LINK TO 2017

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 2017


On February 16 the Catholic News Agency reported that Palestine had asked the Holy See to "amplify its voice" defending the status quo in Jerusalem:-

From [D]@google .com:

Palestine asks Vatican to defend Jerusalem’s status quo

*The Palestinian Foreign Affairs minister, Ryadh al Maliki, met officials of the Vatican Secretariat of State Feb. 16, asking the Holy See to amplify its voice defending the status quo in Jerusalem. “It is important to understand that the situation of Jerusalem also deals with Christians,” the minister told CNA after the meeting, during a short briefing with journalists in the State of Palestine’s recently opened embassy to the Holy See.

“We would like the Holy See [to] lead a conference of Christians in the Middle East, in order to make their voice stronger.” Minister al Maliki met with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, and then with Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican “minister for foreign affairs. Al Maliki reported that the meetings “shed light on the implication of President Trump’s decision to ‘award’ Jerusalem as capital of Israel, with the decision to transfer the US Embassy to Israel to the city.” Trump’s decision, al Maliki said, “had the effect of connecting the city with only the Jewish world, setting aside the city’s connections with Christian[s] and Muslims.” This “also jeopardizes the negotiations,” concerning peace between Israel and Palestine, “because the issue of the status of Jerusalem was put off the table,” he said. Al Maliki maintained that Palestine “wants to keep the conflict a[t] a political level,” while Trump’s decision brings the issue to “a religious level.” He said the status of the city is relevant to all religions which “recognize themselves in the city of Jerusalem.” According to al Maliki, the Holy See expressed concern during the talks, and both parties agreed that the status quo of Jerusalem should be respected, and that the future of Jerusalem “must be negotiated and not imposed." The Holy See has made several recent statements regarding Jerusalem: Pope Francis made his latest appeal to respect the status quo in Jerusalem at the end of his Dec. 6, 2017 general audience. On Dec. 10, the Holy See Press Office issued a communiqué reiterating that the Holy See maintained its position on the peculiar character of the Holy City, and stressed the importance of maintaining a compromise on the city’s status.

“Only a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians can bring a stable and lasting peace,” and “guarantee the peaceful co-existence of two states within internationally recognized borders,” the statement said. Minister Al Maliki stressed that the State of Palestine “recognized the Holy See’s efforts,” but asked the Holy See to further raise its voice. . .

He said that, after President Trump’s decision, the Israeli government has started to increase pressure on Palestinian Christians, “making their life harder,” by “imposing taxes, freezing the bank accounts and confiscating properties.” According to al Maliki, this pressure aims at “changing the sacred character of the city, and to turn the city into a Jewish one.” In particular, al Maliki is referring to a recent decision of Nir Barkat, Jerusalem’s mayor, to begin assessing municipal taxes on some church properties.

In a joint statement, the Churches of Jerusalem stressed that this decision “goes agaist the historic position throughout the centuries of the Churches and the Holy City of Jerusalem,” and that the measure “undermines the sacred character of Jerusalem, and jeopardises the Church’s ability to conduct its ministry in this land on behalf of its communities and the world-wide church.” According to al Maliki, neither Cardinal Parolin or Archbishop Gallagher objected to the idea of a conference under the Holy See’s lead. However, no decision has yet been made.*

Whether by coincidence or not, on February 23 two Trump administration officials revealed that the new US Embassy in Jerusalem will open in May 2018 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel declaring independence:-

From [D]@google .com:

US Embassy in Jerusalem to open in May — in time for Israel’s 70th anniversary

*The new US Embassy in Jerusalem will open in May 2018 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel declaring independence, two Trump administration officials said Friday. At first, the embassy will operate out of the US’s current consular premises in Arnona, south Jerusalem. . .

The State Department confirmed the timing of the move, with an official telling The Times of Israel: “We are planning to open the new US Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem in May. The Embassy opening will coincide with Israel’s 70th anniversary.” . . .

Lawyers at the State Department are looking into the legality of accepting private donations to cover some or all of the embassy costs, the administration officials said. The discussions are occurring as the new embassy clears its final bureaucratic hurdles.

In one possible scenario, the administration would solicit contributions not only from Adelson but potentially from other donors in the evangelical and American Jewish communities, too. One official said Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate and staunch supporter of Israel, had offered to pay the difference between the total cost — expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars — and what the administration is able to raise.

Under any circumstance, letting private citizens cover the costs of an official government building would mark a significant departure from historical US practice. In the Jerusalem case, it would add yet another layer of controversy to Trump’s politically charged decision to move the embassy, given Adelson’s longstanding affiliation with right-wing Israeli politics.*

The acceleration of the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem is like rubbing salt into the wounds inflicted on the Palestinians by the original decision of the Trump administration to move the embassy from Tel Aviv:

Hard-Line Supporter of Israel Offers to Pay for U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem

*Sheldon G. Adelson, one of the most hawkish supporters of Israel among American Jews, has offered to help fund the construction of a new American Embassy in Jerusalem, according to the State Department, which on Friday said it was reviewing whether it could legally accept the donation.

The total price tag to build the new embassy to replace the current one in Tel Aviv is estimated at around $500 million, according to one former State Department official. While private donors have previously paid for renovations to American ambassadors’ overseas residences, Mr. Adelson’s contribution would be likely to far surpass those gifts — and could further strain American diplomacy in the Middle East.

Before the embassy is built, the Trump administration plans to open a temporary one in Jerusalem. On Friday, it said that it was accelerating the projected opening in time to mark the 70th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel on May 14.

Even some of Mr. Adelson’s allies expressed concern that if the administration accepts his offer for the permanent embassy, it could be seen as a well-heeled financial contributor effectively privatizing — and politicizing — American foreign policy. . .

Already furious over Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Palestinian leaders have declared that they will no longer accept an American monopoly on brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

The timing of the embassy move may only amplify Palestinian outrage. For the Palestinians, Israel’s 70th anniversary also marks 70 years of the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes and became refugees during the hostilities leading up to, and the war surrounding, Israel’s creation in 1948.

“The decision of the U.S. administration to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to choose the anniversary of the Nakba of the Palestinian people for carrying out this step expresses a flagrant violation of the law,” Saeb Erekat, the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization and a veteran Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Friday. . .*

The decision to accelerate the opening of the U.S. Embassy is a further setback for the peace process:

US brings forward Jerusalem embassy opening to May

*The US expects to open its Israeli embassy in Jerusalem in May, officials have said, bringing forward Donald Trump’s contentious plan forward by at least a year.

US officials said the move was to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel. The country declared independence on 14 May 1948, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony is planned at the embassy in mid-May. . .

The decision comes despite overwhelming global opposition. It is widely feared that moving the embassy from Tel Aviv will push back already moribund efforts to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and could result in renewed violence. . .

Administration officials have suggested that a longer timeframe may have helped to keep peace efforts alive while sparing the US the sensitive issue of choosing a site for the embassy.*

What will come to light in due course about Rome's active moves behind the scenes to counteract all of the setbacks to her Jerusalem policy?



(Aggressive US and Israeli posture, Passive Arab and Iranian Response, Unhappy Papacy)

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey and Pope Francis are commiserating with each other:-

From [D]

Jerusalem to dominate Erdoğan's meeting with Pope Francis

The United States' controversial recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is expected to dominate talks between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pope Francis on the president's first trip to the Vatican on Sunday.

According to presidential sources, Erdoğan will thank Pope Francis for his stance against U.S. President Donald Trump's decision and his efforts to protect the status quo in the holy city.

The Turkish president previously expressed his appreciation to Pope Francis who strongly opposed the bitterly-contested move announced by Trump at the end of last year. The two leaders held several phone calls regarding the issue and voiced their determination to follow developments regarding Jerusalem. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

If President Erdoğan is sincere in his active concern about the Trump administration's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he appears to be isolated from major Muslim leaders:

Tapes Reveal Egyptian Leaders’ Tacit Acceptance of Jerusalem Move

As President Trump moved last month to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, an Egyptian intelligence officer quietly placed phone calls to the hosts of several influential talk shows in Egypt.

“Like all our Arab brothers,” Egypt would denounce the decision in public, the officer, Capt. Ashraf al-Kholi, told the hosts.

But strife with Israel was not in Egypt’s national interest, Captain Kholi said. He told the hosts that instead of condemning the decision, they should persuade their viewers to accept it. Palestinians, he suggested, should content themselves with the dreary West Bank town that currently houses the Palestinian Authority, Ramallah.

“How is Jerusalem different from Ramallah, really?” Captain Kholi asked repeatedly in four audio recordings of his telephone calls obtained by The New York Times.

“Exactly that,” agreed one host, Azmi Megahed, who confirmed the authenticity of the recording.

For decades, powerful Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have publicly criticized Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, while privately acquiescing to Israel’s continued occupation of territory the Palestinians claim as their homeland.

But now a de facto alliance against shared foes such as Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State militants and the Arab Spring uprisings is drawing the Arab leaders into an ever-closer collaboration with their one-time nemesis, Israel — producing especially stark juxtapositions between their posturing in public and private.

Mr. Trump’s decision broke with a central premise of 50 years of American-sponsored peace talks, defied decades of Arab demands that East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state, and stoked fears of a violent backlash across the Middle East.

Arab governments, mindful of the popular sympathy for the Palestinian cause, rushed to publicly condemn it.

Egyptian state media reported that President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had personally protested to Mr. Trump. Egyptian religious leaders close to the government refused to meet with Vice President Mike Pence, and Egypt submitted a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding a reversal of Mr. Trump’s decision. (The United States vetoed the resolution, although the General Assembly adopted a similar one, over American objections, days later.)

King Salman of Saudi Arabia, arguably the most influential Arab state, also publicly denounced Mr. Trump’s decision.

At the same time, though, the kingdom had already quietly signaled its acquiescence or even tacit approval of the Israeli claim to Jerusalem. Days before Mr. Trump’s announcement, the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, privately urged the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to accept a radically curtailed vision of statehood without a capital in East Jerusalem, according to Palestinian, Arab and European officials who have heard Mr. Abbas’s version of events.

Saudi Arabia publicly disputed those reports.

The hosts Captain Kholi called all heeded his advice, and most other voices in the state-owned and pro-government news media across the Arab world were also strikingly muted, even unemotional, about the status of Jerusalem. Such a response would have been all but unthinkable even a decade ago, much less during the period between 1948 and 1973, when Egypt and its Arab allies fought three wars against Israel.

Shibley Telhami, a scholar of the region at the University of Maryland and the Brookings Institution, called the Arab states’ acceptance of the decision “transformational.”

“I don’t think it would have happened a decade ago, because Arab leaders would have made clear they wouldn’t live with it,” he said. Instead, he said, preoccupied by concerns about their own stability, the Arab leaders signaled that — while they may not like the decision — they “will find a way to work with it,” and “with a White House that is prepared to break with what had been taboos in American foreign policy.” . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

This revelation by the New York Times of apparent acquiescence by the Arab leaders to Israel's claim, backed by the United States' government, to sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem is startling! It is strange how quiet Muslim extremists have been since their initial expressions of outrage over the Trump administration action in December, 2017. Hamas initially called for a new Intifada, but has taken no action itself. Turkey and Iran have been major backers of Hamas. As reported above, Turkey is still expressing concern. There are no current reports of statements or action by Iran over the U.S. Jerusalem embassy move. One cannot help but wonder whether the crazy unpredictability of Donald Trump and his Christian Zionist supporters in the U.S. has spooked opponents of the embassy move. This quotation is from the above New York Times article: "We, like all our Arab brothers, are denouncing this matter,” Captain Kholi continued. But, he added, “After that, this thing will become a reality. Palestinians can’t resist and we don’t want to go to war. . ."

It is worthy of note that Israel is a nuclear power, as of course is the USA - a frightening alliance!

The extreme language used by U.S. Vice President Pence when he addressed the Israeli parliament on January 22, 2018 is alarming:

Mike Pence Says U.S. Embassy Will Open in Jerusalem Next Year

In his speech to the Parliament, Mr. Pence spoke in glowing terms of the long alliance between the United States and Israel, framing it as part of an epic battle.

“We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny,” Mr. Pence said.

Mr. Pence, an evangelical Christian, dotted his address with biblical references and spoke of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem in historical and religious terms. . .

Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestinians, said that Mr. Pence’s “messianic discourse” was “a gift to extremists.”

“His message to the rest of the world is clear: violate international law & resolutions and the US will reward you,” he said, according to his office’s Twitter account. . .

Mr. Pence has spoken of protecting Christian minorities in the Middle East, but he has been widely shunned by those same Christians for his embrace of the Israeli position on Jerusalem.

No Arab Christian leaders have agreed to meet with him during his visit, and he is not scheduled to visit Christian holy sites like the city of Nazareth, the West Bank town of Bethlehem or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where tradition holds that Jesus was crucified. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Pence says U.S. Embassy to make Jerusalem move next year on faster timetable

Speaking in Israel’s parliament, or Knesset, Pence looked notably more at ease than during earlier meetings in Egypt and Jordan, where he has been forced to defend the controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He voiced his wholehearted support for Israel.

“Jerusalem is Israel’s capital — and, as such, President Trump has directed the State Department to immediately begin preparations to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” Pence said to applause. “In the weeks ahead, our administration will advance its plan to open the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem — and that United States embassy will open before the end of next year.” . . .

Pence, an evangelical Christian, was a driving force behind the administration’s decision on Jerusalem and flanked Trump as he made the announcement. In his own past statements, he has gone further than Trump, describing Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital.

The messianic discourse of Pence is a gift to extremists and has proven that the U.S. administration is part of the problem rather than the solution,” said the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. “His message to the rest of the world is clear: Violate international law and resolutions, and the U.S. will reward you,” he said. . .

During a news conference with Abbas on Monday, the E.U.’s chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, told reporters that the 28-member bloc is committed to a two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital. Abbas is also pressing for recognition. Slovenia has submitted a draft resolution to its parliament on the recognition of a Palestinian state, according to Rahim al-Farra, the Palestinian Ambassador to the E.U.

Hanan Ashrawi, one of the longtime Palestinian negotiators, said that billing Pence’s visit to the region as support for the peace process was “ridiculous.”

“The American side cannot talk about the peace process after it undermined it by declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” Ashrawi told the official Voice of Palestine radio station Monday. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The E.U. position is worthy of close watching. This has the potential to be the Vatican's avenue to stand up to the Trump Administration and exert pressure on Israel.

U.S. Embassy in Israel to move to Jerusalem by end of 2019: Pence

Pence, who visited Egypt and Jordan before traveling to Israel, said that with its policy shift on Jerusalem, “the United States has chosen fact over fiction - and fact is the only true foundation for a just and lasting peace”.

It was the highest-ranking visit by a U.S. official to the region since Trump’s Jerusalem declaration and gave Pence and Netanyahu an opportunity to highlight their own warm relationship for a conservative Christian American community that serves as a power base for the U.S. administration.

Pence, an evangelical Christian, drew parallels between Jewish history dating back to biblical times and the European pilgrims who founded the United States. He was greeted with ovations by Israeli legislators throughout his speech.

Noting that Israel will in May mark 70 years since its founding - in a war Palestinians mourn as a catastrophe - Pence switched to Hebrew to recite a Jewish prayer of thanksgiving. (Underscored emphasis added.)

US to open Jerusalem embassy sooner than expected, says Pence

Speaking during a two-day visit, Pence said Donald Trump had “righted a 70-year wrong” by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. . .

In a speech filled with biblical references, Pence, an evangelical Christian, said America stood with Israel “because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, your fight is our fight”. . .

The chairman of the Joint Arab List alliance, Ayman Odeh, had before [said] of the speech that his group would boycott it, saying Pence was a “dangerous man with a messianic vision that includes the destruction of the entire region”. . .

While Pence spoke in Israel on Monday, Abbas was in Brussels where the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, assured him that the EU supported a solution in which two states share Jerusalem.

Abbas urged EU member nations to recognise Palestine’s statehood immediately.

In his speech, Pence called for the Palestinian leadership “to return to the table” and said the US would support a two-state solution, but only if both sides supported it.

The extreme statements made by Vice-President Pence confirm that he is a right-wing Christian Zionist. They also confirm the mad apocalypticism associated with the right-wing evangelical movement in the USA. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat was precisely on point in describing Pence’s speech as a “messianic discourse;” which is consistent with reports describing the menacing ideology of the Evangelical Christian Right, frantically applauded by their counterparts in Israel. A troubling question is whether they can be relied on to draw back from provoking the apocalyptic wars that they crave? Time will tell.

It should never be overlooked that Rome's regional power plays are complex, and sometimes seem to be in conflict with each other. Such is the case between her relentless pursuit of a religio-political presence in Jerusalem versus her manipulation of propaganda and politics in the United States. In America she created and advanced the Roman Catholic-White Evangelical alliance which has almost completed the destruction of liberal democracy and ushered in a theocratic dictatorship. However, this catapulted into power the very Christian Zionist Evangelicals who are enabling the Israeli government to block the papal policy on Jerusalem. Without a knowledge and acceptance of the relevant Bible prophecies (Dan. 11:45; Isa. 14:13-14) it would seem to be impossible for Rome to achieve her objective for Jerusalem. Nevertheless, Zionism must give way to the fulfillment of these prophecies which usher in the final "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation," at which time "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (Dan. 12:1.)


“When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Paul Weyrich



Trump gets mixed reviews from March for Life antiabortion protesters

Thousands of activists at the annual March for Life enjoyed a rare display of political firepower Friday, with addresses by the president, vice president and House speaker all celebrating gains the antiabortion movement has made under Donald Trump. But the movement’s elevated status comes at the price of much internal debate.

“Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life,” Trump said in the White House Rose Garden, in a speech that was broadcast to the marchers gathered near the Washington Monument.

The march — which typically draws busloads of Catholic school students, a large contingent of evangelical Christians and poster-toting protesters of many persuasions — falls each year around the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a legal right to abortion, and it intends to pressure Congress and the White House to limit legal access to the procedure.

Trump said he was “really proud to be the first president to stand with you here at the White House”; Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush addressed the march by telephone when they were in office. . .

Trump, however, touted his administration’s antiabortion policies, including new orders on Thursday and Friday establishing an office to support medical professionals who do not want to perform abortions and making it easier for states to direct funding away from Planned Parenthood. . .

Though Trump said Friday that “Americans are more and more pro-life; you see that all the time,” views on abortion have remained quite steady for decades. Since the mid-1990s, about half of citizens, give or take a few percentage points, have said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40-odd percent have said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Last year, the March for Life fell just days after Trump’s inauguration, and the tone was ebullient. Marchers believed they were heralding an administration that would prioritize limiting abortion. Mancini said then that she had four goals for policy in the president’s first year in office: appointing an apparently antiabortion Supreme Court justice, defunding Planned Parenthood, codifying the annual Hyde Amendment that restricts federal money from funding abortions and passing a law banning abortion in many cases after 20 weeks.

A year later, only the first of those four goals has been accomplished.


The great expectations of progress for the anti-abortion movement under a Donald Trump presidency indicates why Roman Catholics and white Evangelicals supported his presidential candidacy, and continue to support him in spite of his gross deficiencies of character and glaring unfitness for the office. Opposition to abortion is the cement that binds Catholics and white Evangelicals together in the political arena:

Trump and the Demise of the Catholic Single-Issue Voter (Petra Turner)

Donald Trump’s emergence as the Republicans’ presumptive nominee has profound consequences for those Catholics who have aligned their vote with socially conservative concerns, especially the issues of gay marriage and abortion. These Catholics have also traditionally had a certain devotion to the pope. With Trump, however, they are faced with a candidate who, while ostensibly adhering to socially conservative positions, has no specific agenda to effect the change conservative Catholics desire. Add this to the recent spat between Trump and Pope Francis over immigration, and conservative Catholics have a difficult choice before them come November.

A Brief History

In order to understand this conundrum, it is important to understand that since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-life position has served as the primary issue that has motivated many socially conservative Christians to vote. In 1968 the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) Family Life Bureau organized the National Right to Life Committee. Formally incorporated as an independent organization in 1973, the NRLC sought to appeal beyond its Catholic membership, and to work at the local and national levels on behalf of the unborn right to life. In the 1970s, the Christian Right, made up primarily of white evangelical Protestants, began mobilizing, and by the end of the decade had turned its focus to the abortion issue, as well. The two movements, Catholic and evangelical, did not really begin to work together until the 1980s.

The emergence of the pro-life cause did make abortion a key issue in the 1980 presidential election, however. Catholics, who had in the 1950s and 60s largely voted for Democrats, began a move toward the Republicans in the 1970s, and at the same time southern evangelical Protestants began to drift away from the Democrats, as well. The adoption of a pro-life position in the 1980 Republican platform cemented the political allegiances of a large number of socially conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants. (Underscored emphasis added.)


This "pro-life position" enabled the publication Christian Today to confidently predict the [white] Evangelical vote in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton never had a chance with this bloc of voters:

Abortion: How it became the issue that will sink Clinton for evangelicals

Evangelicals – and white evangelicals in particular – are planning to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in droves. Both candidates suffer from low approval and 'likeability' ratings and many evangelicals are planning to abstain or vote for a third candidate as a protest. But in Clinton's case, the issue that makes her absolutely unelectable is that she is pro-choice – in favour of a woman's more or less unrestricted right to choose to abort her baby.

For most US evangelicals and Roman Catholics, life begins at conception. This is not a view evangelicals have always held – the Southern Baptist Convention in 1971 called for legislation to allow abortion under conditions such as rape, incest, severe foetal deformity, or damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother. It later expressed regret for its stance. After the crucial Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 that legalised abortion, even such a doughty conservative as Walter Criswell welcomed it, saying: "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," he said, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."

Neither is it the case that abortion has always been a political dealbreaker for evangelicals, or decided along party lines. Republican president Ronald Reagan was personally pro-life but when he was governor of California he signed into law the Therapeutic Abortion Act to reduce the number of back-street abortions.

But abortion became a key political battleground with the rise of the religious right and its ideological identification with the Republican party. And according to Randall Balmer, a Columbia University professor and author of Thy Kingdom Come, this was a deliberate policy rather than a spontaneous revulsion at the consequences of Roe v Wade.

In his book, subtitled An Evangelical's Lament, Balmer says most evangelical leaders did not respond to Roe v Wade. He recalls a meeting at which one of the founders of the Moral Majority movement, Paul Weyrich, spoke animatedly about the formation of the Religious Right in the late 1970s. It came about, he said, as a result of efforts by Jimmy Carter to deny segregationist colleges tax-exempt status. Weyrich, corroborated by others, told Balmer conservatives held a conference call to discuss their strategy and find a unifying issue. "Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, 'How about abortion?' And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right," says Balmer.

There are two issues here. One is whether abortion was cynically used by the right as a way of getting evangelical Christians onside in a struggle for political influence. On Balmer's evidence, it was.

But the other issue is about the thing itself. Whatever the origins of the abortion lobby, most evangelicals have been convinced by the argument that life begins at conception and that abortion is, to one degree or another, profoundly wrong. This is a line argued passionately by campaigners such as Francis Schaeffer, Harold Brown and C Everett Koop in the 1970s, and particularly in Koop's bombshell book Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979). Their campaigns, and Koop's book in particular, helped persuade a generation of evangelicals that abortion is profoundly evil – and they haven't changed their minds. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

From the above history it is established out of the mouth of the mastermind responsible for the formation of the Religious Right alliance of Catholics and Evangelicals that what brought the leadership together was not abortion, but the threat of governmental action against segregationist colleges. This could not be openly acknowledged, so they had to find some other unifying issue. It can reasonably be opined that this was because a movement requires followers as well as leaders. The genius of choosing abortion as that unifying issue is demonstrated by the end result described in the last paragraph above.

The cynical use of abortion "by the right as a way of getting evangelical Christians onside in a struggle for political influence" is brought into glaring relief by the following report:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism. . .

So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans. . . (Underscored emphasis added) [The entire article is highly educational, and provides insight into continuing current events bearing on the fulfillment of prophecy.]

It should be self-evident that God does not work through lies and deceptions, or racial prejudice. The foregoing lengthy history recounts how the political union of Catholics and Protestants was achieved by a hypocritical use of the abortion issue. Arguably of greater significance was and is the misapplication of Bible texts to support the anti-abortion crusade. It is a crusade which embraces deadly error packaged to ensnare minds genuinely concerned about widespread moral degeneration. Here it is worthy of note that just as hypocrisy was involved in the political movement, it is particularly deep-seated in the Church of Rome.


The term "pro-life" is deceptive, conjuring up in the minds of sensitive men and women a living human being in the womb of a woman. Nevertheless, upon close examination it is also revealing. In reality the primary meaning of "life" in this context is not the cluster of living cells changing and developing in the woman's womb. It is the unbiblical dogma of an immortal soul, with the time of "ensoulment" determining when life begins. (Cf. Immortality? (SDA;) The origins of the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” (Non-denominational. N.B. Citation does not imply support for any theology on the hyperlinked website contrary to the theology of From the last citations, it is obvious that belief in the immortality of the soul is not unique to Roman Catholicism. In fact, there is "almost universal adherence to the immortality of the soul within contemporary Christendom" (The immortality of the soul: Could Christianity survive without it? (Part 1 of 2).) It has never been a part of Seventh-day Adventist theology; and happily there still remain some other Protestant denominations which have resisted this false theology.) Also, the concept of "ensoulment" is not unique to Roman Catholicism (Cf. The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment, by two Anglican essayists.) All of this emphasizes the mountain of false theology that confronts those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul. It is in this environment that the abortion controversy puts the immortality of the soul to the front and center of the "pro-life" movement. The activism of the Roman Catholic Church, joined in recent decades by Protestant Evangelicals, threatens to force acceptance of this false doctrine by all who do not have the fortitude to resist the word of man in opposition to the Word of God. The contest between the Word of God and the dictates of man is what the final battle of Armageddon is all about, and the conflict is now building towards its climax as the unclean spirits of Rev. 16:13-14 are busily driving the world towards the final climactic confrontation of Rev. 17:8, 11-14. The choice for each of us is between the Truth of God and the lies and deceptions of spirits of devils, and it determines whether we receive the Seal of God or the Mark of the Beast, which Beast is the Roman Catholic Church. It is therefore of profound significance that while theories of "ensoulment" cross denominational boundaries, it is the Church of Rome that has made it the centerpiece of its anti-abortion crusade. Therefore the importance of examining the theological basis cannot be exaggerated:


Roman Catholic Teaching on Abortion

It seems to be almost universally assumed in public debate that the Roman Catholic position on abortion has always been clear, straightforward, and historically consistent. It is indeed true that the Roman Church has always condemned the vast majority of abortions, but this condemnation has over the years been made with greatly differing force, on the basis of a variety of reasons, and with a changing list of exceptions and qualifications. Catholic theologians have disputed at great length about the moral implications of Christianity, but many of their arguments, which have been highly influential in determining the development of the Church’s official doctrine, would probably now seem very questionable to many of those who nevertheless ascribe great authority to the current official position. This position is that the fetus is to be treated as a human person from the “first instant” of conception, and that abortion is therefore tantamount to homicide, excusable only in cases where it is an indirect effect of medical intervention whose direct intention is to save the mother’s life, as in the case of the removal of a Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, or the removal of a cancerous uterus. We shall see that it is far from clear whether modern Roman Catholics should feel themselves committed to endorsing such a doctrine.

Much of the historical Christian debate was centred around the interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25, [Cf. The Bible passage Exodus 21:22-25] the only passage of obvious relevance in the Old Testament. In the Revised Standard Version this is translated as follows:

22 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. It is clear from the context that “harm” here means harm to the woman, but in the influential Greek Septuagint version, this passage was mistranslated to state that “you shall give life for life” not only where the mother dies, but also where a “formed” fetus dies (that is, a fetus sufficiently developed to have a recognisably human form). Over the centuries most prominent moral theologians (e.g. Jerome, Augustine, Gratian, Lombard, Aquinas, Sanchez, Liguori) accordingly drew a distinction between the abortion of an early (“unformed”) and of a late fetus, usually taking only the latter, at most, to be equivalent to homicide, on the grounds that only a “formed” fetus could be “ensouled”. The Septuagint mistranslation may have been indirectly influenced by the Aristotelian theory of progressive ensoulment, which was itself to have a significant independent impact on scholastic thought (principally through Aquinas) after Aristotle’s major biological writings had been translated into Latin near the beginning of the thirteenth century. According to Aristotle the fetus is initially infused with a nutritive or vegetative soul, then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally manifests a rational or human soul at the (misleadingly named) stage of “animation”, occurring after about 40 days of gestation in the case of males, and 80 to 90 days in the case of females. Like the Exodus passage from the Septuagint, this theory was understood to imply that early abortion is not homicide, since it does not involve the killing of a being with a human soul.

None of this should be taken to suggest that the Church condoned early abortion, except in a small number of very special cases. For early abortion was indeed condemned, sometimes as strongly as late abortion, but not on the grounds that it was tantamount to homicide. The usual complaint was instead that it was “contrary to nature”, so that early abortion would thus be on the same level as the supposedly fairly serious sin of contraception. Most took the two to be roughly equivalent, though Sanchez, for example, thought contraception to be the more unequivocally evil, because of its association with sexual pleasure, whereas early abortion he took to be sometimes permissible. It was not until after the Second Vatican Council in 1965 that the modern distinction was clearly drawn, with abortion at any stage, but not contraception, being declared a “horrible crime”.

The distinction between early and late abortion seems to have lost favour for two principal reasons. First, medical advances began to suggest that the development of the fetus was gradual from conception onwards, with no sharp discontinuity to mark the supposed event of ensoulment. The Medico-Legal Questions (1621) of Paolo Zacchia was particularly influential in thus undermining the Aristotelian orthodoxy in medical circles (and, much later, amongst theologians), though Zacchia himself retained the idea that late abortion was significantly more serious than early abortion. The second, and theologically more crucial, objection to progressive ensoulment came in the nineteenth century from the increasingly popular cult of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: the doctrine (with no biblical foundation) that Jesus’ mother was herself conceived without sin. The point here was that the feast of the Immaculate Conception had been finally settled in the previous century as 8th December, exactly nine months prior to the feast of her birth on 8th September. This looked quite illogical unless Mary’s sinless rational soul had come into being at the time of her physical conception, and accordingly, when Pius IX in 1854 “infallibly” proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of the church, he stated that Mary had been free from sin “in the first instant of her conception”. Consistently, it was this same Pope who, in 1869, finally gave implicit official endorsement to the doctrine of immediate animation, by extending the ultimate punishment of excommunication to all abortions, with no distinction between early and late.

From all this it can be seen that the Roman Catholic position on abortion has developed over a long period subject to many influences, including the interpretation and (mis-) translation of biblical texts, prominent philosophical theories, the development of biological science, many moral judgements about related issues such as contraception and sexual behaviour, and, not least, consistency with theological doctrines. A strict Roman Catholic may be confident that the seal of Papal Infallibility on the Immaculate Conception is sufficient to guarantee the doctrine of immediate animation, and therefore to demonstrate that all abortion is homicide. But for any Christian who has no such confidence, and in particular, for one who denies the traditional belief in the wrongness of contraception and the associated negative attitude to sex, it is far from clear that the Church’s historical debate on abortion provides any convincing evidence for the claim that Christian principles require opposition to abortion in virtually all cases, let alone for the extreme Roman Catholic view that all abortion is homicide. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Notice in the above historical record that "ensoulment" is the constant in deciding whether or not an abortion is homicide. Although early abortion was condemned by Rome as "contrary to nature," it was not regarded as homicide, "since it does not involve the killing of a being with a human soul." Of great significance is the central contribution of philosophy to the developing Roman Catholic theological position. Consider the contribution of Aristotle:

"According to Aristotle the fetus is initially infused with a nutritive or vegetative soul, then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally manifests a rational or human soul . . ."

Note two passages from the essay:

(1) "First, medical advances began to suggest that the development of the fetus was gradual from conception onwards, with no sharp discontinuity to mark the supposed event of ensoulment."

(2) "The second, and theologically more crucial, objection to progressive ensoulment came in the nineteenth century from the increasingly popular cult of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: the doctrine (with no biblical foundation) that Jesus’ mother was herself conceived without sin."


The facts stated in the two passages above reveal the arbitrary setting of spurious feast dates clashing with the theory of progressive ensoulment, and leading to the promulgation of the blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, absolutely without biblical foundation (Cf. Four Great Marian Dogmas.) How easily are those ensnared who abhor blasphemous Roman Catholic dogmas and yet are either active proponents of the anti-abortion movement or even simply assent to what it advocates!

The role of dogma in Rome's opposition to abortion is brought into sharp relief in the light of Pope Pius IX's biography:

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)

Pope Pius IX was also highly involved in reforming church doctrine. His long time devotion to Mary led to the establishment of the dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary on 8 December 1854. On 8 December 1869, Pope Pius IX opened the Vatican Counsel in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome. Before the Counsel ended 8 July 1870, Pope Pius IX established the dogma of "papal infallibility,” which states that when speaking in terms of Church doctrine, the Pope speaks the truth with certainty.

Pope Pius IX challenged the canonical tradition about the beginning of ensouled life set by Pope Gregory XIV in 1591. He believed that while it may not be known when ensoulment occurs, there was the possibility that it happens at conception. Believing it was morally safer to follow this conclusion, he thought all life should be protected from the start of conception. In 1869 he removed the labels of “animated” fetus and “unanimated” fetus and concluded that abortions at any point of gestation were punishable by excommunication. While excommunication was used to punish those who procured abortions, it was not extended to those who used contraception.

Pope Pius IX, commonly known as Pio Nono, died on 7 February 1878. His was the longest papacy in the history of the Catholic Church, and Pope Pius IX is often considered one of the greatest popes to have ever lived. His dogma of Immaculate Conception, Vatican I, and papal infallibility were some of his most notable accomplishments. His efforts in punishing those that procured abortions at any time of gestation prevailed within the Catholic Church; excommunication for abortion became Canon Law in 1917, and later revised in 1983. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Although the saying of Sir Walter Scott, "O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!" doesn't perfectly fit the history of the "infallible" papal dogma of the Immaculate Conception (as well as the three other Marian dogmas,) it is a history of the papacy working itself into an indefensible corner with propositions to which it must rigidly adhere against all reason, and above all against the Bible. Because of the Roman Catholic Church's political power and influence, the general populace of the United States is being forced to submit to the central deadly error of the Immortality of the Soul as well as related irrational and blasphemous teachings. The following article gets to the heart of Rome's obstinacy in its anti-abortion crusade. The author suggests that the Roman Catholic Church is destroying itself; but this could not be further from the reality, based on Bible prophecy and current events:

Catholic Doctrine and Reproductive Health WHY THE CHURCH CAN’T CHANGE

The anti-abortion movement in the United States was created in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade in 1973, which legalized abortion. However, it really owes its origin to a group of men in Rome 103 years earlier. This was 1870, the year of Vatican Council I, a conclave of great importance in recent church history. Why is this so?

Hans Küng, the renowned Swiss Catholic theologian, best summed up the problem accounting for its creation when he said, “It is not possible to solve the problem of contraception until we solve the problem of infallibility.” In his book, How the Pope Became Infallible, Catholic historian Bernhard Hasler describes in great detail what Küng meant: For more than a millennium, the Vatican had possessed temporal power that ensured its survival. With the loss of the Papal States in 1870, it appeared all but certain that a strong papacy would simply disappear. The Vatican urgently needed a new source of power.

A group of conservative and influential leaders, including Pope Pius IX, came up with a brilliant idea for a new source: an infallible pope. What is infallibility? According to Catholic dogma, when the pope formulates a doctrine, he is simply transmitting this dogma on God’s behalf. Therefore, the teaching cannot possibly be in error.

Roman Catholics could be certain that the teachings of the pope and of God were one and the same, and, if strictly followed, one’s entrance into heaven was guaranteed. Communicants found this concept very attractive and were eager to behave in any manner required of them. Such an arrangement placed enormous control over individuals into the hands of the Vatican, extending across national borders and even to the other side of the world. It could no longer control the laity by means of its governance, as it had in the Papal States which would later become Italy. But the Holy See could exercise control directly by adopting a policy of psychological coercion founded on a new doctrine—that of papal infallibility.

Protection at all Costs

Papal infallibility was a brilliant concept—and it worked for a century. But at its introduction in 1870, the Catholic intelligentsia recognized that, at some point in the future, this principle would lead to the self-destruction of the institution. Times were certain to change and in unpredictable ways, but the Church would be locked on an inexorable course—teachings that could not be changed without destroying the principle of infallibility itself. These distinguished scholars foresaw that one day, encumbered by its unchangeable teachings, the Church would find itself down a blind alley from which there would be no escape and faced with inevitable self-destruction as a result of a grave loss of credibility. The blind alley turned out to be the issue of birth control— contraception and abortion.

Since the 1968 adoption of the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae, there has been a hemorrhage in the Church’s credibility. Humanae Vitae ruled out any change of the Church’s position on birth control for all time. . .

The Threats of Legalized Birth Control and Abortion

In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to 1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. Pope Paul did not act immediately. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the man who is now [was] Pope John Paul II. In this report he stated:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved. (Underscored emphasis added.)

In this and other texts, the pope took the position that a change on the birth control issue would destroy the principle of papal infallibility, and that infallibility was the fundamental principle of the Church upon which all else rests. A change on birth control would immediately raise questions about other possible errors popes have made in matters of divorce, homosexuality, confession, parochial schooling, etc. that are fundamental to Roman Catholicism. The security and survival of the papacy itself is on the line. The Church insists on being the sole arbiter of what is moral. Civil law legalizes contraception and abortion. Governments are thereby challenging the prerogative of the pope to be the ultimate authority on matters of morality. Most Americans look to democratic process to determine morality. In the simplest analysis, the Church cannot coexist with such an arrangement, which in its view, threatens its very survival as a world political power. For this reason, the Vatican was forced to interfere in the democratic process in the United States by lobbying for the passage of numerous anti­abortion laws designed to protect its interests. There is a plethora of documentation to support these findings, relating mainly to Vatican and U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ sources, some of which I will discuss later. Only legal abortion and legal family planning threaten the Church. It has shown very little interest in illegal abortion. For example, in Latin America, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are two or three times as high as those seen in the United States. However, abortion is essentially ignored by the bishops there.

Political Action

. . . Even before the work of the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control was completed in 1966, it was widely recognized in the Vatican that the Church faced a grave problem regarding birth control, including abortion. Vatican Council II, which ended in 1966, set the stage for the bishops to address this problem. One of the outcomes of this Council was the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Part two of the Constitution was titled, “Some Problems of Special Urgency.” In his book, Catholic Bishops in American Politics, published by the Princeton University Press in 1991, T.A. Byrnes observes, “This list of problems to which the Church was to turn its attention reads like a blueprint of the American hierarchy’s political agenda in the 1970s and 1980s.” The first was abortion:

God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life—a ministry which must be fulfilled in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest of care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.

The Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, another Vatican Council II document, created the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), which was organized according to universal church law. It was created to serve as a political instrument of the Vatican. During a meeting of the American hierarchy in November 1966, the bishops formally established the NCCB as their official collective body and established the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) as their administrative arm and secretariat.

From the very beginning, there has been a common and correct perception that the Catholic hierarchy was primarily an anti-abortion political lobby. Byrnes summarizes his study of the history of Catholic bishops in American politics by saying:

Before I end, I want to address one final matter, namely the unique position that abortion occupies on the Catholic hierarchy’s public policy agenda. Abortion is not simply one issue among many for the bishops. It is rather the bedrock, non- negotiable starting point from which the rest of their agenda has developed. The bishops’ positions on other issues have led to political action and political controversy but abortion, throughout the period I have examined, has been a consistently central feature of the Catholic hierarchy’s participation in American politics. (Underscored emphasis added.) (Cf. How the Vatican Almost Embraced Birth Control.)

The conclusion of the matter is that the anti-abortion movement is not concerned with morality, or with biblical prohibition, or with the preservation of human life, but with the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Most ominously, it is a satanic ruse to seduce the unsuspecting into acceptance of the doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul.


The great Pope (from the Roman Catholic point of view) Leo XIII was absolutely clear in his opposition to democracy. He also exhibited an intense interest in American democracy and how it could be shaped by the Church of Rome to her purpose. Over a century later the representative democracy of the United States is riddled like Swiss cheese by the inroads of Roman Catholic teachings (Social Doctrine.) A very prominent principle of the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine is Subsidiarity. It is clearly central to a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures of America:-

Inside the Conservative Push for States to Amend the Constitution

Taking advantage of almost a decade of political victories in state legislatures across the country, conservative advocacy groups are quietly marshaling support for an event unprecedented in the nation’s history: a convention of the 50 states, summoned to consider amending the Constitution.

The groups are an amalgam of free-market, low-tax and small-government proponents, often funded by corporations and deeply conservative supporters like the billionaire Koch brothers and Donors Trust, whose contributors are mostly anonymous. They want an amendment to require a balanced federal budget, an idea many conservatives have embraced, many economists disdain and Congress has failed to endorse for decades.

But as the groups near their goal, critics and some skeptical constitutional scholars are warning that holding an amendment-writing meeting with no historical parallel and no written rules could open a Pandora’s box of constitutional mischief.

The process, which is playing out largely beyond public notice, rests on a clause in Article 5 of the Constitution that allows the states to sidestep Congress and draft their own constitutional amendments whenever two-thirds of their legislatures demand it.

That will by no means be easy. Even if the two-thirds threshold were reached, a convention would probably face a court battle over whether the legislatures’ calls for a convention were sufficiently similar. And as with any amendment that Congress proposes, state-written amendments would need approval by three-quarters of the states — either by their legislatures or by state conventions — to take effect.

But as Republicans have surged to control of state legislatures and moved sharply rightward during the Obama years, what was once a pet project of the party’s fringe has become a proposal with a plausible chance of success. Some of the former Republican presidential candidates, including comparative moderates like John Kasich and Jeb Bush, have endorsed a state amendment convention. . . (Underlined emphasis added)

These are extraordinary times as attested by this "event unprecedented in the nation’s history." That the groups pushing for action by the States are marshaling support quietly is consistent with the modus operandi of those who are working insidiously to dismantle the US Constitution. The "amalgam" of groups at work are predominantly, if not exclusively, the Religious Right alliance which is determined to turn the United States into a Theocracy:

Will Corporations, The Christian Right, and the Tea Party Get to Rewrite the Constitution?

Former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), the Tea Party icon who helped bring Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) into the Senate, was ousted after four years as president of the Heritage Foundation in May 2017. [Ref. 1] DeMint had thought he would have more influence on policy from his perch at Heritage than he had in the Senate. But as it turned out, there was not only life after Heritage, but the possibility of greater influence still. “I feel like the Lord knows what He’s doing,” DeMint told broadcaster Glenn Beck, because now “I’m in a place where I can make a much bigger difference.”

The place where DeMint could make a bigger difference than as senator or head of the 800-pound gorilla of right-wing think tanks is Convention of States, a group mobilizing an effort to rewrite the U.S. Constitution through a set of amendments that would drastically limit the taxation, regulatory and oversight powers of the federal government and restructure our constitutional order into one focused on states’ rights. DeMint joined the group as a “senior advisor” and sees the project as a new Tea Party mission that’s “much bigger than the Tea Party.” [Ref. 2]

Convention of States is a political alliance between elements of the anti-regulatory Corporate Right and the Christian Right, organizing toward a constitutional convention that would destroy the underpinnings of Great Society projects like Medicare and food stamps, and New Deal programs like Social Security. They’re also turning their sights on the progressive gains from the turn of the 20th Century, such as the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to collect income taxes and which they believe started the disastrous course toward big government.

This effort, like the older, more focused drive for a convention to advance a balanced budget amendment, is promoted in part by the libertarian Koch brothers’ network—often called the “dark money ATM of the Right”—and the right-wing organizations they fund [Ref. 3,] like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) [Ref. 4.] And it draws support from Christian Right figures rooted in Reconstructionist theology that believes God reserves tasks like education or caring for the poor for churches and families, not government [Ref. 5.]

Americans who feared the election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in Congress would undermine Obama-era victories on healthcare and LGBTQ equality were right, of course. But that’s the tip of the iceberg. These battles represent a tiny piece of the Right’s long-term political vision of dismantling the federal government.

Political Research Associates published significant work in 2013 and 2014 by Frederick Clarkson, Rachel Tabachnick and Frank Cocozzelli on right-wing approaches to limiting or eroding the power of the federal government. These included various proposals for interstate compacts and different convention proposals. Also covered were threats of secession and civil war, and arguments for nullification—the theory, repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, that states can ignore or defy federal laws or court rulings they deem unconstitutional. Some segregationists championed nullification as a response to Brown v. Board of Education and some on the Right still call for a nullification strategy to resist developments on immigration, abortion rights, and marriage equality. All this is part of the political and religious context in which the rise of Convention of States is happening. And it has gone profoundly underreported.

Article V outlines two approaches for altering the Constitution. Every constitutional amendment to date has followed the first: Congress proposes an amendment with a two-thirds vote of both houses; it becomes part of the Constitution if it is ratified by three-quarters of the states. The second approach requires Congress to call a “convention for proposing amendments” when two-thirds of states apply for one via their state legislatures. Any proposed amendments would also require approval by three-quarters of the states before ratification.

Organizers of a convention focused on a balanced budget amendment have 27 of the 34 states required and have identified nine targets to take them toward their goal, which they hope to reach by July 4, 2018. The broader anti-federal-government Convention of States proposal has been approved by legislatures in 12 states; in nine more, a call passed one house of the legislature. According to Convention of States, more than 20 states considered legislation in 2017. (Underlined emphasis added.)

The outlook for America's Representative Democracy is bleak. Students of Bible prophecy can see the handwriting on the wall, figuratively speaking; but even in the secular world the alarm is being sounded on every side that the US Constitution as we know it is at risk:

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and possibly to shrink federal authority in other, often unspecified, ways. Proponents of these resolutions claim that 28 of the 34 states required to call a constitutional convention already have passed such resolutions.

State lawmakers considering such resolutions should be skeptical of claims being made by groups promoting the resolutions (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC) that states could control the actions or outcomes of a constitutional convention. A convention likely would be extremely contentious and highly politicized, and its results impossible to predict.

A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. For instance, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2014, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?” Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.

Such serious concerns are justified, for several reasons:

A convention could write its own rules. The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. . .

A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups. The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. . .

A convention could choose a new ratification process. The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. . .

No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention. The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. . .

Nowhere in any of the reports about the objective of the Balanced Budget Amendment is Subsidiarity specifically mentioned; but it is at the heart of the focus on the Federal government:


With the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency comes the public emergence of the subsidiarity principle, a doctrine previously familiar primarily to Catholic social theorists and observers of the European Union. Fundamentally and explicitly intertwined with Bush's "compassionate conservative" vision, subsidiarity calls for social problems to be addressed from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Literally meaning "to 'seat' ('sid') a service down ('sub') as close to the need for that service as is feasible," subsidiarity holds that where families, neighborhoods, churches, or community groups can effectively address a given problem, they should. Where they cannot, municipal or state Governments should intervene. Only when the lower bodies prove ineffective should the federal government become involved.

Subsidiarity has assumed a decidedly conservative gloss in today's public policy debates. Clung to by those seeking to shrink federal government programs and largely ignored by those who oppose them, subsidiarity appears to have become the exclusive property of one side of the political spectrum. . .

If the following Roman Catholic analysis is correct, the ultimate application of subsidiarity to the body politic is a frightening prospect, and totally inimical to individual freedom. The following extracts are explicit:

Subsidiarity and Libertarian “Small Government”

1) Subsidiarity is a communitarian philosophy. In this doctrine the human person cannot be understood apart from his communal nature and his communal existence. Subsidiarity claims that a communal, social and political existence is imposed on the human person by human nature, by the natural law and, ultimately, by God. . .

2) Because subsidiarity claims that human nature is communal the same doctrine claims that our obligations to the community are imposed by nature, rather than by free agreement. So, for example, the authority of the government comes from God and the natural law rather than the free consent of the governed. The people must obey whether they have consented or not. . .

3) According to subsidiarity the good is to be pursued communally under the direction of and, if necessary, compulsion by the government. . .

4) The doctrine of subsidiarity holds that the common good has priority over individual freedom. . .

5) Subsidiarity understands relations between human persons, between the individual and the community, primarily in terms of moral obligations and secondarily in terms of rights. The role of government is to enforce obligations. The government must not simply restrict sins of commission (such as murder) but also present sins of omission (such as failing to contribute to the material support of the community) by compelling individuals into pertinent obligatory actions. . .

9) For subsidiarity, freedom is primarily freedom to live a Catholic and moral life, to pursue authentic cultural goods and to live in a community of life with one’s family, friends and neighbors. Economic freedom is of relatively low priority. Material wellbeing to pursue these higher goods is necessary and both this material wellbeing and the pursuit of these higher goods can necessitate placing restrictions on economic freedom. . .

11) Finally, subsidiarity sees human relations primarily as cooperative. Part of the communal nature of the human person is to live in charity, benevolence and mutual cooperation with others. This is not to deny that the effects of original sin often lead us to fail to live up to our nature in this regard. . .

Shades of the Image to the Beast!!

If even it were possible to limit a States' Constitutional Convention to the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment, it would still spell disaster for the United States:

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks

Would Likely Make Recessions Longer and Deeper, Could Harm Social Security and Military and Civil Service Retirement

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be a highly ill-advised way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal programs.

The economic problems are the most serious. By requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, such an amendment would raise serious risks of tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise. . .

A constitutional convention would be a Brexit-scale crisis for the U.S.

. . . Even if a balanced-budget amendment were the only item on a convention’s agenda, that would be a disaster. Locking the world’s largest economy into a fiscal straightjacket would preclude any effective response to economic recession, forcing deep cuts in unemployment benefits and other aid at the very moment they are most needed. Suggested provisions that would allow supermajorities in both houses to waive the balance requirement would provide little relief. Consider that this year, neither chamber of Congress could muster a simple majority to pass a budget. If Congress fails to agree upon a balanced budget, who decides on the cuts? The president, acting unilaterally? The courts?

The bigger threat is that a constitutional convention, once unleashed on the nation, would be free to rewrite or scrap any parts of the U.S. Constitution. Do we really want to open up our nation’s core defining values to debate at a time when a serious candidate for the White House brags about his enthusiasm for torture and the surveillance state, wants to "open up" reporters to lawsuits, scoffs at the separation of powers and holds ideas about freedom of religion that are selective at best? . . .

The present presidential administration is already a huge disaster for the nation. Greater disaster looms in the future, and it is all due to alliance with the first Beast of Rev. 13 - more on this subject in the near future.







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]

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]

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?