Shamah-Elim Bible Studies

Site overview
Random posting
Newest articles
Prophetic words
Pending interpretation
Questions & Answers
Trains of thought
Latest postings
Audio snippets
Postings in other languages
Changes to articles
Copyright info
Contact info




ClustrMaps Map Image

Prophetic word for today

Fields of gold (Part 3)

First posted: October 6, 2008

Word received by: Daniel Heidemann

Emailed: March 17, 2008


This is a continuation of the "Fields of gold" prophetic word posted earlier...



Our comments


The campaign for abnormal 'normalcy'

As we said before, U.S. President Warren G. Harding was born on November 2, the same date as when Eva Cassidy died. He was born in 1865, which means that he was conceived during the American Civil War period and was born 207 days after the official end of the war. This means that Warren Harding was born into a post-war period during which America was trying to return to normality after years of bitter war. Interestingly enough, his 1920 run for the presidency was also born in a post-war period, as America was still recovering from the effects of World War 1, the most wide-reaching and most draining 4 years of war in the history of man up until then. Warren Harding was a first-term U.S. Senator when he ran for the presidency, and he became the "compromise choice" at the 1920 Republican National Convention. As indicated on, Harding won the Republican party nomination due to "the political machinations of his friends" when the nominating process became deadlocked. Harding was given the nomination when party leaders met in a "smoke-filled room" at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago (the city where the convention was being held); there, the party leaders decided that backing Harding was the best choice to regain the White House from the Democratic party, which had held it during Woodrow Wilson's 8 years in office.


Harding's "front porch campaign" from Marion, Ohio during the late summer and fall of 1920 captured the country's imagination. It was spotlighted by the American press like no other prior campaign in American history, and it was the first campaign to receive heavy and highly visible support from Hollywood stars. Major actresses and actors of the time such as Mary Pickford, Lillian Russell, Al Jolson and Douglas Fairbanks flocked to central Ohio to show their support for Harding. In all, it is estimated that more than half a million people (600,000) travelled to Marion to participate in Harding's front porch campaign, a number that is astonishing if you consider the rudimentary transport systems of the day (commercial flights were a thing of the future, and trains, which were the fastest mode of transport at the time, were pitifully slow and uncomfortable when compared by today's standards).


Harding's campaign was very popular amongst women. Apparently, Harding was considered handsome and was more photogenic than his rival James Cox. Harding's popularity with women was also strengthened by his June 1919 vote in the Senate in favour of the 19th Amendment, which gave women in America the right to vote. Ironically, the 19th Amendment passed in large measure due to its public support by Democratic president Woodrow Wilson (as indicated on,, and; Harding, however, was somehow able to make himself into the 1920 champion for women's rights on the strength of his one senate vote in 1919. From what we can gather, Harding was apparently absent from the first Senate vote on the 19th amendment in October 1918, when the amendment failed to pass by 3 votes after having been passed by an overwhelmingly majority in the U.S. House of Representatives; the Senate voted the amendment down even after Woodrow Wilson had made a compelling speech urging the Senate to pass it. This failed vote delayed the amendment's ratification by 8 months. Harding's failure to vote on the 19th amendment in 1918 was part of his propensity for missing votes. According to, he missed over 2/3 of the roll-call votes as a U.S. Senator.


Harding's campaign was greatly driven by the participation of Warren Harding's wife Florence. She was instrumental in cultivating the campaign's relationship with the press, and she even coached Warren Harding on the way he should wave at newsreel cameras. In short, she was the "P.R." strategist behind Harding's campaign. She was also the reason behind the success of Harding's newspaper in Marion. She basically ran the show in Harding's business, and it is believed that her determination and her nose for opportunities was what propelled an otherwise complacent Harding to the White House.


During the 1920 campaign, rumours abounded that Harding's great grandfather was a West Indian black. This rumour was apparently never proven or disproven, and present-day historians and journalists seem to believe that there is enough evidence not to discard the rumour as mere innuendo (consider articles such as the ones recently posted on the New York times website and on the Pittsburgh Post Gazette site).


Harding's campaign became famous for the slogan "Return to normalcy". The word "normalcy" was, before then, a seldom-used word since the more correct word is "normality". Technically, the suffix "-cy" should only be added to words that end with a "t" or "n" sound, as when the word "democrat" is converted to "democracy", "pirate" to "piracy", "secret" to "secrecy", "baronet" to "baronetcy", and "captain" to "captaincy". The suffix "-ity" should be used for all other cases, as when the word "able" turns into "ability" (for ending with an "L" sound) and the word "stupid" into "stupidity". Therefore, the word "normal" should convert into "normality", not "normalcy". The more correct word "normality" remains in common use in the UK. The incorrect word "normalcy" is now the "norm" in American English, due in large part to Harding's 1920 campaign. In other words, the word "normalcy" was adopted in America simply because a high-profile political leader used it constantly, and that suddenly turned it into the "right" word to use. The word "normal" means, "Something that is in keeping with the norms or rules". Thus, it is ironic that the word "normalcy" actually goes against the grammatical rule stated above.


As indicated on, Harding said the following during his 1920 campaign with regard to the end of World War 1:

"America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration."

In his inaugural address in 1921, Harding added:

"Our supreme task is the resumption of our onward, normal way.... We must strive to normalcy to reach stability."

Notice how Harding's message was one of seeking "normalcy" in order to forsake the pain of growth. Harding did not want painful "revolution", opting instead for pastoral "restoration" and "healing". He was not interested in "heroics", i.e.- in people going beyond the call of duty to do mighty things. He wanted "normal" people doing "normal" things, i.e.- ordinary people doing only what was expected of them. He preferred mediocre "stability" over the uncertainty and pain that comes with growth. He wanted an isolationist America that cared solely about herself, not about an America that would be willing to shed its blood to bring true peace and stability to people overseas. World War 1 was not a "useless endeavour". Because of it, the British took Palestine back from the Muslims, paving the way for the "Balfour Declaration" and the eventual rebirth of Israel as a nation-state. America's support of the Allied forces in Europe, in both World Wars, made Israel's rebirth possible; it shortened the bloodshed in World War 1, and it prevented Europe becoming a dictator's personal manor in World War 2. Europe and the world are qualitatively better off because of America's intervention in both world wars. America did not have the "obligation" to participate in either war, but that is what sets "heroes" apart from "normal" folks. Heroes do things they don't "need" to do. They seek after "level-2" righteousness, binding themselves to "obligations" they did not "have to" take up.



The second time

As you read the section above, some of you may have noted some striking similarities and "coincidences" between 1920 presidential candidate Warren Harding and 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama. Many of these similarities and "coincidences" are listed below:



Both preached recovery from an "evil" war whose worst days were already over

Harding spoke of World War 1 as a war America should not have involved herself in, which is the same thing that Obama has done with the Iraq war. Both promised in their campaigns that they would somehow "heal" the country from the injuries caused by their respective "ill-conceived" wars. Interestingly enough, both wars were long, drawn-out conflicts with much seemingly-pointless carnage. In both cases, the worst part of the war was over as the respective campaigns began. In Harding's case, the war had been over for nearly 2 years. In Obama's case, the surge encouraged by John McCain had dramatically reduced violence and stabilised Iraq's democracy and economy.



Both railed against 2-term presidents, portraying them as men who had led America down the wrong path, especially on foreign policy

Harding took advantage of a wave of public sentiment against W. Wilson, and Obama has taken advantage of public sentiment against George W. Bush. Both worked to portray their opponents as the incumbent president's 3rd term.



Both men's nominations required collusion by party leaders in "smoke-filled rooms"

As we said above, Warren Harding was nominated by Republican party leaders who met in a "smoke-filled room" when the nomination process became deadlocked. They chose Harding because he was the candidate who seemed to have the greatest chances of winning in the general election. In the same way, Barack Obama was nominated when the Democratic party "super delegates" came together and agreed that they would shift their support towards Obama in order to end the gruelling nomination battle, even if it meant breaking their original (conviction-induced) pledge to support Hillary Clinton. Even though Hillary Clinton won more votes than Obama during the primaries, she lost, not only because of the super delegates who betrayed her, but because of the party leaders' ridiculous decision to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida. In what was the tightest nomination race in 40 years, Obama won because of decisions made by party leaders. These leaders saw Obama's popularity, and they figured that he stood more chances of winning than Hillary, especially because of her husband's political past.



Chicago is involved in both candidates' nominations

Warren Harding was practically handed the nomination during the Republican Convention in Chicago, which "happens to be" Obama's hometown. The Lord arranged this so that those with ears to hear would perceive the spiritual connection between Harding's campaign and the campaign of a Chicagoan named Obama 88 years later.



Both have been Hollywood's and the media's "darlings"

As we shared above, Warren Harding was the first candidate to receive strong, overt support from the Hollywood stars of his day. As you may know, the Hollywood camp, along with well-known TV figures such as Oprah, have shown their staunch support for Obama. Besides their appeal amongst celebrities, both Harding and Obama were able to get the media to fall in love with them. The press were drawn in droves to Marion, Ohio to cover Harding's front porch campaign, and, in the same manner, Obama has drawn wide and positive coverage from the media, to the point that entire networks such as CNN and NBC have become little more than Obama's official networks.



Both have generated rock-star hysteria

As we shared above, Harding's campaign was unusually popular amongst women. Even though Obama's support amongst women has been hampered somewhat by Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, I must share that I have been stunned by the images of women sitting behind Obama during his campaign speeches, staring at him with a silly look reminiscent of the way teenage girls stare at their rock idols.



The phrase "America's first black president" has been associated to both

As we said above, it has been argued that Harding's great grandfather was a black man who arrived in America from the West Indies. This correlates with Obama's story, since his father was a black man who arrived in America from Kenya. I have been amazed at how Warren G. Harding's name has suddenly arisen in recent months. The Lord began speaking to my heart about this obscure president shortly after we received brother Heidemann's email in March 2008, so it is interesting that his name has suddenly become so relevant on the Internet as a result of Obama's nomination.



Both had rather passive stints as state and U.S. senators

As we said above, Harding had a pathetic attendance record as a U.S. senator, missing over 2/3 of the roll-call votes. Harding's voting deficiency is also evident in Obama. As indicated in a New York Times article posted on, it was Hillary Clinton (during the Democratic nomination race) who raised Obama's "neutral" voting record in the Illinois state senate; there, Obama voted "present" (i.e.- neither "yea" nor "nay") almost 130 times. In more than 50 votes, he acted as part of a Democratic strategy to protect him and others from potential Republican criticism in future. On at least 36 occasions, Obama was either the only one to vote "present" or was part of a group of 6 or fewer to vote "present". This shows that Obama is not a man of principles, but is rather a "fence straddler" who tries to hedge his bets in order to come out victorious on the political stage. As a state senator, he was neither a voice who heralded new principles nor a voice who protested against causes he opposed. This cautious passivity (a trait evident in the way he answers questions) has extended into his tenure as U.S. senator as well, where he has been as a national figure only on account of his "presidential possibilities" and not on account of being a fighter for one principle or another. The so-called "agent of change" has shown a proclivity for avoiding the pain of controversy that true change-makers are prone and willing to experience.



Both were first-term senators when they ran for the presidency

It is a well-known fact amongst U.S. political pundits that sitting senators rarely become president. Out of the 43 presidents America has had thus far, only 2 were sitting U.S. senators when they were sworn into the White House. Warren G. Harding was the first and John F. Kennedy was the second. Of the two, only Warren Harding was a first-term senator; JFK was in his second term when he won the presidency. Thus, it is very interesting to consider that both candidates for the White House in 2008 are sitting senators. There is a spiritual reason behind this. The senate, when viewed from a negative perspective, represents oligarchy and spiritual elitism; it represents a group of privileged individuals who stand above the more "common" and " plebeian" members of the House of Representatives. America has currently been in the midst of a 5th-seal period during which the first- and second-beast spiritual leadership have been trying to reassert their superiority over others; they have been trying to heal from the remnant-inflicted damage that has seriously injured their spiritual reputation and influenced. Therefore, it is fitting that America be led by a "senator" at this time. Amongst the two senators running for office, however, there is a fundamental difference. One senator chose another long-time senator as his running mate, meaning that he is offering nothing more than prolonged "senatorial elitism" for the White House. The other senator, on the other hand, chose a first-term governor, meaning that, even though he is a senator, he is willing to step aside and allow a "non-senatorial" spirit to lead. In that sense, he is willing to serve as a "transitional" leader from the current spirit of elitism in America to a spirit of true equality in which all people are deemed to have access to God's anointing and grace. The American Church is run by elitist "senators" who believe they have "VIP" access to God's grace and anointing, but the time has come when a non-elitist remnant spirit shall rule the Church, and the potential in all of God's people shall be finally allowed to shine forth.


All of the above means that the 1920 battle between Warren G. Harding and James M. Cox is playing itself out again in 2008, only that the names are different. Interestingly enough, Harding was the first U.S. president ever to visit Alaska. As indicated on, he did so between June and July 1923. At the end of July, as he travelled south from Alaska to British Columbia, he had what seemed to be a severe case of food poisoning. His health quickly went downhill from there, and he died at the start of August, on August 2, 1923. Thus, we can say that Alaska led to Harding's death. Therefore, it is no spiritual coincidence that the state of Alaska has been so prominent in this year's presidential elections.


As historians bear out, Harding's presidency is one of the worst in American history. As indicated on, Harding played golf twice a week and poker twice a week, and, even though he had voted for Prohibition as a state senator in Ohio, he kept the White House stocked with bootleg liquor. Upon taking over the White House, he placed many of his old friends in prominent positions. This group, known as the "Ohio gang", proved to have very little talent, and many of them also showed themselves lacking in moral scruples. Because of this immoral and inept group of people, corruption ran rampant throughout Harding's administration. The most famous of the many scandals during this shameful period was the "Teapot Dome Scandal", which ended with a Cabinet member, Albert B. Fall, being imprisoned, a first in U.S. history for a Cabinet member. Thus, Harding's presidency reflects the corruption of "nepotism", which is a spirit closely associated with "elitism". It also reflects the damage that can be caused by unsavoury associations, something that has also plagued Obama's political career.


There is deep spiritual significance to the upcoming presidential elections in America. Will America get it right the second time around, or will she make the same mistake she made in 1920? If America were to vote for Harding again, she would in essence be saying to God, "We choose the charismatic beast who offers us a return to happiness and an end to our suffering". If she votes for Cox this time around, she will be saying, "We vote for character and for doing the right thing, no matter the price, no matter the cost". The beastly spirit of anti-Christ is a deceitfully charming spirit that uses half-truths to disguise "more of the same" as "change", and to distort true change until it appears to the natural eye as "more of the same". The spirit of anti-Christ does this by removing the need for pain from the change process, turning change into something forged by the leading elite through simplistic decrees whilst the plebeians sit back and relax and allow the "important" people to do "their thing". In the anti-Christ's message, there is no talk of "collective sacrifice". There is no talk of living for a cause higher than yourself. There is only talk of an elite providing the non-elite with "entitlements" as these non-elite leave the more complicated problem-solving to the elite.


"8And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12)


It is no coincidence that the word "normality" remains in use in the UK. As we have shared before, the Lord has hidden His remnant's spirit in Britannia's spiritual realm. His remnant have the British spirit of apostolic endurance required to see the true-normality process through. They will not compromise and settle for "abnormal normalcy", and they are willing to pay the price required to reach a normality where true peace abides.


There is much more to say regarding this word, but we will do so in a future posting...