Landmarks of Prophecy
Landmarks of Prophecy
Landmarks of Prophecy is an epic Bible study adventure presented by Pastor Doug Batchelor, president of Amazing Facts. You’ll delve into the pages of the Bible to get clear, trustworthy, logical answers to your most pressing questions about life, faith, and the future—while getting life-changing insight into what lies next in human history and the practical tools you need to thrive in the here and now! |
|
|
|
|
|
Catholicism’s Happy Face Masks Same Old Bondage
Battle Cry - Issue Date: September/October 2014
Evangelicals who are enamored with the smiling face of
the new Jesuit pope should perhaps take advantage of his new offer.
Eager to bridge the technology gap with hip followers, Pope Francis I
has decreed “time off purgatory” to anyone who follows the pope’s
tweets on Twitter. Anyone who cares to notice will see that Rome’s web
of spiritual bondage is still intact behind the new Vatican campaign
for “unity.”
If purgatory is real, where sins are paid for by personal suffering, then Catholicism has another “christ.” The Christ of the Bible “paid it all,” leaving us to only receive the free gift of salvation. Otherwise, if eternal life depends on our paying for it by our own suffering, it is no longer free. Catholicism’s christ is inadequate for justification by faith.
If purgatory is real, then John 3:16 is wrong, Ephesians 2:8-9 is wrong, Romans 6:23 is wrong, etc. Thus, Catholicism cannot claim to have the true gospel; it can only qualify under Paul’s definition of “another gospel.” (See Galatians 1.)
Once we lift this trap door into the dark tunnels of Roman Catholic bondage, where do we stop? If we explore the cavern of purgatory further, we find Martin Luther’s objection to the sale of “indulgences,” basically get-out-of-purgatory-free cards. Those who claim that Catholicism has changed need to know that indulgences are still available for those who climb the Sacred Steps in Rome (reportedly brought from Pilate’s house after Jesus scaled them during His trial). Or, attendance at events like World Youth Day, can also get you time off purgatory.
Connected to the dark cave of purgatory is the tunnel of “auricular” confession. Here again, the Catholic christ needs a little help. Repentance before Jesus is replaced by “priest confessors,” who somehow have the power to forgive sin provided you make a “good confession.”
This leads to a bigger cavern of priestcraft. God ripped open the temple veil giving us direct contact to God through the priesthood of Jesus thus eliminating the need for human priests. Catholicism makes the bogus claim that the pope and the hierarchy simply continues the Old Testament priesthood. Catholicism gains additional control by inserting the priests between God and the people.
Like all the other false religions, Roman Catholicism is all about bondage and control. Unscriptural infant baptism starts the process. Confirmation initiates loyalty to the church, not Jesus. Regular Mass attendance is essential to maintain favor with the wafer-god they call Jesus, without which, eternal life is in jeopardy. A marriage is void unless blessed by the “church” which includes pledging to raise children in the “church.” Celibacy of priests and nuns denies them a family, leaving them no escape from the “church.”
If a “good confession” (last rites) is not made just before death, any unforgiven sin must be paid for with torment in purgatory. However, only minor (venial) sins are “purged” there. So-called “mortal” sins consign one directly to hell.
Nowhere in this system is the poor Roman Catholic granted assurance of eternal life. Presuming so is actually a sin: the “sin of presumption.” This is definitely not the “good news” John talked about in 1 John 5:13.
Bible believers, we must speak up against the lie that this Roman Catholic cult is just another “denomination,” with a different worship style. We must help them see that they have a false gospel, a non-biblical Jesus, and “come out” of Rome’s trap (Rev. 18:4).
Chick Publications has many tracts and books to help you rescue these precious people and put the spotlight on the trap door of “unity.”
 This old picture shows the Virgin Mary goddess comforting the writhing figures paying for their sins in the fires of purgatory. Pictures may change over time but unbiblical doctrine hasn’t. |
If purgatory is real, where sins are paid for by personal suffering, then Catholicism has another “christ.” The Christ of the Bible “paid it all,” leaving us to only receive the free gift of salvation. Otherwise, if eternal life depends on our paying for it by our own suffering, it is no longer free. Catholicism’s christ is inadequate for justification by faith.
If purgatory is real, then John 3:16 is wrong, Ephesians 2:8-9 is wrong, Romans 6:23 is wrong, etc. Thus, Catholicism cannot claim to have the true gospel; it can only qualify under Paul’s definition of “another gospel.” (See Galatians 1.)
Once we lift this trap door into the dark tunnels of Roman Catholic bondage, where do we stop? If we explore the cavern of purgatory further, we find Martin Luther’s objection to the sale of “indulgences,” basically get-out-of-purgatory-free cards. Those who claim that Catholicism has changed need to know that indulgences are still available for those who climb the Sacred Steps in Rome (reportedly brought from Pilate’s house after Jesus scaled them during His trial). Or, attendance at events like World Youth Day, can also get you time off purgatory.
Connected to the dark cave of purgatory is the tunnel of “auricular” confession. Here again, the Catholic christ needs a little help. Repentance before Jesus is replaced by “priest confessors,” who somehow have the power to forgive sin provided you make a “good confession.”
This leads to a bigger cavern of priestcraft. God ripped open the temple veil giving us direct contact to God through the priesthood of Jesus thus eliminating the need for human priests. Catholicism makes the bogus claim that the pope and the hierarchy simply continues the Old Testament priesthood. Catholicism gains additional control by inserting the priests between God and the people.
Like all the other false religions, Roman Catholicism is all about bondage and control. Unscriptural infant baptism starts the process. Confirmation initiates loyalty to the church, not Jesus. Regular Mass attendance is essential to maintain favor with the wafer-god they call Jesus, without which, eternal life is in jeopardy. A marriage is void unless blessed by the “church” which includes pledging to raise children in the “church.” Celibacy of priests and nuns denies them a family, leaving them no escape from the “church.”
If a “good confession” (last rites) is not made just before death, any unforgiven sin must be paid for with torment in purgatory. However, only minor (venial) sins are “purged” there. So-called “mortal” sins consign one directly to hell.
Nowhere in this system is the poor Roman Catholic granted assurance of eternal life. Presuming so is actually a sin: the “sin of presumption.” This is definitely not the “good news” John talked about in 1 John 5:13.
Bible believers, we must speak up against the lie that this Roman Catholic cult is just another “denomination,” with a different worship style. We must help them see that they have a false gospel, a non-biblical Jesus, and “come out” of Rome’s trap (Rev. 18:4).
Chick Publications has many tracts and books to help you rescue these precious people and put the spotlight on the trap door of “unity.”
Ferguson, MO: Militarized Police
By Pastor Hal Mayer on Aug 31, 2014 03:01 pm
Militarized
police are become more common in the United States. The most recent
example is the “overwhelming militarized response of the local police
forces to the protests over the shooting of an unarmed black teenager”
in Ferguson, Missouri. On August 17, Police vehicles, including armored
SWAT carriers and armored tactical vehicles blocked some of the main
streets in Ferguson. The officers had assault rifles, riot gear, and
wore full camouflage uniforms (as if this would be needed in a suburban
setting). Meanwhile about 150 protestors held their hands up to
symbolize non-violent compliance. They had been peacefully marching,
singing hymns and handing out flyers with Bible verses on justice and
mercy. Adults, children and even people in wheelchairs observed the
peaceful protests and the police over-reaction.
First
the police ordered the crowd to leave the area then fired teargas
canisters and flash-bang grenades into the crowd as the line of police
vehicles began to move toward the retreating crowd. Chaos erupted as
many in the terrified crowd panicked.
But
Ferguson is not the only place where this is seen. Since September 11,
2001, the Federal Government has spent billions of dollars to arm local
police forces with military grade equipment, weapons and ammunition.
Counties in many places across the nation now have tanks with 360-degree
gun turrets, with .50 caliber bullets that can knock a hole in a
building several blocks away. Some are getting drones, Humvees,
ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) and other equipment that is best
suited for a battlefield, not America’s communities. Even police
departments of small, out-of-the-way places and university campuses have
benefited from the government largess. And the federal handouts have
brought the local police departments increasingly under federal control.
The
disturbing trend has been at the expense of key American principles of
law and human rights, if not the U.S. Constitution itself, and is making
America’s streets look like a war zone at times of stress. The
separation of military and police powers has been a key principle of
American freedom. Merging them has served to intimidate rather than to
protect and service its citizens.
President
Obama ordered a review of the military equipment supplied to the
police. But it is easy for law enforcement officials to mistake their
calling to protect their communities and treat them as battlefields. It
was the military that was violent on August 17, not the protestors. Yes,
there had been protestor violence, but using the weapons of occupation
and oppression only served to make matters worse.
The
militarization of the police is one of many developments that will
probably be used eventually to oppress with God’s faithful people who
keep all of His commandments when religious laws are enacted to enforce
compliance with laws that conflict with the law of God. Their trust in
God must be complete and invincible.
“It
is a perilous time now. If this land of boasted liberty is preparing to
sacrifice every principle which enters into her Constitution, making
decrees to suppress religious freedom, and for the enforcing of papal
falsehood and delusion, then the people of God need to present their
petitions in faith to the Most High. There is every encouragement, in
the promises of God, for those who put their trust in Him. The prospect
of being brought into personal danger and distress, need not cause
despondency, but should quicken the vigor and hopes of God’s people; for
the time of their peril is the season for God to grant them clearer
manifestations of His power.” Selected Messages, Vol. 2, page 370
Source References
-
I was on the front lines of the violence in Ferguson. Militarized police caused the chaos.
-
Stop Treating America Like a War Zone
-
Obama orders review of military equipment supplied to police
Pope Sends Message to Waldensian Methodist Synod in Italy
By Pastor Hal Mayer on Sep 01, 2014 11:00 am
Pope
Francis sent a message to the Waldensian-Methodist annual synod held
24-29 August 2014 in Torre Pellice, Italy. The Vatican Secretary of
State Cardinal Pietro Parolin signed the telegram on behalf of the pope.
The letter offered the Waldenses the pope’s “fraternal greeting” and
assured the synod delegates of his spiritual closeness during their
discussions.
In
language that would have deeply offended the Waldenses persecuted by
the Catholic Church in the 11th to the 13th centuries, the message said
that the pope, “prays that the Lord, through the intercession of the
Virgin Mary, grant to all Christians progress on the path towards full
communion, to witness to the Lord Jesus Christ and to offer the light
and strength of His Gospel to the men and women of our time.”
The
Waldensian Church historically refused to accept the papal teaching on
the Virgin Mary, and would certainly not have seen her as co-redemptrix
of Christ and co-mediatrix with Christ. The Waldensian church should
repudiate such a message with historical piety. But that probably didn’t
happen in this ecumenical age.
Pope
Francis has been reaching out to many Protestant and charismatic groups
in the hopes that they will seek full communion with Rome. Full
communion involves Rome’s sacraments including the mass, which was
especially odious and abominable to these ancient Christians.
The
Waldensian church has 50,000 members including 15,000 in Argentina and
Uruguay and a few scattered elsewhere around the world.
Will
the Sunday-keeping Waldenses eventually fall for the ecumenical appeal
of Pope Francis? It remains to be seen. But the Bible says that all that
dwell upon the earth will worship the beast. That includes the
Waldenses if they do not follow its principles in their worship.
Source References
-
Pope sends telegram to Methodist-Waldensian synod
-
Pope Francis Sends Message to Methodist-Waldensian Synod
-
The Synod of the Waldensian and Methodist Churches opens in Torre Pellice
Tony Palmer and the Collapse of Protestantism
by Pastor Hal Mayer Speaker / Director
Tony Palmer, an evangelical friend of Pope Francis, died in a
motorcycle accident. Francis sent a message to be read at his funeral
by his wife, Emiliana. Ironically, he was buried in a Catholic cemetery
in Bath, England after a Catholic Requiem Mass attended by mostly
evangelicals. He really wanted to be a Catholic, so he got his wish in
his death.
Palmer had a passion to bring Evangelicals and Pentecostals into visible unity with Rome. He and the pope made a video for Kenneth Copeland’s ministerial conference in Texas earlier in 2014. During that meeting, Palmer told the audience, many of whom did not know, that the Catholic and Lutheran Churches had signed a declaration in 1999 saying they now agreed on the doctrine of justification by faith.
“We preach the same Gospel now,” Palmer told the gathering. “The protest is over.” The Pentecostals reacted rapturously. Copeland burst into speaking in “gibberish,” often wrongly referred to as speaking in tongues.
After sharing the video with 3,000 Pentecostal pastors in February, it went viral on YouTube. Palmer was inundated by requests from evangelical leaders to be included in the “convergence” movement, as it is sometimes called. Palmer cancelled his teaching commitments and other personal studies in order to keep up with the correspondence. He updated Pope Francis in a meeting in April. The pope expressed his amazement.
Palmer took a group of evangelical leaders who together reach more than 700 million people to meet and lunch with Francis. The delegates included Copeland, James Robison, Geoff Tunnicliffe (head of the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance), and others. They told Francis they wanted to accept his invitation to seek visible unity with the Bishop of Rome and presented him with a proposed Declaration of Faith in Unity for Mission that the evangelicals had drawn up. They proposed that the Vatican and the leaders of major Protestant churches would sign it in Rome in 2017 on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Significantly, it would also be the 50th anniversary of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
The draft Declaration has three elements: the Nicean-Constantinople Creed, which Catholics and evangelicals apparently share; the core of the Catholic-Lutheran declaration of 1999 stating there is no disagreement over justification by faith; as well as a final section asserting that Catholics and evangelicals are now “united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel.”
In addition, there is a section about freedom of conscience and that Catholics and evangelicals will respect each other’s mission fields and not treat each other as rivals. That basically means that they will not try to proselytize each other and compete in each other’s territory. This would prevent the declaration that the Papacy is the spiritual Babylon described in the book of Revelation and the appeal to come out of her and be faithful to Christ (Revelation 18:4).
Protestants that adopt visible unity with Rome cannot preach the truth of scripture. They have given up the very Bible principles and teachings that made them Protestant in the first place. Rome’s teachings are still what they always were, the wine of Babylon that makes them and the kings of the earth and multitudes of people spiritually drunk. They are blind to the real teachings of Rome.
The aim of the ecumenical movement is full, visible, doctrinal and sacramental unity with the Catholic Church. When traditional Protestant and Pentecostal churches seek visible unity with Rome, the ecumenical movement is nearing its maturity. Protestants have yielded the field.
“In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World.” Great Controversy, page 573 Most people have no idea that Sunday worship is the bond that links Rome and the evangelicals together. Because evangelicals do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath, that bond of unity with Rome draws them back together. Evangelicals cannot claim that they follow the Bible and the Bible only. Therefore, inevitably and eventually they will return to Rome. They are now enthusiastically doing that.
“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.” Great Controversy, page 445
http://ktfnews.com/tony-palmer-collapse-protestantism/Palmer had a passion to bring Evangelicals and Pentecostals into visible unity with Rome. He and the pope made a video for Kenneth Copeland’s ministerial conference in Texas earlier in 2014. During that meeting, Palmer told the audience, many of whom did not know, that the Catholic and Lutheran Churches had signed a declaration in 1999 saying they now agreed on the doctrine of justification by faith.
“We preach the same Gospel now,” Palmer told the gathering. “The protest is over.” The Pentecostals reacted rapturously. Copeland burst into speaking in “gibberish,” often wrongly referred to as speaking in tongues.
After sharing the video with 3,000 Pentecostal pastors in February, it went viral on YouTube. Palmer was inundated by requests from evangelical leaders to be included in the “convergence” movement, as it is sometimes called. Palmer cancelled his teaching commitments and other personal studies in order to keep up with the correspondence. He updated Pope Francis in a meeting in April. The pope expressed his amazement.
Palmer took a group of evangelical leaders who together reach more than 700 million people to meet and lunch with Francis. The delegates included Copeland, James Robison, Geoff Tunnicliffe (head of the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance), and others. They told Francis they wanted to accept his invitation to seek visible unity with the Bishop of Rome and presented him with a proposed Declaration of Faith in Unity for Mission that the evangelicals had drawn up. They proposed that the Vatican and the leaders of major Protestant churches would sign it in Rome in 2017 on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Significantly, it would also be the 50th anniversary of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
The draft Declaration has three elements: the Nicean-Constantinople Creed, which Catholics and evangelicals apparently share; the core of the Catholic-Lutheran declaration of 1999 stating there is no disagreement over justification by faith; as well as a final section asserting that Catholics and evangelicals are now “united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel.”
In addition, there is a section about freedom of conscience and that Catholics and evangelicals will respect each other’s mission fields and not treat each other as rivals. That basically means that they will not try to proselytize each other and compete in each other’s territory. This would prevent the declaration that the Papacy is the spiritual Babylon described in the book of Revelation and the appeal to come out of her and be faithful to Christ (Revelation 18:4).
Protestants that adopt visible unity with Rome cannot preach the truth of scripture. They have given up the very Bible principles and teachings that made them Protestant in the first place. Rome’s teachings are still what they always were, the wine of Babylon that makes them and the kings of the earth and multitudes of people spiritually drunk. They are blind to the real teachings of Rome.
The aim of the ecumenical movement is full, visible, doctrinal and sacramental unity with the Catholic Church. When traditional Protestant and Pentecostal churches seek visible unity with Rome, the ecumenical movement is nearing its maturity. Protestants have yielded the field.
“In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World.” Great Controversy, page 573 Most people have no idea that Sunday worship is the bond that links Rome and the evangelicals together. Because evangelicals do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath, that bond of unity with Rome draws them back together. Evangelicals cannot claim that they follow the Bible and the Bible only. Therefore, inevitably and eventually they will return to Rome. They are now enthusiastically doing that.
“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.” Great Controversy, page 445
Source Reference:
Illegal Arrests: Search Warrant Issued In Murder Case, Targets Arrested For Growing Marijuana
 |
| Police Search Home in Murder of Teen Whose Phone Was Used to Text 'OMG I'm Being Kidnapped' (ABC News) |
Police have searched a
house in connection with the murder of a 14-year-old Michigan girl who
was killed while walking her dog on a wooded hiking path, authorities
said today.
Police and the FBI
executed the search this afternoon outside the town of Armada and would
not release any information about the subject of the search, but they
did confirm it was related to the murder of April Millsap. Police have
not revealed how the teen was killed.
David Porter, a spokesman for
the FBI's Detroit field office, confirmed to ABC News that a search
warrant had been issued, prompting the search but no arrests have been
made in connection to the murder. Two individuals are in custody after
police discovered a marijuana growing operation inside the house, police
said, noting charges have yet to be filed.
The probable cause statement and
search warrant connected to today's search are under seal so the name
of the individual whose home was searched has not been publicly
released, but Porter said it is not the end of the investigation.
Early reports about Millsap's
murder included claims from a relative that she had texted her boyfriend
on July 24 saying "OMG. ... I think I'm being kidnapped." But Michigan
State Police spokesman Lt. Michael Shaw told ABC News that the message
was phrased differently and may not have come from April herself.
"We don't know who sent it," Shaw said, without revealing what time the text was sent.
Porter also told ABC News that the investigative team is "aware of a number of text messages that were sent from April's phone."
Investigators have not released
any information about the way in which April was killed, saying that it
is "a crucial part of the investigation," but have officially declared
it a homicide. The 14-year-old's body was found in a ditch by joggers in
the Macomb Orchard Trail on the night of July 24 with her dog Penny
sitting by her body, police said.
Shaw said that while no one is
ever truly ruled out as a suspect, April's relatives and boyfriend
"don't appear to be responsible."
Investigators have released a
sketch of a suspect that they said was compiled from tips from others
inside the park around the time that Millsap is believed to have been
killed. They are also interested in any information pertaining to a
blue-and-white motorbike that Porter described as looking more like a
motocross bike than a Harley Davidson.
Porter added that today's search
outside of Armada is not the first search to be executed in this case,
and without specifying the targets, he confirmed that phone records have
been part of that search.
"When we are conducting a search warrant, sometimes it is not right at the end of an investigation," Porter said.
The teen’s funeral is scheduled
for Friday and a GoFundMe page started by a family friend has already
raised more than $11,700 -- quickly surpassing the $5,000 goal -- and is
set to cover the burial expenses, according to the page.
Examining the Terrorist Threat from America's Southern Border
By Scott Stewart
Stratfor Security Weekly
On July 21, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he was deploying 1,000 members of the Texas National Guard to the Mexican border to help strengthen border security. The move is the latest in a chain of events involving the emigration of Central Americans that has become heavily publicized -- and politicized.
Clearly, illegal immigration flows are shifting from Arizona and California to Texas. In fiscal year 2013 (all Border Patrol data is recorded by fiscal year), the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol sector surpassed Tucson as the leading sector for the number of apprehensions (154,453 in Rio Grande Valley versus 120,939 for Tucson). Also, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013, the number of Border Patrol determined "other than Mexicans" -- mostly Central Americans -- apprehended by the Rio Grande Valley sector increased by more than 360 percent, from 20,890 to 96,829. (By comparison, the Tucson sector apprehended 19,847 "other than Mexicans" in 2013.) Significantly, minors constituted a large percentage of the "other than Mexicans" apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley in 2013: 21,553 (compared to 9,070 in Tucson sector). However, the majority (84 percent) of those labeled Unaccompanied Alien Children by the Border Patrol are teenage minors and not younger children.
Lost in all the media hype over this "border crisis" is the fact that in 2013 overall immigration was down significantly from historical levels. According to U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, there were only 420,789 apprehensions in 2013 compared to 1,160,395 in 2004. In fact, from fiscal 1976 to 2010, apprehensions never dropped below 500,000. During that same period, the Border Patrol averaged 1,083,495 apprehensions per year compared to just 420,789 last year.
Of course, apprehension statistics are not an accurate count of total immigration and do not account for those who cross without being caught, and the statistics are also slightly skewed by the fact that Unaccompanied Alien Minors are far more likely to surrender to authorities rather than attempt to avoid them. In 2011, the Border Patrol apprehended 4,059 unaccompanied children; by 2013 that number had reached 38,759. Year to date, the Border Patrol has apprehended more than 46,000 unaccompanied children and estimates it will apprehend around 60,000 total in 2014. Still, overall, the Border Patrol will apprehend and process hundreds of thousands fewer people this year than it did each fiscal year from 1976 until 2010.
This type of hype and politicization of the U.S.-Mexico border is not new. It is something that has surfaced at irregular intervals for years now, along with scaremongering using the boogeyman of terrorism, and it appears to be happening again.
I've recently done a number of media interviews regarding immigration, and during several of these interviews, reporters have asked me the question: "Does the crisis on the border give terrorists an opportunity to sneak into the country?" While other border security analysts have told reporters that they believe terrorists would take advantage of the border crisis and that the cartels would be willing to work with terrorists for the right price, I disagree. I believe that an analysis of the history of plots directed against the U.S. homeland from overseas and an examination of the changes in the dynamics of transnational terrorism show such claims to be unfounded.
For example, in 2005, rumors were frequently published on a popular web media outlet claiming that al Qaeda had smuggled several tactical nuclear devices into the United States with the help of the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha street gang. According to the rumors, al Qaeda was planning to launch a horrific surprise nuclear attack against several U.S. cities in what was termed "American Hiroshima." Clearly this never happened.
But American fearmongers are not the only ones who can cause a panic. In a 2009 speech, radical Kuwaiti university professor Abdullah al-Nafisi talked about the possibility that jihadists could smuggle anthrax in a suitcase through a drug tunnel on the U.S.-Mexico border, a claim that sparked considerable concern because it came on the heels of other hyped-up anthrax threats.
However, an examination of all jihadist plots since the first such attack in the United States -- the November 1990 assassination of the radical founder of the Jewish Defense League, Meir Kahane -- shows that none had any U.S.-Mexico border link. Indeed, as we've noted elsewhere, there have been more plots against the U.S. homeland that have involved the U.S.-Canada border, including the 1997 plot to bomb the New York Subway and the Millennium Bomb Plot. But by and large, most terrorists, including those behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks, have entered the United States by flying directly to the country. There is not one jihadist attack or thwarted plot in which Mexican criminal organizations smuggled the operative into the United States.
There was one bumbling plot by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in which Manssor Arbabsiar, a U.S. citizen born in Iran and residing in Texas, traveled to Mexico in an attempt to contract a team of Mexican cartel hit men to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Instead of Los Zetas, he encountered a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant and was set up for a sting. There is no evidence that an actual Mexican cartel leader would have accepted the money Arbabsiar offered for the assassination.
Mexican criminal leaders have witnessed U.S. government operations against al Qaeda and the pressure that the U.S. government can put on an organization that has been involved in an attack on the U.S. homeland. Mexican organized crime bosses are businessmen, and even if they were morally willing to work with terrorists -- a questionable assumption -- working with a terrorist group would be bad for business. It is quite doubtful that Mexican crime bosses would risk their multibillion-dollar smuggling empires for a one-time payment from a terrorist group. It is also doubtful that an ideologically driven militant group like a jihadist organization would trust a Mexican criminal organization with its weapons and personnel.
Even jihadist groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have been forced to undertake remote operations involving bombs placed aboard aircraft overseas rather than placing operatives in the country. This indicates that the group does not have the ability or the network to support such operatives. In addition to remote operations launched from its base in Yemen, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has also undertaken efforts to radicalize grassroots operatives residing in the United States, equipping them with easy-to-follow instructions for attack through its English-language magazine, Inspire.
This focus on radicalizing and equipping grassroots operatives is also reflected in the fact that the majority of the attacks and failed plots inside the United States since 2001 have involved such grassroots operatives rather than trained terrorists. These operatives are either U.S. citizens, such as Nidal Hasan, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Faisal Shahzad, or resident aliens such as Najibullah Zazi. Failed shoe bomber Richard Reid was traveling on a British passport (no U.S. visa required) and the would-be underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had obtained a valid U.S. visa. The operatives had the ability to legally reside in the United States or to enter the country legally without having to sneak across the border from Mexico.
Could a terrorist operative take advantage of the U.S.-Mexico border? Possibly. Is one likely to attempt such a crossing when so much publicity and extra enforcement has been directed to that border? Probably not.
Stratfor Security Weekly
On July 21, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he was deploying 1,000 members of the Texas National Guard to the Mexican border to help strengthen border security. The move is the latest in a chain of events involving the emigration of Central Americans that has become heavily publicized -- and politicized.
Clearly, illegal immigration flows are shifting from Arizona and California to Texas. In fiscal year 2013 (all Border Patrol data is recorded by fiscal year), the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol sector surpassed Tucson as the leading sector for the number of apprehensions (154,453 in Rio Grande Valley versus 120,939 for Tucson). Also, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013, the number of Border Patrol determined "other than Mexicans" -- mostly Central Americans -- apprehended by the Rio Grande Valley sector increased by more than 360 percent, from 20,890 to 96,829. (By comparison, the Tucson sector apprehended 19,847 "other than Mexicans" in 2013.) Significantly, minors constituted a large percentage of the "other than Mexicans" apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley in 2013: 21,553 (compared to 9,070 in Tucson sector). However, the majority (84 percent) of those labeled Unaccompanied Alien Children by the Border Patrol are teenage minors and not younger children.
Lost in all the media hype over this "border crisis" is the fact that in 2013 overall immigration was down significantly from historical levels. According to U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, there were only 420,789 apprehensions in 2013 compared to 1,160,395 in 2004. In fact, from fiscal 1976 to 2010, apprehensions never dropped below 500,000. During that same period, the Border Patrol averaged 1,083,495 apprehensions per year compared to just 420,789 last year.
Of course, apprehension statistics are not an accurate count of total immigration and do not account for those who cross without being caught, and the statistics are also slightly skewed by the fact that Unaccompanied Alien Minors are far more likely to surrender to authorities rather than attempt to avoid them. In 2011, the Border Patrol apprehended 4,059 unaccompanied children; by 2013 that number had reached 38,759. Year to date, the Border Patrol has apprehended more than 46,000 unaccompanied children and estimates it will apprehend around 60,000 total in 2014. Still, overall, the Border Patrol will apprehend and process hundreds of thousands fewer people this year than it did each fiscal year from 1976 until 2010.
This type of hype and politicization of the U.S.-Mexico border is not new. It is something that has surfaced at irregular intervals for years now, along with scaremongering using the boogeyman of terrorism, and it appears to be happening again.
I've recently done a number of media interviews regarding immigration, and during several of these interviews, reporters have asked me the question: "Does the crisis on the border give terrorists an opportunity to sneak into the country?" While other border security analysts have told reporters that they believe terrorists would take advantage of the border crisis and that the cartels would be willing to work with terrorists for the right price, I disagree. I believe that an analysis of the history of plots directed against the U.S. homeland from overseas and an examination of the changes in the dynamics of transnational terrorism show such claims to be unfounded.
No Link to the U.S.-Mexico Border
As chaos has wracked Mexican towns just south of the U.S. border such as Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, Juarez and Tijuana, there has been repeated speculation that al Qaeda could partner with some street gang or Mexican cartel to smuggle terrorist operatives or weapons into the United States to conduct a spectacular terrorist attack.For example, in 2005, rumors were frequently published on a popular web media outlet claiming that al Qaeda had smuggled several tactical nuclear devices into the United States with the help of the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha street gang. According to the rumors, al Qaeda was planning to launch a horrific surprise nuclear attack against several U.S. cities in what was termed "American Hiroshima." Clearly this never happened.
But American fearmongers are not the only ones who can cause a panic. In a 2009 speech, radical Kuwaiti university professor Abdullah al-Nafisi talked about the possibility that jihadists could smuggle anthrax in a suitcase through a drug tunnel on the U.S.-Mexico border, a claim that sparked considerable concern because it came on the heels of other hyped-up anthrax threats.
However, an examination of all jihadist plots since the first such attack in the United States -- the November 1990 assassination of the radical founder of the Jewish Defense League, Meir Kahane -- shows that none had any U.S.-Mexico border link. Indeed, as we've noted elsewhere, there have been more plots against the U.S. homeland that have involved the U.S.-Canada border, including the 1997 plot to bomb the New York Subway and the Millennium Bomb Plot. But by and large, most terrorists, including those behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks, have entered the United States by flying directly to the country. There is not one jihadist attack or thwarted plot in which Mexican criminal organizations smuggled the operative into the United States.
There was one bumbling plot by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in which Manssor Arbabsiar, a U.S. citizen born in Iran and residing in Texas, traveled to Mexico in an attempt to contract a team of Mexican cartel hit men to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Instead of Los Zetas, he encountered a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant and was set up for a sting. There is no evidence that an actual Mexican cartel leader would have accepted the money Arbabsiar offered for the assassination.
Mexican criminal leaders have witnessed U.S. government operations against al Qaeda and the pressure that the U.S. government can put on an organization that has been involved in an attack on the U.S. homeland. Mexican organized crime bosses are businessmen, and even if they were morally willing to work with terrorists -- a questionable assumption -- working with a terrorist group would be bad for business. It is quite doubtful that Mexican crime bosses would risk their multibillion-dollar smuggling empires for a one-time payment from a terrorist group. It is also doubtful that an ideologically driven militant group like a jihadist organization would trust a Mexican criminal organization with its weapons and personnel.
Changes in Terrorist Dynamics
Another factor to consider is the changes in the way militant groups have operated against the United States since 9/11. Because of increased counterterrorism operations and changes in immigration policies intended to help combat terrorist travel, it has become increasingly difficult for terrorist groups to get trained operatives into the United States.Even jihadist groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have been forced to undertake remote operations involving bombs placed aboard aircraft overseas rather than placing operatives in the country. This indicates that the group does not have the ability or the network to support such operatives. In addition to remote operations launched from its base in Yemen, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has also undertaken efforts to radicalize grassroots operatives residing in the United States, equipping them with easy-to-follow instructions for attack through its English-language magazine, Inspire.
This focus on radicalizing and equipping grassroots operatives is also reflected in the fact that the majority of the attacks and failed plots inside the United States since 2001 have involved such grassroots operatives rather than trained terrorists. These operatives are either U.S. citizens, such as Nidal Hasan, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Faisal Shahzad, or resident aliens such as Najibullah Zazi. Failed shoe bomber Richard Reid was traveling on a British passport (no U.S. visa required) and the would-be underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had obtained a valid U.S. visa. The operatives had the ability to legally reside in the United States or to enter the country legally without having to sneak across the border from Mexico.
Could a terrorist operative take advantage of the U.S.-Mexico border? Possibly. Is one likely to attempt such a crossing when so much publicity and extra enforcement has been directed to that border? Probably not.
Read more: Examining the Terrorist Threat from America's Southern Border | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Here’s What Happened After an Ohio Sheriff Sent a Bill to the Mexican President for the Illegals in His Jail
Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones appears on TheBlaze TV’s ‘Dana’ with Dana Loesch July 25, 2014. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)
Brat — The protesting Protestant?
By Robert Lehrman, contributor
There's
an early Philip Roth story about a bunch of Jewish kids in Hebrew
school trying to figure out whether Jesus lived or not.
"The Catholics," Itzie Lieberman says, "they believe in Jesus Christ, that he's God."
Lieberman, Roth adds, "used 'the Catholics' in its broadest sense — to include the Protestants."
I confess, when I was a kid in a largely Jewish town, I was similarly confused.
I think I have it straight, now. But I was confused again this week, reading about Dave Brat's surprising primary election win over Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), because of what I learned about Brat's certainty that what makes America great is not just God, or even Christianity. It's Protestantism.
"The Catholics," Itzie Lieberman says, "they believe in Jesus Christ, that he's God."
Lieberman, Roth adds, "used 'the Catholics' in its broadest sense — to include the Protestants."
I confess, when I was a kid in a largely Jewish town, I was similarly confused.
I think I have it straight, now. But I was confused again this week, reading about Dave Brat's surprising primary election win over Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), because of what I learned about Brat's certainty that what makes America great is not just God, or even Christianity. It's Protestantism.
Reporters have mentioned Brat's embrace of both "Ayn
Rand and Protestantism," but this view hasn't gotten enough attention.
He's held it for a long time.
"Don't underestimate the value of Protestants," he warned now former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2005. "Give me a country in 1600 that had a Protestant-led contest for religious and political power," he said, "and I will show you a country that is rich today."
Brat has also made it clear why: the Protestant "work ethic." In the campaign he stressed the need for a religious-based approach to "ethics.” ("I believe in telling the truth.")
It is a reflex in American politics to praise God, religion and sometimes Christianity. To boast about the superiority of one Christian denomination? That's unusual in modern politics.
To be fair, there's no evidence that Brat seems bent on exterminating less productive sects. And while, to this Jewish person, there's a suspicious whiff of anti-Semitism in the way he warned Bernanke, a Jew, and gave it prominence in this year's race against Cantor, also Jewish, that might be coincidence. Brat is also a Rand enthusiast. Alisa Rosenbaum (her real name) was, like Cantor and Bernanke, a Jew.
But isn't there a double standard here? Let's say Cantor went around touting the superior work ethic of Jews? What if President Kennedy had based his famous appeal to mainstream Protestant ministers at the 1960 Houston Ministerial Association conference by arguing not that he had a right to run, but that really Catholics made America rich? How would that have gone over?
Now, Brat is an economist. He looks at data. Protestantism makes the United States rich? Maybe he's right. Maybe we should see whether Protestants are richer than other religious groups, say, when it comes to family income.
I looked up the Pew Foundation research on U.S. income by religion. Black Protestant church members are at the bottom, not surprising considering this country's long history of racism. Surely Brat's group — evangelical Protestants — does well.
As I scroll down the list of eleven, at the top are Jews, then Hindus ... Orthodox Christians ... Buddhists ... Ah! Mainline Protestants finish fifth. Not bad.
Keep going: Catholics ... Muslims ... Mormons.
Here they are: evangelical Protestants, ninth, deep in the second division.
Of course, there might be other ways to find support for Brat's idea. So I went back to find more detail about what Brat himself has argued.
Brat's attack on Bernanke came because Bernanke had written about factors influencing prosperity.
Brat agreed that his list included sensible ones but missed the big reason: "the Protestant religious establishment" and Protestantism's "efficient set of property rights."
Space doesn't allow for a full discussion of this notion or of the more sophisticated argument he makes in his research, some of which I'm not equipped to dispute.
But I can see what it lacks. Among them the woefully inadequate use of comparative data, discussion of confounders, and detailed rebuttal of those who disagree.
Am I alone in finding the campaign version not just badly argued, but offensive?
By contrast, look back to another discussion of religion and politics: that JFK appearance 54 years ago. It's remarkable not just for what Kennedy said in his speech but for his full and usually thoughtful answers to the hostile, patronizing views of the Protestant ministers questioning him.
After one answer, the questioner said, "Do you say that with the permission of the Vatican?"
You can hear Kennedy keeping his voice calm. "I don't have to have approval in that sense."
At the end, Kennedy tried to sum things up. First, having barely concealed his anger about the meeting, he lied ("I am delighted to come here today"). But then he said something sensible.
"This fight for religious freedom is basic in the establishment of the American system, and therefore any candidate for the office ... should submit himself to the questions of any reasonable man."
Here are some for Brat.
Where's the nuanced discussion of alternate possibilities?
Where's the thorough look at comparative data that show Protestantism promotes "rich" countries better than others?
How do you contend with the vast amount of research on different variables, such as the influence of climate, argued by people like Jared Diamond?
And then there are other questions.
Brat, the truth-teller, links his views on religion to "ethics." I encourage people to look at Brat's campaign stump speech to see what he means by truth.
Is immigration reform really only the idea of what Brat calls "Zuckerberg and the big boys?" Hmm. Another Jew, because they want "cheap labor?”
How about this? "Number one principle Eric runs on is stability in Washington — kick the can down the road."
I'm amazed to find myself defending Cantor. But Brat isn't telling the truth. If anything, Cantor thinks we don't need to deal with many of those cans at all. He's not kicking cans down the road. He wants to discard them.
And "stability" from someone who urged a government shutdown? Even allowing for the hyperbole of politics, that's not "telling the truth," either. Not close.
Answers, Mr. Brat?
The primary's over, But Itzie Lieberman might still like to know.
Lehrman is the former White House chief speechwriter to Vice President Gore and has published four novels and the widely used Political Speechwriter's Companion. He teaches public speaking and political speechwriting at American University and writes often about politics. This is his second piece for thehill.com.
"Don't underestimate the value of Protestants," he warned now former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2005. "Give me a country in 1600 that had a Protestant-led contest for religious and political power," he said, "and I will show you a country that is rich today."
Brat has also made it clear why: the Protestant "work ethic." In the campaign he stressed the need for a religious-based approach to "ethics.” ("I believe in telling the truth.")
It is a reflex in American politics to praise God, religion and sometimes Christianity. To boast about the superiority of one Christian denomination? That's unusual in modern politics.
To be fair, there's no evidence that Brat seems bent on exterminating less productive sects. And while, to this Jewish person, there's a suspicious whiff of anti-Semitism in the way he warned Bernanke, a Jew, and gave it prominence in this year's race against Cantor, also Jewish, that might be coincidence. Brat is also a Rand enthusiast. Alisa Rosenbaum (her real name) was, like Cantor and Bernanke, a Jew.
But isn't there a double standard here? Let's say Cantor went around touting the superior work ethic of Jews? What if President Kennedy had based his famous appeal to mainstream Protestant ministers at the 1960 Houston Ministerial Association conference by arguing not that he had a right to run, but that really Catholics made America rich? How would that have gone over?
Now, Brat is an economist. He looks at data. Protestantism makes the United States rich? Maybe he's right. Maybe we should see whether Protestants are richer than other religious groups, say, when it comes to family income.
I looked up the Pew Foundation research on U.S. income by religion. Black Protestant church members are at the bottom, not surprising considering this country's long history of racism. Surely Brat's group — evangelical Protestants — does well.
As I scroll down the list of eleven, at the top are Jews, then Hindus ... Orthodox Christians ... Buddhists ... Ah! Mainline Protestants finish fifth. Not bad.
Keep going: Catholics ... Muslims ... Mormons.
Here they are: evangelical Protestants, ninth, deep in the second division.
Of course, there might be other ways to find support for Brat's idea. So I went back to find more detail about what Brat himself has argued.
Brat's attack on Bernanke came because Bernanke had written about factors influencing prosperity.
Brat agreed that his list included sensible ones but missed the big reason: "the Protestant religious establishment" and Protestantism's "efficient set of property rights."
Space doesn't allow for a full discussion of this notion or of the more sophisticated argument he makes in his research, some of which I'm not equipped to dispute.
But I can see what it lacks. Among them the woefully inadequate use of comparative data, discussion of confounders, and detailed rebuttal of those who disagree.
Am I alone in finding the campaign version not just badly argued, but offensive?
By contrast, look back to another discussion of religion and politics: that JFK appearance 54 years ago. It's remarkable not just for what Kennedy said in his speech but for his full and usually thoughtful answers to the hostile, patronizing views of the Protestant ministers questioning him.
After one answer, the questioner said, "Do you say that with the permission of the Vatican?"
You can hear Kennedy keeping his voice calm. "I don't have to have approval in that sense."
At the end, Kennedy tried to sum things up. First, having barely concealed his anger about the meeting, he lied ("I am delighted to come here today"). But then he said something sensible.
"This fight for religious freedom is basic in the establishment of the American system, and therefore any candidate for the office ... should submit himself to the questions of any reasonable man."
Here are some for Brat.
Where's the nuanced discussion of alternate possibilities?
Where's the thorough look at comparative data that show Protestantism promotes "rich" countries better than others?
How do you contend with the vast amount of research on different variables, such as the influence of climate, argued by people like Jared Diamond?
And then there are other questions.
Brat, the truth-teller, links his views on religion to "ethics." I encourage people to look at Brat's campaign stump speech to see what he means by truth.
Is immigration reform really only the idea of what Brat calls "Zuckerberg and the big boys?" Hmm. Another Jew, because they want "cheap labor?”
How about this? "Number one principle Eric runs on is stability in Washington — kick the can down the road."
I'm amazed to find myself defending Cantor. But Brat isn't telling the truth. If anything, Cantor thinks we don't need to deal with many of those cans at all. He's not kicking cans down the road. He wants to discard them.
And "stability" from someone who urged a government shutdown? Even allowing for the hyperbole of politics, that's not "telling the truth," either. Not close.
Answers, Mr. Brat?
The primary's over, But Itzie Lieberman might still like to know.
Lehrman is the former White House chief speechwriter to Vice President Gore and has published four novels and the widely used Political Speechwriter's Companion. He teaches public speaking and political speechwriting at American University and writes often about politics. This is his second piece for thehill.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)