Last Generation World Edition: October 15, 2012 Monday Tishri 29, 5773

October 14, 2012                   Monday                 Tishri 28, 5773


(Site is in Progress)

If You are reading this "insert" with no News Services on the left and right hand side.

Please Click on the Link below to see the Extensive Exhaustive News Service of the

Last Generation Network News World Edition


Creator ot the Universe

You made the Earth, the Moon, 

The heavens above and the Hell Below

And You Made Man



In every Kindred, Tongue, Nation and Tribe

In every Land and with every people

Creator of All I Pray

You reveal to each man woman and child

You are God.


The World has lost its way and does not know you

The Nations have lost hope and cannot find you

I know you

God I pray

For Your Creation and for all the Nations

Declare the whole World




"You are a Missionary"







TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — The Israeli government has called a general election for Jan. 22, and polls suggest Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightist-religious coalition is likely to win a renewed majority — but an array of wild cards make the outcome of this campaign unpredictable nonetheless.

The stakes are high: A Netanyahu reelection could make an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program more likely, risking regional war and global economic crisis. And it could end whatever small chance still exists of a genuine Israeli pullout from even parts of the West Bank — something the Israeli opposition is almost desperate to bring about, but Netanyahu’s nationalist allies fervently oppose.

The vote also comes at a pivotal point in the increasingly acrimonious cultural clash between Western-oriented liberals and Netanyahu’s resilient alliance of social conservatives, security hawks and fundamentalist Jews.

That dichotomy is mirrored in Israel’s traditional electoral map, a bewildering affair that nonetheless reduces to two rival “blocs” vying for 61 out of 120 Knesset seats — the threshold needed to form a government.

The “left” bloc, historically led by the Labor Party, wants the West Bank and Gaza — captured from Jordan and Egypt respectively in the 1967 war — either traded for peace or separated from Israel in some other way to protect a Jewish majority within “Israel proper.” Jews currently make up about three-quarters of Israel’s population, but when the West Bank and Gaza are included, the breakdown between Jews and Arabs is close to 50/50. Smaller dovish groups and parties from Israel’s Arab minority are also in this bloc.

The “right” bloc is led by Netanyahu’s Likud, which historically has been hostile to territorial concessions. Netanyahu now says he is ready for a limited Palestinian state in some of the West Bank — yet his government continues to build Jewish settlements deep inside it and few take him at his word. Rounding out the bloc are even more nationalist groupings and religious parties eager to deepen the Jewish character of the state.

Polls suggest the right could win about 65 Knesset seats — a near-default majority that has mostly held for decades, built in part by the demographic advantage of a religious minority with high birthrates.

It is only occasionally overturned, either by circumstance or machination: An experiment with direct election of the prime minister resulted in a win for Labor’s Ehud Barak in 1999. The defection of Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — creator of the centrist Kadima Party that cannibalized Likud and ended up in the left bloc — led to the more dovish Ehud Olmert serving as premier from 2006-9.

The new campaign presents a significant number of wild cards that could affect the result:


Popular dissatisfaction with the left-right dichotomy occasionally gives rise to “centrist parties” that claim they might align with either bloc. But these days such parties — whose support and makeup generally reflects the secular and Westernized side of Israel — find their natural location with the left, as Kadima did, and amount to a device for taking votes from the right.

The newest centrist offering is Yesh Atid (There Is A Future), built around the popularity of 49-year-old Yair Lapid — a former TV news anchor, talk show host, newspaper columnist, movie star, mystery novelist and amateur boxer. Polls show he could lead one of the largest parties, with up to 19 seats. Depending on whom he chooses to run by his side, he seems to have a shot at taking votes from the right.


Whereas Netanyuahu is unchallenged in his bloc, the left is splintered into at least three mid-sized parties: a somewhat resurgent Labor, with former journalist Shelly Yachimovich as its leader, running mostly on social issues such as redistribution of wealth; Kadima, now led by the relatively unpopular former military chief Shaul Mofaz; and Yesh Atid.

There is tremendous pressure on them to unite, driven by the idea that this would change the psychology of the race and draw support greater than the sum of the left’s current parts. Indeed, a poll in the Jerusalem Post found that a unified party would outpoll Likud and become the largest party.

Would that be enough to crack the advantage of the wider right bloc? That may depend on whether a galvanizing figure is brought in to lead it.

The current speculation focuses on an Olmert comeback, which he is believed to be considering and which would be a gamble. Forced from office four years ago by a corruption scandal, he has been cleared of most charges but still faces trial in a bribery case. The backup is Tzipi Livni, Olmert’s foreign minister and a former Kadima leader — who is also said to be mulling the creation of yet another centrist party.


Gabi Ashkenazi, who was military chief until last year, is so popular that it is generally accepted that the recent law freezing top security officials out of politics for three years after their retirement was formulated mostly to keep him from leading the left against Netanyahu — and so in popular parlance it bears his name.

Taciturn and tough-looking, with security credentials and of politically useful mixed European and Middle Eastern heritage, he is believed to have strong appeal to the right. The much-discussed scenario has him campaigning for the left under the understanding that if the bloc wins it would repeal the “Ashkenazi Law” and appoint him defense minister.


Although the right bloc has propped Netanyahu nicely for four years, two potential defections exist. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the mid-sized Yisrael Beiteinu party, is an aggressive nationalist who nonetheless took part in the last Kadima government, is bitter about a years-long corruption investigation, and harbors ambitions of leading the right bloc that suggest an interest in seeing Netanyahu go down. And Arieh Deri, the only major ultra-Orthodox leader who is seen as moderate on the Palestinians, is returning to politics after a jail spell and a long hiatus; if he is not reinstated as head of the religious Shas Party many expect him to run against it, taking some of its dozen-odd seats and possibly delivering them to the left.


Some in Netanyahu’s circle cast the election as a referendum on attacking Iran — or at least on Israel’s right to act militarily to prevent the Islamic Republic from achieving nuclear weapons capability. Normally, on security issues, Israelis do turn hawkish at the polls.

But this one is complicated: The security establishment considers the talk of an attack reckless and seems to oppose the idea; much of the world is arrayed against the notion, seeking more time for economic sanctions to force Iran’s hand; and polls show the Israeli public — fearing a massive counterstrike including missiles on their cities and mayhem on their borders — opposes any move that is not coordinated with the United States. It could make very uncomfortable campaigning for Netanyahu.


Netanyahu supporters nonetheless hope the election hinges on the usual strategic issues, especially the Palestinians. On that well-worn ground, Likud is helped by the perception here that the Palestinians are sticking to unreasonably maximalist positions — including a division of Jerusalem that would mean a potentially tense border running right through the downtown of the holy city.

But if the left can change the discourse, Netanyahu is vulnerable on two issues.

So many Israelis are unhappy with the economy — surprisingly good macroeconomic figures alongside tremendous income gaps and widespread poverty — that a social protest movement largely aimed against the government last year sent hundreds of thousands to the streets. If this becomes an election issue it could galvanize the left vote — which historically, unlike the disciplined masses of the religious right, tends to be lazy on election day.

And Netanyahu is dangerously exposed on the question of ending the current system of draft exemptions for tens of thousands in the burgeoning ultra-Orthodox minority — ordered earlier this year by the Supreme Court, supported by most Israelis, and largely ignored by his government. The secular majority, including many on the right, is increasingly alarmed by Orthodox efforts to segregate the sexes in public, their widespread reliance on state handouts, and their school system, which turns out Torah scholars who know little English or math and have few skills for the work world. Netanyahu’s utter dependence on their parties’ votes for the right bloc’s majority could focus minds, drive away the center and amount to his Achilles’ heel in this campaign.


Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.





DAY 18 of 40 


Let us not look to ourselves for our solutions

Let us not Turn to Man for his good intentions 

Good Ideas

Noble Aspirations



We Turn to You

 We cannot Fix what we have done

There is no solution 


without you





Click Picture To Watch Current Video






Someone asked me this week what I thought about James MacDonald having T. D. Jakes at the Elephant Room. Well, to put it simply, I think it was great! James took a bold step in reaching out and inviting a man that some Evangelicals don't want to accept. I can understand having genuine questions about Jakes' position on the doctrine of the Trinity considering his longtime involvement with "Oneness Pentecostalism," and his own admission that he at one time held to an anti-trinitarian view of God's nature. But he has also, on several occasions over the past few years, stated that he no longer holds a "Oneness" or "modalistic" view of God and now believes in the doctrine of the Trinity. This he clearly articulated once again at the Elephant Room.

Jakes formally held the Oneness doctrine, also known as "Jesus Only," which teaches that Jesus is both the Father and the Son. The term Father refers to His deity, the term Son refers to His humanity. According to the Oneness doctrine, there is no Trinity—one God in three persons; rather there is one God who expresses Himself in different modes, sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Spirit. Now this teaching is certainly contrary to the biblical doctrine of the triune nature of God and is therefore "heretical," but to say that those who hold this view are not Christians is in my opinion going too far. Granted, it is an incorrect view regarding the nature of God, but it is not like other anti-trinitarian views that deny the full deity of Christ. I personally do not think you can put those who hold the Oneness doctrine in the same category as a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. I might be wrong, but that's the way I see it at this point. Should we seek to correct the view of the Oneness Pentecostals? Yes we should, in the same way we would seek to correct any person or group that has fallen into theological error. What I don't think we should do is spurn them or cast a final eternal judgment on them.

Now back to T. D. Jakes and those Evangelicals who are still refusing to accept him. This is sad! Give the brother a break. What else could he have done to affirm his belief in the Trinity? He's declared publicly that he "now" (showing he's moved away from his former position) believes that God exists in three persons. He even explained that during the process of changing his position he began to see that there were things the Bible says about the Father that couldn't be said about the Son, and things the Bible says about the Son that couldn't be said about the Father, necessitating distinct persons within the divine nature. He did say that he wasn't all that crazy about the use of the term "persons" when speaking about the distinctions within the divine nature, but others have expressed similar things, feeling that sometimes the term person might be too limiting or give the impression that God is a person just like we are. This seems to me to be the kind of theological "hair splitting" that has been the bane of the church from generation to generation, and something that, God help us, we really need to outgrow.

My hat is off to James and to the others who came together with T. D. Jakes for a time of honest dialogue and fellowship in Christ at the Elephant Room. The church desperately needs more of this kind of thing. After all, Jesus didn't say that the world would know we were His disciples by our total agreement on all the finer points of theology; He did say that they would know we were His disciples by our love for one another. The Elephant Room was a beautiful display of Christ's disciples doing just that.




Brian has been involved in pastoral ministry for over 30 years. He has served as senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Vista, California, and as senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Westminster, London, England. Brian has been extensively involved in missions and church planting work throughout various parts of the world. He now serves at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, California. Brian is the featured speaker on the Bible teaching program "Back to Basics." He is known for his clear and challenging exposition of the Scriptures. Brian and his wife Cheryl have four children and four grandsons and reside in Southern California. You can connect with Pastor Brian through his Facebook Page orTwitter




Growing up I watched John Wayne, Errol Flyinn, Classic movies of Good conquering Evil and even greater stories of Dying for your Country.


When I was a child I thought dying for your country was good thing.


Getting older I used to watch Battle Cry, King Arthur, Exodus and many movies that all wanted to tell me to die for and Idea. To give my life fo
r a higher calling, be devoted to the IDEAL even if it meant my death.


When I was a child I thought ideas were a good thing to believe in.


Later in life people told me I needed to solve social issues. I watched SCI FI and fantasy movies telling me I could make a difference, I could change the world, I could save the planet, the hungry, the poor and the unborn.

When I was a young man I thought solving issues were a good thing.

I got Old.


I have seen in retro movies and the same stories being told again to die for your country. And I have seen a generation of people actually think bombing each other and fighting wars for peace actually work....


I am too old for that. Been there, done that.


I have seen the ideal societies again playing push me pull you with everyone saying I have to make a change because it really is up to me stop Abortion, Fix the Debt, Create Jobs, Do healthcare, renew the world....


Sorry, I am too old for that.
Been there, done that.


You know even Christians now are telling me I have to vote Mormon and put away being a Christian because if I don't vote I am not saved or somehow I am not "with them"


So sorry, I have decided to Follow Jesus.
I don't follow men, I don't follow creeds. I don't follow you when you have high idea's or moral dilemmas. I don't worry or fret or act like I can save the World. I can't


I follow Jesus.




Read more:

The Religion of Politics


People don't want to admit how Religious they are by practicing  politics. And yert they do the same things in politics they do in religion.


People will put Faith in a candidate. Organizers want you to Believe in a party. Dogmas are campaign promises, made by men but now power in them to be true. Doctrines are party platforms people want everyone to agree on but seldon do. I really don't see any difference between a religious fanatic and poltical junkie. They both go to and use extremes to accomplish one purpose.

As good as religion can be at times and abused at others, I see the same truth in politics. Truth, Honesty, Integrity, Social Justice, Moral righteousness, just like religion I see politics wanting those to be done while in fact doing the opposite, much like religion. Wars, Debates, Agreements, Money, Economics, Health, Commerce, Trade. I do find the RELIGION OF POLITICS often more active in America than relgions of man.

Sadly I see On the Altar of Politcs America crucified of her Soul for the sake of Elections and little Grace or God involved at all

Religion and Politics cannot solve personal relationships, only people can.

Jesud wanted nothing do with Politics or Religion

If it meant giving up God in the Process

Have you?



Search This Blog