Dear friends,

It is my sincere belief that the forced imposition of an international “peace deal” between the Palestinians and Israel (by outside forces) is the marker for the beginning of the last 7 years of earth’s history!!!! Otherwise known as the “70th Week of Daniel”!

This is very serious. Please, if you don’t take me seriously that’s OK. Just watch carefully with your own eyes. It would be as if the weather service put out a watch for something. It is never guaranteed, but you trust that it could be “likely”. The percentage of that likelihood is negotiable. But it is still “likely”. Remember the adage BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY. In this case the sorry will be worse than anything you’ve ever seen or imagined.

I’m not a date setter. I’m not an Antichrist namer. I’m not the type to present human interpretation as fact. Jesus simply said WATCH that the hour does not OVERTAKE YOU UNAWARE!

Remember ALL THE VIRGINS FELL ASLEEP. Only the wise had oil…..

Figure out what oil God has for you! Figure out what God wants you to hold tight to! Hold fast to the hope that is in you, Christ!

AMEN – Even so come Lord Jesus!

Love,

Corwin

Abbas urges Obama to impose Mideast peace solution

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent, and News Agencies
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged the Obama administration on Saturday to impose a solution to the Middle East conflict that would give his people an independent state.

“Mr. President [Barack Obama] and members of the American administration, since you believe in this [an independent Palestinian state], it is your duty to take steps toward a solution and to impose this solution,” Abbas said in a speech.

Abbas made the remarks to members of his Fatah party in the West Bank city of Ramallah a day after talks there with Obama’s Middle East envoy. George Mitchell is in the region to try to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

“We’ve asked them [the Obama administration] more than once: ‘Impose a solution,'” Abbas said.

Abbas also rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state within temporary borders, an idea he said was recently proposed for restarting peace talks.
In his speech, Abbas referred to recent proposals – apparently from Israel – for a temporary state but did not elaborate. Frankly, we will not accept the state with temporary borders, because it is being offered these days, he said.

He said the Palestinians were being asked to take a state with provisional borders on 40 or 50 percent, and after that we will see.

Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdeneh denied that Israel officially raised the idea.

However, a Palestinian academic said Israel offered Abbas such a state on more than 50 percent of the West Bank. The academic said he served as a go-between for the two sides and spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters.

A Palestinian state with provisional borders is part of the U.S.-backed road map peace plan as an interim step toward full independence.

Mitchell told Israel and the Palestinians on Friday that Obama wants a comprehensive peace deal to be a reality soon and not in some vague and distant future time.

Pressing both sides to end a 16-month suspension of negotiations, Obama wants “proximity talks” on a deal to start within weeks. He has said peace is a vital strategic interest of the United States as it battles Islamic militants abroad.

Abbas’ appeal to Obama came amid widespread media reports that the U.S. president was considering floating a proposal that would set the contours of a final peace deal.

Any such move would likely be opposed by Israel, which says only negotiations can secure a final settlement to the conflict.

Report: Netanyahu agrees to new gestures toward Abbas

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to release more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, to remove several roadblocks in the West Bank, and to ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip, as a series of gestures towards Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the London-based Arabic Language news agency Al-Hayat reported on Saturday.

During his meeting with United States special Mideast envoy Mitchell on Friday, Netanyahu also agreed to enable the Palestinian Authority to act in Area C, which contains most Israeli settlements, in the West Bank.

However, Netanyahu refused the U.S. demand to freeze construction in East Jerusalem as well as the request to return all territories classified as Area C in the West Bank to PA control, Al-Hayat reported.

The West Bank was divided in 1995 into Areas A, B and C, in accordance with an Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement. More than 70,000 Palestinians live in Area C, which according to the Oslo Accord gives Israel full civilian and military control of the area.

Palestinian sources quoted by the London-based paper said that, despite the new gestures, Abbas rejected Netanyahu’s recent offer to establish a Palestinian state within temporary borders on over 60 percent of West Bank territories, as he believed that the offer was an attempt to drag him into sterile negotiations in order to perpetuate the PA as a temporary borders.

Israeli and American officials reportedly conveyed the offer to Abbas, while President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both attempted to convince the U.S. that this was the only way to prevent a continuous Middle East conflict, Al-Hayat reported.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164984.html

Advertisements

Obama Agrees To Outsource Capitalism To European Socialists

April 14, 2009

By  Andrea Lafferty
TVC Executive Director
TraditionalValues.org

 – Most Americans are probably unaware that President Barack Hussein Obama has shockingly agreed to place America’s free enterprise system under the control of a world financial government to be ruled from Brussels, Belgium.

Obama quietly agreed to this system while attending the G-20 Summit in England earlier this month. During the recent meetings of the G-20, the nations issued a proposal for a “Financial Stability Board” and an International Economic Union that would control all financial institutions around the globe. This includes the U.S.

Analyst Dick Morris spoke to Greta Van Susterern on April 3, to put this catastrophic sell-out of our system into context:

Literally from April 2nd of this year — that is, today — it’s a whole new world of financial regulation in which, essentially, all of the U.S. regulatory bodies and all U.S. companies are put under international regulation, international supervision. It really amounts to a global economic governance.

Let me read you from the communique, Greta. “We agree to a framework of internationally agreed upon high standards. We will set up a financial stability board with a strengthened mandate to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets” — including hedge funds, all — anything that they decide is important to the system — “to endorse and implement tough new principles on paying (ph) compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms.”

Just when Obama is accused of socialism, he’s essentially creating world economic governance. This means that the FSB, this newly created board, Financial Stability Board, patterned on the Financial Stability Forum that now exists, headed by an Italian banker, populated largely by the European bank executives, will make the decisions on what standards our own SEC and Federal Reserve board should apply to all firms in the United States of any significant size about executive compensation, market activities, and a whole range of issues that used to be under free enterprise reserved for private decision making.

This is an unbelievably radical document! This trivializes everything Obama’s done until now!

Morris points out that this was done under the radar and will create an economic union that will put American businesses under the control of European bankers. They will be making the rules for our nation, not Congress or independent businesses. President Obama has just turned our monetary system over to a group of unaccountable European socialists!

This decision effectively repeals the Declaration of Independence and abrogates national sovereignty. The creation of a Financial Stability Board will have power to examine all banks, brokerage firms, and corporations. President Obama has not just nationalized many of our businesses, he has just internationalized them under a European-run Board where America only has one vote. The communiqué setting up this Financial Stability Board has no appeal procedure. Any decision by the Financial Stability Board is final. Sounds like an economic dictatorship to me.

As WorldNetDaily reporter Jerome Corsi has written: “Under the premise that the IMF and the Financial Stability Board would have the ability to make loans to important U.S. corporations, the IMF and the Financial Stability Board become the effective global regulators over the corporate world, superseding all U.S. governmental authorities, including the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a host of corporate regulators, including the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Labor”

Investigative reporter Cliff Kincaid has published a report on Obama’s efforts to give away our free enterprise system – and reports that this is a long-time goal of atheist billionaire George Soros – the man who helped get socialist Obama elected. The G-20 agreement will permit the nations of the world to bilk American taxpayers out of trillions of dollars over the next decades.

This new economic union will give the International Monetary Fund power to conduct surveillance of the U.S. economy. President Obama also endorsed the use of a global currency called Special Drawing Rights, a new global warming treaty, and the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which will result in more than $1 trillion in new taxes for Americans. The President has laid the groundwork for the death of U.S. national sovereignty and the U.S. dollar as the world’s dominant currency.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has hailed this U.N. plan as evidence that the nations of the world are creating a New World Order (NWO) – code for world government where nations surrender their sovereignty to international organizations such as the United Nations.

Congress can still act to block many of these Obama-endorsed programs, but will it?

Where Is Congress?

President Obama has agreed to place our economic system under the control of bankers in Brussels, but does he have the executive power to do so? Can a sitting president turn over our capitalist system to European socialists?

Will Congress resist this Obama effort to give European socialists control over our economic system? Or, will a compliant Congress roll over and let Brussels bankers control our economic future?

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators and ask them to explain what they will do to resist Obama’s effort to turn our economic system over to socialists in Brussels.

Prophecy News Holy Week

April 6, 2009

Hello dear friends,

In just the last 3 short months since the inauguration of beloved President Obama, the world has openly and thoroughly kicked off any semblance of nationalism, traditionalism, and religious orthodoxy. This trend has been in the mix for YEARS. But the fetters, blinders, and restraints have come off! The social engineers, the multicultural warriors, the globalist visionaries have all but won fair and square.

And yes, even in good old America, individualism is being replaced by the global collective! I see it on Noggin and Nickelodeon every day.

This post-modern, post-fundamentalist, post-nationalist world is no different than any other fascism that has ever existed. The grandiose ideas and rights of the FEW determine the laws, freedoms, and prosperity (or poverty) of the MANY. “The masses do not know what is good for them. They are not educated or enlightened enough to govern themselves. They are too ignorant, isolated, and self-seeking to bring about the global peace and prosperity of the new universal human consciousness we desire.”

If you honestly DO NOT see this DOMINATING the world stage today, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Maybe you are too ignorant and isolated to defend yourselves against it! Maybe you need me to come slap yah up side the head! *grin*

Don’t worry, it is NOT up to you, as Glenn Beck says! It actually is not up to policy, finance, society, or even the Church to do anything about!!!!!!!

Why do I say that?

Because prophecy is Prophecy! What God has put in motion, let man just stand back and watch in dumb amazement.

Christians and Jews WILL be persecuted. Unlike at ANY OTHER TIME in the HISTORY of the world.

The principles of the Bible will be HATED.

The Name of Jesus will be blasphemed, profaned, and mocked.

The world will HATE us because of HIS NAME’S SAKE.

But do not be afraid. GREATER IS HE THAT IS IN YOU THAN HE THAT IS IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

Our ONLY BUSINESS is the GOSPEL OF CHRIST!!!!!!!

And I quote:

“Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

– Matthew 24 NIV


Italy earthquake kills more than 90 and leaves thousands homeless

• 6.3-magnitude tremor centres on local capital L’Aquila
• Prime minister Berlusconi declares state of emergency

Scores of people were killed and tens of thousands left homeless in central Italy today after a powerful earthquake shook a mountain region, severely damaging a historic city and surrounding villages.

At least 92 people were known to have died, the Italian news agency Ansa reported, quoting local rescue workers. More than 1,500 people had been injured, the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, told a press conference in L’Aquila, the badly damaged capital of the Abruzzo region, close to the quake’s epicentre.

The 6.3-magnitude tremor, which struck at 3.32am local time (2.32am BST), was the country’s deadliest since the Irpinia quake in the south in November 1980, which killed more than 2,500 people.

Up to 50,000 people may have been left homeless by this morning’s quake, a spokesman for Italy’s civil protection agency said.


The Alliance and Obama have a shared vision

The Alliance and Obama have a shared vision and both need Turkey
…Not all the moves of political celebrities carry special and secret meanings, and April 6 and 7 may have just been the most suitable dates for Obama to visit Turkey, but the coincidence is still meaningful. Using the logic Kınıklıoğlu applied to the relation between Davos and the Obama visit, one can say that 10 years ago there wouldn’t have been a AOC forum in İstanbul. In fact, there wouldn’t be a AOC at all.

Kınıklıoğlu suggests that what brings both Obama and the AOC to Turkey is the same thing: the immense bridge-making capacity Turkey promises for the future of the world...

“There is a correspondence of visions here. Obama is the most cosmopolitan, multicultural president of the United States ever. He is radically different from his predecessors in his understanding of world politics. He listens to others. He is open to dialogue with Iran, Syria and others,” he says.

The overlap of Obama’s vision and the vision of the AoC can be observed from a reading of Obama’s inauguration speech and the AoC’s first High-level Group Report presented to the secretary-general of the UN. Both texts refer to multiculturalism, the multi-polarity of the world, international law, human rights, accountable leadership, civil society, education, youth, immigration, intercultural peacemaking and bridge building.



Barack Obama’s New World Order

…At almost every stop, Obama has made clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community. Talk of American economic supremacy has been replaced by a call from Obama for more growth in developing countries. Claims of American military supremacy have been replaced with heavy emphasis on cooperation and diplomatic hard labor. (Read “Obama in Europe: Facing Four Big Challenges.”)

The tone was set from Obama’s first public remarks in London on Wednesday, at a press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, where the American President said he had come “to listen, not to lecture.” At a joint appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Baden-Baden on Friday, a German reporter asked Obama about his “grand designs” for NATO. “I don’t come bearing grand designs,” Obama said, scrapping the leadership role the U.S. maintained through the Cold War. “I’m here to listen, to share ideas and to jointly, as one of many NATO allies, help shape our vision for the future.”

On Thursday night, after the G-20 summit ended, Obama took so many questions from the foreign press, including British, Indian and Chinese reporters, that a group of them applauded when he left the stage. Two American reporters asked Obama for his response to the claim by Brown that the “Washington consensus is over.” Obama all but agreed with Brown, noting that the phrase had its roots in a significant set of economic policies that had shown itself to be imperfect. He went on to talk about the benefits of increasing economic competition with the U.S. “That’s not a loss for America,” he said of the economic rise of other powers. “It’s an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India — these are all countries on the move. And that’s good.”

At a town hall in Strasbourg, France, Obama stood before an audience of mostly French and German youth and admitted that the U.S. should have a greater respect for Europe. “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world,” he said before offering other European critical views of his country. “There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

The contrast is striking. Only four years ago, George W. Bush, in his second Inaugural Address, described what he called America’s “considerable” influence, saying, “We will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.” Bush’s vision of American power was combative and aggressive. He said the U.S. would “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.” He continued, “We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom.”

Obama, by contrast, is looking for collaboration. He is looking to build a collective vision, not to impose an American one. And the response has been notable, from the endless flashbulbs that fired off at his town hall to the cheers of spectators who lined his motorcade routes and gathered outside his events in London. At the end of Obama’s Friday press conference, French President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed the issue directly, speaking through an interpreter. “It feels really good to be able to work with a U.S. President who wants to change the world and who understands that the world does not boil down to simply American frontiers and borders,” he said. “And that is a hell of a good piece of news for 2009.”


The End of Christian America

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, “this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.” As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America’s religious culture was cracking.

“That really hit me hard,” he told me last week. “The Northwest was never as religious, never as congregationalized, as the Northeast, which was the foundation, the home base, of American religion. To lose New England struck me as momentous.” Turning the report over in his mind, Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. “A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us,” Mohler wrote. “The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture.”


North Korea missile: punishment up to US

Security Council’s struggle to respond to Sunday’s rocket launch also portends challenges for Obama’s nonproliferation goals with Iran.

The UN Security Council’s inability to take harsh action against North Korea in an emergency session Sunday – the first such gathering of the Obama presidency – leaves the challenge posed by Pyongyang’s launch of a long-range missile in Washington’s lap.

That is just where North Korea’s attention-starved leader, Kim Jong Il, wants it.

“North Korea was way down on the list of priorities for Obama, but with this one test firing, they have put themselves at the top of his list of things to do,” says Chaibong Hahm, a Northeast Asia expert at RAND Corp., in Santa Monica, Calif.

By launching the long-range Taepodong-2 rocket despite warnings from world leaders such as President Obama, Pyongyang is daring the international community and, in particular, Washington to ignore its progress in missiles and weapons delivery at their peril.


Series of bombings in Baghdad Shiite areas kill 33

BAGHDAD (AP) — Six bombs rocked Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad on Monday, killing 33 people and wounding more than 90 in a dramatic escalation of violence as the U.S. military is thinning out its presence before a June 30 deadline to pull combat troops out of the cities.

Angry survivors hurled stones at Iraqi soldiers at the site of one of the blasts in Sadr City after troops fired guns into the air to disperse crowds of people trying to care for the injured, witnesses said.

The deadliest blast occurred in a market in western Baghdad where two car bombs exploded near-simultaneously, killing 12 people and wounding 29 others, an Iraqi police official said.

Burned hulks of cars and twisted metal were scattered across the marketplace, as Iraqi soldiers and police officers surrounded the bombing site, driving off onlookers and journalists.

The day’s violence started with a car bomb at 7:30 a.m. in the center of the capital, that killed at least six people and wounded 16, said a police official, who described the victims as mostly day laborers seeking work.


Day of Suicide Attacks Displays Strength of Pakistani Taliban

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A suicide bomber blew himself up at the entrance to a crowded Shiite mosque just south of the capital on Sunday, killing at least 26 people. It was the third suicide attack in Pakistan in 24 hours, in a sign that the Pakistani Taliban are overwhelming the nation’s security forces.

The assault south of the capital, Islamabad, appeared to be carefully planned. It took place in Chakwal, a town that has historically had strong ties to the Pakistani Army, and in a Shiite mosque. The Pakistani Taliban have increasingly attacked Shiite mosques.

The latest bombing occurred about 12 hours after a suicide bomber struck in an upper-class neighborhood of Islamabad on Saturday night, killing eight paramilitary security officers assigned to guard foreign diplomats and wealthy residents. On Saturday morning, a suicide bomber drove his vehicle into a group of civilians on the side of the road in Miram Shah, in North Waziristan, killing at least eight people, including schoolchildren.


KABUL (AFP) — Thousands of extra US troops headed to Afghanistan will not stop the Taliban insurgency but fuel further attacks, the militia said Monday in a statement directed at the top US military commander.

Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters in Kabul Sunday that an extra 17,000 US troops to be deployed to Afghanistan in coming weeks would allow security forces to start to turn the tide against insurgents in the south.

Mullen has been holding two days of talks in Afghanistan with US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.

“As much as the foreign forces increase, fighting will increase and there will be increased civilian casualties,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP in a telephone call from an undisclosed location.

“And there will be more opportunity for the Taliban to attack and the battle will expand,” he said.

The conflict would not be settled through war, the spokesman said.


Senators introduce bill to federalize cybersecurity

A new bill would create a “cybersecurity czar” who would oversee the government’s computer security programs. More controversially, the czar would have power over some private networks if they are considered to be “critical infrastructure.”

With President Obama’s 60-day comprehensive review of US cybersecurity still underway, Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snow (D-ME) on Wednesday introduced sweeping legislation that would establish a cybersecurity “czar” within the White House and bring both governmental and private sector “critical infrastructure” under a unified regulatory regime.

The “czar”—more precisely, an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor within the White House—is established in a separate short-but-sweet bill running a mere three pages. It specifies that the post will be subject to Senate confirmation, and it gives the cybersecurity advisor a backstage pass to all of the federal government’s cyber-related “special access programs,” a designation given to highly secret initiatives.

Most of the action is in the much longer Cybersecurity Act of 2009. In case a lone cybersecurity advisor doesn’t seem like enough, that legislation provides for the creation of cybersecurity advisory panel to be staffed by stakeholders from the governmental, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors.

The bill establishes a dizzying array of programs, administered by a variety of agencies, over the course of its 51 pages. Perhaps most significantly, the bill tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology with developing a set of security standards and vulnerability tests that will apply to any information networks or software used by federal agencies and contractors—but also by any private entity designated as “critical infrastructure” by the President. The President is also empowered to order the disconnection of any federal or private critical infrastructure network, either during a “cybersecurity emergency” or for reasons of national security more broadly.


Battle Over Access to Guns Renews After Shootings in New York, Pennsylvania

As the nation gets a clearer picture of two killers who have made headlines in recent days — one near Pittsburgh, one in Binghamton, N.Y. — some are wondering whether Americans have too much access to guns.


CHISINAU (AFP) — The pro-European Communist Party of Moldova has won an absolute majority in the ex-Soviet republic’s parliamentary elections, with 49.92 percent of the vote, officials said Monday.

The Moldovan Communist Party (PCM) headed by President Vladimir Voronin was followed by the Liberal Party with 12.9 percent of the vote and the Liberal Democrats (LPDM) with 12.24 percent, election officials announced.

The election result puts the Communist Party in a position to determine the landlocked country’s next president.

Voronin is barred by the constitution from running for a third term. The Communists came to power in 2001 and were reelected in 2005.

The PCM was once pro-Russian but changed course dramatically in 2005 and now seeks closer ties with the European Union, while maintaining good relations with Russia, on which it depends for, among other things, gas supplies.

Hmm…right about now Obama is looking like the poster child

for the New Age/UN/EU/Globalist vision!!!!! Read below!



Obama outlines sweeping goal of nuclear-free world

PRAGUE – Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a “moral responsibility” to lead because no other country has used one.

A North Korean rocket launch upstaged Obama’s idealistic call to action, delivered in the capital of the Czech Republic, a former satellite of the Soviet Union. But Obama dismissed those who say the spread of nuclear weapons, “the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,” cannot be checked.

“This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime,” he told a cheering crowd of more than 20,000 in the historic square outside the Prague Castle gates. We “must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can.'”


Obama leads world condemnation of North Korea

PRAGUE (AFP) – US President Barack Obama led global condemnation of North Korea’s rocket launch Sunday, calling it “a provocative act” for which Pyongyang must be punished.


Obama backs Turkey EU accession

US President Barack Obama has arrived in Turkey on a two-day visit, after giving his support to Ankara’s efforts to join the European Union.

He said Turkey’s accession to the EU would send an important signal to the Muslim world and firmly anchor the country in Europe.

But French President Nicolas Sarkozy said it was up to the EU itself to decide who joined the bloc.


Blair steps up fight to be crowned first ‘President of EU’

Brown gives grudging blessing to his old rival’s return to new job at centre of the global stage




Mr President? Another 'no' vote in the Irish referendum, or Angela Merkel's EU ambitions, could still thwart Blair


Tony Blair has emerged as the leading candidate to become the first permanent president of the European Union after Gordon Brown gave his grudging blessing to the plan. The former prime minister has stepped up his campaign for the job, which he wants to use to build a bridge between Europe and the new Obama administration.


His return to the global stage would be a shock to his critics over the Iraq war and dismay many in Europe.

But The Independent on Sunday has learnt that Mr Brown has accepted that his old rival should be in pole position for the appointment, on the basis that Britain needs to have a key figure in the architecture of the “new world order”.


World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.

Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”

In other words, give global institutions the power to regulate national policy as part of the creation of global government.

What Zoellick is outlining is essentially the end of national sovereignty and the reclassification of national governments as mere subordinates to a global authority that is completely unaccountable to the voting public of any country.

The more cynical amongst us would call this a global dictatorship. Zoellick couches the plan in flowery rhetoric of helping the poor and alleviating poverty, but as we have documented for years, the global elite’s goal of world government has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with creating a global fascist state.



For controversial Turkish President Abdullah Gül, the recent war in Georgia signals a “new world order” that will emerge from the rubble of South Ossetia and force the United States to share its power,The Guardian reported.

Gül said America’s inability to prevent Russia’s invasion shows that the US can no longer shape world politics as it once did.

“I don’t think you can control all the world from one centre,” Gül said. “There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge.”

globalism   Turkish President Mentions New World Order
globalism   Turkish President Mentions New World Order
globalism   Turkish President Mentions New World Order

The geopolitical turmoil in the Caucusus — a region between Europe and Asia that includes the nations of Georgia and Turkey — has placed Turkey in a difficult position between pleasing its neighbor Russia and not hurting its relationship with the US.



Leading climate scientist: ‘democratic process isn’t working’

Protest and direct action could be the only way to tackle soaring carbon emissions, a leading climate scientist has said.

James Hansen, a climate modeller with Nasa, told the Guardian today that corporate lobbying has undermined democratic attempts to curb carbon pollution. “The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working,” he said.

Speaking on the eve of joining a protest against the headquarters of power firm E.ON in Coventry, Hansen said: “The first action that people should take is to use the democratic process. What is frustrating people, me included, is that democratic action affects elections but what we get then from political leaders is greenwash.

Prophecy News Links

February 22, 2009

Very pertinent news for the End Times. Keep watching all of these players with intense interest and keep reading the Word of God and praying for our times!

Islam

Israel

America

Economic Crisis

Europe

Earth Changes

New World Order

Misc.

 

From the Watchman Bible Study www.watchmanbiblestudy.com

Climate of World Religion

February 16, 2009

UN Sets Dangerous Precedent with “Defamation of Religions” Resolutions

(look up the UN “defamation of religions” resolutions after you read this)

The basic human right to freedom of expression is increasingly under threat as countries introduce and enforce laws that have been wrongfully legitimized by numerous United Nations resolutions on “defamation of religions.” In a statement sent to the UN Human Rights Council today, Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty strongly urged members of the council to reject any further resolutions when they meet in Geneva for the upcoming 10th Session March 2-27, and to further reject any attempts to create international instruments or mechanisms that would prohibit “defamation of religions.”
The statement explains how such resolutions directly violate international law and can encourage countries to increase the repression of religious minorities, political dissidents and human rights advocates. It points to a 2008 joint report by two UN special rapporteurs that soundly rejects the premise that the rights of religious believers are violated by merely hearing statements critical of their faith: “Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights.” 

Several recent high-profile cases have highlighted the growing conflict between freedom of expression and so-called religious “defamation.” This month, Indian authorities arrested the editor and the publisher of the Statesman, after Muslims protested the newspaper reprinting an article from the United Kingdom’s Independent titled, “Why should I respect these oppressive religions?” The article decried the erosion of the right to criticize religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In another case, Random House backed out of a deal last year to publish “The Jewel of Medina,” a fictional novel about one of the wives of Muhammad citing concerns that “the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community” and that it could “incite acts of violence.” In September, Gibson Books announced it would publish the book in the United Kingdom, but the publisher’s home and office were fire bombed three weeks later. The book was eventually published in the United States by Beaufort Books.

“Although we are sympathetic to the stated goals of the resolutions of combating intolerance, racism, and religious hatred, we believe that such resolutions do not serve to achieve these goals but rather limit the ability of individuals to raise questions, concerns, and even criticisms at a time when people of all faiths need to engage in more, not less, dialogue,” said Freedom House and the Becket Fund.

The full text of the statement follows:

Concern over UN Resolutions on “Combating Defamation of Religions”

1. On the occasion of the 10th Session of the Human Rights Council, Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty express concern over the resolutions on “combating defamation of religions” adopted by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly since 1999 [1]. We urge members of the Council to reject such resolutions in the future and further urge them to reject attempts to create international instruments or mechanisms that would prohibit “defamation of religions.”

2. Although we are sympathetic to the stated goals of the resolutions of combating intolerance, racism, and religious hatred, we believe that such resolutions do not serve to achieve these goals but rather limit the ability of individuals to raise questions, concerns, and even criticisms at a time when people of all faiths need to engage in more, not less, dialogue. Moreover, we believe these resolutions directly violate existing international law regarding the fundamental freedoms of expression, thought, conscience and religion.

3. In particular, the resolutions should be rejected on the grounds that 1) the term “defamation of religions” is overly vague, open to abuse, and inconsistent with traditional defamation legislation; 2) the resolutions attempt to provide rights to a belief or idea rather than an individual or group of individuals in contradiction of existing international law; 3) the concept of “defamation of religions” restricts freedom of expression beyond accepted limitations defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 4) the concept of “defamation of religions” violates the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and 5) the concept of “defamation of religions” falsely equates religious belief with race.

Problems with the definition of “defamation of religions”

4. The term “defamation of religions” has not been clearly defined and is therefore subject to misuse and abuse. The legal term “defamation” is typically defined as the spreading of mistruths intended to harm an individual’s reputation and livelihood. However, by attempting to apply such a definition to ideas or religious beliefs, which by their very nature conflict with opposing ideas or religious beliefs, it is impossible to evaluate whether ideas or religious beliefs represent truths or mistruths. As was noted in the Becket Fund’s “Issues Brief for the OHCHR” of June 2008, “religions make conflicting truth claims and indeed the diversity of truth claims is something that religious freedom as a concept is designed to protect.”[2] Thus, the concept of “defamation of religions” can be defined as the expression of ideas or beliefs that simply conflict with or offend the ideas of others.

5. Further, because the resolutions call on States to enact necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, it would be left up to governments to define whether ideas expressed are offensive or, in the language of the resolution, “defame” a religious belief. Governments would thus be forced to pick and choose among competing faith claims.

6. In countries with domestic laws that use equally vague or poorly defined language to restrict individuals from “defaming” or “defiling” religions, the government often “picks” the majority religion over minority religions. These laws are frequently applied to punish individuals from expressing questions, concerns and criticisms of the majority religion.[3] The application of similar legal mechanisms at the international level would not only legitimate such existing problematic domestic legislation, but would result in a greater proliferation of such legislation to other countries.

 

Problems with providing rights to a belief or idea rather than individuals

7. International law regarding freedom of religion and expression, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has been established to protect individuals and in some case groups of individuals from the violation of their rights. Thus, Articles 18 of both the UDHR and the ICCPR states, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” (Emphasis added.) Articles 19 of both documents define the right of “everyone” to freedom of opinion and expression free from interference. (Emphasis added.)

8. These documents lay out the right of individuals to hold and express beliefs and ideas and are designed to protect them from discrimination based on their beliefs. However, these documents are not intended to protect the beliefs themselves from criticism or even attack.

9. As the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief together with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance wrote in a joint report presented at a special seminar on this topic held by the OHCHR in October, 2008.

“Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion primarily confers a right to act in accordance with one’s religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment.”[4]

Violations of freedom of expression

10. Article 19 of the ICCPR states that, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

11. The right to free expression and the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds is not intended to be absolute, but rather is restricted by Article 20 of the ICCPR, which calls on signatories to create law prohibiting the “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” While this language of the ICCPR is itself overly vague and could be better defined, it is our belief that the term “defamation”-because it can be interpreted so broadly-does not necessarily cross the line of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence.

12. In other words, because the definition of “defamation” can be interpreted to include ideas or beliefs that simply conflict with or offend the ideas of others, the term oversteps the restrictions on free expression laid out in international law and places unnecessary and dangerous restrictions on the ability of individuals to freely express conflicting beliefs or to address disagreements through peaceful public debate. Such restrictions will have the opposite effect of increasing religious intolerance and hatred than what the resolutions on “combating defamation of religions” are purportedly designed to combat.

Violations of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

13. Article 18 of the ICCPR protects not only the freedom to have or adopt a particular religion or belief, but also protects an individual’s freedom to manifest his religion or belief. [5] As stated in General Comment No. 22, the freedom to manifest religion includes the sharing of beliefs, thoughts, and ideas. [6] It is this right to manifest belief that allows for inter-religious dialogue efforts to occur within the walls of the UN and around the world. Initiatives like the UN’s Alliance of Civilizations [7] and the Saudi Culture of Peace initiative rely upon the free exchange of ideas and beliefs. Yet such initiatives are in direct contradiction to the concept of “defamation of religions.”

Conflation of Race and Religion

14. The conflation of race and religion diminishes the uniqueness of both race and religion. Unlike immutable race, religion involves the freedom to follow one’s conscience, and implies dialogue and debate with others about the truth claims involved. Treating racial and religious discrimination as the same thing thus confuses racist hate speech with debate about (sometimes controversial) competing truth claimsWhereas one can easily identify and narrowly define racist hate speech, it is not nearly so simple to define what falls into the category of “defamation of religion,” which as currently characterized can include any controversial truth claim about someone’s religion. Race-based speech restrictions have never been used to cut off discussion about racial identity, whereas the “defamation of religion” measures by definition prohibit controversial discussion of religious belief.

Notes:

1. Commission on Human Rights Res. 1999/82, 2000/84, 2001/4, 2002/9, 2003/4, 2004/6, 2005/3; Human Rights Council Res. 4/9, 7/19; General Assembly Res. 60/150, 61/164, 62/154, 63/3.

2. “Combating Defamation of Religions,” Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Issues Brief, p. 5 (submitted June 2, 2008).

3. In Egypt, bloggers, such as Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, have been arrested for posting criticisms of Islam. In Pakistan, defiling Islam is punishable by death and insulting another’s religious feelings can result in a ten-year prison sentence. In Saudi Arabia, all Saudis are required by law to be Muslim. Source: Freedom in the World 2008, Freedom House (2008). 

In Russia, television stations of have been sued for blasphemous content in the popular television show “South Park.” Source: “Russian prosecutors in bid to ban South Park” The Times, September 8, 2008. Available at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4704089.ece (February 1, 2009).

4. Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief and Doudou Diene, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, “Conference Room Paper #4,” presented at the Expert seminar on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (October 2-3, 2008).

5. ICCPR Article 18: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

6. CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18: “The freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised ‘either individually or in community with others and in public or private’. The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts.”

7. http://www.unaoc.org/content/view/63/79/lang,english/


Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. To arrange an interview with Freedom House, contact Laura Ingalls at ingalls@freedomhouse.org or call 1-202-747-7035 or 1-202-683-0909 (cell).

The Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a nonpartisan, interfaith, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. To arrange an interview with a Becket Fund attorney, contact Tom Carter at 1-202-349-7205 or 1-202-538-2044 (cell) or becketfund.carter@gmail.com.

 


A new faith needed to unify humankind as we march into future

(this guy is clinically insane, but you need to read this article)

We need faith, but the faiths of our fathers are tired now, or are spent forces. We must recognize this.


The Hamilton Spectator

(Feb 14, 2009)

Barack Obama is now leader of the most influential nation on earth. Are we yet capable of dancing to his song of hope?

Obama was elected by default by a desperate nation drowning in faithlessness and cynicism. He was simply the best bet for change.

This bleak outlook is the chronic disease of our day. We are pessimistic about our economic and ecological futures. We distrust government officials, officers of the law, bureaucrats and the principles of big business (while we scramble to enhance our own bottom line.) We doubt the trustworthiness and ambitions of people of other colours and other religions. We have our phones and e-mails rigged to monitor the fidelity of our mates.

We are a society shorn of hope and faith.

Every past society that devolved to a world view only admitting the materiality of the physical world eventually disintegrated. On the other hand, every political and spiritual genius of his particular time understood human nature and its needs. Those superior minds attempted to unite people “in one mind” — of moral rectitude and faith; of faith in the ultimate triumph of goodness.

The vigour of Zoroaster’s religion propelled ancient Persia to world-class status. Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Soter after himrecognized the spiritual need in man and attempted to unite the Greek world with a “universal religion.” Later, Caesar Augustus reinvented and reinvigorated the Roman religion, and Rome survived a few more centuriesConstantine recognized this human need and modern Christianity was bornThen came Mohammed, who lifted a fractious and barbarous people into the most civilized and scientifically advanced empire of the age. (is he actually touting these guys for being men of faith? Doesn’t he know theirs was a “faith” of bloodthirsty raw political power?)

We must seek God … or Goodness (or Love, if you prefer) for our own mental health. Belief is our sustenance as much as is the food we eat and the air we breathe. Spiritual food gives us the confidence to walk into the future with clarity and optimism. A healthy individual and a healthy society must have hope and confidence that the ultimate outcome of all things will be for the good. That is the essence of religion and has been since antiquity(oh yeah, well he hasn’t read or taken seriously the Book of Revelation…)

Strong beliefs bond differing minds and group into a working whole. It creates internally integrated morals — internal laws that need no outside coercion to ensure. (then why did the Puritan’s use public stockades?) It gives us the courage to live justly, and to die well.

***If Barack Obama is indeed the political unifier that Americans — and us — have put our atrophied hopes in, perhaps he will take the steps so necessary to heal his nation of its distrust and cynicism. Perhaps he will have the courage to harness the will to believe in some transcendent goodness. (starting to sound like the Antichrist here dude…)

But he must lead. He must demonstrate how to believe again in what is demonstrably true: That there is something out there that is greater and grander than the individual.

We need faith, but the faiths of our fathers are tired now, or are spent forces. We must recognize this whether we are Muslims, Sikhs, Jews or Christians. ***We are now a global village, and only a global world view will suffice.*** (you can keep your damn global village, that’s where the masacres of Sudan, Ruwanda, and Bosnia Herzegovina occurred.)

As in the past, this new and unifying faith must be novel, vibrant and inclusive. In this new global era of widespread education and immediate communication, this new faith must also be credible. It must align with ***scientifically obtained knowledge yet be aware also of the undiscoverable — the great mysteries that hold us rapt and in awe.

*** The marriage of a believable faith with the husbandry of government is the union that must be contracted.

Only then can there be a United Nations, only then shall we have peace on Earth and goodwill toward all. (damn this is scary…if this doesn’t scare you, you are asleep….)

 

 

 

This post originally published by Rich Peterson on his blog, A Time, Times, and a Half a Time, October 26th 2008

 

Obama’s Socialist Vision?

 


In 2007 European Union High Representative Javier Solana launched an initiative called Managing Global Insecurity saying “the aim of this project is ambitious and urgent: to launch a new reform effort for the global security system in 2009”. At that time, Solana told the United States that we will enter into the system of global governance by year end 2008. This initiative is ambitious. It bridges multiple interlocking security initiatives for use in the administration of global governance. Most notable is the Shared Security doctrine which aims to incorporate civil society and the military into one security apparatus. The idea is that in a world without borders traditional threats to nations no longer are other states; rather they come from radicalized individuals who reside within the nation. This is the core of the United Nations global counter-terrorism strategy. Nations therefore need to practice “responsible democracy” to ensure protection of the global citizenry— “we the people of the United Nations”—and root out terrorists from within. Solana refers to this as ‘war amongst the people”. The result is to be a global human security zone.

Spearheading the implementation of Shared Security is an organization which I have monitored from its beginnings—the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. The Alliance of Civilizations professes its mission to be “the global governance of the culture”. Its foundation is traceable to the European Union’s social cohesion policy—the social dimension of the Barcelona Process—as architected by former Marxist and present socialist Javier Solana. Solana’s social cohesion strategy was formed to “straighten out the clash of civilizations” by creating a new common civilization based upon a system of “shared values”. The new civilization will be realized once it has successfully combated religious fundamentalism worldwide. In 2006 Solana’s vision moved a step closer to reality when Kofi Annan made the Alliance of Civilizations the central organ of the United Nations global counter-terrorism strategy. The work of the Alliance includes the establishment of a global ethic and identification of those radical ideologies which lead to terrorism.

Despite Alliance of Civilizations’ claims that they seek religious tolerance, the opposite is true. As one takes the time to read what the Alliance is saying, it becomes glaringly clear that the initiative is openly hostile towards religion, in particular the three monotheistic faiths. Angelo Santagostino Chair of European Economic Integration describes the initiative as “offensive and unjustifiably hostile towards religion. The Alliance’s governing body, the High Level Group, attributes religious fundamentalism and extremism to those who refuse to agree with a Universalist world view that we all worship the same God but follow different paths. Those individuals, they say, have adopted ‘exclusivist” ideologies which are violently radicalizing. Political dissenters who oppose globalization also fall into this category. Organizations such as Hezbollah are now considered reasonable because they practice “tactical terrorism” meaning that they have a political wing with which negotiations are possible. Karen Armstrong, apostate nun, “religious historian” and Alliance of Civilizations High Level Group member earlier this year announced that she is writing guidelines for the interpretation of religious texts. The High Level Group has said that they have conducted a pedagogical exercise in truth which they will provide the civilization in mid 2010 and it is only extremists who will reject it. One might expect Armstrong’s guidelines to reflect her personal theological arguments such as Christians have perverted religious texts by adopting a belief in Christ’s divinity; the serpent was more truthful than God in the garden; that God has an evil impulse and that, being a good thing, is something we need to embrace; Mary, upon learning of her pregnancy, broke into song of the coming new world order, ad nauseum.

The Alliance of Civilizations and Shared Security have been given teeth. Solana envisions his global model of Civilian Military Co-operation (CIMIC) which subjects civil society to military rule to be implemented in the event of a crisis. Solana, being a former Secretary-General of NATO, has incorporated the Alliance of Civilizations and the Barcelona Process into the NATO framework through the Riga and Prague Summit Declarations. Solana has repeatedly said the goal is to utilize American assets. The Berlin-Plus Agreement signed by President Bush gives Solana control of American assets in the event of a crisis situation. Solana’sHeadline Goals which highly militarizes the European Union is scheduled to be fully functioning in 2010. Solana speaks the language of peace while preparing for war.

 

 

I write this because America is about to step deeper into this mess. I, as do other Americans, desire change but not at the cost of implementing a version of European socialism which has wreck havoc on world before. We are already witnessing the nationalization of the banking system and not only within the United States, but at a global level. This may be the global crisis the Solana seeks to turn into opportunity.

In the upcoming elections, what I am finding troubling is that on BarackObama’s blog one may find his support for the Alliance of Civilizationsinitiative. He has said that in the interests of the common humanity, he will spend $5 billion annually during the first three years of his presidency implementing a Shared Security doctrineI would ask of Barack Obama to carefully re-examine his affiliations and in particular the Alliance of Civilizations initiative. It is worth heeding Angelo Santagostino’s warning that “the UN has been often under attack as a useless institution. This time it has shown itself to be not so much useless but actually dangerous.”

Additional viewing: Brainwashed #1 and Brainwashed #2

 

This post published by:

RICH PETERSON, A Time, Times, and a Half Time