Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Anyone Who Loves Jesus And The Jews And Supports Ted Cruz As Candidate For President Are Out Of Their Mind

I'm not sure about all the Lovey Dovey crap Walid Shoebat has in his opening line, but this is an informative bit of news on Ted Cruz's dominionist cult. I don't remember Jesus ever saying he loves anyone...ever. That's for another post, one on the NT. 

Anyone Who Loves Jesus And The Jews And Supports Ted Cruz As Candidate For President Are Out Of Their Mind

By Walid Shoebat
Lots of times, when the ones with foresight warns of damaging current foreign policies, the naive crowds object “you’r unpatriotic”, yet when these with foresight are proven correct, and only after seeing the aftermath, no one remembers the watchmen.
We warned as others did of bad foreign policy regarding Iraq, Syria and the Arab Spring years ago. Many Republicans  mocked. Then the same Republicans who mocked, years later, trumpeted the same sentiment we did, but the difference is that these were the Johnny-come-lately.
So which one would you like to be, a voter with foresight or a Johnny-come-lately?
Ted Cruz, the darling of many is a disaster for Christianity and Jews for many reasons.
It is not only that Cruz’ father Rafael Cruz is a weird cultist who says that his son was anointed as “king” who will take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the “Seven Mountains  Mandate“, but Cruz’s foreign policy supports the very issue he claims to uphold being pro-Jews pro-marriage etc … According to the Seven Mountain Initiative which started by reprobates in 1975 by R. J. Rushdoony and Francis Schaeffer” (whose son Frank Schaeffer converted to eastern Orthodox and later became atheist)  who claimed a special access to the Almighty and with a strange twist of Scripture started an evil movement. From this, Seven Mountain cult evolved. While it claimed that they used “biblical foundations” this cult evolved into complete insanity:
The 7 mountains initiative is not an initiative to establish dominion over all the earth or in governments. It is an initiative that seeks to love and serve all people on the earth. As followers of Christ, we believe we are called to love all people, regardless of faithlifestyle or gender orientation.
It is this mimicking of some sort of a Global Caliphate that Christianity is all about becoming dominionists  in which Cruz’s father says that his son will “bring the spoils of war to the priests”, thus helping to bring about a prophesied “great transfer of wealth”, from the “wicked” to righteous gentile believers (link to video). Most are unaware that the cult Ted belongs to with his father Rafael Cruz’ is the dominionist cult.
While there is no time or space here to cover Cruz’s cultic affiliation, it is crucial that folks understand: American politics whether Democrat or Republican is not at war with Islamists per se: the CIA aided the Islamist terror in Chechnya and the Russian Caucasus in the early 1990’s, they aided the Islamist  Mujahideen in Afghanistan during Ronald Reagan’s era (which later became the Taliban), they aided the Jihadi Arab Spring, they aided Islamist Turkey …  these are all anti-Israel and anti-Christ. Anyone cares to deny?
Most American voters are lemmings, sheep led to the slaughter who are unaware (due to lack of education on foreign policy) that the goal is not combatting evil, but is to deliberately weaken Russia’s sphere of influence. This desire must be accomplished no matter what–even by using and supporting Islamists, neo-Nazis or whomever– it doesn’t matter. All this is an undeniable fact of life, politics is not about right vs. wrong, Shiite vs. Sunni, Protestant theology vs. Catholic, marriage vs. gender orientation, Israel vs. Palestine, recognition of Holocaust vs. Holocaust denial, haves vs. have-nots, Republican vs. Democrat …  but it is all about a continual war between top-dogs and is a pure struggle over power and world-dominion.
Thats it.
Anyone who denies this is simply part of the tide and the drowning sheep who get caught in the quicksand. These will always be the naive masses who are recruited with the cries of “Hurrah” while waiting for Johnny to come home from Iraq or Afghanistan who was supposedly fighting for his country.
Am I then denouncing the U.S.? Heavens no. America does what is right only by the providence of God. While we applaud Reagan for defeating Russia’s Communism, and before him, the threats from Nazi Germany and the emperor worship of Japan, it was by sheer providence the military found the Nazi death camps, all the while the government knew everything and did absolutely nothing until the end. The goodness of the American, most of the time, is not reflected by the politicians and this coming election Americans have a chance to change this.
But Cruz is not the answer.
Why? Besides his cultic affiliations, Cruz, as part of his foreign policy, supports the pro-Nazi Ukrainian government as do most Democrat and Republican politicians. In fact, it was Putin who correctly alleges that the government in Ukraine’s Kiev is propped up by neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic fascist groups including Right Sector and Svoboda – a nationalist party that won seats in the Ukrainian parliament in 2012. Putin uses this fact to justify the annexation of Crimea and the backing of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine.
Reuters/Gleb Garanich
In fact, it was Senator John McCain who actually labeled the Hungarian PM Viktor Orban“a neo-fascist dictator” for simply being close to Russia. Yet when it came to the Ukraine, this same John McCain was on the platform with neo-fascist and far-right figures in Ukraine before the coup.
It is this type of double standard that is quite extraordinary. While the anti-Russia pro-Western side of the Ukraine is neo-Nazi, naive Americans are supposed to pretend that the Nazis are not there. When Cruz rightly walks out on an anti-Israel event ran by Middle Eastern Arab Christians, what is not known by many, is that Cruz could care less about Israel and cares more about political power. If this assessment is wrong, why then would Ted Cruz  visit in support this same neo-Nazi government, the very anti-Semitic government, whom Ukraine’s Chief Rabbi, Moshe Reuben Asman, has warned about, that Jews in Ukraine should get out of the country due to the pro-Nazi government.
So why do so many European and American politicians — including, of all people, Sen. Ted Cruz want to help anti-Semites ascend to power and become part of the EU? The Republican establishment as a whole, and its obvious, is all part of the soulless agendas in Washington DC which is U.S. dominion.
The only way out is that Cruz claims he has no foreign policy experience or to say (as our current administration does) that the Ukrainian government will be “tamed”.
It is a rule-of-thumb, that when the U.S. cries that Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, or any country needs “democracy”,  what they mean by that is “regime change” to thwart another superpower. In Syria it didn’t matter that McCain (republican) and Obama (democrat) supported terrorists who used Sarin gas, it was about changing the pro-Russian Syrian government. This reality is what we call “state backed terrorism” which will never change regardless to who is U.S. President.
Confirmed by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, key organizations in the Ukraine including the Neo-Nazi party Svoboda were generously supported by Washington:
“We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. … We will continue to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.” Svoboda is one of four major parties of the coalition Ukrainian government.
This is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans, both parties support the same issues. Cruz supports the same Neo-Nazi party Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok. Here he is with the Hitler salute:

Neo Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok
John McCain and neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok met to finalize plans to overthrow Ukraine’s legitimate government

“Beat the Yids” a quot on T-Shirts worn by Ukranian Nationalists which means “beat the Jews”
The biblical rule of thumb is that nationalism is a system ordained by God. It is a system which the “izims”  (Communism, Islamism, Socialism, Paganism …) are always at war with. Evil never stops to reshape us in the milieu of an evil ideology that grinds us into one religion and one government.
The story of Ukraine is the story of nationalism. Nationalism is ordained by God to all people. The business class in the Ukraine were oriented towards Russia who see the Ukrainian-Russian relationship as vital while the elites are much more oriented towards the EU and not the people. Russia has always been the imperial overlord of Ukraine, both under the Czar and in the time of the Soviet Union.
So the Pro-EU wing of the elite ruling class succeeded in raising an impressive stage army of protesters, a large part is inspired by the Occupy movement and the other by traditionalists. These see themselves as Europeans and not Russian. Then you have ultra-nationalists like Oleh Tyahnbok, an anti-Semite, which is a tradition that is not exactly dead in Ukraine. These are the bulk of the anti-Russia movement.
So it’s a geopolitical rivalry between the European Union (which is using its puppets) and Russia.
Russia’s President Putin has never given up on the idea of a Russian-led and dominated political and economic union as a counterbalance to Nato and the EU. With its historical, cultural and political and economic ties with Russia, it is the biggest prize in a competition for geopolitical power between Russia and the EU.
Putin started a parallel and competing strategic initiative with the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) in October 2007 aiming for a ‘fully-fledged union’ similar to the EU as a global pole of power. Russia used similar pressure to force Armenia to give up negotiating with the EU.
There is a deep dividing line between the EU and Russia. Moscow has always seen the EU’s engagement in Eastern Europe as competitive interference. Dealing with Moscow has always been one of Europe’s most sensitive dilemmas.
The tsarist empire, the Soviet Union and Russia have all been both the enemy, and an ally to Europe. Europeans have fought with and against the Russians, just as they have done among themselves.
Many see Russia as a European country, which extends into Asia. Europe has no choice, what is in the interest of most of Europe is to have Russia as a close ally who can help on key matters such as dealing with Syria and the security of their energy supplies – which is about one-third of Europe’s gas, oil and coal imports which come from Russia. Europe’s relationship with Russia is more important for the EU than their relationship with the Ukraine.
The European Union is in shambles given the terrible economic problems of Southern Europe, so adding the weak Ukraine to the EU was preposterous, but making it in the Russian sphere of influence will prove an asset for Russia in the future.
Many who argue for Cruz’s theology has a dilemma. Cruz is an Evangelical in which the anti-Putin stems from the wrong interpretation of Gog and Magog being Russia, a nation (so they claim) that comes against Israel prior to Armageddon. While this is an error of interpreting Scriptures, his policy supporting the Ukraine to be part of the EU (which is also thought to be Antichrist) should put him, including all his Evangelical voters in a dilemma: why be on the side of Antichrist while being against Gog? Shouldn’t Evangelicals be anti-both: Gog and Antichrist? This is the pillar of hypocrisy.
It is here where these err. Donald Trump was right about the war in Iraq and it took a decade to recognize it and it would probably take another decade till the Republican party admits it.
And here is where foresight is necessary. President Putin (whom many of the naive consider as enemy) bolsters Christian Armenia politically, economically and militarily. The U.S. refuses to do what Putin did in recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Historically speaking, the U.S. is a holocaust denier when it comes to Armenia. How can a nation live with this? The U.S. Government is not about recognition of Holocaust vs. Holocaust denial.
Support for Armenia and Russia’s occupation of the Ukraine is bad for Turkey. Armenia’s recent rise as a regional power has only been possible due to the near total control Moscow has had over Armenia’s energy and military sectors. Armenia in the future will be an asset to fight against Turkey and the Ukraine will be the platform where Russia will invade Turkey when conflicts arise between Russia and Turkey.
I know that while some see Russia’s support for Iran as bad, this is true, but always keep in mind that Russia supports Iran to harass the U.S. with its anti-Russia attitude. Russia is creating a strategic crisis for the United States who fears Iran more than the Russians who are buffered from Iran by the Sunni Caucasus states. As far as the future goes, many in the U.S. fear the Russian sphere of influence, especially that it strengthened Iran. The Prophecy arena is replete with a Russian Iranian alliance that is based on error. But what needs to be understood are the issues at hand; first, Russia was fighting Sunnis in the northern Caucasus and feared the strengthening of radical Sunnis anywhere, but particularly in the larger Sunni-dominated republics in Russia. This is the same case with the U.S. in allying with Iran to fight ISIS.
It is just the way the ball bounces.
The Russians do not really have an interest to attack Israel as many in the Prophecy mania proclaim. No serious analyst would see any reason for Russia to invade Israel, and neither does Russia want the Iranians to gain nuclear weapons. What they do want is an extended conflict in Iraq, extended tension between Iran and the United States, and they wouldn’t much mind it if the United States went to war with Iran as well.
Second, an Iranian sphere of influence would threaten Saudi Arabia and would compel the United States to re-engage in the region to protect Saudi Arabia and by that will also be inclined to defend Israel. After all, the Americans remain obsessed with the Islamic world.
The key foreign policy then is to bring Russia closer while keeping Iran and Turkey at a distance. Yet the U.S. has its ties closer to Turkey and is now aiding Iran while they alienate Russia. It is also true that U.S. policy in the region (and why the U.S. Administration are behind the Sunni-Shia divide) is that the U.S. needs a region equally treacherous both for Turkey and Iran. Current balance of forces between extremist religious groups prevents Turkey and Iran to feel comfortable, whereas Washington reaps geopolitical dividends from the situation.
But Turkey and Iran have a common interest in preventing an independent Kurdish nation. The more the United States supports the Muslim Iraqi Kurds there will be a greater danger of an Iranian-Turkish alliance which is what we project will happen.
The only problem with this policy is that it undermines the situation for the Christians in the region, who are becoming highly persecuted. Such persecution will extend to the future in which the entire Christian population in the Middle East will have to flee or be slaughtered. To Christians, this issue should be the highest priority. Please help us rescue Christians.
Folks ask me why I support Donald Trump. It is not only that Trump has foresight and was one of very few to stand against the war in Iraq, but Trump also has a simple policy: bring Russia closer, prevent Russia and China to unite, while keeping Japan, Turkey and Iran at a distance, all the while defend U.S. economy from all these greedy nations that do not want to play fairly. This is the vision of a man with foresight:
For a one hour video that explains the Nazi support by the U.S. to the Ukraine watch this:

Full Video: Donald Trump Gives The Best Speech Of His Campaign To Date At The AIPAC Policy Conference

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Ted Cruz Lies Jesus Ain't Happy

"The doctrine of tithing isn’t widely practiced or believed. But if you’re going to treat it seriously, then make Jesus happy and tell the truth."

Ted Cruz Lies Right to Christian Journalist’s Face About ‘Tithing’

If you’re not much of a church-goer, then the word “tithing” probably sounds like a cockney guy with a lisp getting ready to taze you, but in the evangelical circles where Ted Cruz hopes to find his advantage in Iowa, it is an Old Testament guideline that sets the level of an individual’s charitable giving at ten percent of their income. That custom has now become part of the Republican presidential campaign.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church, so I can attest to the fact that tithing is really important to some pastors, but most Christians wouldn’t judge someone on this standard because even the churchiest among us gives the side-eye to this convenient bit of New Testament-ignoring self-service, and are more inclined to heed the two Corinthians on this: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
But in Republican politics, what the pastors think really matters, so CBN’s David Brody asked Cruz about a recent story concerning his failure to tithe, and Cruz chalked it up to a long-ago time of financial struggle as a newly-married man:

Ted Cruz: “Listen on the question of tithing, all of us are on a faith journey, and I will readily admit that I have not been as faithful in this aspect of my walk as I should have been”
“That article focuses on ten years ago. We don’t have the ability to go back and change what occurred ten years ago when Heidi and I were newly married and we’d just started a family. But at the end of the day, being a Christian is not about holding yourself out as righteous. It’s about beginning with the understanding that we are flawed sinners and we are saved not by deeds but by Christ’s redemption. I am grateful that God is a patient and forgiving God and this area, as in many areas of my life I am working to do a better job walking in my faith.”
Look, the real answer to this question is that nobody tithes, not even that guy at your church who sings all the hymns without looking at the book and scowls like you farted every time someone reads a verse from a New International Version, but if you’re going to engage the question, Jesus would like it if you told the truth.
The story he references, first of all, doesn’t focus on “ten years ago,” it covers Ted’s tax returns for a five-year period that ended five years ago. From 2006 to 2010, Ted Cruz made $5,064, 248.00 and gave $44,000.00 to charity. That’s 0.86% of his income, or about 8.6% of a tithe. In 2006, when Cruz made “only” $350 grand, he and Heidi weren’t “newly married,” they’d been married for five years, and they weren’t “starting a family,” they didn’t have kids until 2008.
The thing is, Ted Cruz knows he’s not telling the truth, because this issue also came up during his campaign for U.S. Senate, and he threw an entirely different piece of spaghetti at the wall that time:

Ted Cruz: “Listen on the question of tithing, all of us are on a faith journey, and I will readily admit that I have not been as faithful in this aspect of my walk as I should have been”
“That article focuses on ten years ago. We don’t have the ability to go back and change what occurred ten years ago when Heidi and I were newly married and we’d just started a family. But at the end of the day, being a Christian is not about holding yourself out as righteous. It’s about beginning with the understanding that we are flawed sinners and we are saved not by deeds but by Christ’s redemption. I am grateful that God is a patient and forgiving God and this area, as in many areas of my life I am working to do a better job walking in my faith.”

Asked to explain, the Cruz campaign told News 8 Cruz also donates many hours of his time to charitable and educational endeavors.
I guess with $5 mil to account for now, it’s tough to make the case that Cruz did $500,000.00 worth of soup kitchen shifts.
Look, I’ll be the first one to admit that it’s garbage for liberal outsiders to try and attack Ted Cruz over a custom that they, themselves, think is silly, and Cruz could have responded to this in any number of ways. The doctrine of tithing isn’t widely practiced or believed. But if you’re going to treat it seriously, then make Jesus happy and tell the truth.
Update: a SuperPAC supporting Mike Huckabee has just started running an ad in Iowa that features two very concerned-looking white ladies discussing all the things they’ve “heard” about Cruz, including this:
He doesn’t tithe?

Source: http://www.mediaite.com


Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 His final speech from the White House,

On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.

Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.

Eisenhower gave the address after completing two terms in office; it was just days before the new president, John F. Kennedy, would be sworn in.

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
  • and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Eisenhower Farewell Address (Full)