention approved what right-wing delegates described as “the most conservative platform in modern history” on Monday, platform-committee co-chair Virginia Foxx announced that the document was “a reaffirmation of the principles America and the Republican Party were founded on.”


The platform is theocratic in its language and spirit, employing arguments never before considered by a major American political party. It’s extremism is such that People for the American Way’s “Right-Wing Watch” team has observed, “Four years ago, we called the GOP platform ‘a far-right fever dream, a compilation of pouting, posturing, and policies to meet just about every demand from the overlapping Religious Right, Tea Party, corporate, and neo-conservative wings of the GOP.’ Yet this year’s platform is even further to the right.”

Yes, the platform has its Donald Trump flourishes. As the New York Times editorial board notes: “Mr. Trump’s anti-Muslim phobia and fantasy wall across the Mexican border are front and center, along with his protectionist views, which deny long- held positions of the party.”

But where the platform veers furthest to the right is in sections that champion precisely the mingling of religion and politics that worried not just the wisest of the founders of the American experiment but also the Republicans of another time—who sought to advance and enhance that experiment.

Congresswoman Foxx did not seem to recall Thomas Jefferson’s observation, as the third president of the United States, that “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the third president wrote of the separation of church and state as an “expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.”

Seventh-day Adventists and other Christians who wax enthusiastic about the Theocrats' war against abortion and yes, their campaign against  LGBTQ rights, should beware the forces violating Jesus' statement on the separation of Church and State. The abortion controversy is founded on the Roman Catholic dogma of the immortality of the soul. Condemnation of unnatural sexual behaviour and immoral sexual conduct in general is the province of the pulpit under the power of the Holy Spirit, totally devoid of the coercive power of the State ("Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts" Zech. 4:6b; Cf. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Verse 4 of 2 Cor. 10.) It is not easy, but the Scriputres constrain us to leave unregenate human beings to the judgment before the Great White Throne, without human intervention (Rev. 20:11-15,) except to purge the Church of open sinners. The words of the Apostle Peter should be kept in mind 1 Peter 4:18; 2 Peter 1:10; (cf. The Danger of Usurping God's Prerogatives.)

Crying out for attention is the fact that with the Trump presidency, Republican control of both Houses of Congress, and the imminence of the appointment of an extreme right-wing Justice to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Antonin Scalia, America is faced with the stark reality that full theocratic government is being revealed; how far short of the tyranny of Rev. 13:15-17 is yet to be seen!

While the nation slept there were those in recent decades who penned warnings. Frederick Clarkson is one, and he wrote recently about Dominionism and the 2016 election:

Dominionism Rising: A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain Sight

In June 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) held a private meeting with conservative movement leaders to plot his political future. Attendees afterwards cast him in the role of Ronald Reagan, who’d lost the 1976 Republican presidential nomination to Gerald Ford but led a conservative comeback in 1980 that made Jimmy Carter a one-term president. The thinking was that Cruz did well enough in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries before losing to celebrity billionaire Donald Trump that he could plan to run again in 2020 or 2024. “He was with kindred spirits,” said Brent Bozell, the conservative activist who hosted the meeting, “and I would say most people in that room see him as the leader of the conservative movement.”

The rise of Ted Cruz is a singular event in American political history. The son of a Cuban refugee and evangelical pastor, Cruz was raised in the kind of evangelicalism-with-a-theocratic-bent that has come to epitomize a significant and growing trend in American public life. That is, dominionism: a dynamic ideology that arose from the swirls and eddies of American evangelicalism to animate the Christian Right, and become a defining feature of modern politics and culture.

Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological camp, means, or timetable, God has called conservative Christians to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. The term describes a broad tendency across a wide swath of American Christianity. People who embrace this idea are referred to as dominionists. Although Chip Berlet, then of Political Research Associates, and I defined and popularized the term for many in the 1990s, in fact it had (along with the term dominion theology) been in use by both evangelical proponents and critics for many years.

In many ways, Ted Cruz personifies the story of dominionism: how it became the ideological engine of the Christian Right, and how it illuminates the changes underway in American politics, culture and religion that have helped shape recent history. . .

Latter Rain theology was revived under the under aegis of longtime Fuller Theological Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner, who organized a global network of hundreds of apostles. Many of these apostles lead groups of non-denominational churches and ministries called “apostolic networks,” which sometimes comprise tens of thousands of members. Today, NAR theology and its apostles and prophets have assumed an increasingly high profile in religious and civic life in the U.S. They were well known in the past decade, for example, for mass rallies named TheCall, led by Lou Engle, who is also internationally known for his anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ activism. They have also gained political influence. For example, several leading apostles were among the three-dozen “conveners” of a June 2016 meeting at which Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump courted the support of some 1,000 evangelical leaders. . .

One contemporary example will suffice. David Lane, a leading Christian Right electoral organizer, declared in a 2013 essay that religious war may be on the horizon. Meanwhile he has shifted the electoral emphasis of his Mississippi-based American Renewal Project. (The group hosts all-expenses paid policy briefings for clergy and their spouses, featuring top politicians like Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Gingrich, Huckabee, Cruz, and often David Barton. Republican presidential contender Donald Trump addressed one such event in August 2016.) They are currently recruiting and training clergy with a dominionist vision to run for office at all levels. Lane’s own pastor, Rob McCoy, won a city council seat in Thousand Oaks, California, in 2016. Lane’s vision is clear: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as a separation of church and state. This was not established as a secular nation, and anybody that says that it is, they’re not reading American history. This was established by Christians for the advancement of the Christian faith. My goal is to return—to restore a biblically based culture and a Judeo-Christian heritage.” . . .

Dominionism now appears to be a permanent feature of politics at all levels. For three presidential elections in a row, dominionist politicians have played prominent roles. Following Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin in 2008, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry in 2012, and the remarkable run of Ted Cruz in 2016, dominionists are among the most prominent politicians in the country and enjoy significant public support and acceptance as a legitimate part of the political mix.

While Senator Cruz’s campaign was supported by leading NAR figures and most other Christian Right leaders, there was always a Plan B as well. One NAR prophet said God had told him in July 2015 that he will use Donald Trump to “expose darkness and perversion.” Donald Trump also enjoyed significant support from other Christian Right figures, notably 7M theorist Lance Wallnau (who also sits on the board of an NAR political arm, the Oak Initiative).

Wallnau sought to explain the paradox of evangelical Christians supporting Trump from early on even though he didn’t seem like a good fit. Trump, as has been much discussed, was a longtime supporter of abortion and LGBTQ rights, a thrice-married philanderer, a failed casino magnate with ties to organized crime, and someone whose Christian credentials were dubious at best. Nevertheless, Wallnau suggested that God could use Trump to achieve his purposes even though he was a flawed vessel. Wallnau recalled the story of Cyrus, the King of Persia in the biblical book of Isaiah who, as had been earlier prophesied, freed the Jews who had been captive in Babylon for 70 years, and helped to build the temple in Jerusalem. God used the pagan Cyrus, as Wallnau put it, as a “wrecking ball” for his purposes. Wallnau thought God would use Trump to challenge “an increasingly hostile anti-Christian culture” and “deliver us from Hillary.”

Wallnau’s story makes clear that at least some 7Mers do not require moral or doctrinal conformity to accept someone as a co-belligerent, or even as a leader, as long as they can help get them part of the way down the road to dominion. It also underscores that while the various doctrines feeding into the dominionist movement are clear, the degree to which they are adopted, and the means and timeline by which dominionists may seek to achieve their goals, will vary according to individual and factional interests.

Dominionism, like the Christian Right itself, has come a long way from obscure beginnings. What is remarkable today is that the nature of this driving ideology of the Christian Right remains obscure to most of society, most of the time. Dominionism’s proponents and their allies know it takes time to infuse their ideas into the constituencies most likely to be receptive. They also know it is likely—and rightly—to alarm many others.

Religion scholar Michael McVicar recounts an illuminating anecdote from that pivotal 1980 gathering of the Religious Roundtable addressed by Ronald Reagan. During the meeting, Robert Billings, one of the founders of the Moral Majority, privately observed to Gary North that, “If it weren’t for his [Rushdoony’s] books, none of us would be here.” North replied, “No one in the audience understands that.” Billings replied, “True. But we do.”

“Insiders knew about Rushdoony’s influence, even if the rank and file did not,” McVicar concludes. That continues to be true. The role of dominionism is largely hidden in plain sight from those most affected, on all sides.

"Those most affected" include the people, Christian and non-Christian alike, who are devoted to the separation of Church and State, and are lovers of liberty of conscience for every individual. The Dominionists are far removed from the principles of Christianity, so deluded that they chose to support a man of corrupt and depraved character as the leader of the American nation. Jesus said, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:47-48.) Not even the most morally upright human being has any authority from God to impose his/her beliefs on others.


Dr. Michael Brown is a Jewish Christian, described as "a biblical scholar, apologist, worldwide speaker, and activist." This column written by him for a publication called "OneNewsNow.com," is reflective of the views held across the broad range of misguided "Christians" who deride the separation of Church and State:

Donald Trump - president-elect by the sovereign intervention of God

Certainly, some will say God has raised up Trump not to bless America, but to judge her. But if God has raised him up for certain divine purposes, it behooves us to ask what those purposes are.

As the political pundits weigh in on the many sociological and ideological factors that contributed to Donald Trump's stunning victory, allow me to weigh in on the spiritual side of things.

I believe Trump has been elected president by divine intervention. . .

I'm aware, of course, that some people believe that everything happens by the will of God, which means that whoever wins the presidency wins by God's express will.

Yet there are times when there are so many odds against something happening, when it so greatly defies logic, that it is easier to recognize God's involvement.

That, I believe, is the case with Donald Trump winning – and remember, this comes from someone who endorsed Ted Cruz and was one of Trump's stronger conservative critics during the primaries. Just think of the obstacles Trump overcame . . .

First, consider this post from Pastor Jeremiah Johnson, now just 28 years old, dating to July of last year.

Jeremiah knew very little about Trump when he wrote these words:

"I was in a time of prayer several weeks ago when God began to speak to me concerning the destiny of Donald Trump in America. The Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, 'Trump shall become My trumpet to the American people, for he possesses qualities that are even hard to find in My people these days. Trump does not fear man nor will he allow deception and lies to go unnoticed. I am going to use him to expose darkness and perversion in America like never before, but you must understand that he is like a bull in a china closet. Many will want to throw him away because he will disturb their sense of peace and tranquility, but you must listen through the bantering to discover the truth that I will speak through him. I will use the wealth that I have given him to expose and launch investigations searching for the truth. Just as I raised up Cyrus to fulfill My purposes and plans, so have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election. You must listen to the trumpet very closely for he will sound the alarm and many will be blessed because of his compassion and mercy. Though many see the outward pride and arrogance, I have given him the tender heart of a father that wants to lend a helping hand to the poor and the needy, to the foreigner and the stranger.'"


From the known facts published about Donald Trump, his commitment to the theocratic agenda may be a matter of expediency rather than conviction - not so his Vice-President Mike Pence:

5 faith facts about Mike Pence: A ‘born-again, evangelical Catholic’

He has described himself as a “pretty ordinary Christian” and as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

But he also once said, “I made a commitment to Christ. I’m a born-again, evangelical Catholic.” . . .

1. He was raised Catholic and later attended an evangelical megachurch. . .

2. He supported causes important to evangelicals as a congressman. . .

5. He signed Indiana’s controversial “religious freedom” law.

Last year, Pence found himself at the center of a storm when he supported Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would have allowed businesses and individuals to refuse to do business with some people based on their own religious beliefs. . .

Trump's VP: Mike Pence brings political and evangelical credibility to ticket

Two of Pence’s favorite lines are to describe himself as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,” and to offer assurance, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not angry about it.”

He became a born again Christian – and a born again Republican – while at university. “For me it all begins with faith; it begins with what matters most, and I try and put what I believe to be moral truth first,” he told the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) in 2010. “My philosophy of government second. And my politics third.” . . .

Trump himself has been registered as both a Democrat and Republican and voted for both parties over the years. He has contradicted himself on guns, abortion and other social issues. He once raised questions about his biblical knowledge by referring to “Two Corinthians” rather than “Second Corinthians”.

The devout Pence could be a useful antidote. An early advocate of the Tea Party movement, he has voted with social conservatives for nearly his entire time in office, putting him more in line with the far right of the Republican party.

Where Is Mike Pence’s Faith?

By the time he gave Congress another try, in 2000, it was clear that Pence had changed. He won the seat and held on for the next 12 years, eventually rising to third in the GOP’s congressional leadership. But his faith stayed front and center. Pence refused to campaign on Sundays. He declined to dine solo with women who weren’t his wife. (“It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he told the Hill.) After 9/11, his first reaction was to gather his staff in prayer. Aides and other politicians often saw him reading his Bible, and Pence would cite specific verses to justify policy arguments. “These have stood the test of time,” he told one staffer. “They have eternal value.” He was frank about the influence of his evangelicalism. “My support for Israel stems largely from my personal faith,” he told Congressional Quarterly in 2002. “In the Bible, God promises Abraham, ‘Those who bless you I will bless, and those who curse you I will curse.’ ”

During his time in Congress, Pence emerged as one of the most privately and publicly devout figures in Washington. But something changed when he ran for governor of Indiana. You could no longer get Pence to address his faith, past or present. When I interviewed him in 2012, I asked about the peculiarities in his religious biography; each time, he evaded. Could he help me understand his strange spiritual journey? “I cherish my Catholic upbringing,” he replied. Could he explain why his faith shifted again in the mid-’90s? “We just felt drawn to worship at an evangelical church.” Could he define himself as a believer? “I’m a pretty ordinary Christian, trying to make that faith real every day.”

It was all pretty stunning to see. The man who once quoted Genesis 12:3 to justify his foreign policy was now speaking in phrases so platitudinous they felt ripped from the chorus of a particularly bad Christian rock song.

But this was all by design. . .

Once elected, Pence began pushing a very different agenda. While the most notorious example came when he signed the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2015, Pence’s faith has driven decisions big and small. It led him to sign a new anti-abortion law so restrictive that the American Civil Liberties Union is now suing the state. It led him to award a $3.5 million contract to Real Alternatives, a nonprofit that pushes abstinence education and urges pregnant women not to abort.

“My faith,” Pence told me in 2012, “has continued to be what I hope is the most important thing in my life.” Pence’s beliefs have shifted at least twice—from his family’s Catholicism to an idiosyncratic evangelical Christianity, and from that to a more hardened and ideological version of the same. If, as he insists, faith does indeed order his life, why did he stop being so open about it? Why strip the evangelizing from his evangelicalism?

It is clear from the above reports that in Vice-president Pence the nation has a hardline Theocrat a heartbeat from the presidency; but there is an even more immediate threat. Already prominent conservative commentators are predicting that Donald Trump will be impeached early in his presidency. Most notable prior to Trump's election is the proposition by The Federalist, a leading conservative publication:

The GOP Needs To Elect Trump, Then Impeach Him

There is a way out of this mess. It is a desperate plan, but desperate times, desperate measures: Elect-and-Impeach. Elect the ticket. Impeach Trump.

The Republican Party does have an attractive candidate on its ticket. Socially conservative. Economically conservative. Conservative on national defense. Morally and religiously impeccable. The trouble is, that man is the Republican candidate for vice president, Mike Pence.

But if Trump were impeached immediately after he took office, the Republican candidate for vice president would become president in his place. Further, if Republicans take the lead in removing Trump from office, the party might regain some of its lost credibility in parts of the electorate that it is anxious to attract. . .

Mike Pence is poised to exercise the powers of the presidency even if Donald Trump is not removed from the office:

America's Next Chief Executive?

The Constitution assigns executive authority to the president—but a President Trump would hand it off to Mike Pence.

On Wednesday night, America will meet the man who could be the nation’s next chief executive officer—and it’s not Donald Trump.

The Constitution says that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” but Trump isn’t one to be bound by tradition. He has, instead, made it clear that he intends to hire “the best” and “the most talented” people to exercise power on his behalf. And right at the top, running the United States government, would be Trump’s pick for vice president: Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

That’s how those closest to Trump have described the role. “He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do,” Paul Manafort told the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman about the VP search back in May. “He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”

And, The New York Times Magazine reported Wednesday, Donald Trump Jr. described the vice presidency in similar terms to a senior Kasich adviser:

Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

This is how close the nation is to a presidency committed to the specific agenda of the Theocrats who are destined to usher in the ultimate tyranny of Rev. 13:15-17.


The question arises: why are these events taking place during this particular period of history. The Christian world was given prophetic evidence that the time for the closing events of this world's history had come, with a warning period extending from 1967 to 1980. This powerful sermon of Elder William H. Grotheer on the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy recorded in Luke 21:24, Jesus' Own Prophecy, was delivered years ago and therefore does not include the continued unfolding of prophetic events in recent years; but its exegesis is valid and closely related to current events (Cf. A Fearful Warning, which describes successive closings of probation in this world as set forth in the Bible.)

In The Sign of the End of Time, Elder Grotheer makes this statement:

The very least that this fulfilled prophecy of Jesus is saying is that God is no longer restraining the power of Satan in his control of the nations of earth. Even though Satan declared that he possessed such power and could delegate it to whomever he chose (Luke 4:6), the book of Daniel draws the curtain aside and reveals that God "ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will" (Dan. 4:17). When kings and rulers resisted His purposes, Michael, to whom all earthly authority is given (I Cor. 15:27), comes Himself to influence the outcome of human events (Dan. 10:13). That time is now past, and God has stepped aside and Satan is working his will in the nations of earth.

We have not been left in doubt as to what Satan is seeking to accomplish. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the picture is drawn. "The spirits of devils go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14). But you respond, that is the sixth plague after the close of probation. No, it is the cause for the sixth plague, not the plague. Consider the first plague: a "grievous sore" on those who had received the mark of the beast (16:2). Was not the mark of the beast received prior to the close of probation? Just so, the sixth plague. Verse 12 describes the plague - the drying up of the great river Euphrates, and verses 13-14 give the cause in probationary time.

In the context of Rev. 16:14, consider the report of the "Holy Spirit" speaking to Pastor Jeremiah Johnson. A search online will reveal that he was not the only one who received such a message.

The words of Jesus in Luke 21:28-32 clearly define the period of earth's history to which the fulfilled prophecy of verse 24 relates, and verse 32 specifies a time limit for this period. A generation is generally recognized as a period of 40 years.


Next, what were and are the conditions which opened the way for the ultimate disaster of a Trump presidency. Logic suggests that this social phenomenon was a contributing factor: DONALD TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: PRODUCT OF A DUMBED DOWN AMERICA. This content of an earlier update begins to explain the role of propaganda in Trump's victory, and specifically that of the Jesuits, and the papacy's philosophy of degrading the educational system to bring about an ill-informed populace, as applied by Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

Propaganda can be both positive and negative. There are some explanations of this science which hold that positive propaganda can serve a good purpose; however,propaganda is inherently misleading, whether it is positive or negative, as shown in this definition and underscored by this one.

To those who are not deceived, it is readily apparent that the success of Donald Trump's presidential campaign was utterly due to the avalanche of negative propaganda that overwhelmed the Democratic candidate. Trump's campaign was one based almost entirely on virulent negative propaganda, and vague in detailed public policy. In addition, there was Russian propaganda designed to aid the Trump campaign; but above all a vast array of purveyors of right-wing propaganda. The Republicans themselves in coordination with Trump were very effective in smearing and undermining the Democratic candidate, who was not remotely as bad a character as the Republican candidate:

There's Simply No Comparison Between Clinton's Flaws and Trump's

The Democratic nominee’s shortcomings should not blind voters to the catastrophe they’d invite by electing her cruel, undisciplined, erratic opponent.

At The Week, Damon Linker, who is no fan of Clinton, argues that despite all her weaknesses and petty corruptions, the choice on November 8 is an easy one. Trump “is a menace to American democracy,” he writes, “a know-nothing demagogic con man who hasn’t released his tax returns, who brags about assaulting women, who has invited Vladimir Putin to meddle in the presidential election while also suggesting on the basis of no evidence at all that the election will be ‘rigged’ against him, and who regularly uses social media to promote white supremacists and neo-Nazis (who increasingly feel emboldened to spew their civic poison in public). And that's just the most minimal accounting of Trump's offenses.”

As if to agree, Paul Waldman at the Washington Post reviews Trump’s “history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud” with this “partial list” of his discreditable behavior . . .[the "partial list" is lengthy.]

An elite team of investigators would need months to plumb the depths of all those stories. Individual instances of unethical behavior related to them could fill 100 news cycles.

Trump has escaped a lot of that scrutiny because no one expects any better.

The Republicans have become masters of destructive propaganda:

How did this monster get created?

The decades of GOP lies that brought us Donald Trump, Republican front-runner

How did America get to such a place that someone like Donald Trump can command a lead in the Republican primaries? Trump is the product of a deliberate Republican strategy, adopted by Richard Nixon’s people in 1968, to attract voters with an apocalyptic redemption story rather than reasoned argument. It has taken almost 50 years, but we have finally arrived at the culmination of postmodern politics in which Republican leaders use words to create their own reality. . .

“Voters are basically lazy,” one Nixon media adviser wrote. “Reason requires a high degree of discipline, of concentration; impression is easier. Reason pushes the viewer back, it assaults him, it demands that he agree or disagree; impression can envelop him, invite him in, without making an intellectual demand…. When we argue with him, we… seek to engage his intellect…. The emotions are more easily roused, closer to the surface, more malleable….” Nixon’s people hired advertising executive Harry Treleaven, who believed the new medium of television had changed the nature of politics. For him, politicians were no longer policy wonks; they were actors with a narrative. . .

The Movement Conservative story was never based in reality. Facts repeatedly gave way to the narrative that America was on the ropes because of Democratic social welfare policies that sucked tax dollars and threatened the nation’s safety. Ronald Reagan’s Welfare Queen represented the misuse of tax dollars for lazy African-Americans, for example, but he also incorrectly insisted that President Carter had slashed the nation’s military budget, and warned in his inaugural address that the nation was in a crisis that rivaled the Great Depression, a crisis created by government activism.

To avoid niggling fact-checkers, in 1987, President Reagan’s FCC abandoned the Fairness Doctrine, a decision that meant that public broadcasters were no longer required to provide their audience with opposing viewpoints. Within a year, talk radio had taken off, with hosts like Rush Limbaugh hammering home the vision of a nation gone to ruin, awaiting redemption from the latest Movement Conservative candidate. In 1992, Limbaugh began to broadcast a television show, produced by Roger Ailes, to take the story to viewers. By 1994, the show was carried by 225 television stations. Two years later, Ailes would become the CEO of a new media channel, Fox News, which used the same formula—albeit updated—that Ailes had used to package Nixon’s story almost 30 years before.

By the time of the George W. Bush administration, the Movement Conservatives had erased the line between image and reality. In 2004, a senior adviser to Bush famously dismissed “the reality-based community” to journalist Ron Suskind. Gone were the days when politicians could find solutions based on their observations of the careful study of discernible reality. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore…. When we act, we create our own reality…. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do,” he said.

The "reality" of these times has become so divorced from truth that we are now said to be in "the post-truth era," a manifestation of the delusive power over human minds that Satan has now achieved:

The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life

At one time we had truth and lies. Now we have truth, lies, and statements that may not be true but we consider too benign to call false. Euphemisms abound. We’re “economical with the truth,” we “sweeten it,” or tell “the truth improved.” The term deceive gives way to spin. At worst we admit to “misspeaking,” or “exercising poor judgment.” Nor do we want to accuse others of lying. We say they’re in denial. A liar is “ethically challenged,” someone for whom “the truth is temporarily unavailable.”

This is post-truth. In the post-truth era, borders blur between truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, fiction and nonfiction. Deceiving others becomes a challenge, a game, and ultimately a habit. . .

What motivates the casual dishonesty that’s become pandemic? Why do so many, even those with no apparent need to do so, feel a need to embellish their personal history? . . .

We can only understand the motives of such dissemblers by examining the sea in which they swim. Trends ranging from the postmodern disdain for “truth” to therapeutic non-judgment encourage deception. . .

The Age of Post-Truth Politics

Facts hold a sacred place in Western liberal democracies. Whenever democracy seems to be going awry, when voters are manipulated or politicians are ducking questions, we turn to facts for salvation.

But they seem to be losing their ability to support consensus. PolitiFact has found that about 70 percent of Donald Trump’s “factual” statements actually fall into the categories of “mostly false,” “false” and “pants on fire” untruth. . .

The sense is widespread: We have entered an age of post-truth politics.As politics becomes more adversarial and dominated by television performances, the status of facts in public debate rises too high. . .

How can we still be speaking of “facts” when they no longer provide us with a reality that we all agree on? The problem is that the experts and agencies involved in producing facts have multiplied, and many are now for hire. If you really want to find an expert willing to endorse a fact, and have sufficient money or political clout behind you, you probably can. . .

Lord of the Lies

Trump lies about big things (there is no drought in California) and small things (his hair spray could not affect the ozone layer because it’s sealed within Trump Tower). He lies about himself, and the fake self he invented to talk about himself. He’s been shown to lie more than 70 times in a single event. . .

Professional truth-seekers have never seen anything like Trump, surely the most compulsive liar to seek high office. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact has rated 76 percent of his statements lies — 57 percent false or mostly false, and another 19 percent “Pants on Fire” fabrications. Only 2 percent — 2 percent! — of his assertions were rated true, and another 6 percent mostly true. Hillary Clinton, who is not exactly known for fealty to the facts, had a 28 percent total lie score, including a mere 1 percent Pants on Fire.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has dinged Trump with 30 of its Four Pinocchio ratings — lying 70 percent of the time. Trump cares so little about the truth that when the Fact Checker reaches out to him for an explanation, he never responds, the paper noted. . .

He even lies about his lies. He claimed he wanted to keep a personal donation to veterans private, when in fact he’d boasted in January of a $1 million gift, which wasn’t sent out until the press began questioning him on it months later.

Sadly, a lot of voters don’t care if a candidate is a pathological liar. But most of us should. . .

Mentally manipulated out of sound, rational, judgement, a sufficiently large proportion of the American electorate either did not care and voted for Donald Trump, or did not understand that they should care enough to vote against him. A pathological liar becomes President of the United States on January 20, 2017. Is there any room for doubt "that God is no longer restraining the power of Satan in his control of the nations of earth"? The evidence of the Satan's control is overwhelming. Jesus said of those who are under his influence, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44.) Speaking and believing lies is the natural result of coming under the control of Satan. As Ellen G. White described the process by which he has gained control, "he is linking the human mind with his own, imbuing it with his thoughts." In these times protection is found in the promise of Psalm 91:4b: "his truth shall be thy shield and buckler." The Apostle Paul elaborates in Eph. 6:10-17. Note "loins girt about with truth," and "breastplate of righteousness," (here cf. 2 Thess. 2:10.) Note further "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Wherefore it behooves us to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15.) This is our protection against our own minds "becoming linked with Satan's, and imbued with his thoughts."


It is highly unlikely that the following headline is a correct assessment of the state of the Republican party; but the article provides facts about the destructive propaganda of the cable news channel which has played a huge role in deceiving the people:

How Fox News Unwittingly Destroyed the Republican Party

The Republican Party has been fomenting anger and discontent in the base of its own Party for years. The mechanism through which this hate has been disseminated has been the network of extremist media of right-wing talk radio and the Fox News Channel, which is essentially talk radio transposed onto television.

Just think of all the right-wing “superstars” who spew messages of anger and hate every single day throughout the land over this enormous megaphone. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Ben Shapiro, Dana Loesch, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, to name a few.

And make no mistake, spewing hate has a significant impact upon society. It is the equivalent of modern-day propaganda where the population is barraged with a stream of consistent messaging. As ordinary people go about their daily lives, they are exposed repeatedly, day-in and day-out, to the same messages in numerous different forms and by numerous different people. Pretty soon, these messages begin to sink in and take effect. The audience begins to adopt a worldview consistent with these messages, regardless of the degree of truth. It is a remarkable phenomenon.

History is replete with examples of how propaganda can be very effective in altering the views of a population. Nazi Germany in the 1930’s is a classic example. How could it possibly be that a maniac like Adolph Hitler was able to convince millions of ordinary people throughout the entire nation of Germany to go to war against the world? Well, propaganda was an extremely powerful component.

Tea Party advocates have proudly boasted of the identification of Fox News with Roman Catholicism and the Tea Party movement: TEA PARTY UNITED!

Then there are the Koch brothers, who are more difficult to nail down than Fox News; but on balance the evidence points to a Roman Catholic affiliation:

Inside the right-wing lie factory: Secrets of a Koch-funded propaganda machine more insidious than Fox News

Medora is a small, seasonal tourist town in the Badlands of western North Dakota, about 25 miles from the Montana border. It has a population of less than one hundred. It went for John McCain for president by a three-to-one margin in 2008. A handful of small stores are in the center of the town—some gift shops, a bookstore, an ice cream shop, two restaurants, a museum, and a hotel that’s full during tourist season.

Around the corner from downtown is the Rushmore Mountain Taffy and Gift Shop (not to be confused with the Rushmore Mountain Taffy Shop at the base of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota). You wouldn’t know it by looking at it, but the Medora taffy shop was the first legal home of a media organization that now provides a significant amount of political news coverage in 39 state capitals through 55 interconnected news sites, according to a local reporter who was curious about the entity and asked around.

At the start of 2008, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity had a budget of zero dollars. Its legal home was the taffy shop in Medora. By 2009 the Franklin Center’s budget had jumped to $2.4 million, according to IRS tax records. That’s a spectacular leap for a nonprofit, especially in Medora.

It was almost as if someone wished to utilize the charter concept of the Franklin Center—developing individual but interlinked news centers across the United States that would all promote the same messages—for other purposes and therefore infused it with a mountain of funding and network support. Intriguingly, this was a year before the Tea Party movement seemingly sprang from nowhere and spread like a prairie fire to the thirty-nine state capitals where the Franklin Center now operates its news sites. . .

Its success—basically, the reason that it has no need to fight for its survival when every other local digital journalism effort does—is almost certainly due to its connection to the Koch donor network. Like other related groups with operations in the DC area, the Franklin Center benefits greatly from the Koch donor network’s Freedom Partners.

The Franklin Center’s director of donor development, Matt Hauck, worked for the Charles G. Koch Foundation. Its senior vice president in charge of strategic initiatives, Erik Telford, worked for the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity before joining the Franklin Center. The founding board member who set it up was Rudie Martinson, who helped run Americans for Prosperity in North Dakota. Martinson is still on the Franklin Center’s board. One of the founders of the Franklin Center, John Tsarpalas, is a past president of the Sam Adams Alliance and director of the Illinois Republican Party.

Fox News and the Koch brothers are accompanied by a host of other subversive entities, and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. The destructive propaganda of the Republican party and its allies has been combined with deceptive positive propaganda resulting in the consolidation of a GOP hold on a sufficiently large number of voters who have failed to see that the Party's ideology and program are destructive of their own welfare:

Struggling White Voters Who Helped Elect Trump Are Headed for Some Serious Pain

Donald Trump ran on a series of impossible promises, but enough people believed he could deliver on them that he won the Electoral College. His supporters are in for what might be the rudest awakening in recent political history. . .

The exit polls show that Trump beat Clinton among affluent voters, and Americans up and down the economic ladder responded to his dog whistles, or at least voted for their party despite the bigotry displayed by its nominee. But Trump made huge gains over Mitt Romney among those making $30,000 or less, and benefited from a major urban-rural divide. And it’s the rural poor who put him over the top in key swing states who are going to be hit especially hard by the coming bait and switch. . .


The root source and cause of the negative propaganda, with the exception of the Russians, is not readily apparent; but can be deduced from the historical record, (cf. In the case against the Church of Rome . .; The radical religious in our country . . .) By bringing the Religious Right alliance of Roman Catholics and so-called Evangelicals into existence the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops unleashed a monster which they cannot always control. The USCCB is not completely comfortable with the victory of Donald Trump in the presidential election:

Catholic bishops follow Trump’s election with a message of their own

A week after Donald Trump’s stunning election as president sent the country’s governance lurching to the right, the nation’s Catholic bishops sent a message of their own — at least on immigration — by putting Mexican-born Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles in line to become the first Latino to lead the American hierarchy.

But the vote at their annual fall meeting in Baltimore on Tuesday (Nov. 15) also suggested that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is still hesitant to fully endorse the more progressive and pastoral approach to ministry that Pope Francis has been championing since his election in 2013. . .

The statement that the USCCB "is still hesitant to fully endorse the more progressive and pastoral approach to ministry that Pope Francis has been championing since his election in 2013" is related to an ideological struggle between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" in the Roman Catholic Church since the publication of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum encyclical at the end of the 19th century. Robert P. George is a Roman Catholic Theocon who has a powerful ideological influence over the rightward leaning USCCB, and George Weigel is also a Theocon with similar influence. They both openly opposed the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Like most things about the Church of Rome, the ideological struggle between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" is misleading. They share the common goal of world domination, and will reach accomodation with any worldly power that will enable them to achieve that goal.

After an early brush with Donald Trump and a later hint of support for the campaign of Bernie Sanders, Pope Francis appeared to keep his distance from the US presidential election. The following report after the election seems more likely to favor the Democratic candidate than the Republican, given the utter destruction of Hillary Clinton's reputation:

Pope Francis compares media that spread fake news to people who are excited by feces

There’s much too much fake news to go around, but this is real: In an interview with a Belgian publication, Pope Francis reportedly compared news outlets that grab for a juicy story, even when it’s untrue, to those who participate in “coprophilia.” . . .

Crux said that Francis criticized media outlets that look only for negative stories and those that smear people’s reputations, but reserved the harshest criticism for those who report untruths. Spreading incorrect information, Francis reportedly said, is “probably the biggest damage a news organization can cause.”

Whatever the Pope's preference might have been, there is already a search for accomodation:

Where could President Trump and Pope Francis do business?

The natural instinct likely will be to forecast a rocky relationship between the US and the Vatican as long as Donald Trump and Pope Francis are the figures in charge, yet there are at least three areas in which a surprising partnership could potentially emerge.

Defying every last scrap of conventional political wisdom, Donald Trump stunned the world Tuesday night by capturing the American presidency.

Given the role the United States plays on the global stage, actors all over the world right now are scrambling to figure out what Trump’s victory means about the direction America is taking, and how best to react.

One of those actors, of course, will be the Vatican.

To use the categories made famous by Joseph Nye, the Vatican is the world’s most important “soft power,” the only major world religion which has at its core a sovereign state with its own diplomatic corps; the United States, with military expenditures exceeding all other nations combined, is the planet’s most important “hard power.”

Inevitably, therefore, the relationship between these two players is important, and this morning, personnel in the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, which has primary responsibility for foreign policy, are undoubtedly trying like mad to get a read on where things stand.

To be honest, at first blush the stars don’t seem aligned for an auspicious relationship between the current administration in Rome and the incoming one in Washington. . .

To be honest, at first blush the stars don’t seem aligned for an auspicious relationship between the current administration in Rome and the incoming one in Washington. . .

The likely flash points between a Trump White House and a Francis Vatican are easy to anticipate: immigration, climate change, anti-poverty efforts, multilateralism in foreign policy, crime and punishment, and on and on.

The natural instinct likely will be to forecast a rocky relationship between the US and the Vatican as long as Trump and Francis are the figures in charge.

On the other hand, Trump pledged in his victory speech to pursue “great relationships” with other nations, and presumably that includes the Holy See. The more interesting question, therefore, is where the current pope and the new president might be able to do business.

Aside from the reasonably obvious life issues, such as abortion, here are three other possibilities.

Anti-Christian persecution . . .

Gender theory . . .

Religious freedom . . .

To what extent the Vatican and the White House will be able to join forces on these or other fronts will depend, to some extent, on choices made on both sides.


It is interesting to note that reaction in the Vatican to the Trump election victory was not uniform:

How the Vatican Views Trump’s Presidential Victory

Views are mixed, ranging from ‘incomprehension’ and ‘shock’ to optimism that a Republican presidency opens new possibilities for cooperation.

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin was among the first in the Vatican to react to Donald Trump’s election as the 45th president of the United States.

Speaking to reporters in Rome Nov. 9, he congratulated Trump and said the Holy See respected the democratic wish of the people. He noted the high turnout and gave the Holy See’s “best wishes to the new president, that his government can be truly fruitful.” The Church would be praying for him, he said, that the Lord “enlighten and support him in the service of his country, but also that he work for well-being and peace in the world.”

“I believe that, today, we all need to work to change the world situation; that is a situation of grave wounds, of severe conflict,” Cardinal Parolin continued. He said the future president had “already expressed himself in terms of a leader,” but it was “too soon to judge” his presidency.

Pope Francis hasn’t commented himself, although he did respond to the prospect of a potential Trump presidency in an interview conducted the day before the election and subsequently published online by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.

Asked for his opinion about Trump, Pope Francis replied, “I don’t make judgments on people and on political men. I only want to understand the sufferings that their way of proceeding causes the poor and excluded.” The Pope shared his comments with Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist publisher of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, in an interview published Nov. 11.

Pope Francis clearly hasn’t favored Trump’s policies on immigration, a subject close to the Pope’s heart. He made this point most directly on the papal plane returning from Mexico in February, obliquely referring to Trump when commenting that people should build bridges rather than walls and that anyone who wishes to build a wall “is not Christian.”

Mixed Views

Generally, Vatican officials have mixed views about the U.S. election result. One senior Italian official in the more traditional wing of the Church said he was “jumping for joy” at the news. Like a number of other Italian officials, he was most pleased because American voters didn’t choose Hillary Clinton, due to evidence of her campaign leader’s dismissive attitude toward Catholicism, her extreme positions on abortion and same-sex “marriage,” and personal corruption. Other well-informed priests saw the result as a clear rebuke to the mainstream media, who did little to conceal their bias in favor of a Clinton presidency.

However, Corriere della Sera reported Nov. 10 that, according to its research, most in the Vatican were backing Hillary Clinton as the “lesser evil.” Trump, on the other hand, was considered “unelectable” due to his “aggressive chauvinism,” in addition to his threats to deport 11 million illegal Mexican immigrants and ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States.

Now that the “greater evil” has won, the Vatican is viewing the United States as “angry and radicalized,” Corriere della Sera wrote. “For the Holy See, it is a bitter defeat, cultural rather than political. Among other things, it indicates that the Catholic Church hasn’t registered the very deep upheavals taking place in the greatest Western country.” A “lot of incomprehension” and “bitter shock” were generally prevalent for many in the Vatican, agreed one U.S. official who spoke with the Register. Based on “failings of reporting,” he said, Clinton was represented as far preferable to Trump, who was portrayed as a “buffoon,” and reporting about Clinton’s shortcomings “never sunk in.” Due to a general lack of understanding in Italy of the U.S. “culture wars,” Clinton’s radical pro-abortion-rights position also hardly figured at all in media commentary. . .


There are profound spiritual factors involved in the astonishing victory of Donald Trump.

Ellen G. White has made this statement about the influence of Satan on the unregenerate human mind:

For thousands of years Satan has been experimenting upon the properties of the human mind, and he has learned to know it well. By his subtle workings in these last days, he is linking the human mind with his own, imbuing it with his thoughts; and he is doing this work in so deceptive a manner that those who accept his guidance know not that they are being led by him at his will. The great deceiver hopes so to confuse the minds of men and women, that none but his voice will be heard. 2SM 352.3

The restraining power of God has been withdrawn. As Elder Grotheer stated in "The Sign of the End of Time," hyperlinked above, "The very least that this fulfilled prophecy [Luke 21:24] of Jesus is saying is that God is no longer restraining the power of Satan in his control of the nations of earth." The validity of this insight has been plain to see since 1980, and is aptly described by this prophecy of Ellen G. White: "After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation . . ." In this is also clearly visible the work of the spirits of Rev. 16:13-14. Satan is now applying the diabolical understanding acquired from "experimenting upon the properties of the human mind" for thousands of years. As the prophecy of Rev. 16 elucidates, the ultimate objective is the unifying of the nations in rebellion against God. Although there is not as yet a clear identification of the ten kings of of Rev. 17:12, and indeed the prophecy explicitly predicts their emergence in the very last remnant of time, the final battle between deluded humanity under the leadership of Satan and Jesus Christ "the Lamb" is unequivocally forecasted. The delusions of unregenerate human minds now increasingly manifested in these times was prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess. 2:10-12, and expressly related to the events preceding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the revealing of the papacy, the "man of sin." The delusions are the direct result of receiving his falsehoods as manifested by failure to believe the Truth.

The following statements of Ellen G. White are particularly applicable to the present times, although they clearly were already beginning to be perceptible in 1890 and 1904:

The present is a solemn, fearful time for the church. The angels are already girded, awaiting the mandate of God to pour their vials of wrath upon the world. Destroying angels are taking up the work of vengeance; for the Spirit of God is gradually withdrawing from the world. Satan is also mustering his forces of evil, going forth “unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world,” to gather them under his banner, to be trained for “the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” Satan is to make most powerful efforts for the mastery in the last great conflict. Fundamental principles will be brought out, and decisions made in regard to them. Skepticism is prevailing everywhere. Ungodliness abounds. The faith of individual members of the church will be tested as though there were not another person in the world (Manuscript 1a, 1890).

Everything in the world is in agitation. The signs of the times are ominous. Coming events cast their shadows before. The Spirit of God is withdrawing from the earth, and calamity follows calamity by sea and by land. There are tempests, earthquakes, fires, floods, murders of every grade. Who can read the future? Where is security? There is assurance in nothing that is human or earthly. Rapidly men are ranging themselves under the banner they have chosen. Restlessly they are waiting and watching the movements of their leaders.

An intensity such as never before was seen is taking possession of the world. In amusements, in money-making, in the contest for power, in the very struggle for existence, there is a terrible force that engrosses body and mind and soul. In the midst of this maddening rush, God is speaking. He bids us come apart and commune with Him. “Be still, and know that I am God.” (The Signs of the Times July 6, 1904 paragraph 1.)


The rapid progress of events prophesied to culminate in the tyranny of Rev. 13:15-17 is much too clear to be ignored or downplayed. Rev. 13 involves both the United States and the world at large. Keeping in mind the opening verse of the Book of Revelation, complete fulfillment or even the imminence of fulfillment, of other prophecies covering the period immediately before the Second Coming of Jesus, is not yet clearly discernible. These prophecies involve the whole world, the specific area of Palestine, and the City of Jerusalem. In general terms, Rev. 13:15-17 has clearly been in the process of fulfillment since the end of the times of the gentiles (nations) as Jesus prophesied in Luke 21:24, and the work of the spirits of devils has been manifest in events clearly progressing towards the fulfillment of Rev. 17:1-18a. This has been manifest in the worldwide ecumenical movement. Forward movement in the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45 has been stalled by the Zionist government of Israel, supported by Christian Zionists in America. Vladimir Putin's Russia is an additional complicating factor. Fulfillment of Rev. 17:8b, and 10b-13, coupled with Isa. 14:12-14, and Isa. 2:2-5 is not yet clearly discernible (studies and sermons on these prophecies can be found on this website by using the Search function.) In this last context Pope Francis has made an intriguing statement. Can we afford to relax our vigilance in watching, thinking that the apocalyptic end in the United States as predicted in Rev. 13:15-17 cannot be as close as the recent dramatic events seem to indicate? The significance of the completed fulfillment of Luke 21:24 argues against complacency in thinking that we are not, in the words of Ellen G. White when the Second Coming was last imminent at the end of the 19th century (and before a delay was indicated,) "upon the very borders, of the eternal world;" [and similar phrases.] Those who are looking for the "National Sunday Law" are going to be caught unawares by the final rapid movements closing the history of this world.

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near (Isa. 55:6)




The Not-So-Lofty Origins of the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement

As the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade passed, evangelical leaders marked the occasion with histories of how their community took up the anti-abortion cause. Mark Galli, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, (with whom I engaged in a discussion-via-blog-post this past fall) has suggested the movement formed out of grassroots reflection on “the terrible and inevitable consequences of legalized abortion.” Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, insisted it arose from moral outrage triggered by Roe v. Wade.

Both histories provide pristine portraits of the origins of the evangelical right, suggesting its founders based their advocacy on scholarly assessments and aspired to noble political ends. But a history can be told that is significantly less flattering.

The right-wing evangelical movement was not an immediate backlash to Roe v. Wade. The evangelical community, unlike Roman Catholicism, showed little interest in combating abortion until almost 1980. As Jerry Falwell lamented in 1979, “The Roman Catholic Church for many years has stood virtually alone against abortion. I think it’s an indictment against the rest of us that we’ve allowed them to stand alone.”

Although evangelicals were mostly silent on abortion after Roe v. Wade, they were not silent on other political issues. Paul Weyrich, one of the evangelical right’s most influential founders, recalls that the movement initially emerged to defend racially segregated Christian schools from government intrusion:

[W]hat galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.

In other words, as Randall Balmer has succinctly put it: “the religious right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination.”

Only after the movement was underway did it begin advocacy on abortion. It did so, in large part, based on highly dubious arguments advanced by the popular writer Francis Schaeffer.

Schaeffer held a master’s degree from Westminster Theological Seminary (though he went by “Dr. Schaeffer”) and argued, in 1979’s Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (co-written with the surgeon C. Everrett Koop, and offered as both book and film series), that legalized abortion represented an abandonment of the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage. He is introduced in the film as “one of the world’s most respected thinkers”—a generous title given that Schaeffer plays loose with history, neglecting to mention that abortion was in fact legal when the nation was founded.

Schaeffer and Koop advance the argument that if evangelicals don’t mobilize to stop abortion, infanticide and involuntary euthanasia will soon become widespread.

They have to go back to Roman theologian Tertullian to reinforce their claim that the “orthodox position” is that life begins at conception, conveniently leaving out the fact that Church fathers Augustine and Aquinas—and most evangelicals up until the 1970s—are on the other side of the argument. As Aquinas put it (in a view that remained the official position of the Catholic Church from the medieval era to the mid-1800s), “The rational soul ought to be united to a body which may be a suitable organ of sensation… before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”

More sophisticated anti-abortion arguments were advanced once the movement was already underway, notably the 1982 publication of Michael Gorman’s Abortion and the Early Church or the 1984 publication of John Jefferson Davis’ Abortion and the Evangelical. But Schaeffer’s arugments are often cited by the founders of the evangelical right as what convinced them to take up the cause against abortion.

Just as influential, however, was pressure from Republican party operatives to form a movement that could steal socially conservative voters from Democrats. As Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel have written:

[F]eminist support for abortion rights had imbued the abortion issue with associations that could be tapped to mobilize a wide array of cultural conservatives… Strategists for the Republican Party approached Falwell and encouraged him to organize evangelicals as a ‘Moral Majority’ that would promote a ‘pro-family’ politics.

Once formed, the Moral Majority and its allies mobilized evangelicals to join Catholics in the fight against abortion by advancing a novel and tendentious interpretation of the Bible.

“The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception,” Falwell declared, referencing Luke 1:39–44 and Psalm 139:13–16.

“Abortion is not birth control nor family planning. It is murder according to the Word of God… It is time that medical students as well as every other person in our United States put those words ‘from the time of conception’ back into their thinking.”

Falwell and his array of allies disseminated this interpretation of the Bible, in a top-down political campaign, to millions of evangelicals across America, with mailers sporting titles like “Scriptures for Life.”

Given that the Bible, does not, in fact, teach that life begins at conception, evangelical scholars understandably emerged to challenge these views. The evangelical pro-life movement maintained momentum by actively suppressing such scholarship. . .

In 1989, Hessel Bouma III of the evangelical Calvin College teamed with several other Christian scholars to write Christian Faith, Health, and Medical Practice. They argued that the Bible does not actually teach that life begins at conception and that the new anti-abortion advocacy was unsupported by science, concluding while abortion may be morally wrong, “We should not support a right-to-life amendment that would grant personhood to fetuses from conception… personhood should be morally and legally granted to fetuses at the end of the second trimester.”

After the publication, Bouma was tarred a “pro-abortion” professor and Calvin College received a stream of demands that he resign. He later noted that many other evangelical scholars shared his view but were afraid to speak publicly about it in light of such reactions. . .



The theology of Adventist Laymen's Foundation is unique among the so-called "Independent Ministries" preaching "Historic Adventism," in applying to the Seventh-day Adventist Church Rev. 3:16, Matt. 25:1-12, and Ezekiel 9, in particular, from the Bible; and Testimonies of Ellen G. White clearly applicable to this Church specifically, taking into account her counsel on "time and place." (The Laodicean Church; Let the Trumpet Give a Certain Sound; Shall We Be Found Wanting; The Seal of God; The Parable of the Ten Virgins, etc.) Cf. ELLEN G. WHITE'S WARNINGS TO THE CHURCH; THE LINES ARE BEING DRAWN; ELLEN G. WHITE'S CHOICE OF WORDS ΤΟ DEFINE FINAL BETRAYAL OF THE SACRED ΤRUSΤ.) The Foundation is focused on the "closing work for the Church," (not the closing work of the Church, which has repudiated the true gospel of Adventism.) Adventist Laymen's Foundation is teaching sound doctrine to a generation of Seventh-day Adventists, ill-equipped as Bible students, who are like "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. . ." (Eph. 4:14.)


The Mystery Of Iniquity

It is evident that the “mystery of iniquity” is a counterfeit of the "mystery of godliness," or in other words, some human substitution for the divine plan of salvation, in which man would take the place of Christ, and human efforts would be substituted for the divine presence in the soul. And this is exactly what the Apostle Paul declared it to be, when he foretold that there would “come a falling away” of the apostolic church, and that in this fallen church there would arise "that man of sin, . . . who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. . . . For the mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-7. Speaking to the church he further says: "Ye are the temple of God." 1 Corinthians 3: 16, 17. This prophecy plainly shows that after the "falling away" of the early church some "man" would attempt to take Christ's place in the church, which is God's temple, or dwelling place. The fulfillment of this prophecy is so clearly seen in the history of the Papacy that God's people have always recognized it whenever they have been spiritually awake. Every well-read person knows that the early Christian church fell away from its apostolic purity and corrupted its doctrines by adopting heathen customs, baptizing them with Christian names, so that the church entirely changed its face within four hundred years after the apostles' death. The "mysteries of Mithras" were substituted for the "mystery of godliness"; "the sacrifice of the mass" took the place of the sacrifice made on the cross; righteousness gained by self-torture and human effort took the place of Christ's righteousness received by simple faith in Jesus as a personal Saviour; receiving a sacramental Christ by eating the wafer took the place of an indwelling Christ received by faith in God's promises; a multitude of human mediators were substituted for Christ, the "one mediator between God and man." 1 Timothy 2: 5. We shall enter more fully into the details of this in the following chapters. (From Facts of Faith by Christian Edwardson.)