Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

Why Does the U.S. Insist on Playing Iran's Game?
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily Newswww.jpost.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Warning

The great experiment of engaging Iran seems to be over but the Obama administration refuses to admit it. This shouldn't come as a surprise. As the Iranian regime's record shows, it stalls, maneuvers, gives vague promises and then doesn't deliver, but only after it's taken your concessions. Do you know how many years the talks with Iran have gone on without yielding fruit and letting Teheran develop nuclear weapons every day? Answer: Seven. 

Do you know when the "deadline" originally was for Iran to stop its nuclear program "or else"? Answer: Approximately September 2007. 

But the Obama administration doesn't want to admit that the new Iranian counteroffer is unacceptable because it would have to give up its dreams of a deal and actually do something in response. 

Even The New York Times headlined its story: "Iran Rejects Nuclear Accord, Officials Report." The sober Financial Times stated, "Teheran seeks big changes to nuclear deal." And Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, known for being soft on Iran, reportedly told the Iranians that their counteroffer was unacceptable. 

The Washington Post noted: "The long-awaited Iranian answer appeared to dash hopes that Teheran would be willing to quickly embrace engagement with the West on its nuclear program. Obama administration officials will now need to assess whether engagement has run its course - and whether to shift toward tougher sanctions." 

The issue concerns Iran's response to a proposal that it would transfer two-thirds of its enriched uranium outside the country to make into a special non-weapons material that can only be used for medical purposes. 

Of course, even the deal offered to Iran is not so great from the standpoint of those likely to be the targets of Iranian weapons or enhanced international influence for Teheran if it possesses nuclear arms. For example, "neutralized" uranium can be changed back into weapons-usable uranium in about four months or so. Moreover, Iran's concealed enriched uranium could still be used to build nuclear weapons. 

After interviewing officials, the Financial Times reports that the Europeans are ready to reject Iran's demands now as "unacceptable" but the United States is, "more willing to show patience than either Britain or France." 

Why is the US government so eager to keep playing Teheran's game? 

Here are two answers: 

• President Barack Obama's worldview insists that all problems are resolvable by talking and making concessions. He also fears confrontation. 

• The desire to keep Russia on board. But we know Russia won't support sanctions and serious pressure on Iran. Moscow wants America to fail internationally and views Iran as an ally. 

So America's policy is being held hostage by a president with no experience and little understanding of international affairs, a set of ideas making failure inevitable, trying to please a country which is an ally of the adversary and misestimating a dictatorial regime with boundless ambitions and tremendous self-confidence. 

What a mess. But how long into 2010 can they spin this before Washington is going to have to recognize that talks are going nowhere? 

The US government fallback position once Iran gets nuclear weapons, "containment," also poses significant problems. A typical explication comes from Gen. John Abizaid who commanded US forces in the region between 2003 and 2007: "The historical evidence would suggest that Iran is not a suicide state. So it's my military belief that Iran can be deterred." 

There are three problems with this overall strategy. 

First, containment requires high levels of US credibility. That means Iran's regime must believe that aggression will bring US retaliation up to using nuclear weapons itself. Will President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime tremble before Obama? 

Equally important, Arab states must believe very firmly that the US is a reliable protector. Can they think this of Obama's administration? They don't want to hear that he loves Islam and the Palestinians; they want to know he'll fight. And doubting this, they'll appease Iran. 

Second, while on balance it seems Iran won't commit suicide, would you bet your life on it? This regime is the closest thing to a non-rational state you're going to see. And suppose Iran's rulers believe they have a way around the "suicide" problem by handing weapons to a "deniable" terrorist group or just using them for blackmail, or if a faction within the regime is willing to take greater risks than the consensus in Teheran? The idea that extremist fanaticism, or pure miscalculation, or a small crazed faction would lead to nuclear war is a realistic proposition even if it isn't the leading scenario. Remember that the nuclear weapons will be controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most fanatical elements and those who work with terrorist groups. 

And then there's Iran's minister of defense, a wanted terrorist in his own right. 

Third, and perhaps ultimately most important, Iran's increased power in having nuclear weapons will not consist merely of firing them off. 

Aside from far higher levels of Arab and European appeasement will be the huge leap in the appeal of a seemingly mighty Iran and victorious Islamism to millions of Muslims who will join or support radical Islamist groups. Instability in the Arab world and terrorism in Europe can be expected to skyrocket as a result. 

To pretend then that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will be neutralized by US guarantees is a fantasy. That's why it is so important to stop Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons. If this does not happen, as appears likely, the entire strategic balance will change against Western interests. Remember that the original containment strategy was developed by the US based on the premise that the USSR would dominate an entire region: Eastern Europe. 

In the late 1940s there wasn't a choice. Today, there still is. 

But nothing can even begin to happen until the US concludes that the Iranian regime has just shown that it doesn't want any real deal that precludes it from becoming a nuclear power.

Unchecked Abuse of Palestinian Children
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily NewsZionistupdate
Categories: Today's Headlines;Commentary;Anti-Israel

The indoctrination of Palestinian Arab children to hate and seek to destroy the Jews living in this area is, again, nothing new. It is an ongoing violation of Israel’s agreements with the Palestinians that the rest of the world is content to ignore.

Nevertheless, every time I am presented with the latest example of this wicked treatment of impressionable young minds, my anger rises afresh.

What got my blood boiling this time was Sunday’s report by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) concerning the newest episode of the Hamas children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers, which was previously hosted by Farfur the Mouse, who earlier this month was shown being beaten to death by an Israeli security agent.

In the episode broadcast over the weekend on Hamas’ Al Aqsa TV, Farfur’s replacement, Nahool the Bee, tells his young audience that together they will “liberate the sad Al-Aqsa [the mosque that occupies Jerusalem’s Temple Mount] that is waiting for us. Yes, we will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews, who killed my grandfather, and killed Farfur.”

Later in the show, a young caller says she wants to be a journalist when she grows up. Nahool encourages her to “photograph the Jews when they are killing Farfur and the little children.”

In a previous episode immediately following Farfur’s “martyrdom,” the show’s other host, a young girl named Saraa, confirms for a three-year-old caller that the “Jews” were in fact behind Farfur’s murder, and that they are “criminals and enemies” who must be expelled from the land.

PMW noted that the number of young Palestinians calling in to the show to assail the Jews is evidence that the indoctrination efforts are having the desired effect.

What I want to point out is the constant use of the word “Jews” instead of “Israelis.” Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Syria, etc all constantly state that they have no problem with the Jews per se, but rather with the “Zionists” and the “Zionist entity.”

These children’s programs paint a different picture, though. They are teaching children to hate the Jews as a people, to view all Jews as blood-thirsty murderers and thieves. It is the same indoctrination that has been going on for centuries, and which paved the way for the Nazi Holocaust.

In addition to reiterating the utter dismay that I feel as a father when I see children the same age as my young son being taught such things, I would also like to again point out the thorough hypocrisy of the international community. If Israel was allowing any of its citizens to broadcast such venomous hatred against the Palestinians or Arabs in general, the international community would be in an uproar.

So, why is no one stopping this from happening in the Palestinian-controlled areas? The world pretends to care so much about solving the Israeli-Arab conflict, yet is not lifting a finger to prevent the Palestinians from training millions of children to perpetuate it indefinitely. Truly, we live in a sick and twisted world.

Top Diplomat: Miliband Frontrunner for EU Foreign Minister in Lead
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily Newswww.monstersandcritics.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;Revived Roman Empire

Britain's David Miliband has emerged as the man to beat in the race to become the EU's first foreign-policy supremo, a top diplomat confirmed Thursday. 

But the race to become the EU's first president is still too close to call, with the Belgian and Dutch premiers, Herman van Rompuy and Jan Peter Balkenende, the people most touted in diplomatic circles, Poland's ambassador to the EU, Jan Tombinski, told journalists. 

'The name of David Miliband is the most quoted name in this diplomatic circle, probably for the reason that Tony Blair's chances are going down,' Tombinski said. 

Miliband has said that he is not available for the post and is not a candidate, a statement backed by other Labour Party leaders. The EU's Lisbon Treaty, which is to come into force on December 1, creates the posts of president of the EU and 'high representative,' who serves as a member of the council of EU member states and vice- president of the EU's executive, the European Commission. 

The high representative is seen as an EU foreign minister in all but name. 

EU leaders are expected to hold a summit next week to decide who should get the top jobs. Despite Miliband's own comments, EU diplomats began to mention him as a possible candidate last week, alongside Italy's former premier, Massimo D'Alema. 

But D'Alema is viewed with suspicion in Central and Eastern Europe because of his high-profile in Italy's one-time Communist party. 

'It would be better to have a person whose authority cannot be contested because of his past party affiliations,' Tombinski said. 

However, Poland has not ruled out any candidate from any member state for any reason, he stressed. 

In Rome, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that his country would 'support (D'Alema) with conviction' if the EU-wide alliance of socialists were to formalize his candidacy. 

'It is clear that to have an Italian in such an important position would be an honour and a source of pride for Italy,' Italian media quoted him as saying. Blair had been cited as the front-runner in the race to become EU president before a summit last week, but his chances appeared to diminish after European conservatives and socialists agreed that the new top job should go to a right-wing politician, while the socialists claimed the high representative's job. 

'The mood round the council summit was that Tony Blair was rarely mentioned now, but he may come back - nothing is excluded,' Tombinski said. 

Media reports have cited van Rompuy and Balkenende as the new favourites to become the president of the council of EU member states. 

Tombinski said that Balkenende, in particular, was campaigning actively for the job via his staff, but that there was a 'very open field' for the decision. 

While Miliband says that he is not a candidate, EU insiders point out that on October 26 he made a high-profile speech urging the bloc to develop a stronger and more coherent foreign policy to counterbalance the 'G2' world of the United States and China. 

After the speech, Miliband urged EU leaders to give Blair the job of EU president. However, analysts point out that his speech also established his own credentials as a man with a vision for Europe. 

On Monday, meanwhile, Miliband travelled to Moscow for a visit in which he praised ties between Russia and Britain. It was the first visit of a British foreign minister to the country in five years. 

During his career as foreign minister, Miliband emerged as one of the EU's strongest critics of Russian policy. 

Analysts in Brussels said that the conciliatory mood of his recent visit could be important in winning the support of key member states such as Germany and Italy, who are seen as reluctant to appoint an EU foreign representative who has a bad relationship with the bloc's most important energy supplier.

The Fellowship of the Unashamed
Nov 7th, 2009
CommentaryDr. Bob Moorerhead
Categories: Commentary;Exhortation

I am a part of the fellowship of the Unashamed. I have the Holy SpiritPower. The die has been cast. I have stepped over the line. The decision hasbeen made. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I won't look back, let up, slow
down, back away, or be still. My past is redeemed, my present makes sense,
and my future is secure. I am finished and done with low living, sight
walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tame visions,
mundane talking, chintzy giving, and dwarfed goals.

I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits, or
popularity. I don't have to be right, first, tops, recognized, praised,
regarded, or rewarded. I now live by presence, learn by faith, love by
patience, lift by prayer, and labor by power.

My pace is set, my gait is fast, my goal is Heaven, my road is narrow, my
way is rough, my companions few, my Guide is reliable, my mission is clear.
I cannot be bought, compromised, deterred, lured away, turned back, diluted,
or delayed. I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the
presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the
pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of
mediocrity.

I won't give up, back up, let up, or shut up until I've preached up, prayed
up, paid up, stored up, and stayed up for the cause of Christ. I am a
disciple of Jesus Christ. I must go until He returns, give until I drop,
preach until all know, and work until He comes.

And when He comes to get His own, He will have no problem recognizing me. Mycolors will be clear for "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is thepower of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.." (Romans 1:16)

New Survey on Islam Calls Into Question Population Figure U.S.ed By Obama
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily NewsCNSNews - Patrick Goodenough,
Categories: Today's Headlines

– A comprehensive new survey of the world’s Muslim population finds that nearly one in four people on the planet is an adherent of Islam, but the number of Muslims it gives for the United States is significantly smaller than those routinely cited by Islamic organizations – and used by President Obama in his Cairo speech last June.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life says its latest report contains “the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population.”

Its lead finding is that there are 1.57 billion Muslims living in the world today, or about 23 percent of the estimated 6.8 billion world population. Of those, about 60 percent are in Asia and 20 percent in the Middle East and North Africa. The Sunni-Shia ratio comes down at roughly 9:1.

Twenty percent of Muslims live in countries where Islam is not the majority faith, with large minorities in India, China and Russia.

More than 38 million Muslims live in Europe – about five percent of the total population – including more than four million in Germany and 3.5 million in France. At 5.7 percent, the European Union country with the biggest proportion of Muslims is the Netherlands, home to the outspoken anti-Islamist lawmaker, Geert Wilders.

Ian Mckellen Leads Movement to Rip Leviticus 18:22 Out of All Bibles
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily Newswww.popeater
Categories: Today's Headlines;Warning

Note to hotel managers: unless you want it to be altered forever, remove that Bible from Sir Ian McKellen's bedside drawer before he shows up.

In a Q&A with Details magazine, the openly gay 'Lord of the Rings' star admits to a habit of tearing out the Bible passage that condemns homosexuality -- Leviticus 18:22 -- every time he finds one in his hotel room. 

The passage: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

"I'm not proudly defacing the book," he asserts, "but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible."
McKellen says his actions have inspired others to do the same. "I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.

Art's Commentary......One day this man will come face to face with God of the Bible who said, "If any man shall take away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,...." Revelation 22:19.

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily Newsonline.wsj.com
Categories: Commentary;World Government

We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media. 

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December. 

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen. 

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty. 

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada. 

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty. 

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat." 

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."

Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says. 

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right

G - 20 Ministers Talk Economic Reform, Climate Change
Nov 7th, 2009
Daily NewsCNN
Categories: Today's Headlines;World Government

St. Andrews, Scotland -- Rain and strong winds gave way to sunshine Saturday morning at St. Andrews, where the Group of 20 industrialized and developing countries met to discuss economic reform and climate change issues.

British Finance Minister Alistair Darling hosted the G-20 meeting, which also includes the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

It is the last time the G-20 plans to meet this year. It has the tricky task of balancing countries that still feel the wrath of recession, like the United Kingdom, and those whose economy is growing, such as Australia, CNN Correspondent Richard Quest said

"It's absolutely essential that we take action and we start that process over this weekend," Darling said Friday night. "We need to see measures to support demand and to repair the financial system, because we can't yet be confident that global recovery has sufficient momentum to be sustainable, durable."

Saturday's meetings were taking place at the Fairmont Hotel in St. Andrews, near the famous golf course and overlooking the North Sea.

As golfers made the most of the rare sunshine outside, Darling and the others at the meeting planned to be busy inside.

"We have a lot to get through today," Darling said.

Saturday's agenda was focusing on three main areas: structural reform of economies, stimulus and exit strategies for the current downturn, and financing of climate change, Quest said.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who hails from the surrounding county of Fife, called on members to reduce their sources of instability, such as volatile oil and commodity prices.

"But nobody doubts that we will have failed collectively if the post-crisis financial system that eventually emerges looks more or less like the one that brought the world economy to the brink of attack," Brown said.

"The reputation and legitimacy of the banking system has taken a severe beating" over the past two years, Brown said, leading the public to question whether a bank's risks and rewards are fair to taxpayers, shareholders, and bank employees.

"This is a unique sector that, when it fails, it poses such a high cost to the wider economy and damage to society that government intervention becomes essential, so the taxpayer has had no real choice but to step in to keep the system afloat," Brown said. "It cannot be acceptable to the general public that the benefits of success in the sector are reaped by the few but the costs of its failure are borne by all of us."

Those at the meeting need to discuss how to protect people from bank failure, Brown said. Financial institutions should order their businesses in a way that contains the cost of failure, he said.

"But what we need to consider is whether, in fact, we need to go further in terms of mitigating the costs to the rest of the economy and to society if the risks of banking failures do, nevertheless, materialize once again," he said

Earlier, Darling focused on the "urgent problem" of how to pay for climate reform. He said it is important for countries, whether or not they disagree on the issue, to make at least some progress before the United Nations' climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month.

"If there isn't an agreement on finance, if there isn't an agreement on contributions to make sure we can deal with this problem, then the Copenhagen agreement is going to be much, much more difficult," Darling said.

"We won't have a final word today, because that's properly for the United Nations in Copenhagen, but I do think we need to make progress to show that we're willing to come to the table to play our part and to do whatever we can."

Also Saturday, those at the meeting planned to discuss maintaining support for their respective economies until they can recover from the downturn, Darling said.

"We continue to do that because, whilst clearly confidence levels have returned, we're still in a position where there's a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risks that need to be negotiated," he said.

"Just as we've shown in the last 12 months we can make a real difference when we're determined to do so, we also, I think, need to agree (on) a framework that will allow us to ensure that we have growth over the next decade, because with growth will come jobs and will come the increasing prosperity upon which the people we represent depend," he added.

Darling said G-20 countries must not accept years of low growth and employment, "but instead we raise our sights, we raise our ambition, and we build on what we've been able to do just in 12 short months."