“Records Are Made to Be Broken”

After Babe Ruth set the benchmark of 714 career home runs in 1935, the consensus among not just baseball pundits but experts in all of sport was that his record would never be broken. Then along came Hank Aaron who slammed his 715^th home run in 1974; he would go on to hit a total of 755 home runs, which many said would never be surpassed. Only for his record to be broken in 2007 when Barry Bonds hit his last home run … number 762.

It’s unclear who may have first said that records are made to be broken, as several well-known sports figures have said something similar. Like Red Auerbach, coach of the Boston Celtics basketball dynasty in the fifties and sixties, who said, “All records are made to be broken.” Even Yogi Berra, whose legendary quotes caused many heads to shake and eyes to roll, (“it ain’t over til it’s over”) said, “Records and achievements are made to be broken.”

When records are broken, there are mixed feelings. Diehard fans of Babe Ruth never wanted to see the day when someone would outdo his amazing feat of 714 home runs. It was a hallowed ground accomplishment. They cite the fact that had he not spent so many years as a pitcher, he would have hit many more home runs. Or, milestones that may be tainted because the record-setter didn’t play by the rules (such as performance enhancing drugs).

(Photo of Hank Aaron’s 715th Home Run … That’s Him Circling the Bases)

It has also been said that: Promises are made to be broken.

It’s a little easier to trace the origin of this saying. Many credit Anglo-Irish Essayist Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), who said:

“Promises and pie-crust are made to be broken.”

On the more positive side of promises made, most remember the famous line from one of Robert Frost’s (1874-1963) poems: “But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep…”

A promise creates hopeful expectations that things will be different and for the better. One of those expectancies is that we trust the promise-keeper to do what he or she said would be done. Promises that were never made to be kept (deceit and lies) and violated vows can shatter confidence, cancel contracts, halt careers, ruin marriages, topple governments, dissolve hopes, and disrupt the best laid plans.

Many Americans have become leery of and jaded toward guarantees made by our politicians; nevertheless, every four years we still listen intently to pledges made by our presidential candidates. By and large it’s those platform promises that determine for whom we will vote. Particularly if the candidate says he or she will do something that supports our view and bolsters our belief on issues that are of paramount importance to us … whether it be abortion, immigration, taxes, religion, jobs, health coverage, the economy, foreign policy, or all of the above.

President Trump’s Campaign Promises

It would certainly appear that President Trump has broken one of the key promises he made during his campaign. He said that the US Embassy in Israel would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in recognition that Jerusalem belongs exclusively to Israel as its capital city. Before we take a closer look at what happened, let’s briefly examine two other powerful platform promises made by Donald Trump before he was elected.

Repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare): The fact is that Trump did follow through on this promise; however, he has been met with substantial opposition from Democrats who refuse to relinquish Obamacare and also from Republicans who can’t agree on a health system to replace Obamacare. Thus President’s Trump kept his promise, but the congressional branch of our three-part checks and balance United States Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) has, for now, stymied fulfillment of his pledge.

Immigration: Same thing here, only it was the judicial branch of government (state judges) that has blocked full implementation of President Trump’s vetting ban on six countries whose refugees and immigrants could very well include terrorists. However, no one can fault Trump for not trying to keeping his promise.

Concerning what can happen to plans, purposes, and promises, there is another popular adage that almost everyone has heard about or said at one time or another:

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men.

That’s only part of the saying, yet it has gained the status of an axiom that doesn’t need to be expressed in its entirety. Just repeat those words to someone in the context of a miscarried mission or a dashed dream and they’ll know what you mean.

Do you recall who penned that line?

It was the Scottish poet Robert Burns. The title of his 1785 poem: To a Mouse. It was about a farmer who, through contemplation of not only his life but of all living things, felt remorse over destroying the home of a mouse while plowing the field in which the mouse lived. Some 150 years later, famous author John Steinbeck wrote a story about migrant workers during the Great Depression, based on Robert Burn’s famous line. The novel: Of Mice and Men, published in 1937.

The actual wording of Robert Burns’ poem was:

Over the years the word, plans, sometimes has been substituted for schemes.

The meaning: plans and promises don’t always materialize. They fail because we don’t follow through; when we do follow through something happens to thwart even the best laid schemes.

For those of us who are sons and daughters of the Most High God, through a redemptive relationship with our Savior Messiah Jesus: “And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them” (Romans 8:28).

Believers in Jesus also learn (usually the hard way) to think and say when we plan and promise, “The Lord willing” or “Your will be done.” (See Matthew 6:10 & 26:39).

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

It’s all too often through failed plans and broken promises that true born-again Christians experience the reality of Jesus’s words: “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing (right)” (John 15:5, parenthesis mine).

President Trump’s Visit to Israel

If you’ve followed the news about President Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East, then you know the second leg of his itinerary was a visit to Israel. He set a precedent by being the first sitting U.S. President to visit the Western Wall. Other American presidents had been to the Kotel but not while they were actually in office. Before his meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and proceeded to blast Abbas for lying to Trump when Abbas was in the United States.

The following excerpt (in italics) is from a recently posted Eye of Prophecy article, The Balfour Declaration … Beginning of the Omega Generation (Part I) Posted 5-13-17. The excerpt begins with a statement made by Abbas directly to President Trump during their meeting in Washington D.C. just a few weeks before President Trump departed for the Middle East. Said Abbas:

“We are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace.”

My immediate response in the article was:

Seriously?

Less than two years ago, Abbas incited dozens of lone-wolf attacks against innocent Israelis by declaring that Palestinians must not allow the “filthy feet of the Jews” to walk on Temple Mount. In September, 2015, Abbas said that he, “welcomed every drop of blood that is spilled in Jerusalem.” Not long afterward the “Knife Intifada” began that also included shooting and car-ramming murder of Israelis.

Regarding a Palestinian State that Abbas really doesn’t want unless Israel capitulates to every single one of his demands, such as East Jerusalem (there is no such thing as east Jerusalem) as the Palestinian capital—when such a capital would more easily and with much less adversarial results be placed in Ramallah—or the return of millions of Arabs currently restricted to so-called refugee camps, here’s what Abbas said not too long ago:

“A Palestinian State like Iraq, Saudi Arabia & other Islam countries, will not have or allow a single Jew to live there.”

From what I’ve read, heard, and seen: President Trump, despite his deep affection for Israel and the Jewish people, didn’t really know that much about Israel or the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. It’s evident that from the time Trump met with Abbas in Washington and a couple of weeks later in Israel, he was provided with more information about Mahmoud Abbas’ duplicitous nature and hypocrisy in saying one thing and doing another.

(U.S. President Trump and P.A. President Abbas)

At first, the Palestinian Authority denied that Trump had yelled at Abbas, but later admitted that the scene had taken place. That, in no uncertain terms, Trump had accused Abbas of lying with regard to his purported plans and promise of raising Palestinian children in a culture of peace. Also, Trump’s insistence that the Palestinian Authority stop paying monthly stipends to families whose son or daughter or mother or father had been killed while murdering Jews or imprisoned for acts of terrorism in Israel was rejected by Abbas.

Quoting President Donald Trump’s enraged statement to Abbas:

“You lied to me in Washington when you talked about commitment to peace, but the Israelis showed me you were personally responsible for incitement.”

Which leads us awkwardly to the probing if not provocative question, one replete with irony considering Donald Trump’s scathing remarks to Mahmoud Abbas:

What about President’s Trump Promise to Move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?

Let’s begin with an excerpt from Eye of Prophecy article, Is President Trump Wavering on “The Waiver”? Posted 2-4-17. (In italics)

Donald Trump made several prominent promises before and after his election, one of which was to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Soon after he became President, he was asked on more than occasion if he still intended to follow through on this commitment.

His response, “I always keep my promises.”

Just last weekend, however, he made a concession that the plan or procedure to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, “is not easy … has two sides to it … there’s certainly a chance of it, absolutely … I’ve always liked the concept of doing it, I’ll tell you that.”

He pledged to, “studying it very long and hard.” And, “I hate to do that because that’s not usually me. Usually, I do what’s right.” (Meaning postponing what he intimated would be a quick executive decision soon after being elected).

He concluded with the promise that he would, “…have a decision in the not-too-distant future.”

I take this to mean that President Trump is unwavering with regard to doing something about his unexpected and out-of-character wavering over “The Waiver.”

*Note: No matter how much Donald Trump knows or doesn’t know about Israel’s past as found in both Biblical and secular history, this and other quotes he made plainly reflect his high regard for Israel and the Jewish people. That alone puts him on the right track in the Scriptural context of God’s love for his special possession Israel and God’s plans and promises for the Jews and the Jewish nation.

As a quick refresher, here is another excerpt from the above listed article as to what “The Waiver” is and from what enactment it originated:

Will the United States Embassy in Israel be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? The answer to that question depends entirely on President Donald Trump.

Second question: Should the US Embassy be relocated to Jerusalem?

Let’s get right to the answer.

YES, it should be moved. Says who? Says the American people!

Really, when did we say that?

We said that through our legislators in the House of Representatives and Senate when they passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, calling for relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In fact, the voting margin was overwhelmingly in favor: Senate 93-5; House of Representatives, 374-37. That’s as large a margin as you’ll ever see in Congress.

According to this Act, the move of our embassy to Jerusalem should have taken place no later than May 31, 1999. However, in deference to the authority of a United States President to recognize foreign sovereignty over territories, Section 7 of the Act allowed the sitting President to “waive” enforcement of the Act if the President felt that such a move might pose a risk to the security of the United States. With the stipulation, however, that such a waiver must be reviewed every six months, so as not to ignore this Congressional Law indefinitely. Since then, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have done just that … signed the waiver. As a result, the US Embassy is still in Tel Aviv. Hence, it was a binding, but floating piece of legislation.

*Note: In the Eye of Prophecy article on President Trump’s possible wavering on “The Waiver” I listed the 17 points of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Each one is an amazing recognition of Israel and especially Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital so eloquently expressed by those members of Congress who drafted it, then affirmed by those who voted approval of this legislation.

(Four of the Seventeen Points of the Jerusalem Embassy Act)

There was enough dramatic suspense built up in the weeks before Trump’s May 22, 23 visit to Israel to fill several mystery novels. At first, it appeared that our President would announce while in Israel his decision not to sign the Waiver on June 1^st; thereby, finally enforcing the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Then in the last days before his trip began (1^st leg of which took place in Saudi Arabia), the word was that—on the advice of many in his staff and from leaders the world over—he would sign the Waiver, which would delay the US Embassy relocation to Jerusalem at least another six months.

I’m sure you know what happened on June 1^st; President Trump signed the Waiver.

Whatever your position on the matter—whatever your level of disappointment or degree of approval of his decision to delay relocation or even (God forbid) the belief that the embassy should not be moved—the immediate reaction would be that President Trump reneged on his campaign promise made to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) during their annual conference in March, 2016:

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

However, after reading the following press release, should we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Reasons Given and Responses to Signing of the Waiver

Here is the statement released by President Trump’s White House staff soon after the signing of the waiver:

“While President Donald J. Trump signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance.

“President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intentions to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

As expected, there were a variety of responses to President Trump’s decision to delay implementation of The Jerusalem Embassy Act. Notables such as Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, who said: “President Trump’s promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem was of critical importance to millions of Christian Zionists who ultimately supported his bid for the White House…”

And Nathan Diament, director for public policy of the Jewish organization Orthodox Union, who said: “A majority of American Orthodox Jews voted for Mr. Trump because of the expectation that he would be a more supportive president for Israel.”

Weekly, I read Op-ed articles from 10-20 authors. One of my top five favorites is Caroline Glick, Deputy Manager for the Jerusalem Post whose well-written articles are reprinted in various on-line media sources. She is a former captain in the IDF and possesses an astute analytical understanding of Israel and the Middle East.

Here are the first two paragraphs of her June 6, 2017 article entitled, The Limits of Israeli Power:

“On Thursday (meaning June 1^st), US President Donald Trump bowed to the foreign power establishment and betrayed his voters. He signed a presidential waiver postponing the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem for yet another six months.

Ahead of Trump’s move, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a last-ditch bid to convince Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem. But it was not to be.”

Although Ms. Glicks’s views are expressed with a perceptive and objective balance of whatever subject she addresses, she sometimes is quite outspoken. She tells it like it is. Her use of the word, betrayed, bluntly expressed her take on Trump’s decision.

As said earlier in today’s article, at face value President Trump failed to keep his platform pledge. But has he really broken his promise?

According to the official White House Statement, Donald Trump has not broken his promise.

Let’s read the last line of that statement again: “But, as he has repeatedly stated his intentions to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Personally, I am in the camp of those who think President Trump should not have signed the waiver.

I would have said to him: Let’s just get it done. If you fully intended to keep your promise, then do it now. Since when have you become concerned about geopolitical repercussions? Do you really think that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would be any more difficult to achieve if you moved the embassy? Have you considered that it might be easier to negotiate a deal if the Palestinians and the world-at-large would come to terms with the obvious fact that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and Israel’s alone?

Israel’s Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, said in response to the signed Waiver: “There is no peace based on the division of Jerusalem. Delaying the US embassy move will in fact have the opposite effect and damage the prospect of a lasting peace by nurturing false expectations among the Palestinians regarding the division of Jerusalem, which will never happen.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about Trump’s decision: “Maintaining embassies outside the capital drives peace further away by helping keep alive the Palestinian fantasy that the Jewish people and the Jewish state have no connection to Jerusalem.”

Benjamin had made a similar statement two weeks earlier in response to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who said Trump’s pending decision would hinge on how it would be perceived by other governments, including “…whether Israel views it as being helpful to a peace initiative or perhaps a distraction.”

(Apparently, Tillerson thinks that Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t have his thumb on Israel’s pulse or doesn’t speak for the greater majority of Israelis!)

Said Netanyahu in response to Tillerson’s assessment:

“Israel’s position has been stated many times before to the American administration and the world. Moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem will not harm the peace process; it will do the opposite. It will advance it by righting a historical wrong and by shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.”

The Dean and Founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier—one of the three speakers (I believe it was three) at Donald Trump’s inauguration—said: “The Simon Wiesenthal Center is very disappointed by President Trump’s decision to delay transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. We are certain that the Trump Administration is very well aware that no Israeli Prime Minister will ever cede sovereignty over Jerusalem. The city is and will remain the undivided capital of Israel.”

(Rabbi Marvin Hier at President Trump’s Inauguration … Billy Graham’s Son, Franklin, Another of the Three Keynote Speakers, Directly Behind Rabbi Hier)

Benefit of the Doubt to President Trump

I believe that President Trump means well as he has apparently placed the U.S. Embassy move in the greater context of brokering some sort of agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. In that regard, Trump’s reasoning is fairly typical of leaders who or see or try to see the big picture. Thus, in principle, I and a few others have given him the general benefit of the doubt. However, President Trump’s (faulty) rationale is not that much different than past U.S. presidents, who have operated under the (misguided) assumption that nothing should be done to further aggravate the Palestinians to the extent that it would jeopardize a two-state solution or any other resolution.

I addressed this issue in two previous Eye of Prophecy articles. Below is an excerpt from Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country? Posted 6-13-15, regarding the Supreme Court Decision declaring that passports of Americans born in Jerusalem (dual citizenship) must bear the stamp of Jerusalem, not Israel. This to make sure that the United States doesn’t “officially” recognize Jerusalem as belonging exclusively to Israel … certainly not as its capital.

In that article, I quoted excerpts from an earlier Eye of Prophecy article, Jerusalem … A City of Peace? Posted 12-27-14. Which was written after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the passport case.

Beginning with, Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country? (In italics)

Said Justice Kagen several months ago soon after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case:

“Right now, Jerusalem is a tinderbox. History suggests that everything is a big deal with respect to the status of Jerusalem.”

Her rationale reverberated and regurgitated what the State Department had said in that same brief to the Supreme Court, “…a simple passport alteration could provoke uproar throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”

God forbid that the Arab Muslim world should be provoked like that!

She made it clear that her vote (it’s obvious now, but even then, that she had already made up her mind) would be conditioned on the politically correct need to elude any further strife in the Middle East; which, in essence, would trump the real issue of whether Israel had the right as a sovereign state to declare Jerusalem as its capital. Thus, a vote to support the Congressional Act in 2002 would be tantamount to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which would only make things worse in the Middle East.

(*Note: The Congressional Act of 2002 asserted that Americans born in Jerusalem should be able to display Israel as the place of birth on their passports. Alas, why is it that neither our Executive Staff nor the Supreme Court can or will uphold the will of the people through laws passed by our Congress … in this case the Congressional Act of 2002 and the Jewish Embassy Act of 1995?)

(Example of a Passport Showing Jerusalem, Not Israel as Place of Birth … Whereas Passports of All Nations List the Country of Birth, Not City)

Returning to the prior articles:

The politically correct world view of six Supreme Court justices and their ensuing decision hinged on one perceived urgency: Whatever it takes, don’t increase the tensions in the Middle East that already exist.

Here is an excerpt of my response to her observations as quoted from the previous article, Jerusalem … A City of Peace, which is even more pertinent now that the decision is in.

That part, she got right … mostly. Jerusalem is a big deal, unlike any other city in the world. But when in our time was Jerusalem not a tinderbox? I can tell you with a great deal of historically factual evidence to back me up: NEVER has Jerusalem since Israel’s rebirth in 1948 not been a powder keg ready to explode.

If anyone carefully examines the wars that Israel has fought since her national birth, the incidents of intifada terror that has killed and maimed thousands of Israelis, or just the daily stream of hate-filled verbiage from the mouths of Muslim leaders and much of the Palestinian people, they would realize that the level of tension really can’t get any higher. Meaning that when Muslim armies, terror groups, and lone wolf assassins decide it’s time to strike, that’s exactly what they do. They may cite a particular incident or problem, but it’s always just an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway. The balloon is always full of enough air to burst. The string is always tight enough to break.  

What if all the nations on earth (or just one of those countries) refused to recognize Washington D.C. as America’s Capital? Choosing, for example, New York City because the United Nations is headquartered there. What do you think our President and the State Department would do about that? Or Congress, or the Supreme Court?

Again, I must ask: Since when does the world family of nations (most practically represented by the United Nations) dictate to individual countries which city will be its Capital? Isn’t that the exclusive right of the nation itself? What if the United States decided that it would no longer recognize London as Great Britain’s Capital, but chooses Manchester instead? Or Marseille instead of Paris? St Petersburg instead of Moscow? Barcelona over Madrid? Most likely, those nations would immediately sever diplomatic relations with America.

But that’s exactly what our Executive Branch through the State Department has done with Jerusalem. They have refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital; choosing instead by official state policy to consider Jerusalem as a city unto itself. A city that, for all practical purposes, belongs to the world; or at least to the world’s three main religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A city that is still up for grabs (literally), with its destiny to be determined by … by who knows what. By another failed peace plan, by another war, by unilateral declaration from the Palestinians that Jerusalem belongs to them, by Israel’s (rightful) annexation of the Temple Mount and all of East Jerusalem?

A Remarkable Reaffirmation of Jerusalem’s Status by the U.S. Senate

Whether our U.S. President follows through on his (now delayed) promise to move the Embassy to Jerusalem remains to be seen. As for our United States Senators, they couldn’t wait.

As a reminder to themselves, to the United States President and his executive staff, to the people of the United States, and to the entire world, they recently passed (June 5^th, 2017) an absolutely astonishing resolution. Resolution 176 was introduced and sponsored primarily by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY).

With an amazing unanimous bipartisan vote of 90-0, the Senate declared, among other things: “For 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been Judaism’s holiest city.” The resolution, “reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 as United States law, and calls upon the president and all United States officials to abide by its provisions.”

Senator Schumer said: “I was proud to sponsor this resolution, which reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that states Jerusalem should remain an undivided city and Israel’s capital…”

(Left to Right in Photo: U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell & Charles Schumer)

As we know by now, President Donald Trump is an independent thinker, and he does seem to get things done … at least he tries. At heart he is a “populist” placing the interests and aspirations of the average American above both national and international government. That’s what got him elected in the first place. He walks the talk and appears seriously determined to support Israel like no other U.S. president before him—with the possible exception of Harry Truman.

Is there any doubt that, through a 90-0 Senatorial resolution, the American people have pledged our loyalty to Israel and our recognition that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Promised Land given to the Jews by God himself? Which begs the question: In six months, is it possible that Donald Trump, the people’s president after the fashion of Abraham Lincoln, would again sign the waiver?

Things to Ponder

Why is it so important for people and nations to support Israel? Only one reason is needed to answer that question: Because the one true and living God says so. There are several passages that attest to the Biblical principle: as Israel goes, so goes the world. Which entails how people and nations have treated Israel and the repercussions thereof.

Most often quoted is Genesis 12 regarding blessings and curses on those who either bless or curse Israel. Quoted less often is another passage:

That chapter concludes with a detailed description of how God’s chosen people, the Jews, will once again live in ALL of the original boundaries of the Promised Land.

No dramatic differences from the current status quo in Israel can or will guarantee peace in or around Israel. But it’s much more likely that the Palestinians and surrounding Muslim nations will recognize Israel as a sovereign state in the earth’s family of nations, if they would only acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal, undivided capital.

Relocation of the U.S. Embassy would go a long way to achievement of that goal. An American Embassy in Jerusalem would, of course, benefit Israel for all the reasons given and more. It would be the greatest act of cooperation with, kindness toward, and support of Israel since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 … a war that Israel could have lost. God’s divine assistance included a willingness of then U.S. President Richard Nixon to listen to Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir, and provide Israel with much- needed military, medical, and other material goods.

Time and time again, the God of the Bible has proven that he alone is God—through hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. God’s promises are timelessly true. He never breaks his promises. What he says he will do, he does. What he says will happen, happens.

Accordingly, a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem would be of priceless value to the United States. The prayer that has been uttered by many past U.S. Presidents would be answered.

May God Bless America!

Jerusalem is not only the heart and soul of Israel, it is the very center of God’s universe. It is where Messiah will rule and reign over all nations of the earth upon his glorious return to set up his Kingdom and make all things right.

As Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace) only Messiah Jesus can and will ultimately bring Shalom to this morally bankrupt and terror-filled globe, teetering on the brink of the Abyss. His peace will mean much more than just the absence of war; he will bring wholeness and well-being for all the peoples of earth who survive the Tribulation.

“People from many nations will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of Jacob’s God. There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths.’ For the Lord’s teaching will go out from Zion; his word will go out from Jerusalem. The Lord will mediate between peoples and will settle disputes between strong nations far away. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore. Everyone will live in peace and prosperity, enjoying their own grapevines and fig trees, for there will be nothing to fear. The Lord of Heaven’s Armies has made this promise!” (Micah 4:2-4).

Until that time, let us continue to:

Sha’alu Shalom Yerushalayim

“Pray for peace in Jerusalem. May all who love this city prosper” (Psalm 122:6).