U2 has always had a degree of insecurity and self-doubt about them mixed in with seemingly boundless ambition. It's manifested itself in different ways. In the studio, they've always seemed to torture themselves trying to get it right - the sessions for UF came down to the wire with 20 hour days at the end to get it done, in the JT sessions they were so stressed about Streets that Brian Eno nearly destroyed the master tape of it, the band's near break-up during the AB sessions is well-documented, and in later years they would scrap an apparently finished version of HTDAAB to make a new one and compromise their artistic vision for NLOTH. In terms of how they presented themselves publicly, their personas, etc, they often seemed awkward in the 80s, as if they didn't quite believe in the bravado they were selling, and in later years, they too often appear to be chasing a relevance they used to have.

But for a brief period of time, maybe from the Zooropa recording sessions up through the early stages of the Pop sessions, they appeared to have a confidence that they never had before or since. They recorded Zooropa in only a couple of months and soon after were performing those songs live, they dove into the experimental Passengers project with Eno, in which they boldly played with everything from trip-hop to opera. They were rarely more creatively ambitious or confident in their ability to follow that ambition to a result than they were in those years. And ambitious they were heading into the Pop sessions, desiring to meld together rock, dance, electronic, and trip-hop elements with high concepts - the nature of consumerism and materialism in the late 20th century, crises of faith, etc - to create a club record that was still distinctly a U2 record. It was perhaps the most ambitious they ever were going into the production of a record.

Ultimately, it appears that they were unable to satisfy that ambition, even if a lot of people love the finished product. The sessions were plagued from the beginning. The band started working with a drum machine while Larry was recovering from surgery, leading to an intensification of the use of technology that the band had been immersed in all decade, from which the band would begin backing off of even before the subsequent tour was over. Combining all of the aforementioned musical elements proved difficult, and they could never really fully commit to making it a techno/dance record or a straight-ahead rock record. As a result, the record straddles between the former(Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved, Mofo, Gone, Miami) and the latter(If God Will Send His Angels, Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Wake Up Dead Man), with several tracks that take from both(The Playboy Mansion, If You Wear That Velvet Dress, Please). The band struggled so much picking a direction and getting the songs to sound they way they'd envisioned that they used up tour rehearsal time(after having booked the tour ahead of time in their pre-album confidence) to finish, going to literally the last hour before the deadline to give the record to the record label. Because they used up tour rehearsal time to finish the album, they were underrehearsed and were embarrassed in the first few shows, took nearly the entire first leg of the tour to get into the swing of things.

Whatever confident state of mind they might have been in going into Pop, it was gone(no pun intended) by the time the record was released, the tour was underway, and neither was setting the U.S. on fire. They were playing to half-empty stadiums while the record was getting lukewarm reviews. Although the band's live performance was back up to their standards later in the tour(producing some truly great and memorable moments) , and the new material was better received elsewhere in the world, the record remains, and will probably always remain, the most polarizing entry in their catalog.

We can argue forever about why Pop flopped in the U.S., why nobody(relatively speaking) went to the shows, and why the band have behaved as though they are so ashamed of the whole era. We can argue forever about the band dressing up as the Village people, picking the wrong singles, continuing to push irony when people were tired of it, being too derivative of other hot acts at the time(Prodigy, Oasis) etc etc etc.

I frankly, think it might be as simple as they underestimated how much the musical landscape had changed in just a few years. In 1997, the pop revival was blooming - Backstreet Boys and Nsync were already there and Britney and Christina were on the way. Hip-hop was becoming a greater and greater mainstream force. Alternative rock was beginning its great decline; grunge was over and most of the rock music on the radio was of the Third Eye Blind/Matchbox 20/Wallflowers/Barenaked Ladies/etc pop-rock variety. More serious rock acts like Oasis and Radiohead were at their peak in terms of mainstream commercial success(Radiohead are great to this day, but they've never been as big in the mainstream as they were with OKC), same for harder acts like Marilyn Manson. The Nu-Metal scene was exploding, a harbinger of hip-hop taking over completely in the years to come.

Simply put, I think it might be as simple as the mainstream music listening audience in 1997 wasn't hungry for U2's brand of alternative rock anymore, particularly when said brand was artistically reaching away from what had made them huge in the first place.

Whatever the reasons, the album wasn't as successful as the band needed it to be(everything is relative, it did sell six million copies), especially in the U.S., and today there are two views of it. Some see it as a misstep, during which the band got lost in ambition and technology and concept and got swallowed by all of it(and from which they returned to form with ATYCLB and HTDAAB). Some, including many here, see it as a great, exciting, brave, and yes, flawed record. As something to aspire to, because even though its flawed and has its issues, at least they were trying to do something great and interesting and provocative.

Discotheque, however it's regarded in the mainstream, is just a really good rock song, with a monster guitar riff and numerous earworm vocal melodies - from the 'you can this but you can't that' repetitions, to 'you know you're chewing bubble gum...', to 'you get confused but you know it...', to the second part of the chorus('looking for the one/but you're somewhere else instead/I want to be the song/the song that you hear in your head') to the coda('but you take what you can get/'cause it's all that you can find' with Edge's 'you want heaven in your heart' in the background). Also some love for the instrumental breakdown after the first chorus which was never performed live and omitted from the 'new' mix in 2002. And I love the boom-chas.

Do You Feel Loved is arguably the sexiest track they've ever put to record, with a heavy but smooth sound and a huge chorus alongside a borderline x-rated lyric. I always thought should've been a single, and it's a shame they never nailed it live.

Mofo's tremendous bassline - the whole rhythm section really - and Bono's painfully inward-looking lyric that practically screams 'I may be a world famous rock star but I'm still just a child grappling with his mother's death and a man grappling with how to be a good father and husband while doing all of this' make it an intense headphone experience and an explosive live performance. As heavy a track as they've ever done.

If God Will Send His Angels takes the album on a left turn into more straight-ahead pop-rock territory. The closest thing to a ballad on this record other than Velvet Dress, I've always loved the minimalist riff, the vocal melodies, Bono's delivery, the lyric about someone at their wit's end regarding their faith, and the trip-hop coda of the album version.

Bono always though Staring At The Sun should've been a huge hit, and although some people think it's too bland or stale or Oasis-wannabe or whatever, I've always loved it. Immensely catchy, a big, warm guitar riff in the chorus, and a thought-provoking lyric. While I like the acoustic versions, I wish they would've come back to the full-band electric version live.

Last Night On Earth is just a huge rock song. From the first notes, everything is gaining momentum as it leads into that huge, earth-shaking chorus. This is one of the tracks I used to enjoy just turning up loud and rocking out to the most. And the live version. My goodness the riffage at the end. How the band thinks this didn't work live is beyond me.

Gone is just a tremendous song, from the crying sirens Edge gets out his guitar, to the powerful performance of the rhythm section, to Bono's impassioned vocal take, to the dark atmospherics and subtle, aching background vocals, to the great lyric, it's just clearly one of the best tracks here. This one needs to come back to the live set.

Miami is simultaneously a big joke here(U2 wrote Miami) and also greatly appreciated for its live renditions(in which the riffs get ten times bigger). Yes, the lyric is kind of crap, but even on the studio version, I find it be sonically pretty interesting with the riffs and the atmospherics between the riffs. If it had been recorded the way it was played live, I don't think it would be a joke here, bad lyric or not.

The Playboy Mansion frustrates me. Musically, I like it a lot - it's got a mellow vibe, but actually becomes sort of emotionally intense by the end, and there are some beautiful melodies in the middle eight('I don't know if I can hold on') and the 'then will there be no time' sections. But the a lot of the lyrics are just so dated with pop culture references. But then maybe that actually fits, since the song is kind of about the fleeting nature of success in pop culture.

If You Wear That Velvet Dress is an exceedingly atmospheric, captivating, and sexy ballad, delivered in that smokey 90s Bono voice. I just wish that vocal had been turned up a little in the mix because you can barely hear him until halfway through the song. Also have to mention the really nice, mellow guitar interlude in the middle. This track doesn't sound like anything else on the record, or anything else the band have ever done, really, but it's great.

Please. What can be said about Please that hasn't been said? It's one of their greatest songs, imo. Lyrically, it's political most of the way through, being about the troubles in Ireland, but then at the end - it might have still been intended to be political, but it also doubles as one of the most biting break-up lyrics I've ever seen - 'love is big/bigger than us/but love is not/what you're thinking of/it's what lovers deal/it's what lovers steal/you know I found it hard to receive/'cause you my love/I could never believe'. That will always be on my favorite lyrics that Bono ever wrote. Musically, Adam and Larry kind of own the song, with Edge kind playing a supporting role(until the end of the solo and live versions, obviously). The rhythm section is hypnotizing here, verging on jazzy, and I know a lot of people don't care for the single version because a lot of that is missing from it. I love all versions of the track. The album version is really intimate, and you can really feel the smoldering anger underneath it all; it's grittier, and it's also the only version that has that Edge backing vocal at the end that I love. The full-band live version, however, is considered by many as one of the greatest things the band has ever done, and rightly so. It's a fucking tour-de-force, from the band's performance, to Bono's performance to Bono and Edge singing together to Edge's solo to the quiet finish after the explosion. There is a reason Please is my holy grail of songs I've never seen performed in person.

Wake Up Dead Man is one of the darkest songs the band ever wrote. It's heavy, musically and lyrically. Musically, the song combines quiet vocals with heavy, succinct guitar riffs in the chorus until halfway through when the song picks up pace. Lyrically, it is a midnight of the soul, a crisis of faith, a breakdown. There is such anger there, especially in the first verse and chorus, both quiet anger and loud anger(the riff). It's riveting stuff, and one of the band's greatest album closers. IMO, only Love is Blindness definitively tops it, while others come close(The Troubles, Mothers Of The Disappeared, 40).

It is a flawed, and it's not for everyone, but for some, it is a powerful record, and one that stands in stark contrast stylistically, sonically, and spiritually to much of what came after. For some, it was a misstep, but for many others, this record marks the the end of 'old u2', a kind of last stand. In 1989, at one of the last Lovetown shows, Bono famously said 'this is just the end of something for U2'. He could've just as well said the same thing at one of the last Popmart shows. Months after the tour wrapped, the first Best Of was released and their VH1 Legends episode aired, the following year the classic albums documentary about the Joshua Tree was released, and the year after that they released the back-to-basics All That You Can't Leave Behind. The commercial and critical success that they had started to take for granted had been threatened with Pop and it seems like the band reacted to that. In the last fifteen years, after the Elevation tour, they've barely acknowledged the record.

But we can. Happy 20th, Pop.

After Shaw and David crash landed on the planet, David secretly contacted Wayland Yutani to update them on the status of the Prometheus expedition and the discovery of the black goo; he also requested supplies (mainly lab equipment) and a new body. He then killed Shaw or held her captive and experimented on her female anatomy (her infertile female eggs) with the black goo and eventually created the face hugger eggs. David discovers from archived data on the engineer ship that the engineers' black goo was originally designed to mutate life forms into hostile creatures which attack and infect other life forms with black goo; this is what happened to Fifield and the worms in Prometheus.

However, use of the black goo had some unintended consequences; instead of just destroying life, it sometimes created a new powerful highly adaptive species called the "morph" (alien with elongated skull). The morph is created from reproductive cells such as plant spores, human eggs/embryos, etc. that have been mutated by the black goo into a parasite (face hugger, trilobite, etc.) which can impregnate a host with a morph alien embryo. The morph gestates inside its host until mature enough to leave which results in a violent death for the host. Apparently, the engineers have encountered these morphs in the past when they used the black goo to eliminate life on planets. The engineers revered, respected, and feared this powerful alien species, which unlike other life forms created by the black goo, has the power to procreate, hence the reason for the mural depicting what looked like a xenomorph and face hugger in the room where the black goo was stored in at the engineer's installation on LV-223.

The engineers sought to learn how these morphs are created and discovered that face hugger eggs are created when the black goo mutates the eggs of humanoid creatures (such as humans) which the engineers are responsible for creating (see beginning of Prometheus). David discovered this knowledge from archived data stored on the engineer ship that he and Shaw used to escape from LV-223 and then used that information to experiment on Shaw's eggs and create face hugger eggs. After creating the eggs, he then communicated with Weyland Yutani again, requesting additional human subjects (mainly women) to experiment on. So, Weyland Yutani sends the Covenant and its human crew, which consists of male/female couples, to his location. When the Covenant crew arrive at David's location, they immediately come into contact with mutated spores that turn some of them into a neomorph alien which is a morph created from human and plant DNA. Apparently, David had been experimenting on the local ecosystem by contaminating it with the black goo. David eventually reveals himself to the crew and helps them destroy the neomorphs.

After earning the crew's trust, David convinces some of the crew to follow him to the engineer ship where he keeps the face hugger eggs. The captain is attacked by a face hugger which leads to the creation of the protomorph alien which is created from only human DNA; the protomorph is far more formidable than the neomorphs, but not as powerful as the classic xenomorph from the films. While the crew is dealing with the new protomorph alien, David continues to experiment and lures the Covenant's android, Walter to another face hugger egg. A face hugger impregnates Walter with an alien which leads to the creation of the classic biomechanical xenomorph (queen) which is the most powerful form of the species created to date. The xenomorph alien is created from synthetic android DNA and human DNA (from Shaw). The queen alien begins laying new face hugger eggs which delights David, as he is able to create a new life form IN HIS IMAGE capable of procreation. The crew eventually dispatches the protomorph alien and then attempt to flee the planet. However, the engineers return and kill David, the xenomorphs, and all of the remaining Covenant crew. They then destroy the ecosystem David created and take all of the xenomorph eggs with them. However, one of the eggs hatches and attacks the engineer pilot (space jockey) who is eventually killed by a chestburster which causes the ship (derelict) to crash land on LV-426 where Ripley and the crew of the Nostromo eventually discover it. Before dying, the engineers on the ship activate a beacon warning other engineers to stay away, as the powerful xenomorph species on the ship is much too dangerous to come into contact with. It is revealed in the end that not all of David's ecosystem and all of the xenomorph eggs had been destroyed, and that is where Alien 5 will take place, as Weyland Yutani has set up their own bio weapons research facility on the planet in order to "harvest" the xenomorph eggs and experiment on them in order to create even more terrifying creations.

It doesn't really matter what the nature of where I live is. I'm not the one telling other people that their lives would be improved if they were surrounded by Muslims or illegals. It is the Hollywood hypocrites that say that when they themselves would never venture into a Muslim or illegals neighborhood.

This is no different than the folks who live in gated communities and have private armed security telling the rest of us that we don't need guns.

[I]n a democracy the people get the last word—and that’s the way it should be. I opposed Trump while all the time understanding that many of the people who support him are the kind of people I grew up with, and can see myself in to this day. In my head at least the election result demanded I ask myself several questions:

Am I missing something here?

Am I out of touch with American values?

Am I out of touch with the American people?

It’s clear a giant constituency in the country felt ignored or patronized … they are fearful of the future, as are a growing number of Europeans. I understand and respect that, and I want to try and understand those fears better …

I think a little humility might be important for me here. I certainly want to understand better what just happened, but I’m going to do that without crossing what are bright lines for me, things like standing against the [demonizing] of immigrants or refugees.

Vice President Joe Biden warned about the collapse of the "world order" Wednesday during his last time addressing global leaders in his official role.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Biden urged influential leaders in Europe and the U.S. to "lead boldly" and defend democracies against dangers that he said include Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Below is a complete transcript of the event:

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a great honor to once again address this distinguished forum.

But this year, in these early days of 2017, there's a palpable uncertainty about the state of our world.

For the members of the media in the audience, I want to make it clear that I am not referring to the imminent transition of power in my country.

In two days, there will be a new President of the United States, but the challenges we face and the choices we must make as an international community do not hinge exclusively on Washington's leadership.

Whether we reinforce the ties that bind us, or whether we unravel under current pressures- those choices must be made in every nation, and they will determine what kind of world we leave to our children.

 For the past seven decades, the choices we have made- particularly the United States and our Allies in Europe- have steered our world down a clear path.

After World War II, we drew a line under centuries of conflict and took steps to bend the arc of history in a more just direction. Instead of resigning ourselves to ceaseless wars, we built institutions and alliances to advance our shared security.

Instead of punishing former enemies, we invested billions in helping them rebuild.

Instead of sorting the world into winners and losers, we outlined universal values that defined a better future for all our children.

Our careful attention to building and sustaining a liberal international order-with the United States and Europe at its core-was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.

An era of expanding liberty.

Unprecedented economic growth that lifted millions out of poverty.

A community of democracies that-to this day- serves as the fulcrum for our common security and for our capacity to address the world's most pressing challenges.

Strengthening these values- values that have served our community of nations so well, for so long-is paramount to retaining the position of leadership Western nations enjoy and preserving the progress we have made together.

But in recent years, it has become evident that the consensus upholding this system is facing incredible and increasing pressures- from both within and without.

Today, I'd like to speak to the sources of those pressures, and about why it is imperative that we act urgently to defend the liberal international order. Here in this exclusive Alpine tower, where CEOs of multinational corporations rub elbows with leaders of nations, it is easy to embrace the intellectual benefits of a more open and integrated world.

But it is at our own peril that we ignore or dismiss the legitimate fears and anxieties that exist in communities all across the developed world.

The concern mothers and fathers feel about losing the factory job that has always allowed them to provide for their families.

Parents who don't believe that they can give their children a better life than the one they have.

These are the pressures that are undermining support for the liberal international order from the inside.

Globalization has not been an unalloyed good.

It has deepened the rift between those racing ahead at the top and those struggling to hang on in the middle, or falling to the bottom.

One year ago, I spoke here in Davos about the challenges we face in mastering this fourth industrial revolution- about how we can ensure that the benefits and the burdens of globalization and digitization are shared more equitably.

In my country, there used to be a basic bargain, embraced by both major political parties. It was something everyone agreed on.

If you contributed to the success of the enterprise, you shared in the profits. Today that bargain is fractured.

Advanced technology has divorced productivity from labor-meaning we're making more than ever, but with fewer workers.

There's a shrinking demand for low-skill laborers, while highly- educated workers are getting paid more and more-contributing to rising inequality.

International trade and greater economic integration has lifted millions of people in the developing world out of abject poverty- improving education, extending life expectancies, opening new opportunities.

Standards of living are still well below middle class expectations in the United States and Europe, but the change is real.

Meanwhile, for many communities in the developed world that have long depended on manufacturing, the opposite is true.

Their relative standard of living has declined. They feel shut out of opportunities. And their economic security feels jeopardized.

Taken together, these forces are effectively hollowing out the middle class-the traditional engine of economic growth and social stability in Western nations.

 We cannot undo the changes technology has wrought in our world- nor should we try.

But we can and we must take action to mitigate the economic trends that are stoking unrest in so many advanced economies and undermining people's basic sense of dignity.

Our goal should be a world where everyone's standard of living can rise together.

There's an urgency to taking common sense steps like: increasing cognitive capabilities through access to education and job training. Ensuring basic protections for workers. Expanding access to capital. And implementing a progressive, equitable tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

Compounding these economic worries are people's fears about the very real security risks we face.

If you look at the long sweep of history, or even just the trend lines in wars and other incidents of large-scale violence over the past 50, 60, 70 years- as a practical matter, we are probably safer than ever.

But it doesn't feel that way.

Daily images of violence and unrest from all over the world are shared directly on our televisions and smart phones- images we rarely would have seen in a pre-digital age.

It's fostered a feeling of perpetual chaos- of being overrun by outside forces.

Communication technologies have fostered incredible progress- making information more open and accessible, breaking down the barriers between people and nations, facilitating greater scientific collaboration, empowering ordinary citizens to challenge injustice and hold their governments accountable.

But they have also given hateful individuals a megaphone to spread their virulent, extremist ideologies.

Radical jihadists not only recruit and find haven in the ungoverned desserts of Iraq and Syria- they do the same in the ungoverned spaces of the Internet.

Borders seem less real. Terrorist attacks feel inescapable. Fears about unrelenting migration mount as people continue to flee violence and deprivation in their homelands.

And in the wake of these understandable fears, we have seen a series of alarming responses.

Popular movements on both the left and the right have demonstrated a dangerous willingness to revert to political small- mindedness-to the same nationalist, protectionist, and isolationist agendas that led the world to consume itself in war during in the last century.

As we have seen time and again throughout history, demagogues and autocrats have emerged- seeking to capitalize on people's insecurities.

In this case, using Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic rhetoric to stoke fear, sow division, and advance their own narrow agendas.

This is a politics at odds with our values and with the vision that built-and sustains-the liberal international order.

The impulse to hunker down, shut the gates, build walls, and exit at this moment is precisely the wrong answer.

It offers a false sense of security in an interconnected world.

It will not resolve the root causes of these fears- and it risks eroding from the inside out the foundations of the very system that spawned the West's historically unprecedented success.

We need to tap into the big-heartedness that conceived a Marshall Plan, the foresight that planned a Bretton Woods, the audacity that proposed a United Nations.

We cannot rout fear with retrenchment. Rather, this is the moment to lead boldly and recommit ourselves to our common principles-which remain essential to my nation, and to liberal democracies the world over.

Of course, there are those who do not share this vision for the world.

Those who wish to dissolve the community of democracies and our supporting institutions in favor of a more parochial international order-where power rules and spheres of influence lock in divides among nations.

We hear these voices in the West- but the greatest threats on this front spring from the distinct illiberalism of external actors who equate their success with a fracturing of the liberal international order.

We see this in Asia and the Middle East- where China and Iran would clearly prefer a world in which they hold sway in their regions. But I will not mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia.

 Under President Putin, Russia is working with every tool available to them to whittle away at the edges of the European project, test for fault lines among western nations, and return to a politics defined by spheres of influence.

We see it in their aggression against their neighbors. Sending so-called "little green men" across the border to stir violence and strains of separatism in Ukraine. Using energy as a weapon-cutting off gas supplies mid-winter, raising prices to manipulate nations to act in Russia's interests. Using corruption to empower oligarchs and coerce politicians.

We see it in their worldwide use of propaganda and false information campaigns: Injecting doubt and political agitation into democratic systems. Strengthening illiberal factions, on both the left and the right, that seek to roll back decades of progress from within our systems.

We even saw it in the cyber intrusions against political parties and individuals in the United States- which our intelligence community has determined with high confidence were specifically motivated to influence our elections.

But it's not only the United States that has been targeted. Europe has seen the same kind of attacks in the past.

And with many countries in Europe slated to hold elections this year, we should expect further attempts by Russia to meddle in the democratic process.

Again, their purpose is clear- to collapse the liberal international order. Simply put, Russia has a different vision for the future, which they are pursuing across the board.

They seek a return to a world where the strong impose their will through military might, corruption, or criminality-while weaker neighbors fall in line.

And from the first moments of our Administration- even as we sought a reset with then-President Medvedev- President Obama and I have made it clear that this is no way for nations to behave in the 21st Century.

When I addressed the Munich Security Conference in February of 2009, I said: "We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

That's been our position throughout the past eight years, and it is a position we must all continue championing in the years ahead.

The United States has not always been the perfect guardian of our order.

We have not always lived up to our own values- and some of our past missteps provided fodder for the forces of illiberalism.

But President Obama and I have worked consistently over the past eight years to lead not only by the example of our power-but by the power of our example.

And this is the challenge that will-by necessity- define the foreign policy agendas of all our nations as we move forward. So although I will only be the Vice President of the United States for 48 more hours- I am here today to issue a call to action.

We cannot wait for others to write the future they hope to see.

The United States and Europe must lead the fight to defend those values that have brought us to where we are today.

Fight to create more equitable and more inclusive growth for people at every level.

Fight for democracy wherever it is under threat- be it at home or abroad.

Fight to lift up the forces of inclusivity while opposing intolerance in all its guises.

Fight the urge to embrace isolationism and protectionism.

Fight back against the dangerous proposition that facts no longer matter.

That the truth holds no inherent power in a world where propagandists, demagogues, and extremists carry sway.

To win this fight, we must continue to invest in our democratic alliances.

As it as has been for seven decades, the unity of our transatlantic connection is essential to addressing global challenges.

Defending the liberal international order requires that we resist the forces of European disintegration and maintain our long-standing insistence on a Europe whole, free and at peace.

That means fighting for the European Union-one of the most vibrant and consequential institutions on earth.

 he EU has contributed to the prosperity of millions-fueling reforms that have improved living standards and driving the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations.

That means keeping open the door for membership in European and transatlantic institutions to those states on Europe's eastern edge- where people in places like the Balkans and Ukraine continue to strive to be part of the incredible undertaking that is the European Union.

The EU has been an indispensable partner to the United States-and as the EU and the UK begin to navigate a new relationship, it remains profoundly in America's interest to maintain our close relationships with both parties.

All of our peoples are safer when we work together.

We must continue to stand up for those basic norms of modern nations-the principles of territorial integrity, freedom of navigation, and national sovereignty.

The right of all nations "to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

To that end-we must: bolster Europe's energy independence so that nations are not subject to outside manipulations; improve our cyber defenses; and combat misinformation to prevent outsiders from perverting our democratic processes.

And the single greatest bulwark for our transatlantic partnership is the unshakable commitment of the United States to all our NATO Allies.

An attack on one is an attack on all. That can never be called into question. And we must continue to stand with Ukraine as they resist Russia's acts of aggression and pursue their European path.

In two days, the United States will engage in the act that has defined our exceptional democracy for more than 200 years-the peaceful transition of power from one leader, and one political party, to another.

And it is my hope and expectation that the next President and Vice President, and our leaders in Congress, will ensure that the United States continues to fulfill our historic responsibility as the indispensable nation.

But we have never been able to lead alone- not after World War II, not during the depths of the Cold War, and not today.

The United States, our NATO allies, all the nations of Europe-we are in this together. As the oldest and the strongest democracies in the world, we have a responsibility to beat back the challenges at our door.

We must never forget how we got here. Or take for granted that our success will continue.

It is only by championing the liberal international order- by continuing to invest in our security, reaffirming our shared values, and expanding the cause of liberty around the world-that will retain our position of leadership.

Because if we don't fight for our values, no one else will.

The idea of Europe whole, free, and at peace- in my opinion- constitutes one of the most audacious and consequential visions of the past century.

The notion that after centuries of conflict, Europe could reinvent itself as an integrated community- one committed to political solidarity, the free flow of goods and people, and a solemn obligation to collective defense-and succeed in achieving it.

The United States believed in it. Peoples across Europe believed in it-aspired to it. And you did it.

The success of the European enterprise was essential to America's security in the 20th Century- and it remains so today.

The Atlantic Alliance is still the bedrock of addressing so many 21st Century threats-from terrorism to the spread of diseases like Ebola to climate change.

You've heard me make this case for four decades. But I am not alone in this belief. America's commitment to Europe and NATO is thoroughly bipartisan.

Just last month, my good friend and frequent sparring partner, Republican Senator John McCain traveled to Estonia where he said: "The best way to prevent Russian misbehavior [is] by having a credible, strong military and a strong NATO alliance."

On the same trip, another leading Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, assured Ukrainian troops serving on the front line: "Your fight is our fight."

That's the same sentiment I expressed two days ago, when I made my sixth trip to Ukraine as Vice President.

History has proven that the defense of free nations in Europe has always been America's fight- and the foundation of our security.

Throughout more than four decades of incredibly divisive foreign policy debates, there has always been a consensus about the value of the transatlantic relationship.

That will not change.

And as I re-enter private life, I want to assure you today that I will stand with you as you carry this fight forward.

I will continue to use my voice and my power as a citizen-doing whatever I can to keep our transatlantic alliance strong and vibrant- because our common future depends upon it.

Thank you.

5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You

 IF YOU CAN’T CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM – Harry Truman

 

 

The current media debate about the benefits (or lack of harm) of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in our diet misses the obvious. The average American increased their consumption of HFCS (mostly from sugar sweetened drinks and processed food) from zero to over 60 pounds per person per year.
During that time period, obesity rates have more than tripled and diabetes incidence has increased more than seven fold. Not perhaps the only cause, but a fact that cannot be ignored.
Doubt and confusion are the currency of deception, and they sow the seeds of complacency. These are used skillfully through massive print and television advertising campaigns by the Corn Refiners Association’s attempt to dispel the “myth” that HFCS is harmful and assert through the opinion of “medical and nutrition experts” that it is no different than cane sugar. It is a “natural” product that is a healthy part of our diet when used in moderation.
Except for one problem. When used in moderation it is a major cause of heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, tooth decay, and more.

Why is the corn industry spending millions on misinformation campaigns to convince consumers and health care professionals of the safety of their product? Could it be that the food industry comprises 17 percent of our economy?

The Lengths the Corn Industry Will Go To
The goal of the corn industry is to call into question any claim of harm from consuming high fructose corn syrup, and to confuse and deflect by calling their product natural “corn sugar”. That’s like calling tobacco in cigarettes natural herbal medicine.
In the ad, the father tells us:
“Like any parent I have questions about the food my daughter eats–-like high fructose corn syrup. So I started looking for answers from medical and nutrition experts, and what I discovered whether it’s corn sugar or cane sugar your body can’t tell the difference. Sugar is sugar. Knowing that makes me feel better about what she eats and that’s one less thing to worry about.”
Physicians are also targeted directly. I received a 12-page color glossy monograph from the Corn Refiners Association reviewing the “science” that HFCS was safe and no different than cane sugar. I assume the other 700,000 physicians in America received the same propaganda at who knows what cost.
In addition to this, I received a special “personal” letter from the Corn Refiner’s Association outlining every mention of the problems with HFCS in our diet–whether in print, blogs, books, radio, or television. They warned me of the errors of my ways and put me on “notice”. For what I am not sure. To think they are tracking this (and me) that closely gives me an Orwellian chill.
New websites like www.sweetsurprise.com and www.cornsugar.com help “set us straight” about HFCS with quotes from professors of nutrition and medicine and thought leaders from Harvard and other stellar institutions.
Why is the corn industry spending millions on misinformation campaigns to convince consumers and health care professionals of the safety of their product? Could it be that the food industry comprises 17 percent of our economy?
But are these twisted sweet lies or a sweet surprise, as the Corn Refiners Association websites claim?


What the Science Says About HFCS
Let’s examine the science and insert some common sense into the conversation. These facts may indeed come as a sweet surprise. The ads suggest getting your nutrition advice from your doctor (who, unfortunately, probably knows less about nutrition than most grandmothers).
Having studied this for over a decade, and having read, interviewed, or personally talked with most of the “medical and nutrition experts” used to bolster the claim that “corn sugar” and cane sugar are essentially the same, quite a different picture emerges and the role of HFCS in promoting obesity, disease, and death across the globe becomes clear.
Last week over lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames, one of the foremost nutritional scientists in the world, and Dr. Jeffrey Bland, a nutritional biochemist, a student of Linus Pauling, and I reviewed the existing science, and Dr. Ames shared shocking new evidence from his research center on how HFCS can trigger body-wide inflammation and obesity.
Here are 5 reasons you should stay way from any product containing high fructose corn syrup and why it may kill you.  

1. Sugar in any form causes obesity and disease when consumed in pharmacologic doses.Cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup are indeed both harmful when consumed in pharmacologic doses of 140 pounds per person per year.When one 20 ounce HFCS sweetened soda, sports drink, or tea has 17 teaspoons of sugar (and the average teenager often consumes two drinks a day) we are conducting a largely uncontrolled experiment on the human species.Our hunter gatherer ancestors consumed the equivalent of 20 teaspoons per year, not per day. In this sense, I would agree with the corn industry that sugar is sugar. Quantity matters. But there are some important differences.
2. HFCS and cane sugar are NOT biochemically identical or processed the same way by the body. High fructose corn syrup is an industrial food product and far from “natural” or a naturally occurring substance. It is extracted from corn stalks through a process so secret that Archer Daniels Midland and Carghill would not allow the investigative journalist Michael Pollan to observe it for his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The sugars are extracted through a chemical enzymatic process resulting in a chemically and biologically novel compound called HFCS. Some basic biochemistry will help you understand this. Regular cane sugar (sucrose) is made of two-sugar molecules bound tightly together– glucose and fructose in equal amounts.The enzymes in your digestive tract must break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose, which are then absorbed into the body. HFCS also consists of glucose and fructose, not in a 50-50 ratio, but a 55-45 fructose to glucose ratio in an unbound form. Fructose is sweeter than glucose. And HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the government farm bill corn subsidies. Products with HFCS are sweeter and cheaper than products made with cane sugar. This allowed for the average soda size to balloon from 8 ounces to 20 ounces with little financial costs to manufacturers but great human costs of increased obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease.Now back to biochemistry. Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.The rapidly absorbed glucose triggers big spikes in insulin–our body’s major fat storage hormone. Both these features of HFCS lead to increased metabolic disturbances that drive increases in appetite, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and more.But there was one more thing I learned during lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames. Research done by his group at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source). This depletes the energy fuel source, or ATP, in our gut required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal lining. Little “tight junctions” cement each intestinal cell together preventing food and bacteria from “leaking” across the intestinal membrane and triggering an immune reaction and body wide inflammation.
   High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining allowing nasty byproducts of toxic gut bacteria and partially digested food proteins to enter your blood stream and trigger the inflammation that we know is at the root of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, and accelerated aging. Naturally occurring fructose in fruit is part of a complex of nutrients and fiber that doesn’t exhibit the same biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in “corn sugar”.
   The takeaway: Cane sugar and the industrially produced, euphemistically named “corn sugar” are not biochemically or physiologically the same.
3. HFCS contains contaminants including mercury that are not regulated or measured by the FDA. An FDA researcher asked corn producers to ship a barrel of high fructose corn syrup in order to test for contaminants. Her repeated requests were refused until she claimed she represented a newly created soft drink company. She was then promptly shipped a big vat of HFCS that was used as part of the study that showed that HFCS often contains toxic levels of mercury because of chlor-alkali products used in its manufacturing.(i) Poisoned sugar is certainly not “natural”.When HFCS is run through a chemical analyzer or a chromatograph, strange chemical peaks show up that are not glucose or fructose. What are they? Who knows? This certainly calls into question the purity of this processed form of super sugar. The exact nature, effects, and toxicity of these funny compounds have not been fully explained, but shouldn’t we be protected from the presence of untested chemical compounds in our food supply, especially when the contaminated food product comprises up to 15-20 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake?  
4. Independent medical and nutrition experts DO NOT support the use of HFCS in our diet, despite the assertions of the corn industry. The corn industry’s happy looking websites www.cornsugar.com and www.sweetsurprise.com bolster their position that cane sugar and corn sugar are the same by quoting experts, or should we say misquoting … Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has published widely on the dangers of sugar-sweetened drinks and their contribution to the obesity epidemic. In a review of HFCS in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,(ii)he explains the mechanism by which the free fructose may contribute to obesity.He states that: “The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis (production of fat in the liver). In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight (to control appetite), this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric over-consumption.”He states that HFCS is absorbed more rapidly than regular sugar and that it doesn’t stimulate insulin or leptin production. This prevents you from triggering the body’s signals for being full and may lead to over-consumption of total calories. He concludes by saying that:“… the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.”The corn industry takes his comments out of context to support their position. “All sugar you eat is the same.” True pharmacologic doses of any kind of sugar are harmful, but the biochemistry of different kinds of sugar and their respective effects on absorption, appetite, and metabolism are different, and Dr. Popkin knows that.
   David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, and a personal friend, has published extensively on the dangers and the obesogenic properties of sugar-sweetened beverages.
   He was quoted as saying that “high fructose corn syrup is one of the most misunderstood products in the food industry.” When I asked him why he supported the corn industry, he told me he didn’t and that his comments were taken totally out of context.
   Misrepresenting science is one thing, misrepresenting scientists who have been at the forefront of the fight against obesity and high fructose sugar sweetened beverages is quite another.
5. HFCS is almost always a marker of poor-quality, nutrient-poor disease-creating industrial food products or “food-like substances”. The last reason to avoid products that contain HFCS is that they are a marker for poor-quality, nutritionally-depleted, processed industrial food full of empty calories and artificial ingredients. If you find “high fructose corn syrup” on the label you can be sure it is not a whole, real, fresh food full of fiber, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and antioxidants. Stay away if you want to stay healthy. We still must reduce our overall consumption of sugar, but with this one simple dietary change you can radically reduce your health risks and improve your health.While debate may rage about the biochemistry and physiology of cane sugar versus corn sugar, this is in fact beside the point (despite the finer points of my scientific analysis above). The conversation has been diverted to a simple assertion that cane sugar and corn sugar are not different.

The real issues are only two.

• We are consuming HFCS and sugar in pharmacologic quantities never before experienced in human history–140 pounds a year versus 20 teaspoons a year 10,000 years ago.
• High fructose corn syrup is always found in very poor-quality foods that are nutritionally vacuous and filled with all sorts of other disease promoting compounds, fats, salt, chemicals, and even mercury.

These critical ideas should be the heart of the national conversation, not the meaningless confusing ads and statements by the corn industry in the media and online that attempt to assure the public that the biochemistry of real sugar and industrially produced sugar from corn are the same.
Now I’d like to hear from you …
Do you think there is an association between the introduction of HFCS in our diet and the obesity epidemic?
What reason do you think the Corn Refiners Association has for running such ads and publishing websites like those listed in this article?
What do you think of the science presented here and the general effects of HFCS on the American diet?
Please leave your thoughts by adding a comment below—but remember, we can’t offer personal medical advice online, so be sure to limit your comments to those about taking back our health!
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD
References
(i) Dufault, R., LeBlanc, B., Schnoll, R. et al. 2009. Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: Measured concentrations in food product sugar. Environ Health. 26(8):2.
(ii) Bray, G.A., Nielsen, S.J., and B.M. Popkin. 2004. Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 79(4):537-43. Review.

he Book of Revelation was given as a mysterious, closed and sealed book. It was sealed with seven seals. It is similar to the book of Daniel, which God told Daniel was sealed until the time of the end.
But if God wanted to hide this knowledge completely, He never would have revealed it in the first place. He meant for those seals to be opened. In fact, God intended this important prophetic book to be understood in our time today!
The question is, when would those seals be opened, and what would the book reveal?
Revelation tells us that Jesus Christ would be able to open those seals. “And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof” (Revelation 5:4-5).
Christ is the one who can show us all this revelation that has been sealed. He alone can do so. But what does it mean that He “prevailed to open the book”? It shows that loosing these mighty seals was not a simple matter. In order to reveal this prophecy, Christ had a titanic battle with Satan the devil, and He won. He qualified to replace Satan on his throne, and now He—and only He—is qualified to open those seals.
Christ has loosed those seals—but He didn’t do so in the book of Revelation itself.
I want to show you something Christ said that most people do not understand. We will look at one chapter of the Bible to see how that chapter alone unseals those seven seals.
Jesus delivered a pivotal prophecy—one of the longest single prophecies in the Bible and the most important prophecy Christ revealed when He was on this Earth. He spoke this prophecy after He had prevailed in that battle with Satan and qualified to reveal it. It is called the Olivet prophecy. It is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I will just focus on the account in Matthew 24, and show how it looses the seals on the prophecies of Revelation. All prophecy, in a sense, revolves around Matthew 24.
In this chapter, Christ prophesied about a volcanic eruption of crises on Earth that has never been experienced—and about the birth of a new age that will come from it. Jesus Christ has prevailed and has revealed this, and we are now seeing these prophecies being fulfilled.
The seven seals form the story flow of the book of Revelation. Here is the overview: The first seal reveals false prophets; the second, war; the third, famine; the fourth, pestilence; the fifth, tribulation; the sixth, heavenly signs; and the seventh, seven trumpets.
If you understand those seals, they lead you step by step to the return of Jesus Christ: He returns at the last of those seven final trumpet blasts. So the Second Coming concludes those seven seals.
That makes this prophecy—even though it has a lot of bad news—the most exciting, wonderful news imaginable!

The First Seal

The first seal Christ opens reveals the first horseman of the apocalypse. The first four seals reveal a total of four horsemen.
“And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer” (Revelation 6:1-2).
Christians usually assume this horseman is Jesus Christ because Christ also comes on a white horse. But Christ comes with a sword, not with a bow (Revelation 19:11-15). And when you see what this white horseman actually does, you realize that even though he looks like Christ, it isn’t Christ at all! This is a false Christ who has deceived the world—the Christian world and the non-religious—about the prophecies of Revelation!
Christ unseals and explains this to us in Matthew 24. “And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [or age]?” (verse 3). If you read through the chapter, you see that the main sign is the gospel being preached around the world (verse 14). Christ was saying that His true gospel message would not be preached—but then, right before the end, it would be. That commission being completed would mark the world’s entering into the very last end.
That was the main sign Christ gave, but there are others here. The very first thing Christ said was this: “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (verses 4-5).
Here, then, is the meaning of the first seal in Revelation, the first horseman of the apocalypse. This is what Christ revealed: It is the white horseman of religious deception. This horseman proclaims a lying message about Christ. This false religion proclaims that Christ was the Messiah, but it is deceiving people about what He said!
This horseman comes first because he causes the most suffering by far. He is a false teacher of Christ’s message, one who “went forth conquering, and to conquer.” This deceitful ministry conquers by deceiving, and it has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12:9). This is the deadliest of all the horsemen.

Second, Third and Fourth Seals

Here is what Revelation says about the second seal: “And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword” (Revelation 6:4). The second seal reveals the horseman of war.
What did Christ say about this in the Olivet prophecy? “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet” (Matthew 24:6). There will be all kinds of wars from the first coming of Christ to the Second Coming—but those right at the very end before His Second Coming will be about 100 times worse than any ever on this planet! That is what Christ is telling us.
This is the same period that the Prophet Daniel called “the time of the end”—or as the Moffatt Bible translates it, “the crisis at the close.” It is the worst crisis ever on this Earth! We ought to take note because it is already beginning to unfold before our eyes. Look at all the countries that have nuclear bombs and are ready to detonate them. Once you start a nuclear war, you can’t really stop it.
The third seal is described in verses 5-6: “And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.” Seal number three reveals the horseman of famine.
“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell,” or the grave, “followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth” (verse 7). The fourth of these seven seals is the horseman of death.
Christ’s prophecy in Matthew 24 goes on to explain these next two seals. “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places” (Matthew 24:7). There are the third and fourth seals: famine and pestilence, and all the death that will result worldwide.
“All these are the beginning of sorrows,” Christ warned (verse 8).
These are the conditions and events Jesus Christ said to look for right before His return!

The Fifth Seal

Verses 9-11 of Revelation 6 describe the next of these seven seals. This passage begins, “And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them, that were slain for the word of God …” (Revelation 6:9). This is discussing God’s own people—people who knew God and the true gospel—being killed.
Notice how Christ describes this same prophetic event in Matthew 24:9: “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” Christ aimed this directly at “you”—His own disciples. This is a world-shaking event!
This seal is describing the Great Tribulation, a 2½-year period of Satan’s great wrath (Revelation 12:12). This isn’t the time of the wrath of God—that one-year “Day of the Lord” comes right after the Tribulation, making a total of 3½ years of unprecedented suffering before Jesus Christ returns (Revelation 11:2-3; 13:5; Daniel 12:7).
Why were these saints killed during the Tribulation? Several times in Scripture God promises to protect His people during that period (e.g. Revelation 12:6). Why didn’t these saints receive God’s protection?
Other scriptures reveal the answer. The last era of God’s Church before Christ returns is described in Revelation 3:14-22. Christ chastens it for being lukewarm and spiritually wretched. The large majority of God’s people today have fallen into that condition. That is a shameful truth. These people who have known God but turned away are not going to be protected by Him! God will allow them to experience the nightmares of the Tribulation because they were lukewarm and not excited about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to stop all these crises forever! God says that this is what it will take for them to turn back to Him so that He can get them into the Kingdom of God, into His Family. You can read more about this in our free book Malachi’s Message.
Those lukewarm saints are going to be killed during the Great Tribulation. But those who have known God and clung to Him—the very elect—will be protected.
“And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many” (verses 10-11). The Greek word translated many means that most of God’s own people will be deceived! That is what Christ prophesied—and that is exactly what has happened in this end time. Ninety-five percent of God’s Church has been deceived. That proves we have to work very hard not to be deceived. We can be deceived so easily.
“And because iniquity [lawlessness] shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold” (verse 12). This “love” is the agape love of God, which comes from His Holy Spirit (e.g. Romans 5:5; Galatians 5:22). Only the people of God, who possess the Holy Spirit, have that love, and here Christ prophesied that this love would “wax cold” in many of these people! They had it but they are losing it. Why? Because of lawlessness. This is still in that fifth seal, the Great Tribulation.

The Main Sign

Now we come to the main sign Christ gave of His Second Coming. “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (verse 14). The true gospel, which has not been preached, will finally be preached, Christ said; then comes “the end.”
This prophecy has been fulfilled! Do you know that the true gospel of God, after being suppressed for centuries, was in fact preached around the world for a witness to all nations? Do you know who did that job? These questions are also answered in Malachi’s Message.
But which “end” comes after that commission is finished? It is different from the “end of the world” in verse 3, from the Greek synteleia. This is the Greek word telos. Thayer’s Lexicon explains that the context has to tell you what “end” it is. This is speaking of the end of the gospel being preached around the world—after which we will enter into the time when all of these terrible events of Matthew 24 will unfold. This is the “last end” spoken of in Daniel 8:19.
Christ has unsealed this for us. We should understand it!
What did He say would happen next? “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” (Matthew 24:15). What is this? Luke 21:20 describes this “abomination” as “Jerusalem compassed with armies.” Other prophecies show that these armies belong to a reconstituted Holy Roman Empire in Europe! They also reveal that this “abomination that maketh desolate” (Daniel 12:11) will rise up just before the modern-day nations of Israel—which include the United States and Britain—collapse!
That might have seemed far off when Herbert W. Armstrong first prophesied about Matthew 24, but now we can see it happening!
The verses that follow are about the faithful people of God fleeing destruction—fleeing to a place of protection that God will provide. This is more proof that God will in fact protect some.
And here is what He will protect them from: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (Matthew 24:21-22).
This is Christ’s prophecy of horrors unprecedented in human history—besieging the world right at the end. He said that unless He intervened, mankind would wipe itself completely off the face of the Earth!
After World War i, Winston Churchill said, “Mankind has never been in this position before. … Without having improved appreciably in virtue or enjoying wiser guidance, it has got into its hands for the first time the tools by which it can unfailingly accomplish its own extermination.”
Since that time, we have developed chemical and biological weapons. We can exterminate ourselves many times over! The number one problem we face is human extermination! That has never been possible in history until very recent times.
We are now in exactly the position Jesus Christ prophesied about in Revelation and Matthew 24! This is the crisis at the close! More people should see that. More ministers should be talking about that. There is no excuse: There are prophecies throughout the Bible that tell us that—over a hundred of them!
The end of all things is “at the doors” (verses 32-33).
In verse 41 we again see God’s Church divided between those who cling to Him and do His work, and those who are lukewarm. Both churches are in the field, working away, but only one of them is going to be taken and protected—and the other is going to be left. Ninety-five percent of God’s people are not going to be protected. But because they don’t look to Christ’s prophecies, they won’t realize it. All these horrors are going to spring on them like a steel trap!
In Luke 21:34-36, Jesus warned that you had better watch for these prophecies. Watch world news, but also watch your own spiritual life so you don’t fail to see what is happening.

The Sixth and Seventh Seals

The sixth seal reveals mighty heavenly signs: “And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind” (Revelation 6:12-13). These signs are an indication of the fearsome things about to come next.
Christ explains this sixth seal in Matthew 24:29: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days [which was the fifth seal] shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” Those are the same heavenly signs. You can also read them prophesied in Joel 2:31: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come.” This confirms that these signs mark the end of the Tribulation—the 2½ years of Satan’s wrath—and signal the beginning of the Day of the Lord—the year of God’s wrath.
These are world-shaking events. And just as Jesus’s other prophecies have come to pass, so too will these!
Revelation 6:17 introduces the seventh seal: “For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” That seventh seal is spoken of in Revelation 8 and 9. It consists of those seven trumpets.
Here is where Christ explained the seventh seal: “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matthew 24:31). That seventh seal includes seven trumpet plagues that God pours out on mankind.
There are only a handful of scriptures about the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24 and Revelation, but there are over 30 about the Day of the Lord, which is the day of God’s wrath on this Earth. Joel says the Day of the Lord is at hand, as destruction from the Almighty. God is sick of mankind’s sin and lawlessness, which plunges us into the greatest crisis ever. The world has never seen anything like the wrath of God that it is about to see!
Yet sadly, throughout these plagues, mankind will refuse to repent.
How does all this end? At the last trumpet, Jesus Christ Himself is going to return to this Earth! “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord …” (Revelation 11:15). Jesus Christ is about to take over this world in crisis, rule it with a rod of iron and bring peace, joy, happiness and success to everybody on Earth. That is the kind of prosperity mankind really wants, but has never been able to achieve.
If you are willing to look into God’s Word with an open mind, you will see that all Christ talked about 2,000 years ago is coming to pass—the bad news and the good! ▪

 

 

I'm looking outside of my window
The view that I see is a child and mama
And the child is begging for money
Tell me why, tell me why
The woman is blind
Is she so broke the kid's dealing crime

It's such a beautiful city
But the world is burning it down
It's such a beautiful city
But the world is burning it down

I go to my room to turn on the TV
I sit myself down and I start laughing hard
'Cause this man he's asking for money
He says if you send me lots of cash
I'll send you stuff to make you rich fast

It's such a wonderful country
But the man he's burning it down
It's such a wonderful country
But the man he's burning it down
And it's burning down
And it's called the US of A

One day I'm going to have lots of money
But I'll have to give up for this rich society
Oh please Mr. President will you lend me a future
'Cause you'll just get it back
From the little blind woman with the kid on the corner
And the people all over, doin' crack

It's such a wonderful country
But the man he's burning it down
Sing it
And it's burning down
And it's called the US of A

I'm walking outside on a sunny day
With no one around and I wonder what's wrong
The I hear this loud piercing siren
Oh my God the bomb has just dropped
And everybody climbed right on top

Screaming, what a wonderful country
But the man he's burning it down, he's burning it down
It's such a wonderful country
But the man he's burning it down, he's burning it down
And it's burning down
And it's called the US of A

From December 25^th to January 3^rd:
- PokeStops will give out a single-use Incubator every day, once a day.
- You will now find new eggs that have a greater chance of hatching the Gen 2 Pokémon that Niantic introduced into the game earlier this month, Togepi, Pichu, etc.
- Santa Hat Pikachu will stay around longer than the 29^th, when he was supposed to disappear initially. He will also appear more often.
December 30^th to January 8^th
- The original starters, Squirtle, Bulbasaur and Charmadner, and their evolutions will appear more frequently throughout the world.

They want 1950s life again.
You know, women cook.
Black people aren't around.
And we all just wait till Jesus comes back to rapture.

 I honestly think we are doomed. We have elected a man who's an idiot, but the people who actually govern want the end of the world as it fits their beliefs.

The worse things get, the more suffering, the better

my spiritual  desires are affected and distorted by sin.   my intellect is distorted by and affected by sin. and most importantly, my body has been affected and distorted by sin.

"This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch [...] We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. [...] Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity."

Here is just a bit of lore for those wondering who Unicron might be and who the creators really are. Before time itself, there was a being called 'The One' who represented order and chaos in harmony. 'The One' wanted to explore more of the universe and thus split into two beings, Unicron and Primus. Unicron representing chaos, and Primus representing order. Primus found out that Unicron was destroying (eating) planets and thus made the 'Thirteen Primes' (not going to name them all) to help him destroy Unicron. After Unicron's defeat, his body drifted into space and eventually formed the Earth's core. Primus then became one with the core of Cybertron where he gives his life to future transformers through the Allspark in the 'Well of All Sparks'. A bit of conflict started between the 'Thirteen Primes' and Liege Maximo manipulated Megatronus into killing Solus Prime. Her body unexpectedly melted to the core of Cybertron which formed the 'Well of All Sparks'. Onyx Prime, Micronus Prime, and the Thirteenth Prime willingly enter the 'Well of All Sparks' and sacrifice their lives in order to jump-start its creative processes, with the intent of creating a new race to inhabit Cybertron. Meanwhile, Quintus Prime travels into deep space with an Emberstone to create a race that would ally with future Cybertronian civilizations and thus creates the Quintessons. The 'Thirteenth Prime' comes out of the 'Well of All Sparks' reincarnated as Orion Pax who as you know becomes Optimus Prime. Cut a long story short the Quintessons made the transformers their slaves and took over Cybertron by creating their own government and laws. The transformers then rebel against the Quintessons and force them off the planet. The transformers then lived in peace. Then overtime, some transformers believed that chaos was the best way to live, whilst others thought that order was the best way to live (Autobots and Decepticons). Then the great war starts between them

We’ll do anything to get a little extra battery life out of our beloved iPhones, especially since they seem to drain so darn fast when we need them most. One of the most common battery-saving legends that has been circulating for years is that closing apps on your iPhone will preserve its battery power. There may be something satisfying about double-tapping the home button on your phone and going to town swiping away days’ worth of open apps, but if battery preservation is your goal, closing apps is not the answer.
Apple has confirmed that quitting your apps in multitasking is not going to save you a second of battery life. Nada. In fact, most of the apps that you’re swiping away, including social media apps, are either frozen in RAM or not even running — think of them as pretty pictures and (yet another) reminder you don’t need that you’re spending too much time on Facebook.
There are a few apps that do drain your iPhone battery — the ones that affect background operations. Apps like GPS navigation and background music playback should be turned off as soon as you’re finished using them. Otherwise, the only reason Apple CEO Tim Cook says you’ll need to force quit apps is if they become frozen or stuck.

Globalization is under attack. The electoral victory of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the rise of an aggressive nationalism in mainland Europe and around the world are all part of a backlash to globalization.
In each instance, citizens have upset the political order by voting to roll back economic, political and cultural globalization. Support for Brexit came in large part from those worried about their jobs and the entry of immigrants. Similarly, the Midwest of the U.S. – the industrial heartland hurt by global competition – was the linchpin of Donald Trump’s victory.
But what exactly are these globalizations and why the discontent? A deeper examination of global integration sheds some light on how we got here and where we should go next.

The rise of the globalization agenda

The roots of today’s global economic order were established just as World War II was coming to end. In 1944 delegates from the Allied countries met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to establish a new system around open markets and free trade.
New institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and a precursor to the World Trade Organization were established to tie national economies into an international system. There was a belief that greater global integration was more conducive to peace and prosperity than economic nationalism.


Initially, it was more a promise than reality. Communism still controlled large swaths of territory. And there were fiscal tensions as the new trade system relied on fixed exchange rates, with currencies pegged to the U.S. dollar, which was tied to gold at the time. It was only with the collapse of fixed exchange rates and the unmooring of the dollar from the gold standard in the late 1960s that capital could be moved easily around the world.
And it worked: Dollars generated in Europe by U.S. multinationals could be invested through London in suburban housing projects in Asia, mines in Australia and factories in the Philippines. With China’s entry onto the world trading system in 1978 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the world of global capital mobility widened further.

Global transfer of wealth

While capital could now survey the world to ensure the best returns, labor was fixed in place. This meant there was a profound change in the relative bargaining power between the two – away from organized labor and toward a footloose capital. When a company such as General Motors moved a factory from Michigan to Mexico or China, it made economic sense for the corporation and its shareholders, but it did not help workers in the U.S.
Freeing up trade restrictions also led to a global shift in manufacturing. The industrial base shifted from the high-wage areas of North America and Western Europe to the cheaper-wage areas of East Asia: first Japan, then South Korea, and more recently China and Vietnam.


As a result, there was a global redistribution of wealth. In the West as factories shuttered, mechanized or moved overseas, the living standards of the working class declined. Meanwhile, in China prosperity grew, with the poverty rate falling from 84 percent in 1981 to only 12 percent by 2010.
Political and economic elites in the West argued that free trade, global markets and production chains that snaked across national borders would eventually raise all living standards. But as no alternative vision was offered, a chasm grew between these elites and the mass of blue-collar workers who saw little improvement from economic globalization.
The backlash against economic globalization is most marked in those countries such as the U.S. where economic dislocation unfolds with weak safety nets and limited government investment in job retraining or continuing and lifetime education.

Expanding free markets

Over the decades, politicians enabled globalization through trade organizations and pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, passed in 1994. The most prominent, though, was the European Union, an economic and political alliance of most European countries and a good example of an unfolding political globalization.
It started with a small, tight core of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. They signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to tie former combatants into an alliance that would preclude further conflicts – and form a common market to compete against the U.S.
Over the years, more countries joined, and in 1993 the European Union (EU) was created as a single market with the free movement of goods, people and capital and common policies for agriculture, transport and trade. Access to this large common market attracted former Communist bloc and Soviet countries, to the point where the EU now extends as far east as Cyprus and Bulgaria, Malta in the south and Finland in the north.


With this expansion has come the movement of people – hundreds of thousands of Poles have moved to the U.K. for instance – and some challenges.
The EU is now at a point of inflexion where the previous decades of continual growth are coming up against popular resistance to EU enlargement into poorer and more peripheral countries. Newer entrants often have weaker economies and lower social welfare payments, prompting immigration to the richer members such as France and the U.K.

Cultural backlash

The flattening of the world allowed for a more diverse ensemble of cultural forms in cuisine, movies, values and lifestyles. Cosmopolitanism was embraced by many of the elites but feared by others. In Europe, the foreign other became an object of fear and resentment, whether in the form of immigrants or in imported culture and new ways.


But evidence of this backlash to cultural globalization also exists around the world. The ruling BJP party in India, for example, combines religious fundamentalism and political nationalism. There is a rise of religious fundamentalism around the world in religions as varied as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism.
Old-time religion, it seems, has become a refuge from the ache of modernity. Religious fundamentalism held out the promise of eternal verities in the rapidly changing world of cultural globalization.
There is also a rising nationalism, as native purity is cast as contrast to the profane foreign. Across Europe from Bulgaria to Poland and the U.K., new nationalisms have a distinct xenophobia. Politicians such as Marine Le Pen in France recall an idealized past as a cure for the cultural chaos of modernity. Politicians can often gain political traction by describing national cultural traditions as under attack from the outside.
Indeed, the fear of immigration has resulted in the most dramatic backlash against the effects of globalization, heightening national and racial identities. In the U.S. white native-born American moved from being the default category to a source of identity clearly mobilized by the Trump campaign.

Reclaiming globalization

Globalization has now become the catchword to encompass the rapid and often disquieting and disruptive social and economic change of the past 25 years. No wonder there is a significant backlash to the constant change – much of it destabilizing economically and socially disruptive. When traditional categories of identity evaporate quickly, there is a profound political and cultural unease.
The globalization project contains much that was desirable: improvements in living conditions through global trade, reducing conflict and threat of war through political globalization and encouraging cultural diversity in a widening cultural globalization.

The question now, in my view, is not whether we should accept or reject globalization but how we shape and guide it to these more progressive goals. We need to point the project toward creating more just and fair outcomes, open to difference but sensitive to cultural connections and social traditions.
A globalization project of creating a more connected, sustainable, just and peaceful world is too important to be left to the bankers and the political elites.