Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

UN Human Rights Council to Vote on Goldstone
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily NewsArutz Sheva - Hana Levi Julian
Categories: Today's Headlines;Anti-Israel

 
The United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday is set to vote its approval of the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza last winter, and possible crimes against humanity. It may also vote to back a draft resolution condemning the Jewish State.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told reporters Thursday in Jerusalem that Friday's vote would either "help terrorism or harm terrorism -- it can either promote peace, or harm peace." He added that he hoped "responsible countries" would prevent the report from advancing further, and slammed the resolution which he said "encourages terrorism and harms peace."

It is not clear whether the European Union will vote for or against the resolution to endorse the document, although the United Kingdom said on Thursday that it would neither approve the report nor a draft resolution to condemn Israel.

"We cannot fully endorse the report, and cannot vote for the resolution as tabled," UK Ambassador to the U.N. Peter Gooderham informed the UNHRC. The United States was expected to vote against the resolution, which is based on the Goldstone Report.

The report itself was authored by a fact-finding committee led by retired South African Judge Richard Goldstone, following its investigation of Israel's Operation Cast Lead, which lasted from December 27, 2008 to January 20, 2009.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay has already endorsed the report, and condemned both Israel and Hamas for their actions in Gaza as "serious vilations of international human rights and humanitarian law."

Included in the report is a comment that the Hamas terrorists who control Gaza "may have" committed war crimes as well. It also contains a recommendation that the U.N. Security Council forward the document to the International Criminal Court at the Hague for use as evidence in a trial against the State of Israel and various Israeli officials on charges of committing war crimes in Gaza. The draft resolution does not mention Hamas.

In the past, the United States usually has vetoed actions in the U.N. Security Council that would have been harmful to the Jewish State, and it is expected the U.S. would veto this move as well.

The counterterrorism incursion was launched against the Hamas terrorist organization that controls Gaza to silence the thousands of rocket and mortar attacks fired from the region at Israeli civilians living in the western Negev.

The resolution calls on the UNHRC to endorse the Goldstone Report, and condemns alleged Israeli human rights violations in eastern Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The draft, which was submitted by the Palestinian Authority, was shepherded through the Council by Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan and Nigeria.

The report goes to the United Nations in New York upon its approval by the UNHRC, where it is then reviewed by The U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly, both very powerful entities within the international body.

The Annals of the World
Oct 16th, 2009
Book ReportBy James Ussher
Categories: Commentary;Creation - Evolution

"The best ancient history book after the Bible"

How old is the world?

Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

But the author of the book frequently described as "the greatest history book ever written," said the world was created on October 23, 4004 B.C., making it exactly 6,012 this month.

In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews." First published in Latin, it consisted of more than 1,600 pages.

The book, now published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously. It's the history of the world from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Find out:

• Why was Julius Caesar kidnapped in 75 B.C.?
• Why did Alexander the Great burn his ships in 326 B.C.?
• What really happened when the sun "went backward" as a sign to Hezekiah?
• What does secular history say about the darkness at the Crucifixion?

Ussher wrote this masterpiece by integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources. He traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents.

Its accuracy as a reference solidified over the centuries, "The Annals of the World" proved so highly regarded for its preciseness that its timeline was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

"The Annals of the World" is a necessary addition to any church library, pastor's library, or any library — public or personal. In a five-year project commissioned by Master Books, the entire text has been updated from 17th-century English to present-day vernacular. Containing many human-interest stories from the original historical documents collected by Ussher, this is more than just a history book — it's a work of history.

Special features:

• Important literary work that has been inaccessible in book form for more than 300 years
• Includes CD of Ussher's Chronology of the World — full of colored charts, graphs, timelines, and much, much more
• Translated into modern English for the first time
• Traces world history from creation through A.D. 70
• Over 10,000 footnotes from the original text have been updated to references from works in the Loeb Classical Library by Harvard Press
• Over 2,500 citations from the Bible and the Apocrypha
• Ussher's original citations have been checked against the latest textual scholarship

About the author:

• Spent over five years researching and writing this book
• Entered college at age 13
• Received his master's degree at age 18
• Was an expert in Semitic languages
• Buried in Westminster Abbey
• One of history's most famous and well-respected historians

Sarkozy Suggests Blair EU Presidency Problematic
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily NewsEUobserver - HONOR MAHONY
Categories: Today's Headlines;Revived Roman Empire

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has indicated that British ex-prime minister Tony Blair may not be acceptable as a future president of the European Council because the UK remains outside the eurozone.

Mr Blair is most consistently mentioned as a contender for the post, which is contained in the Lisbon Treaty, a new institutional rule book the EU is hoping to soon put into force.

But Mr Sarkozy, who originally brought Mr Blair's name into the discussion, now appears to be backing away from him.

When asked by French daily Le Figaro whether Mr Blair is a good candidate for the job, Mr Sarkozy said:

"It is too early to say. There will be a discussion on it. There are two ideas on this: Should there be a strong and charismatic president or a president who facilitates finding a consensus and who organises the work [of the European Council].

"Personally I believe in a Europe that is politically strong and embodied by a person. But the fact that Great Britain is not in the euro remains a problem."

Sixteen of the 27 member states are members of the eurozone. Mr Sarkozy does not elaborate on whether eurozone membership is a general consideration when the president of the European Council post comes up for a discussion.

Of the 11 countries not sharing the common currency, most are central and eastern European states, including Poland, as well as Denmark, Sweden and the UK

The new presidency post is set to be agreed as part of a general package that includes the new EU foreign minister post, and the new line-up in the European Commission, whose mandate expires at the end of the month.

The new posts are part of the Lisbon Treaty which is awaiting final ratification in the Czech Republic before it can come into force across the European Union.

The posts contain overlapping functions and are expected to be defined by the first people who hold them. Mr Blair has been an apparent frontrunner for several months. His supporters say he will bring charisma and political strength to the job and give Europe a strong international face

His detractors point to his support of the Iraq war, his relatively weak performance as Middle East envoy and the fact that he comes from a member state that does not take part in key EU policies.

Paris' apparent change of heart on the Blair candidacy as well as Berlin's lukewarm stance on the idea make it hard to see how the former British leader will get the post.

Mr Sarkozy also used the Le Figaro interview to threaten Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who is holding out against signing the Lisbon Treaty.

He called Mr Klaus' stance "unacceptable" adding "decision time is coming for him and it will not be without consequence. And whatever happens, this issue will be resolved by the end of the year."

Although there is exasperation in other capitals at Mr Klaus' stance, other leaders have been reluctant to openly criticise the Czech President for fear that he can make a play on Prague being isolated and bullied to bolster support among ordinary Czechs.

Russia Looks to Solidify Doctrine of Pre - Emptive Nuclear Strikes
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily Newsbreitbart.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Warning

A top Russian security official says Moscow reserves the right to conduct pre-emptive nuclear strikes to safeguard the country against aggression on both a large and a local scale, according to a newspaper interview published Wednesday.

Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev also singled out the U.S. and NATO, saying Moscow's Cold War foes still pose potential threats to Russia despite what he called a global trend toward local conflicts. 

The interview appeared in the daily Izvestia during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as U.S. and Russian negotiators try to hammer out a nuclear arms reduction treaty by December. It also came amid grumbling in Moscow over U.S. moves to modify plans for a missile shield near Russia's borders rather than ditch the idea outright. 

Patrushev said a sweeping document on military policy including a passage on preventative nuclear force will be handed to President Dmitry Medvedev by the end of the year, according to Izvestia. 

Officials are examining "a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent," Patrushev was quoted as saying. "In situations critical to national security, options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded." 

The proposed doctrine would allow for the use of nuclear weapons "to repel an aggression with the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale but also in a regional and even local war," Patrushev was quoted as saying. He said a government analysis of the threat of conflict in the world showed "a shift from large-scale conflicts to local wars and armed conflicts." 

"However, earlier military dangers and threats for our country have not lost significance," he was quoted as saying. "Activity on receiving new members into NATO is not ceasing. The military activity of the bloc is being stepped up. U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive training on using strategic nuclear weapons." 

Russian military analysts said the hawkish former domestic intelligence chief's remarks were mostly muscle-flexing for show, because what he revealed about the proposed new doctrine suggests it differs little from the current one. 

One independent analyst, Alexander Golts, said current policy already allows for a nuclear strike to repel an aggression of any sort. Another, Pavel Felgenhauer, said that effectively allows for a pre-emptive strike because the type of aggression that would warrant such a strike is not clearly defined. 

Russia' NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, argued the proposed doctrine does not contradict arms reduction efforts. "We are moving toward a reduction in nuclear arsenals," he told Ekho Moskvy radio. 

Still, Patrushev's focus on local conflicts could rattle Georgia, the small neighbor that Russia routed in a five-day conventional war with Russia last year. 

Analysts also said his description of the proposed policy shows Russia's growing reliance on nuclear arms as its conventional arsenal decays and unpopular military reforms stall. Observers say the war with Georgia exposed frailties in Russia's military, adding urgency to planned reforms.

Russia Launches New Mideast Arms Push in Libya
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily Newswww.upi.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Warning

Russia's state arms exporter is launching a big drive at the Tripoli air show to sell combat jets, missiles and air-defense systems to Middle Eastern states, including the state-of-the-art S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile that Iran and Syria desperately want to acquire.

But the Russians are likely to find considerable competition at the 4th Arab-African Aviation Exhibition and Conference, known as LAVEX-2009, in the Libyan capital that opened Monday.

The four-day arms fair is likely to attract major international defense companies that are falling over themselves to upgrade Libya's long-neglected military as well as supply the Middle East, the largest arms market in the developing world.

But the Russian arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, will also find keen interest in its wares by the Libyan government. 

The Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, is miffed that he has not had the access to U.S. arms companies he had expected after he abandoned his clandestine nuclear arms program in 2003 in a high-profile gesture of reconciliation with the international community following decades of isolation.

U.N. trade sanctions that blocked U.S. and Western companies from dealing with Libya were not lifted until 2004, and Washington did not restore full diplomatic relations with Tripoli -- and remove it from its terrorism blacklist -- until 2006.

In the meantime, Gadhafi has turned to Russia and France for his arms requirements. 

Gadhafi, who last month marked his 40th year in power, also angered the United States by securing the Aug. 20 release from a Scottish prison of a former intelligence agent convicted for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Scotland that killed 270 people. 

The Libyan leader was harshly criticized for giving the former agent, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a rapturous hero's welcome when he arrived back in Tripoli aboard a presidential jet.

For Gadhafi, Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds -- he has terminal cancer -- gave him a powerful platform to demonstrate his ability to defy the West and win domestic and regional plaudits.

So the Russians may find considerable interest in their weapons systems, at a time when Moscow is driving to boost its ailing defense industry and to regain the influence it had in the Middle East and North Africa during the Cold War. 

Algeria, Syria, Yemen and Sudan were key defense clients until the collapse of communism in 1991. Iran, once a U.S. ally, is now an important purchaser of Russians arms, and Arab states, even U.S.-oriented Saudi Arabia, are showing interest in Russians weapons systems.

The reason behind the interest being shown by the Saudis, who have reputedly offered Moscow to buy arms worth $2 billion, is primarily political rather than military. 

Riyadh wants to use that inducement to persuade Russian not to sell Iran advanced air-defense systems that would protect its controversial nuclear sites. 

The Russians say they are confident that these deals will go through, but if the United States and Iran can find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue, Riyadh may not be so keen to go ahead with such arms deals.

Still, Moscow has delivered arms worth $2.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates and $1 billion to Kuwait in recent years. 

Rosoboronexport officials say regional states have shown interest in Russian arms, including the twin-engined Sukhoi Su-35 fighter. It's equipped with weapons systems capable of engaging several air targets simultaneously.

It also carries the new Irbis-E radar, which allows the pilot to detect and track up to 30 air targets while engaging eight of them at one time with its 30mm cannon and eight tons of missiles.

Moscow hopes to export at least 160 Su-35s to Algeria and other countries. Such exports are vital for keeping Russian production lines going to supply Russia's military forces. 

But all eyes are likely to be on the S-400 Triumf -- NATO designation SA-21 Growler -- which can intercept and destroy at a range of up to 250 miles and engage six targets at once. 

Iran and Syria want advanced air-defense systems to protect their strategic installations against possible U.S. or Israeli attacks, largely aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. 

But U.S. and Israeli pressure on Moscow has so far blocked the sale of the S-300 system, forerunner of the S-400, which would make any airstrikes far more costly than they would be at this time.

Montana Judges Smack Down Parental Rights
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily NewsOneNewsNow - Charlie Butts
Categories: Today's Headlines;Moral Decline

The Montana Supreme Court has granted parental rights to a non-parent.

For ten years, two women lived together in a lesbian relationship, during which one of them -- Barbara Maniaci -- solely adopted two children. But in 2006, Maniaci left her roommate and the homosexual lifestyle, and later married a man. Following the break-up, the former roommate sued for -- and now has won -- parental rights.
 
Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, tells OneNewsNow that Montana's highest court decided to uphold the demands of a legal stranger.
 
"What the Montana Supreme Court did was give a third party -- the parent's former roommate and girlfriend -- parental rights...," says the attorney. "And it runs contrary to clear precedent dating back several years in Montana and the United States Supreme Court. [It's] a very, very disturbing decision."

He says that historically courts have upheld the rights of "fit natural" parents. "When we undermine the rights of fit natural parents, it causes harm to families and children," argues Nimocks. "Giving strangers and third parties access to kids is not in the best interest of children or families."
 
In making the decision, Nimocks contends the court undermines the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children and to make sure that their authority is the final authority.
 
One of the dissenting judges in Montana wrote that the decision in favor of a third party "will open a Pandora's Box of potential attacks upon the right of fit and capable parents to raise their own children."

Ministry Leader: Obama 'loathes' Israel
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily NewsOneNewsNow - Chad Groening
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel;Anti-Israel

A Messianic Jewish leader and Israel supporter is outraged that an Obama website recently published an article comparing Israelis to Nazis.

According to the Israeli news service Arutz Sheva (IsraelNationalNews.com), Organizing for America -- the political arm of President Barack Obama -- recently carried an entry on its website from ultra-left-wing professor Richard Falk. Falk, reportedly a supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, was once deported from Israel for statements he made comparing Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.
 
The Israeli news service says Organizing for America published an article by Falk which said: "Comparing the present-day Israel with Nazi Germany, one discovers that the majority of the Israeli policies are exact copies of the Nazi policies."
 
Jan Markell, founder and director of Olive Tree Ministries, says it is an absolute outrage that a website with direct ties to the president would allow Falk's comments to be printed.

"This is a further indication that Barack Obama wants to do nothing but throw Israel under the bus and destroy her as a nation," says the ministry leader. "He loathes the nation of Israel; he is trying to destroy her."
 
And Markell says Falk's comparison of Israel to the Nazi's is ridiculous. "When you stop and think what the Nazis did -- and you try to [equate that with] the Israelis, who have taken better care of the Palestinians than the Arabs do -- you can see how absolutely totally ludicrous this is and how dangerous it is," she asserts.
 
Markell fears that if Falk's comments indeed reflect the sentiments of the president, the United States is in for a judgment beyond which it has ever known.

Christianity 21 “voice” Makeesha Fisher
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily NewsAprising Ministries
Categories: Commentary;Apostasy

Editors Note.....I would not normally put such language on this website, but I believe it is important for God's people to understand how deeply the Evangelical Church has fallen into apostasy. We now have women pastors that swear like longshoremen.

CRN, sister outreach to Apprising Ministries, first introduced you to Emerging Church pastrix Fisher in Makeesha Fisher: Sometimes You Gotta Be Crass where it was noted that she was a featured speaker at the recently concluded Emergent Church conference called Christianity 21 (C 21).

AM has already informed you that C 21 itself was put on by the dubious duo of the egregiously ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church de-formation of the Christian faith—now morphing into Emergence Christianity (EC)—heretical quasi-universalist pastor Doug Pagitt and his equally heretical “theologian in residence” Tony Jones.

Pagitt and Jones told us that this C 21 would feature 21 women who’d be revealing “the way the Christianity will be changing in coming days.” Fisher will sure do that for you now. And, as we must do on a regular basis with voices of this new Emergence Christianity, we include the usual “foul language alert” as yesterday EC spokesperson Fisher Tweets the link to a teaching she’s done called anger:

anger – Several things have happened this past year that are just shitty. No way around it. In some cases I… http://tumblr.com/xfn3i9gfn (Online source)

And that’s just for openers; if you choose to partake of Fisher’s musing wisdom, and or that of e.g. fellow foul-mouthed C 21 voice ELCA “pastor” Nadia Bolz-Weber—who announced to the world she’s a former professional f**k-up—you’ll see that this emerging pseudo-Christianity is really big on women “pastors” who also swear like secular longshoremen:

*sigh. Welcome to my f**ked up world boys and girls – ‘aint it grand? (Online source)

Very nice example for the believers in speech and in purity. Jesus did tell us — “out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:24). As one who’s been tracking the quasi-Christianity of this EC for years now, it doesn’t surprise me when a reader made me aware that Rob Bell, the Elvis of this EC, used “wtf” (stands for what the f**k)  within his “sermon” at Catalyst 09 to the laughter of the crowd. Afterall, these who love the world (see—James 4:4 for Jesus’ thoughts on that) are quite the hipsters.

Then later when her friend Drew Tatusko, who’s somehow now an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), would tell her:

that’s why i am glad @btatusko is far less prone to depression than me. (Online source) 

EC voice Makeesha Fisher would share with the world:

@dtatusko I’m less prone than David too – sadly, when I am melancholy or depressed it’s usually at the same time as David. F**k’n empathy (Online source)

Well, yesterday in Bob DeWaay And Chris Rosebrough On The Emerging Church containing a must-hear lecture I echoed the quesition posed by my friends DeWaay and Rosebrough within: Why are respected evangelical theologians remaining silent? Because it’s well past time evangelical leaders—and maybe even your own pastor—wake up to the fact that such as these vacuous “voices” in the postliberal cult of the EC have been adversely influencing your youth for years now within mainstream evangelicalism.

As I said before: The Nightmare Is Just Beginning For Mainstream Evangelicalism.

Analysis: Hamas and Fatah Face a Forced Marriage
Oct 16th, 2009
Daily Newswww.jpost.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Warning

Fatah and Hamas seem to be headed toward a new "reconciliation agreement" that neither of them wants. In fact, both of them are actually fighting to torpedo the agreement, each side in its own way. 

The two rival parties abhor each other so much that the Egyptian mediators had to send them each a copy of the agreement by fax so they could sign it separately and return it to Cairo. 

On Wednesday, Fatah reluctantly signed the agreement, perhaps out of belief and hope that Hamas would reject it. Fatah signed the agreement because it did not want to be held responsible for thwarting Egypt's efforts to achieve "national unity." 

But Fatah also signed the accord as a way out of the crisis that erupted following Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas's decision to withdraw a resolution calling on the UN Human Rights Council to endorse the findings of the commission of inquiry headed by Richard Goldstone into Operation Cast Lead. 

Abbas's decision has seriously embarrassed Fatah and prompted some of its new and veteran leaders to question his ability to continue governing the Palestinian people. 

Before the fiasco over the Goldstone Report broke out, Fatah had expressed several reservations about the Egyptian-brokered agreement, especially with regards to the timing and nature of the next presidential and parliamentary election. 

Fatah, moreover, had reservations about Egypt's intention to establish a security force that would run the affairs of the Gaza Strip and in which Hamas forces would continue to play a major role. 

Fatah leaders have also made it clear that they prefer to go to new elections without Hamas. The last thing Fatah wants is a repetition of its defeat in the January 2006 parliamentary election. 

But now that Fatah has lost many points on the Palestinian street because of Abbas's decision to ditch the resolution, the faction's embattled leaders are desperate to deflect attention from the public outcry. And there's nothing better than signing a "reconciliation" accord that makes the faction appear to be very keen to achieving "national unity." 

The irony is that the agreement is being imposed on Fatah and Hamas at the peak of the crisis between them. 

Shortly before he endorsed the Egyptian plan, Abbas launched a scathing attack on Hamas, accusing the movement of creating an "emirate of darkness" in the Gaza Strip, lying and misleading the Palestinians about the findings of the Goldstone Report and perpetrating war crimes against Palestinians. 

Abbas's attacks on Hamas are seen as an attempt to provoke the movement to a point where it would refuse to accept the Egyptian plan. 

Hamas, on the other hand, has exploited the uproar over Abbas's decision to withdraw the resolution from the UN Human Rights Council to discredit him and his authority and depict Fatah as pawns in the hands of the Israelis and Americans. 

The Hamas incitement against Abbas climaxed when its supporters organized a public shoe-throwing campaign at portraits of the PA president in the Gaza Strip. 

Like Fatah, Hamas never liked the Egyptian initiative for ending the power struggle between the two parties. At one point, it seemed that Hamas was willing to sign the agreement only as a result of immense pressure and threats from Cairo. 

Hamas was not happy with the agreement because, in its view, it gave Abbas and Fatah a chance to return to the Gaza Strip. 

The crisis that erupted following Abbas's move regarding the Goldstone Report gave Hamas a good excuse to find a way to avoid signing the reconciliation accord. A high-level Hamas delegation that visited Cairo last weekend told Egyptian General Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman that Hamas would not "shake hands or strike any deal with someone [Abbas] who betrayed his people and helped Israel bury its war crimes." 

Hamas's main fear now is that by signing the accord, it would be helping Abbas save his reputation and emerge from the "Goldstone scandal" unharmed. Hamas is also worried that a deal with Abbas, who is being accused not only by Hamas but by many Palestinians of "high treason," would alienate many of the movement's allies and supporters, particularly those in Damascus and Teheran. 

By forcing Hamas and Fatah into an unwanted marriage, the Egyptians are repeating the same mistake the Saudis and Yemenis made. 

The Saudis forced the two parties to sign the Jeddah agreement, which lasted for less than four months. The Yemenis tried to copy the Saudi example, but were dealt a humiliating blow when Hamas and Fatah negotiators left the country without signing a deal, despite the Yemeni government's announcement that it had succeeded in ending the rift. 

Even if Hamas does succumb to Egyptian pressure and adds its signature to the latest agreement, there's no guarantee that the accord would ever be implemented. This is a marriage that neither the groom nor the bride want.