BLOG

The political and monetary implications of America's election

It is clear that US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu dislike each other. On the other hand, Mitt Romney and Netanyahu have a "warm" relationship dating back to their early careers in 1976. More recently, Romney went to Jerusalem to drum up support for his presidential campaign and was accused of engaging in a bit of illegal foreign fund-raising.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?pagewanted=all

That shared experience decades ago led to a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, that is now rich with political intrigue. Mr. Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is making the case for military action against Iran as Mr. Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, is attacking the Obama administration for not supporting Mr. Netanyahu more robustly.

It is no secret that Romney wants to start a war with Iran and chastises Obama for failing to do so immediately.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/21/romney-i-can-bomb-iran-if-i-want-to/

So if you like the biblically immoral agenda of the Democratic Party, support Obama. If you prefer a war with Iran, support Romney. These issues are quite clear. It is plain that the Evangelical Church has overwhelmingly thrown its support toward Romney, while others prefer Obama.

It is not an easy choice for a non-Zionist Christian to make.

The recent IAEA report says that Iran now has 2,000 centrifuges, up from 1,000 just last May.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57504116/iaea-report-iran-blocking-access-as-it-doubles-number-of-centrifuges-at-fordo-covers-parchin/

General Dempsey shocked people on the same day that the report came out by saying that he did not know Iran's motives for developing nuclear power. Intelligence, he said, does not specify intent. Both Romney and Netanyahu beg to differ. Never mind that the Israeli state has had nuclear weaponry since the late 1960's. They do not want anyone else to have it, for that would unseat them as the "bully of the Middle East."

Dempsey made it clear that he does not want a war with Iran and has told the Israelis that they will be "on their own" if they attack Iran. Dempsey says, "I don't want to be complicit" in a strike on Iran.

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2012/08/us-general-dempsey-i-dont-want-to-be.html

Of course, as we reported a few weeks ago, the American presidential elections have become a key part of the war debate in the Israeli cabinet. If they could be assured of Romney's election, they would probably hold off attacking Iran until next year after a Romney inauguration. But if they think Obama is likely to win, they will probably attack Iran and dare Obama to say anything negative about it. Such action would clearly embarrass Obama and likely cost him votes, because Democrats have also traditionally supported the Israelis as much as the Republicans have done.

In other words, an Israeli attack on Iran could assist Romney's bid for the presidency.

In my view, an attack on Iran would turn the corner and signal the beginning of the end of the Israeli state itself. I believe that Jerusalem will be destroyed by a nuclear device at some point, sooner or later, when God casts out the bondwoman and her son (Gal. 4:30). That bondwoman is Jerusalem (Gal. 4:25). The demise of Jerusalem would change the world as we know it, but from the divine perspective, it would allow the free woman (Sarah) to emerge as the true mother of the Chosen Ones. The present dispute between the two Jerusalems has yet to be fully resolved, though the verdict in the divine court has already been rendered in favor of "Sarah."

The pattern is found in Genesis 21:10. The only arguments against it come from those who misidentify the players in prophecy, or those who simply do not believe what Paul wrote in Galatians 4.

Therefore, it may be in the divine plan for Romney to become president. It may be that God has chosen him to make the fateful decision to start the war with Iran that will end with the unintended consequence of destroying the very nation that he wished to defend. Or perhaps the Israelis will make that decision themselves. At this point, all we can do is watch and see. The point is that we are living in a crucial moment of history, and that the political polls themselves may plan a decisive role in who acts first. If the polls show that Romney is ahead, war may be postponed a few months. If the polls show that Obama is ahead, the Israelis may attack Iran before November.

Either way, it appears that we are nearing Judgment Day for Jerusalem, the bondwoman.

But there are also economic implications to this presidential race as well. Seth Lipsky writes an article picked up by the New York Times:

An under-reported development of this campaign season is the Republican Party's decision this week to send Gov. Mitt Romney into the presidential race on a platform effectively calling for a new gold commission. The realization that America's system of fiat money is part of its economic problem is moving from the fringes of political discussion to the center.

This is a sharp contrast from the last time a gold commission was convened, in 1981, a decade after President Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods system and opened the era of a fiat dollar. The 1981 commission recommended against restoring a gold basis to the dollar. But two members—Congressman Ron Paul and businessman-scholar Lewis Lehrman—dissented and outlined the case for gold.

The new platform doesn't use the word "gold," describing the 1981 United States Gold Commission as looking at a "metallic basis" for the dollar. But the metal was gold, and the new platform calls for a similar commission to investigate ways "to set a fixed value for the dollar."....

It's no small thing that Mr. Romney's platform calls for a gold commission and an audit of the Fed. The last Republican to run on a platform calling for a dollar "on a fully convertible gold basis" was Dwight Eisenhower, who cast the promise aside once in office. That's a strategic misstep for Mr. Romney, should he win in November, to avoid.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619383218788846.html

The Republican Party's platform calls for spending cuts and and austerity program to keep the nation from going off the fiscal cliff. The Democratic Party calls for higher taxes to pay for the greater spending that they say needs to be done to get us out of recession. The trillion-dollar spending spree every year since Obama took office, along with the bailout of the Bush administration, has increased the national debt to unprecedented proportions.

In every past recession, the government has been able to spend America back into economic growth. This time, however, that plan has not worked. Trillions of dollars later, the unemployment rate is still high, because those deficits did nothing to bring the manufacturing jobs back to America. To reverse the flow of jobs to overseas countries, we would have to agree to work for much lower wages to compete with those willing to work hard for a few dollars a day. Or we would have to agree to pay more to buy American-made products at stores other than Walmart, which gets most of its stuff from China.

I have heard much from the presidential candidates about a Jobs Plan, but both parties ignore the ten-ton elephant in the living room. That elephant is "free trade," which pits high-wage American workers against low-paid foreign workers. The only goods that are made in America are those that the foreign workers have not yet learned to make, or do not yet have the skills necessary to make them. But given enough time, virtually all manufacturing will be done overseas until the dollar collapses and American workers settle for $10/day working 12-hour days.

The only other hope is that the standard of living for those foreign workers might be elevated to the point where they are on par with American workers. When their wages are more equal to the wage structure in America, then we will regain our competitiveness. But by then, America will be a third-world country with a nuclear arsenal.

If Obama wins a second term, we should expect to see more of the same from the past three years. The government debt will increase by trillions each year, and eventually the price of gold and silver will break free of its suppressed prices.

If Romney wins the election, it appears that he is planning a gold commission which could recall gold and silver from economic exile.

Either way, it seems certain that the price of gold and silver will rise significantly, while the value of the dollar falls. Just a few years ago a dollar could buy 1/300 of an ounce of gold or 1/20 of an ounce of silver. Now a dollar will only buy 1/1600 of an ounce of gold and 1/30 of an ounce of silver.

If the Israelis attack Iran before the election, the political uncertainty would surely bring an immediate spike in the price of gold and silver. If it happens after a Romney win in November, we will see the same outcome. Both roads lead to war, both roads lead to a rise in the price of gold and silver, both roads lead to a fall in the dollar's value.

We can choose the road we want, as each passes through different villages, but in the end, the outcome is the same. The destination is the downfall of man's systems called Babylon, and the emergence of the Kingdom of God.