Archive for November, 2011

According to Klein Online—a reputable news source about the Middle East—Israel may be preparing a preemptive attack on Iran’s capacity to make offensive nuclear warheads. Klein wrote, “Multiple eyewitnesses reported seeing Israeli military trucks in recent days transport and station large missiles at the periphery of Jerusalem” in locations inside the West Bank.

Although there could be other explanations for the move, the action is unprecedented, and its timing is significant. The description of the missiles was consistent with the Israel’s mid-to-long range Jericho ballistic missiles, which easily have the capacity to reach Iran with pinpoint accuracy.

Does this mean an attack on Iran is imminent? Certainly not, but it does indicate the growing level of concern in Israel over Iran’s nuclear capability.

Is an attack being contemplated by Israel? You bet.

It may be Israel’s only option, especially with the tepid support given by the Obama administration. Very little is being done to thwart Iran. The sanctions imposed by the United States are not even as great as the United Kingdom, who has historically not supported Israel as firmly as the United States. This is why Iranian protestors have assaulted the British embassy.

Obviously, an attack on Iran would have catastrophic consequences in the Middle East, which the Israelis understand, but time and options for them are running out. To allow Iran to be a nuclear power would threaten Israel’s existence, and that’s something no nation-state can accept.

Since the beginning of the nuclear age, the greatest fear has been that an irrational, rogue nation would obtain nuclear weapons and use them to settle a grudge. This is exactly what appears to be happening between Iran and Israel. The Iranian leadership, who disputes that the Holocaust was real, has stated that Israel has no right to exist. This shows how irrational the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad administration is. With an estimated arsenal of five warheads available by spring, the balance of power in the Middle East will shift, and Iran will have the capacity to obliterate Israel.

Realizing this—and with no other recourse—Israel will be forced to act soon. The Israelis simply cannot allow this to happen. Perhaps that’s why the Israel Defense Force has scheduled meetings at key Jewish synagogues throughout the United States in December. They want to explain the situation to the influential American Jewish community before striking.

Israel’s situation is desperate, and the Obama administration is doing what it does best—nothing, which is unacceptable. If you want to help, repost this article with a comment of your own. Let’s see if we can generate the support for Israel that it’s our responsibility to give.

Read Full Post »

The concept of democracy originated with the Greek philosophers, championed by Aristotle. He saw rule by “the many” as the best form of government, but he was also fearful of mob rule. Plato was even more fearful of the excesses of democracies. There are those who see the Wall Street protestors as mob rule, but such protests in America are trivial compared to what is happening in the Middle East.

There is a democratic revolution that started in Iran, when the Ayatollah Khomeini replaced the Shah in the late 70s. In the past decade, it spread to the Palestinians. Picking up pace in the last year, this democratic revolution has swept out Gaddafi in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt, and now it seems certain to topple Assad in Syria as well.

For us, in the United States, we have historically supported democratic revolutions. We believe democratic rule is always superior to that of a dictator. It is hardwired into our DNA. But what we have failed to do is take into consideration the downside of democracy. In our own Revolution, our Founding Fathers sought freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Their aspirations were honorable and noble, and our goal was for our model to be a light to the world. Although we have made many mistakes along the way, our aspirations have always remained noble.

But that’s not the case with the democratic revolution in the Middle East. The people believe that God—Allah—is with them. Part of their belief is that the United States is Satan, and we must be destroyed. This means their democratic revolution is not in our best interest.

Even worse, according to this belief system, Israel has no right to exist at all. When Mubarak fell, Egypt ceased to be a peaceful neighbor for Israel, which means Israel is now completely surrounded by hostile neighbors. To make matters worse, the Obama administration favors the Palestinians over the Israelis, which effectively deprives the Jews of their most powerful and trusted ally—the United States.

The situation is a powder keg ready to explode because the Iranians are within months of having nuclear weapons, which they have hinted they intend to use. Traditionally, Middle Eastern countries have fought among themselves, but that’s changing. Persians, Egyptians, and Arabs are all coming together to fight their common enemy once again—Israel.

In the United States, because of our inability to differentiate between good democracies and bad democracies—like Plato and Aristotle did—we cannot discern the signs of the times accurately. Consequently, we have helped undermine dictators who were ruthless but kept the peace in favor of democratic upheavals led by militant Muslim Jihadists. In essence, our belief system has worked against us—with potential catastrophic implications.

The bottom line is this: we have helped undermine Israel, which is definitely not in the best interest of the United States.

To comment, go to: We Believe America

Read Full Post »

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.


—President Abraham Lincoln

October 3, 1863

Read Full Post »

QUESTION: At the time of the American Revolution, what percentage of the Colonists were church members?





ANSWER: It was only 5 percent.

COMMENTARY: Are you surprised? Most are. Nearly everybody believes it was much higher, especially because of the profound moral impact that generation of believers had in forming this country’s laws and values. Calling on Almighty God to strengthen them as they opposed the most powerful nation in the world to create a democratic society, these early Christians successfully stood against England. They believed that if God was with them, who could triumphantly oppose them? Their confidence in His guidance and support was unassailable.

In the past two centuries, God has not changed, but Americans certainly have. Although the percentage of church members is ten times greater than during the Revolutionary period, the Christian influence in society is negligable.

As a nation, we have legislated wrong and called it right, while repudiating what is right, calling it wrong. Now that we are close to moral and economic collapse, we wonder why? As our enemies from without and from within strengthen, most believe the best days for America have passed, but it doesn’t have to be this way, especially if we return to the ways of our Founding Fathers, embracing the values that sustained us throughout our history.

Our deterioration is not inevitable. We have a choice. We can return to God’s leadership and repudiate what is enervating our strength. Like our Founding Fathers, we can make a stand, knowing, that if God is with us, who can prevail against us?

APPLICATION: If this perspectives resonates with you, join us at We Believe America. Let your voice be heard, and be part of the 5 percent that lead our nation back to our heritage.

Read Full Post »

Our selection process for picking a Presidential candidate is so flawed; we have become unable to choose the best man or woman for the job. We don’t even look for the best person. Instead, we scrutinize candidates, looking for the one with the least flaws or negative baggage.

If our current methodology were operational throughout our history, many of our best leaders never would have survived the process. For example:

  • Thomas Jefferson, who had a slave concubine and plagiarized much of the Declaration of Independence from John Locke, would never have been taken seriously. The media would have crucified him.
  • Abraham Lincoln, who fought depression his entire life, would have been considered unstable and, therefore, unfit to lead.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was the allied commander in Europe during World War II and responsible for defeating Hitler, maintained a mistress who traveled with him throughout the war as his secretary. He left his wife, Mamie, back home in Kansas. He would have been considered morally unfit to lead.
  • John F. Kennedy’s profligacy, which included movie stars, would never have survived the finger pointing of his rivals in the primaries.

There are many other good Presidents who would not have been electable, while many weak leaders would have survived, including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama—the two worst Presidents in my lifetime. To be fair, mediocre Presidents like George W. Bush and Richard Nixon also would have survived. So would most of the Presidents of the late-nineteenth century—the ones nobody can remember.

The point is this: the mediocre survive the process. As finger pointing has become the norm, it seems that few ask the fundamental question, “Can the candidate in question lead us in perilous times or not?”

Take the current crop of Republicans for instance. If you’re going to choose—based on knit picking and who is safe—Romney is your guy. He is a good, safe bet—straight down the middle, as mediocre as they come. He looks good; he’s affable; and he will be whatever you want him to be—just as long as he thinks it will bring him victory. He’s the poster boy for playing the role of a Presidential candidate.

Herman Cain’s popularity, which has certainly peaked, is an exciting candidate. I love his honesty and his candor. By paying those women for their sexual harassment suits, however, his goose was cooked before he ever started. That’s as good as a nolo contendere plea. Actually, I’m not as concerned about the sexual discrimination issue as I am about his competency to lead. Frankly, I don’t think he can do it—nor can Bachmann or Santorum. Ron Paul’s followers are as faithful as hound dogs, but he’s a fringe player—just like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were in the past.

That leaves two others—Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Both have real records, which are impressive. Newt’s baggage appears to be more extensive, but he’s been in national politics much longer than Perry. The Texas Governor has an impressive record leading America’s second largest state, which is important, but he seems ill prepared in many areas.

That leaves Newt who hasn’t gone out of his way to impress me with his conservative credentials, but I still remember how he led the charge to turn the nation around in the mid-nineties. We need someone to do that again, and I believe he can. What has impressed me the most is his knowledge. He’s capable of leading us in turbulent times. I’m certain of it. Finally, I believe he’s eaten enough crow to know he doesn’t want to make a fool out of himself again, but only time will tell.

—Jack Watts


  • What do you think of this editorial? Be specific with your comments.
  • Do we pick the safest candidate or the best one?
  • Which Republican candidate would make the best leader? Why?
  • Is Herman Cain’s candidacy finished?
  • Can Rick Perry’s candidacy make resurgence? If so, how?

If you want to join the discussion, go to http://webelieveamerica.com/forum/topics/who-will-be-the-republican-presidential-candidate and let your voice be heard.

Read Full Post »

Symbols have meaning. They are what hold us together in difficult circumstances—like the image of the flag being lifted on Iwo Jima in World War II.

At the World War II memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., there is an effort to have a plaque added, which invoked the D-Day prayer of Franklin D. Roosevelt. As Commander-in-Chief, on a national radio broadcast to entire nation, the President offered a prayer for the brave young men landing on the coast of France to liberate Europe from the Nazis.

There is an effort to have a portion of Roosevelt’s prayer added to the memorial—an effort that is being resisted by the Obama administration.

This is what veterans and a group of Congressmen want added:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Not only does the prayer have historical relevance but it also provides a glimpse into the values “The Greatest Generation” held dear, which is precisely why the militant secularists insist that it not be allowed.

Led by Ken Salazar, Obama’s Secretary of the Interior, the Obama Administration is fighting this tooth and nail. To many, this may seem trivial and unimportant, but I beg to differ.

By refusing to allow the addition of the prayer to the memorial, along with a myriad of similar obstructions, this generation of Americans has been effectively severed from its historical foundation. Being adrift from the symbols that have held us together for more than two hundred years, young people by the millions are clueless about the rich heritage bestowed upon us, including those who died on the beaches of France on June 6, 1944.

If this trend to repudiate the values of our Founding Fathers is not reversed, we will be unable to sustain the foundation of our democracy much longer. There are forces from within that want to repudiate our heritage at all costs, revising history to do so. At the same time, there are others, including me, which are equally committed to reconnecting to our heritage in a real way.

The battle is on for the heart and soul of America, and you are part of it, whether you like it or not. The time has come to choose whom you will serve. As for me, I’ll stick with Almighty God and what Roosevelt had to say.

—Jack Watts

To join the discussion: http://webelieveamerica.com/

To read Roosevelt’s entire prayer: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odddayp.html

Read Full Post »

According to credible sources, Iran will have nuclear weapons by April 2012 at the latest. Intelligence reaching President Barak Obama is that by that time, Iran will already have five nuclear bombs or warheads. When that happens—and it’s inevitable—military action against Iran would generate a dangerous level of radioactive contamination across the Gulf region. Because this is the main source of the world’s energy, military intervention at that point would be unthinkable.

On Sunday, November 13, President Obama said that economic sanctions had taken an “enormous bite” out of Iran’s economy. He also said that the “U.S. is united with Russian and Chinese leaders in ensuring Iran does not develop an atomic weapon and unleash an arms race across the Middle East.” He spoke after talking to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hawaii. The conversation centered on new evidence submitted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, indicating that Iran was engaged in clandestine efforts to build a bomb.

Obama said Russian and Chinese leaders shared the goal of keeping a bomb out of Iran’s hands. As far as sanctions are concerned, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference that sanctions had failed, and “now the problem should be solved though diplomatic channels.” Other than Obama, most agree that sanctions have not worked.

For the first time, however, the President stated that a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States. “We are not taking any options off the table. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region but also to the United States.”

Jewish leaders were informed by the Obama administration that the U.S. had intelligence there was no more than a couple of months to strike down Iran before it was too late. Israel was told the military option would no longer be viable after April, when Iran is armed with nuclear bombs or warheads. The window of opportunity to stop Iran is closing fast, especially for Israel. But each option has significant negative repercussions for Israel.

If Israel does nothing, Iran will be a nuclear adversary in four months. With Iran’s stated position of annihilating Israel, doing nothing in untenable.

Striking could cripple Iran’s nuclear capability, but just for a short period. If Israel strikes, it will have a galvanizing affect for the entire Arab, Egyptian, and Persian community, and Israel might have to face another war with enemies coming from all sides, which is what many militant Muslim jihadists desire.

Israel’s’ future is in jeopardy, and the threat to the U.S. is real. For decades, Christians have been talking about Armageddon, hoping it would come in their lifetime. They may get their wish. It could be just around the corner.

If you want your voice to be heard about this, join our discussion at WeBelieveAmerica.com.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »