The Obama model

W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New

CHAPTER FIVE

TEMPTATION TO FRUSTRATION ?

THIS WILL NOT HELP OBAMA OR AUSTRALIA:

WHETHER IN TERMS OF ISRAEL,

OF LIBERTY OR OF SCIENCE

News 443

The Australian, Saturday May 21, 2011

OBAMA AND IMPATIENCE:

SUBMISSION ON THE PART OF ISRAEL TO WHAT IT IS TOLD

It's a nice plan. Do as you are told.

The Obama model - one indivisible Jerusalem, in stage one rhetoric in election time^*1, and that for Israel, for indeed, it would have its capital intact. But then, as an ensuing development, it would be this, but only provided that it would be acceptable to all parties. That, it is like saying that the Nazis and the Communists should settle their differences such as arose prior to 1939, by agreeing on a consensus acceptable to all parties, with one indivisible Poland. They did settle their differences, only it took a few years and most of the world to help, and the result led to enslavement of much of Europe AFTER ALL, for a very long time, and not one indivisible Poland. It is necessary to examine the facts as well as the desires, and the background as well as the dream. To that we return shortly.

What however of this beginning, during election time, in the year of decision, on the part of the one who is now PRESIDENT Obama ? for he has been elected with a certain power and panache, following these nice statements concerning Jerusalem, this apparent sympathy and empathy. What now ?

It would appear that this beginning was superficial if not even somewhat specious, since it wavered in the vital point, of one indivisible Jewish Jerusalem, in language far more minimal-seeming, than the reality. The qualification ? What of that now ? Indivisible and for Israel, IF the others like it! What an assumption! This has made the posture at that stage, the election, appear more a propaganda plea followed by a toning down to the level of what practically, is near to meaningless. Yet he was elected, as apparently a friend of Israel.

To be fair, he is now saying that a Hamas-in-part Palestinian body, not recognising Israel's existence, is not going to have US support in the UN in September, since the right to exist is not an option in dealing in diplomacy. Indeed, your extermination is not something on the table permanently as discussions proceed, in a bargaining situation, as if it involved the reckless reference to a gun sitting there. To be sure, this assurance now made by Obama is better than nothing. It is not in disjunction from ALL the facts. However, his Cairo speech^*1A, with its cringing feeling towards Islam, or that of Islamic loyalism if you prefer, or capitulation of distinctive US Christian past and prominence if you prefer that, has made it clear with his other words, that Islam has a considerable good-will grasp from the President, who grew up in such an environment, and that he is not about to issue in conflict with it at all. Indeed, strangely he committed the USA to NEVER having conflict with it, as if this were in his own power. One would have thought he might at least keep it to his own term...

In fact, the US might well be in conflict with ANY people, group, nation, movement, religious or otherwise, which seeks to subdue, overcome, tyrannise over or direct it, without first gaining democratic emplacement, whether this be in open war or subversive intimidation, as appears to be the current case.

There is a shrinking from the past, not to be sure, suddenly executed now, for the power politics of Kissinger was in line with the new look, the pre-Christian propositioning, the post-moral imaginings; but it is so far from the day of Bush, that it is as if the electricity had been turned off, in the spiritual light of America. It is flat, it is defunct in spirit, it is unspiritual in aspect, has no Christian leadership, so that the call to the past, to the groundings of the nation, to its eminent features and vast cultural background is as air in a storm. As has been pointed out at some length (Journey to God ... Ch. 7), a President and a Party MAY campaign on a Christian basis in any part, moral or magisterial, if desired, and people can accept such a milieu in their leadership if they look for it, and find a direction this way or that in their national spirit and atmosphere. Leadership leads.

Obama certainly did NOT make little of his own alleged Christian position in the election. One hears little along these lines now. Admiration for the religion whose verbal instrument, whose book, the Koran denies the deity, ransom, redemption, free salvation by faith and even certain sacrificial death of Christ is about as unchristian as one can even imagine. It both attacks and seeks to revise Christianity by the mere methods of negation, based on vision, innocent of history, and was installed in Mecca by force. It is to instal for approval what is utterly, direly and in history, brutally anti-Christian, if not always and in all things, then often and in vast imperial projects, such as the subjugation of Europe, avoided in the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D., and this, not by kindness.

What defilement has come when a professing Christian President says such things. Presidency is not a new-birth, giving to the mouth and the life, a new tongue and a new spirit. It is simply a job which involves a certain degree of leadership in a nation, and it ought to admit the person concerned, without reconfiguration, as fair to all, yet fervent in whatever has been stated personally and in all personal utterances, never confounding the passion of the personal soul with the statistics of the nation; for as to the soul, it can be sold for many reasons, and this is just one of them. Small wonder that Netanyahu, in recent exchanges with Obama, has reportedly pointed out the assurances of President Bush concerning the viability of Israel and the necessity for something better than 1967 borders. Indeed, he has publicly retorted to Obama's sliding line, that return to 1967 borders would make Israel indefensible.

He is unimpressed, it would seem, with naive references to 'occupied territories' from the lips of Obama^*2, concerning some of the Israel recovered from the betrayal of the Balfour Declaration^*3 and of the assertions concerning Palestine from the League of Nations. Obama's feeling that impatience is now arising as a dynamic in the discussions, on the part of the nations seems to omit a certain point: ISRAEL has had to show far more than patience, during multiple betrayals, and impotence in the UN, when it has been threatened, a large percentage of the votes of that so-called world body being Islamic. Indeed, reportedly, it is little below 50%.

The US is, in this current regime, slipping in its postulations concerning Israel. Thus, as pointed out in The Australian, Monday, May 23, 2011, back in the day of President Lyndon Johnson, June 1967, we had this: return to pre-1967 borders 'is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.' That may be contrasted, then, categorically and absolutely with the Obama production, just made.

President Reagan likewise, September 1982, had an entirely different degree of empathy than that currently shown, discouraging return to the reduced borders, when the 'bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile armies.'

This is merely one illustration of direction. The Islamic bequest feeling associated with Obama's efforts with that religion of his youth, make a specifically religious ally as a desideratum, excluding merely the more monstrous pugnacities; and this of course is a national degradation. More than indifference, rather is it a sinuous slide into something hostile to the very foundations that appeared at the very first in the US, and have continued strong ever since. There is a sense of slither in the spiritual domain, in the US leadership, at the official level; and it is far more than atmospheric. These things need attention as Australia's major military partner moves its way, in the domain of change in the leading level of spirit. Unhappy the nation that makes any such religious alliance, unwise the one which puts its hand to the plough with those who in their own lands, seek to crush, countermand, inhibit or silence Christianity, if not in one way, then in another. The fence is not wide enough for postures of this kind.

There is not only this in the presidential circle; it is the same whether in the law courts, where the concept that what the writers of the Constitution might have meant to say if they had been saying it now has power to make of judges erectors of a new Constitution^*3A: not participants in a tripartite national rule, but a uni-mover bloc by means of their imagination. What had been meant for freedom, now can become a mandate for suppression, so that In God we Trust, becomes, from God we bust. Nor is it very different in many churches, which move from the Bible to various postulations and posturings, based on simple preference, and with awe for the Lord discounted so heavily that its presence may at times need a micro-detector (cf. News 121, 122, Let God be God ... Ch. 12, Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation Ch. 4).

AUSTRALIA AND SUBMISSION TO SHARIA
OR OTHER SHARED GOODS TO BE IMPOSED

It is much the same in Australia, where the desire for some kind of rigorous, amazingly discriminating law called sharia on the part of some Islamists^*3B has actually been presented as if multi-culturalism would salve its tyranny over some, if not indeed all. However, multi-culturalism is not the same as submission, the elect word in Islam, and it involves a sharing on an agreed and democratic basis in this country, with a measure of tolerance which does not re-invent the land, or submit to enclaves making new Australians into some other nationality while sojourning here. We are one people.

This was excellently brought out by the relevant Government ministry^*4who pointed out that on becoming Australians, immigrants undertook to uphold the values of the land. If they were elected as a majority government, then like anyone else, they could attempt to lead, stir, stimulate or force things in one way or another, just as the Gillard-Green Government is now doing. Actions are already moving towards change in the Preamble to the Constitution^*5, with various forms of recognition of aboriginal people, possibly making them ultra-Australian depositaries of various specific rites or rights or powers, so that they become just as for the Islamic case, as sought, an enclave of something else.

Specifically, this nation according to its Preamble is dependent on Almighty God, and it is He who made land, despite wishes to have another sort of approach, and it is not some people who possibly from India got here before the British which is the point, but the One who MADE the place. The Almighty God on whom the nation was in its founding as one, relying, made the earth, not aborigines or British alike. Being here first, as in any property belonging to someone else, does not establish ownership. If errors are done, restorations can be made; but there is nothing religious about being here first, in a scattered body of diverse peoples, here and there.

It is when naturalism is forsaken, with whatever tokens, even there, which do not follow from it but tend to aggregate with it, that one can return to some concept of nationality and rationality without ludicrous intonings about original owners or anything of that wholly fictional character. Moreover, doing good to all and seeking good for any, does not at all involve mere brash hand-overs of this or that, however good welfare and help to many and to specific sufferings groups can be. It has to be wise, not merely apparent, and it should aid life and work and strength and not merely gut endeavour, while tending to ruin any sense of morality, as far as it goes, in indulgence. One of the aboriginal leaders has made his own just stress on this point.

As to the Almighty noted in the Pre-amble, ALL people under Him are then able to relate according to the nature of the established case, which involves modes of law, equity and especially liberty, since indubitably, the Almighty God to whom the Constitution pointed in its day, was not a reckless terrorist or a dictatorial regality of ruthlessness. Such was not the Christian background left in this land by the founding British.

People of different cultural enclaves are now trying to make Australia something entirely different:

	a congregation of variably defined people, living in some kind of cultural segregation, with special defined privileges, be they religious or racial; or perhaps
	a people committed to the terms of naturalism, omitting God markedly; or
	a republic, far from any hint of any religious past, or significance in that fact; or
	a body open to all, subject to none but ruled with a certain national arrogance, depending on itself and making marks in the sand about what it is to be; or as now, as will be noted later,
	a body in which certain philosophies are given a mandate, and forced, though virtual religions, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution and the UN Declaration on Discrimination in the field of religion or belief alike, on the people or their children, if they want education.

Change appears in the mind of many, and shortly; and it ill becomes such a nation which has been so singularly blessed that many seek to pour unremittingly into its relatively peaceful borders, that it should puff and pout and seek to glorify itself, divorcing from the humble reliance on Almighty God, and enforcing whatever scientistic or pagan substitutes may appeal.

As the desire to knock God out grows, so the RESULTS of the vast cultural background which the Constitution pre-amble exhibits, become minimised or legally or otherwise contravened. Thus an entirely new nation arrives, intent on becoming far other than it was, even culturally, even historically, perhaps even legally; and certainly in terms of liberty of speech^*6. That a people should freely allow this resultant of the drift to appear is testimony to the same sort of wild folly as infected Germany in the 1930s, almost incredible in some ways, but like this, a case of have now and pay later.

What then for Australia in its present highly potential setting, with changes threatening, enlisting, seeking their indulgence with minimal resistance on acrid premises of self-important domineering, allegedly 'protecting' the people ?

If now someone wishes to agnosticise (horrible word for horrendous default) the place, that will be a change. It is not so much the precise legal admission of dependence in the preamble which is here to the point, to debate it one way or the other: rather it is the conspectus which it incorporates. These are words which the Almighty can HEAR. Their removal is even more conspicuous, whether in a pseudo-religious observance of aboriginal data as if this were a mandate past unity, or of other types. Specifying exceptions to the overall unity on the one hand, and to the background religious base on the other, can be both divisive and wounding. It can make standards multitudinous and folly incapable of criticism. Aboriginal or other elements in society, Islamic or agnostic or atheistic, do not have to have special features and provisions for their due enjoyment of privilege to each one, as is permissible.

Rather it is simply a matter of what, in some measure, we already have: liberty on many things to a significant degree, so that independent schools, or special foods can be obtained at cost for those who want them; and now we even have government helping independent schools to provide within some degree according to their speciality, as Government has to pay to educate those whom private schools do not. The ascertainment of what is according to the Constitution, prudent in administration, free of physical violence in its ways and teachings, is part of the strenuous task of conscientious government. Nothing should be taken for granted, but what is granted in the Constitution, and laws in accord with it concerning religion, safety and responsibility.

The character of a nation is what it is, and to deny or alter it specifically and in the swim of floating ideas gaining ground, is mere self-destruction at worst, and indulgence at best: unless it is not a coup, but a national desire for change, conceived and considered not in the flair of trumpeting of feelings, but in the facts of what one is wishing to become! Change in liposuction, facial reconstruction, leucotomy may seem indicated to the moment of fever; but the results are of a different order; and so it is in constitution and commission, in acknowledgement and basis. Change in blind faith and blind results do not occur, but vital ones.

There is no a priori warrant to include one or another way of life and perspective in a democracy, but when one way has been that in acknowledgment, together with specific and alleged freedom personally on the point, a change is like lipo-suction, when as always, it can go wrong and what is removed is not fat but organs. If Australia, then, wants Almighty God out of it, let it awake to what it is doing, and not be subjected to sleep by hypnosis, as if it were really nothing, nothing at all ... We have gone so far like this; the grounds of change are a replanting. Let it not be done by an automated propulsion unit, courtesy of the government. If you are going to crack down on God, at least know what you are doing. To be sure, it is not highly specific; but equally, it is there in the Pre-amble. Liberty is on this ground.

Righteousness, says the Bible, exalts a nation^*7. We are far from this; but there are aspects derived from elements of our grounding which are very characteristic of this people, and well based in its background. If the people changes from its present highly imperfect, and yet strongly characterisable base, so be it. But let it not be done in sloth or in sleep. It is not in this field alone that it is to be found: strip the basis and you topple the superstructure.

THE WORK OF LIBERTY

Ruling oneself WITHIN LIBERTY is at times testing to formulate, as to law, but the principle is sound in that it is undivisive, and does not cater to the petulance of those who endlessly seek accommodation or even subordination of others to themselves. Hence, it is necessary to have liberty carefully defined. At present, it has a substantial area of scope, unlike the case in many Islamic lands, and tribal communities. It is threatened, for example, by the seditious work of filtering internet in certain divisive ways, and cancelling free speech in certain repressive styles. This is the current mode as has been shown in some detail previously (cf. *8, *9, *10 below, and TMR Chs. 1 and 8).

The point is clear, decisive and inescapable. When you remove God from the base for this country - sure, it is not a Christian country by law, but it has a religious orientation by constitution both in history and in word, overall - and when you disregard, dismiss, dispense with, degrade, dishonour the morality which has been at first the official base, and institute sexual, educational, legal and other means to depart from this, then the question arises at once: WHAT is the limit of liberty ? What is to be tolerated, permitted ?

Some say, and in Victoria, this horror actually came to life for a little while^*8, that no one should be allowed to UPSET a sense of stability or peaceable possession of the religion of another. It is illegal to offend came near to being the anti-free-speech, undemocratic lordliness of autocracy on this point. Pastors were prosecuted, as if the Middle East or China were at hand. It passed somewhat in a final victory for some liberty, which has led to less peremptory standards of FEELING, as the judge of matters, rather than truth. Indeed, in the evil legislation, there was provision that it did not MATTER what the intention of the speech of the one who created offence might be; all that mattered was the effect.

In fact, as soon as truth is transgressed, whether in the interests of feelings without necessarily ANY other than a psychological and personal basis, or other, so that it is to hang its head and be subjected to what amounts to nothing less than legal assault (as in the day of Jesus Christ, at the hand of Pilate), then ANY standard can come, and a conniving people of fantasy can become lords, with an imaginary way of life, which will either hit or be hit by reality at length, when its self-made cocoon collapses.

Already, as has been considerably shown earlier^*9, truth has ceased to be even relevant in certain areas of science classes in South Australia for example, and it is not alone. Certain approaches to data are excluded by law, certain materials are not to be noted, brought up, argued from or for, and a whole domain of science is now under authoritarian control. This actually means that in South Australia, in monumental degradation, independent schools have to follow the government's current conceptions on authority in science, and teach only the evolutionary myth, so that the parents who pay tens of thousands of dollars for education, might in this, as well cast it to the winds.

That this seemingly all but paranoid pre-occupation with fancy as required, is also factually wrong and does not meet the enduring criteria of scientific method has been shown before^*10 ; but the current point is the authoritarianism of the establishment which dares, even in academic fields, and even in science in particular, to make not this time Sharia Law, but Scientific Schema^*10, the dominance even over the children of those who neither hold it nor respect its divagations and digressions from empirical fact. Indeed, as itemised in this note we here enter a specifically religious negativity, deemed since the publication of SMR, the Cult of the Forbidden.

Thus we have already fallen far from freedom, and the imperious efforts of the relevant Board in SA to enter into biblical interpretation in the process is a further exhibit of State religion becoming freedom's tolling bell, as for one fallen . IF, as is the case, the data confirm what the Bible says, in the terms in which it says it (and 'kinds' do not mean variabilities without limit^*10A), on every testable side, and do not do so on the side of the current scientistic, authoritarian substitute, then this is a fact. It is an empirical fact. SMR pp. 140ff. briefly notes many others in the same domain. Deity of Design... covers the case in considerable detail.

The present point is this: that you MUST, if to be free, settle things in science and elsewhere with that power to criticise, consider, that need to substantiate which is neither perverted by inept psychological super-sensitivities and virtual duress, nor by authoritarian clamour for a religiously, culturally or philosophically preferred model. Truth must prevail, without prejudice, and what empirically fits may not be discarded because of a religious sense of frustration or intolerance. What meets the case, does so; and this is the BEGINNING of science.

Thus liberty to criticise and contend must not be selective, nor must mere numbers constitute statistical resolution. Popularity is not the issue; truth is. Freedom becomes the place for attestation, not presumption. Foolish the nation which does not abide in this; and yet more so, how foolish is one which in the very midst of immense blessing, prepares to spit in the face of the One in whose name to a substantial degree, it was founded, whose words compose a conspectus, designate detail and are testable over millenia, only increasing with time their fulfilments. It is not that this substitutes for science; it is that science, if not falsely so-called, does not ignore either the source or the data from any evidence, and evicts only what does not work.

In this liberty which the love of God promotes, and Christ extends, people may present and contend, criticise and evoke, reject and give reason, but not dominate by clamorous authority, so that others have to follow their wilful ways or preferred address, or be muted, fined or even in extreme cases, subjected to duress or at worst - so far - prison. Christianity, centred in One who called COME TO ME, and did not require either frog-marching discipline or goose-stepping authoritarian torment, has allowed, fostered and made for tolerance with truth its ally, securing freedom for reasons and evidence amid contention, fearing nothing and finding no need to dominate. Such is the required mode for those who follow the Christ of the Bible, such as is handed to the monarch in England at coronation, that nation from which our current civilisation here arose, in huge majority. If some tended to hijack this, that has been their folly. So it is written: NO FORCE for following (John 18:36).

This makes for social stability and the ability to dig your own grave or find your own haven, on a basis not dragooned, but chosen: not by a group-sell by a rampaging nation, but in individual ways. Likewise, it is not by accident, that this liberty and this background is that of Australia, in much to this hour, since many of the most famous innovative scientists in history were Christians believing in creation, the way of truth, not a few in England and Scotland, such as Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin. You fear nothing, exclude no party which is unpopular in science, but show truth by maintaining it, differentially, not by duress.

Rome, Mecca and Moscow have had dragooning ways (cf. SMR pp. 1074 - 1080), but the way of Christ eschews force (Matthew 26:52ff., John 18:36, Isaiah 48:16ff., Luke 19:42ff.), and needs none for its exhibition. It is in this way that academic arthritis is avoidable, surreptitious substitutes for openness are not intruded, and directives do not act like academic terrorists, all but unbelievably maintaining their unsubstantiated position by government sanctions. Let us move laterally in this field.

To require, for example, in terms of some mode of rule, that religious people use non-religious people, or those who follow certain forms of morals in religion, and move on certain beliefs, should use those who do not share these, in their presentation and maintenance, is mere inefficiency as well as dictatorship. If a people can meet certain factual levels, is it not their liberty to move on those terms and let their results show for themselves, empirically, and not be replaced with bumble in terms of pre-chosen criteria which know-it-all and merely direct, as a policeman does traffic! Let the fruits speak for themselves, instead of a pre-empting passion for prejudice.

Hence this prescription either of personnel despite their being inconvenient or even inept for a given task, because of some concept of unity of all people, is nonsense. You might as well insist on medical technicians for space programs. It is a question of an entirely different principle, at least, relevance and suitable sensitivity and perception. If mere prejudice and presumption however is to prevail, then in such things this nation moves toward that place where finally it falls into an oblivion deserved by departing from a most admired and blessed way such as has been in this, our former liberty.

Similarly, it is in parallel with such errors that academic directives of mere authoritarian adventurism come; for the control of science in this land is already a devastation of liberty, as of empirical reality and probity; for what is REQUIRED is to be given, to be taught, while what is demanded is scarcely even functional^*10. The position has become like some tribe, in which elders have determined what it is to be felt, believed, subscribed to and performed, so that the others just DO IT. Argument is outlawed (as in the science in question, a mere name-sake, to this form of knowledge, and indeed science in particular, here is such falsely so-called), evidence is irrelevant: DO IT.

Returning then to Obama, in his American extravaganzas (incidentally, he assumes evolutionary modes with the same assurance, unlike President Bush, who statedly preferred consultation among parties), then, we find that he is losing patience. He feels the world is doing so, and he appears here very much a part of it! Thus, actually, he states that nations are losing patience; but it would appear that whatever they are doing, he himself is not contrary to them in this. He wants to start negotiations between Israel and those who desire her demise, removal, frustration or ruin, and for these to begin on the basis of the last major time, before they gained much more territory, namely 1967. That would be like asking for peace between Russia and Germany after Stalingrad, and suggesting that it start with negotiations based on the position before that deadly battle. Why ? Would you really be serious in any such endeavour, the subject of smiles only!

Since as has been shown, Israel was to have Palestine as a homeland^*3, and got but little of it, as any kind of a homeland, and was to be destroyed by several nations, while the UN stood back, but was not; and was again to be destroyed both in 1967 and 1973^*10B, and was not; and has according to empirical biblical premise and promise continued (Jeremiah 31, 33, cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 10, Red Alert Ch. 10, Regal Rays of Revelation Ch. 1): both bait and challenge, focus for hate, ground for invasion, obliterative passion and destructive dynamic light together as in a bush fire. .

Nevertheless, it remains, despite multiple, multi-national thrusts to destroy it, while its foes multiply and propagandise and pay money for slaughter in Israel, or maiming of its citizens. The recommencement of meaningful negotiations back at a more stripped down phase, in the face of some of these assaults, their aggressive, denunciatory rhetoric and vast violence threatening extinction continually, seems all but inexpressibly ludicrous. A starting point might be the present, except for the constant intimidatory threat from many components in a clientele of some billion people, if not in entire concord, yet by no means alien to such endeavours.

WHY go back from extermination process number three or four or more, to the status quo before Israel managed to make itself more defensible ? Why on earth should an international congregation insist on Israel - a people^*11 murdered, misused, slaughtered, bashed with oil money, hated, and making peaceable gestures in returning land discretely, being further reduced by a consortium aiding the assailants! Is there not even any sense of humour at the sheer enormity of it! Should an 'international community' or Quartet, whichever, whatever, try to help the crusaders who seek its conquest or death, further extending the work of some neo-Hitlerite hate! If then, it was the Jew who must go, now, it is Israel, which however, has many a Jew! This anti-Semitism is a spectacular, an intolerance both cultural and military, a religious domineering grasping for more of the residual slither of land, as if consience were a forgotten word, and fact a misnomer. There is, you see, that little parallel. Do a billion or so Moslems need help against 7 million or so Israelis ? No wonder Dr Mahathir of Malaysia lamented the ineffectuality of the Islamic action, which have been virtual crusades!

That what is operative is hate is without question, at least with many, as even children are TAUGHT it and shown ways to implement it.

Why a people, who have vast lands of immense scope to inhabit according to their normal religion, have to have the tiny fragment of the original provision for Israel, still further reduced, and a segment of the part that Israel gained back, notionally removed before talks begin, as a basis, by a bullying bravado group or quartet, of vast international power, is a matter of immense interest. It has nothing to do with justice.

When Israel was to be taken over in 1948, some failing, left what they had tried to take; and similarly many Jews, no longer at home in Arab lands, came back from these, to their nation. Both were displaced. When Israel gained power to have its own religion (part of a homeland provision as in 1917, 1920 from Britain and the League of Nations), it did not have anything like the homeland offered, so that those who sought to remove it before it came to be, had a good opportunity to prove God wrong, and simply level the place, as if Jeremiah 31 and 33,with their ultimate guarantees for the end of the matter, had never been written. But these were written, and accordingly, it was not exterminated, but continued, and will do so till the Spirit poured out leads to the conversion of many (cf. Romans 11, SMR Appendix A), and the latter stages of the divine plan are performed, just as have been the earlier ones, including the return, already! Things may be rated by performance, even where no faith is involved: these credentials of prophecy from the Bible have no parallel, and God Himself has pointed this out (Isaiah 48).

In fact, if man does not protect a continuing Israel, and Obama is coming close to the ludicrous in terms of its defensibility in his latest suggestion, a fact not apparently lost on Netanyahu, then God, the God of the Bible has undertaken to do so. You will thus not see Israel overthrown, though it will be vastly attacked.

It is indeed a pity that so much of mankind is so foolishly, so unjustly, so primed against the independence of Israel that it takes such steps as it has done, whether largely

	for oil,
	for hatred of God,
	for a desire to mythicise religion,
	for fear of seeing biblical promises obviously fulfilled against all odds and flung in their faces, or
	for other reasons.

One underlying reason for the tenacity of these things is the conflict not only with justice, but with God Himself, under whatever guise, lore or name, one which will ensue so that the sheer cost to humanity in this delusion, as in Ezekiel 38ff., will appal; as it will later in the entire world secession from the God of truth, made manifest in the return of Jesus Christ, as declared in Revelation 19, where the point is stressed in its own right! The nature of things is made most pellucid in Psalm 2.

It is true that Israel has not yet, as a nation, accommodated to what God did in Christ, the Messiah who came at the specified date to do the specified act of salvation (cf. Christ the Citadel ... Ch. 2); but liberty is still to be prized. As with a youth, so with a nation, as with a group, so with a people, time may change, and insight may come. What is needed is not a batch of dictatorial imprimaturs from the cognoscenti, based on nothing^*12, but liberty to love. It is true that Israel, in terms of biblical scope, is weak because it is not trusting in the Lord who is strong (this is to come to a crisis point as noted in Deuteronomy 32:36ff.), but where is the rest of this world that it should act as judge! Is it any better in this ?

Moreover, does Israel bluster and bellow and seek to destroy surrounding nations as these do it ? And despite its long delay in returning to the Lord whom as Prince of Peace, the nation slew, the Lord yet sustains it as promised, and more than this, has given to it those amazing victories over totally overwhelming odds^*10B, predicted in Zechariah 12, preceding its return to the equally predicted crucified Saviour (12:10), for predicted pardon (13:1). For this, its predicted eventual restoration, there were two highly disparate stages: the physical and the spiritual. The first is now over (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 10). The second awaits its most opportune time in the counsels of the Almighty.

Liberty, law, love and evidence, these things matter; and as man wanders in his own 21st century disturbed mind (predicted Luke 21:26), often seemingly mindless in his haste to settle, as in the direction Obama seems to be taking, issues arise, far past mere political process and intimidatory rhetoric. Surrender to the mandate of Christ seems as far away now amid the nations as in the earlier parades of the Roman Empire, but the result for one and for both, is not pleasant; since truth cannot be foiled, and folly cannot be maintained.

These rebellions at length may and indeed will meet sharp treatment from Him against whom and His word, they are directed, whether with a dreamy indifference, a hostile rejection or a clammy subterfuge. Man will meet his come-uppance in his deliciously superior manner, for his interfering antics with Israel are undue, untrue and unwise. Indeed, Obama has voiced thoughts of losing patience and the like, concerning a people, Israel, who have had, for its own part, to show a great deal of patience, even while millions of them were slain in the climaxes of hate which seized not a little of Europe. In such cases, the mere turning to force, whether under diplomatic guise or not, is close to the intemperate mockery of mere frustration. In its torment. It produces no good thing, whether then or now.

Truth is required; pragmatics do not alter realities. If God is omitted, it is mandatory that there BE no solution. If you omit the numerical system, mathematics lapses. If the base is gone, the superstructure wilts. So it has to be; and so it is; but while this world plays god with the things of God, whether in Israel or creation, or liberty of speech, or in deaths to those who disobey dictators, or just fines, there is no hope. It cannot be. Truth is free and demonstrates itself (cf. SMR); and what seeks to confine it, to direct it, even God Himself without whom there could BE no truth, merely perception, simply makes its own grave the less inviting; for man will never prevail against God. Even if in His love (I Corinthians 1), He seemed weak, yet even there, in His salvation, turning hate of man to effect in divine love which atones, He was strong. Here is strength not to twitter, but to bind. Without this, sounds send out their conceptual content from the mind of man, but success in his very own life, it is denied him; and how impatient he becomes, who ought rather to be penitent.

Modern man, in his self-made mandates, fails amidst stupendous problems. That is because the only hope which is also certainty, being derided, removed from practical operation, there is nothing practical left. If your arm be broken, do not lift. If you lift, prepare for worse. Hope will not come to the warring nations in their internecine strifes; but only in their Maker; and it is He to whom so many are moving, both in this our land, and in many others, in order to marginalise, mock, recharacterise, remould Him, to make into idol or exclude: just as in symbol, many have sought to exclude Jews from much, indeed more and more of their promised land. Doing so leaves the solution obvious, to repent and receive the grace of salvation; for without this, there is war only. It follows and cannot stop, since in the extraction of truth there is the impaction of what the Bible rightly calls ' lie' (Romans 1:25 and II Thessalonians 2:10-11). This serves no good basis for anything (cf. SMR). Nor could it do better than fail, for all its furore (cf. Psalm 2).

As man goes like an express train to a broken bridge, it is well to warn, and to seek mercy; for there is none when the time comes for such a fall as that. The time to repent therefore is not then; it is now (II Corinthians 6:1ff.).

That is the Christian prescription. Peace is the Christian inscription (Philippians 4:4-6), and the blood of Christ Jesus the Lord, is the Christian subscription, paid by another, receivable freely: and it is imperative, commanded and subject to deadly evasion, known before time by God, who has foreknown all things, and in particular and detail, His own. HIS interest is so vast that He came, His love so colossal that He died, His power so great that He rose, victor over death and His willingness is so intensive that He wept for those so needlessly lost, immersed in their own lives, like those wilfully drowning.

NOTES

*1

See Israel Vol. 4, Ch. 11.

*1A

See The Unsearchable Riches of Jesus Christ ... Ch. 3. This deals with the Cairo speech.

In this, amid other noted features, we find that Obama is of the view, amid religions, that 'faith should bring us together.' Nothing is further from biblical truth. NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME! in John 14:6, has one aspect. It brings man together with God when it comes from God and is on the path He has provided.

Christ alone is that biblical path, and He excludes all competitive crusaders, whether from Islam, atheism or psychological spectaculars. Faith of some super-ecumenical, anti-Christian kind may bring people together, since it can be tailor-made for unity, and such is the biblical prediction of the passing phase of totally abhorrent assault on the things of Christ as in Psalm 2 and Revelation 17, 19, before Christ returns, even that Jesus the Christ, who was crucified (not a generic), as the sole atoning sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7-10), and resurrected (epochal and unique cf. SMR Ch. 6).

Faith in any Christian sense, however, brings people together only with God and one another, amid His own people, who do not choke the figure on the cross, with the kindness of depersonalisation. Nothing alters; weak words of unwisdom like this are a specific antidote to Christianity, and ill-become one of that profession.

You do not redeem the world by selling a nation's soul; it is better left to do that alone if it so desires.

*2

From Israel National News May 21, 2011, we have this response.

US President Barack Obama dramatically changed US foreign policy - sandbagging Israel and aligning himself with PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas' preconditions for talks - when he called Thursday for a "full and phased withdraw of Israeli forces" from "occupied Palestinian lands" to what he termed "1967 borders" - the 1949 armistice lines Israel's former Foreign Minister and UN ambassador Abba Eban, in 1967, referred to as the "Auschwitz borders." Obama left room for some "land swaps" at those areas.

Obama's comments came during his much anticipated policy address at the State Department in which he outlined the United State's new foreign policy for the Middle East and North Africa in light of the "spring revolutions" that have rocked the region.

Saying the world was tired of "nothing but stalemate" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and complaining that "settlement activity continues" while the "Palestinians have walked away from talks," Obama said Israelis cannot obtain the dream of a democratic and Jewish state through "occupation."

This tilt has of course all the mediating diplomacy of a lion roaring. Gaining in the midst of multiple betrayals and exclusions from the territory appointed, some more of the lost land to make the rest more defensible, when its throat was laid bare on the altar by a watching world, before multiple invasive forces from many nations, is scarcely 'occupation' in some sense of tyranny, to which this is in full partisan style shamelessly referred. With pre-conditions like this, it is like starting with the death penalty, as a pre-condition in plea-bargaining.

See Bay of Retractable Islands Chs. 18 and 19 on the Balfour Declaration and surrounding issues. See also Israel Vol. 2, Ch. 21.

*3A

Of interest are citations from Jefferson and Lincoln on this topic.

In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

”

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln spoke in this way, during his first inaugural address:

"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes."

On this topic of what may be called judicial activism, uslegal.com has this defining word:

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.

Critics of judicial activism assert that it subverts the separation of powers principle founded by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Judges frequently must interpret what the law actually says, but they are often accused of "judicial activism" if their interpretation seems be a rewriting of the law, especially if their rulings strike down or substantially revise laws passed by actual lawmakers.

From The New American we gain this overview of trend:

What is the proper role of the judiciary? Hamilton explained that its ability was limited to only preventing the Congress from overstepping their limits by legislating in an area outside of their constitutional authorization.

This understanding of judicial review is buttressed by the prominent law professor of the late 19th century, James Bradley Thayer. “We are much too apt to think of the judicial power of disregarding the acts of the other departments as our only protection against oppression and ruin. But it is remarkable how small a part this played in any of the debates. The chief protections were a wide suffrage, short terms of office, a double legislative chamber, and the so-called executive veto. There was, in general, the greatest unwillingness to give the judiciary any share in the law-making power.”

Even Chief Justice John Marshall himself, the man credited with establishing expansive judicial review, understood the judiciary’s limitations on actually creating new legal doctrines. Present Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recalls that Marshall expressed that the “principles of the Constitution are deemed fundamental and permanent and, except for formal amendments, unchangeable.”

Marshall personally declared, “The difference between the departments undoubtedly is, that the legislature makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes the law.”

Following Unconstitutional Precedent

So how did the Supreme Court broaden its jurisdiction and, in effect, re-write the Constitution? The answer to that question lies in the concept of stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by the things decided”), which is the legal doctrine of precedent. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as when it is “necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.” Once the concept of judicial review was established, it led to a series of cases where the court began to rely on earlier cases as sources for decisions instead of the Constitution itself. In his book We Hold These Truths, the late Congressman (and former chairman of the John Birch Society) Larry McDonald summed up the history of how the Supreme Court moved further and further away from the Constitution: “From the first cases they heard, Justices of the Supreme Court have said too much in their majority decisions and dissenting opinions. They seem to pride themselves on their literary style. Instead of stating their decision in the case at hand and citing authorities used, they tend to philosophize and explain, and thus fill the record with language, which later justices expound and expand.”

McDonald distinguished between earlier court cases where the justices, although verbose, still referred to original sources of the founding period, and later cases where justices started referring only to decisions of prior courts. Some of these cases involved justices re-defining terms or words in the Constitution beyond their original meanings and lessening the restrictions on government power. “By making careless definitions and by implying meanings instead of stating them expressly, previous courts had planted seeds for subsequent court perversions of the Constitution.” In addition, justices began using brand new sources to justify their holdings. “Instead [of the Constitution], they cited and expatiated on outside commentaries about social conditions, economics and politics.”

Law Professor Richard A. Epstein, author of How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution, had some harsh criticism for the path the court used to break free from the chains of the Constitution. “They saw in constitutional interpretation the opportunity to rewrite a Constitution that showed at every turn the influence of John Locke and James Madison into a different Constitution, which reflected the wisdom of the leading intellectual reformers of their own time.”

The concept of seeking to find what was first MEANT by those who wrote the Constitution, not what we might think they could or should or might have meant, or would have been well disposed to conceive if only the conceptions had happened to occur to their minds, to transpose the ideas into modern idiom, inclusive of cultural pre-conceptions: this seems to be distant. IF the Constitution states and clearly means certain things and it is not desired to keep to these, or it is desired to transcend them in some kind of ideological progress, then of course, worthy though the idea may be, it is NOT interpretation of the Constitution. It becomes interpretation of what it might have been if history had not been what it is, but either 1) what it is or 2) what it would be nice if it were to become, in the view of those allegedly 'interpreting'.

IF what is written were to be the criterion, then what is not written would be no doubt larger than it now tends to become, so that law-makers would have more freedom, instead of being inhibited by expansiveness on the part of courts, on the one hand, and less on the other, in this, that nothing could be manufactured which would give a more ample capacity to government that stated in the Constitution. It would then be a constitutional government. To the extent that what is written is not the actual criterion, the US is not governed by its Constitution, and an legal expansion is occurring at the expense of the legislature. In fact, as in Australia, this may also be done simply by IGNORING elements of the constitution, such as, in our own case, the prohibition on the official founding of a religion. That is as noted, contravened in the misuse of directive, religious assumptions in the field of teaching.

*3B

There has also been a Presbyterian exposé on the sharia issue, which is most welcome and apt. This was reported in the Advertiser, May 21,2011.

THE Presbyterian church has called for Sharia law to be rejected in South Australia.

SA-based convenor of the Presbyterian church and nation committee the reverend Stefan Slucki said some of the most brutal aspects of Sharia law were being used in Muslim communities and should not be allowed to gain a foothold. He said in the most extreme cases Islamic leaders had threatened to have Sharia law take over Australian law.

"We have no problems with things like halal food and those practices but the main problems with Sharia are the subjugation of women, the wearing of total coverings for women, the repression of women in terms of Christian principles," Mr Slucki said.

"We are also opposed to the totalitarian view of the state (governance).

"This is an issue that will not go away, just as it has not gone away in the UK and in Canada and other places.

"People must not flirt with the idea that it would be nice to allow Sharia law to be practised within selected communities.

"There are already people who send their children overseas for female genital mutilation and then bring them back."

Islamic representatives yesterday would not comment on the issue of Sharia law and its use in Adelaide.

In some parts of the world, the most extreme aspects of the law require brutal punishments such as chopping off hands for theft and stoning of women for infidelity.

The criticisms of Sharia come despite the Presbyterian Church being one of the strongest refugee advocacy agencies in Australia.

Mr Slucki said even within the refugee community Christians in Muslim-dominated cultural groups were victimised according to the principles of Sharia law.

He said the church was motivated by fostering social inclusion for all members of the Islamic community.

"We are being told by some of the Arabic-speaking members of our congregation that problems are being created because of the divisiveness of Sharia law," Mr Slucki said.

"Some (in Sydney) have had petrol bombs placed outside their homes."

Mr Slucki was speaking as part of the church's evidence to the Federal Government's inquiry into multiculturalism.

The PRESS REPORT WAS AS FOLLOWS.

Govt says no to sharia law

AAP May 17, 2011, 11:31 am

The federal government has quickly moved to block any calls for sharia law in Australia.

In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the government's new multiculturalism policy, The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils has called for Muslims to be granted "legal pluralism".

Attorney-General Robert McClelland stomped on the request.

"There is no place for sharia law in Australian society and the government strongly rejects any proposal for its introduction," Mr McClelland told AAP.

Sharia has faced repeated criticism.

It is again in the headlines following an Iranian court's decision to delay a planned "eye-for-an-eye" act of justice against a man who threw acid at a woman's face because she refused his marriage proposal.

"As our citizenship pledge makes clear, coming to Australia means obeying Australian laws and upholding Australian values," Mr McClelland said.

"Australia's brand of multiculturalism promotes integration.

"If there is any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law then Australian law wins out."

Mr McClelland is keen to assert Australia's position as a "stable democracy" where "rule of law" underpins society.

"People who migrate to Australia do so because of the fact that we have a free, open and tolerant society where men and woman are equal before the law irrespective of race, religious or cultural background."

This pre-amble includes the following content (colour added for emphasis).

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia

[9th July 1900]

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

See for example

FREEDOM, THE NATION,

THE INTERNET

AND THE NEXT GENERATION

See Cascade of Truth, Torrent of Mercy Ch. 10, concerning the various options, results, things hidden and snagging, as in dangerous river swimming, things seemingly inconsequential but blatantly relevant, in terms of righteousness and the course of any nation. See also concerning how far Great Britain began to go in an alien direction, with a thrust of renegade lust, in Deserts and Desserts ... Ch. 6!

See NEWS 156 (esp. Victoria), 145 (and reasonable adults) with Cascade of Truth, Torrent of Mercy Ch. 10 (freedom, force and faith), and the legal result: FREEDOM document re Victorian pastors and deliverance.

See TMR Ch. 1, with Ch. 7, and Ch. 8 for example. The case in South Australia in State schools leading to University, and even since 2010 in substantial measure in independent ones, surpasses even the field of nightmare. Not only is evident truth bypassed and excluded with authoritative tyranny from science, not only is there an institutionalised 'answer' apart from empirical contest and logical review, but in the State system argumentation from students, relatively unlearned as they are, is not permitted, being contrary to the control unit called curriculum. That this is not fantasy may be hard for those accustomed to novels of the future, like Shute's On the Beach, to credit; and indeed there is no credit in it, but that to fact it must be accredited. Such has been the assault on the minds of youth in this State, and not far different is many a land in its inoculation against empirical reality, and what is religiously undesired.

Freedom smiles at such trepidatious tyranny, such grasping academic totalitarianism. It knows the fear of exposure makes many a mind imperious; and that where it rules, such sedition of truth is mere intellectual immaturity, psychic imbalance or ideological warfare, surreptitiously wrought. On Independent Schools in this State, and the categorical imperative to avoid certain testable sources of data, for examination and assessment, see The Divine Sublimity Ch. 6. Here the self-contradiction of the requirements which exclude creation and insist on empirical procedures, indeed scientific norms, is made apparent.

Thus, under policies published in December, the board said it required "teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis." If this were true, creation, as shown in Ch. 6 above, not only could be taught but would be the focus. This is one more example of what in SMR has been called, The Cult of the Forbidden. On this, see The gods of naturalism have no go! Appendix II.

*10

See for example: Secular Myths and Sacred Truth, The gods of naturalism have no go!, See also The Divine Sublimity Ch. 6, Possess Your Possessions Vol. 12, Ch. 6, Vol. 9, Ch. 9, Ch. 2.

Indeed, in Possess Your Possessions Vol. 8, Ch. 5, we have the exquisite admission of Professor Lewontin of Harvard University.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

In this way, scientific method explicitly is transmorphed into naturalistic philosophy, immune to the empirical, happily out of range of fact, doggedly continuing amid contradiction in spite of 'patent absurdity'. This is the reductio ad absurdum of the ludicrous postulates which some now confuse with science, these being merely a form of religion, differentially applied to sensitive areas of what would have been science, but is now merely scientistic, as an exercise in dogma worthy of the worst of Romanism in its preoccupation with a false glory, that of the pope, as in the day of Galileo. The folly of the pre-occupation, apart from its being authoritarian and not scientific, is exposed in the preceding references.

The additional dangers to be found in the UN Declaration in Discrimination in religion, and its breach in the field of education are attested in News 42, especially as noted and at *1. The breach of the Australian Constitution at the same time does not noticeably rouse the concern of many! It is of course a promiscuity for which payment will be made in due course; for liberty may not be summarily dismissed, and cultural captivity instituted, without it.

*10A

See Defining Drama Ch. 10, as marked. See also Waiting for Wonder Appendix.

*10B

See account of these wars in SMR Ch. 9.

*11

See Red Alert Ch. 10 as marked.

*12

See The Lie ... Ch. 4. What is based on nothing, comes to nothing. There is simply nothing to it.