"President's" Christianity questioned - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Against the backdrop of the US "president" insulting Christians at two recent gatherings--the National Prayer Breakfast in February and the Easter Prayer Breakfast last week--Fox News tackled the question of the "president's" Christianity. The "president," ending his Easter message, was tempted with "veering off" on lecturing Christians about their lack of love, saying, "On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." On Fox News, conservative radio host Kevin Jackson took the "president" to task for his duplicity of criticizing Christianity and giving Islam a pass.
Jackson said, "On the day that he was doing that [Easter Prayer Breakfast remarks], 147 Christians were killed in his home country [sic Kenya]. So what is he talking about? Look, the level of dichotomy with this guy, talking out of both sides of an issue, but never, ever mentioning the nature of Islam, but constantly telling Christians how bad we are." The context of the "president's" remarks on Easter reveal that he was actually tempted to lecture the gathering about the lack of love shown by Christians, saying, "But that's a topic for another day. Where there is injustice--I was about to veer off. I'm pulling it back." Meanwhile, as Jackson pointed out, Islamists slaughtered 147 Christians in Kenya, purposely on Easter.
The "president" was once again trying to make the case that Christians often do not truly represent their religion. Yes, there were and are wrong-minded people who conduct evil in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians, however, are not massacring people on high holy days to make a point. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct followers of Jesus Christ to kill those who do not follow him. The "president" is twisting the words of Jesus and showing his distaste for Christianity. Jesus said in Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." He gave us a new commandment to love one another as he has loved us.
This is a stark contrast to the writings of the false prophet Mohammad who said in Sura 9:5 "...slay the infidels wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush." Sura 8:12 says, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." These are just two examples of how Islam is instructed to handle Jews and Christians. While only God knows men's hearts, we know men by their fruits. The "president's" remarks are extremely offensive and certainly do not represent the "love" he demands others to exercise.
The prophetic Persian nuke deal from the "president's" own mouth - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Much has been said about the US "president's" tentative nuclear deal with Iran. There were some key components in his April 2 announcement of the tentative deal that hasn't been reported in the mainstream, and they are key to discerning the subtlety of what is being communicated. This deal represents a clear path for Iran to continue developing the ingredients it needs for a nuclear weapon and analysts point out the many holes in it that make verification nearly impossible--just like the previous decade where Iran was continuously "allowing" inspectors to verify, but never really "allowing" them to see anything meaningful. This deal could accelerate prophecy and endanger many lives along the way.
The "president" said, "Iran has agreed that it will not stockpile the materials needed to build a weapon. Even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb...And while it is always a possibility that Iran may try to cheat on the deal in the future, this framework of inspections and transparency makes it far more likely that we'll know about it if they try to cheat--and I, or future Presidents, will have preserved all of the options that are currently available to deal with it." It would appear that the "president" expects Iran to cheat, and that the world will know about it--certainly, Israel will know immediately. The potential loss of life is immeasurable.
Congress does not agree with the "president." He said, "This is a deal between Iran, the United States of America, and the major powers in the world--including some of our closest allies. If Congress kills this deal--not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative--then it's the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen." The fact is that there has been much expert analysis and the experts agree that this is a bad deal. The Prime Minister of Israel, whose nation hangs in the balance of such reckless action, has repeatedly said it is a bad deal and has offered both a reasonable and viable alternative.
The "president" discounts Israel's objections, saying, merely, "It's no secret that the Israeli Prime Minister and I don't agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue. If, in fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option." In this option, the US "president" has emboldened the enemies of the Lord by empowering a major player in end time prophecy, Persia--modern day Iran. Even as the Lord chastised false prophets in Ezekiel 13:10 saying, "Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace," the US "president" is trying to seduce an undiscerning world.
"If anyone messes with Israel, America will be there." This was the main message US President Barack Obama had for Israel in his New York Times interview with Thomas Friedman Monday, April 6. He was trying to fend off the constant stream of criticism coming from Israel, as well as Washington and the Gulf, of the nuclear framework deal the US-led group of world powers shaped with Iran in Lausanne last week.
On his clash with the Israeli prime minister over diplomacy with Iran, Obama offered a conciliatory note: This deal is "our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon," he said.
"I respect Mr. Netanyahu's security argument and agree that Israelis have every right to be concerned about Iran," a country that has threatened "to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas."
He went on to say, "I would consider it a failure on my part, a fundamental failure of my presidency, if on my watch, or as a consequence of work that I had done, Israel was rendered more vulnerable," he said.
"But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I'm willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them."
Those words from the US president were certainly welcomed in Jerusalem, but they failed to address the deep concerns besetting Israel and the region over Iran's rising belligerence, which has drawn encouragement from Obama's policies:
1. The US president is focusing too narrowly on the nuclear dimension of the Iranian threat, when Tehran is already in the throes of an aggressive drive for regional expansion by conventional military means. It is actively stirring up civil strife and using subversion and terror to disrupt its neighbors.
Obama talks about Israel's security concerns in the future tense in potential terms, when already an Iranian noose is tightening around its borders. He must have been apprised by his own intelligence advisers about the tasks Tehran has awarded its proxies, the Lebanese Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, for turning the heat on the Jewish state - else why has Tehran raised Hezbollah's rocket-firing capacity against Israel to 1,000-1,500 rockets per day? And why send Hamas tens of millions of dollars for rebuilding the terror tunnels Israel destroyed in the Gaza Strip last summer and replenish its rocket arsenal?
Israel does not have the luxury of standing by until a foreign power, however friendly, "has its back." Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israel Defense Forces have made their own preparations for the worst-case scenario. But they also ask: Is it right for Israel to be put in this position so that President Obama can claim what he calls "a historic agreement?"
2. The list of governments skeptical of the value of the nuclear "framework" or "solutions" - depending on which of the Washington or Tehran versions they accept - does not end with Netanyahu. The day before it ran the Obama interview, The New York Times headed a front page story with the caption" Arab allies cry betrayal."
Saudi King Salman has clearly decided to brush off White House attempts to sell its nuclear deal with Iran or wait for Obama to catch up with events in the region. He is forging ahead in the defense of what he considers the oil kingdom's interests. His first step was to go ahead, without consulting with Washington, with military intervention in Yemen to stall the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.
It is worth noting here that even Netanyahu, in his most heated diatribes against the US president's policies, never used the term "betrayal."
3. Obama and his advisers are fond of declaring that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would not delay its program more than a couple of years. For one thing, that theory has never been proved: Iran could be held back from the nuclear threshold by four or, for that matter, six years. Who's to say? By then, Obama would have long been gone and also, by then, the ayatollahs - if they still ruled Iran - might have had a change of heart and decide to drop the current regime's nuclear bomb aspirations.
All these propositions are equally speculative.
Still more short-sighted is the US president's determination that the talks with Iran are a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table."
Even if the issue is resolved to the US president's satisfaction by June 30, which most informed opinion doubts, it will still loom large on the tables of King Salman, Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh el-Sisi, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
4. There is also a question of credibility. Whereas Obama now questions the value of tougher sanctions for deterring Iran from violating any nuclear deals, such as are envisaged Congress, just a year ago he was all in favor of these penalties for bringing Tehran to the negotiating table.
5. In his long interview to The New York Times, the president made no mention of the contrasting versions of the Lausanne process produced by Washington and Tehran- as debkafile was the first to disclose in detail on Saturday, April 4.
So which of the two is the correct one? Or were the two different narratives deliberately cooked up between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif as a selling device for their respective home audiences.
6. Getting to the bottom of the real deal concluded in Lausanne will be further complicated by the secret annexes which were appended and never intended to see the light of day. Middle East rulers can't be expected to take on faith a deal contracted by outside powers with their neighbor, that includes secret clauses to which they are not privy.
7. Nothing is said in either the US or Iranian version about Tehran's long-range ballistic missiles or the "research and development" work performed to outfit them for carrying nuclear warheads. Iran doesn't need these missiles to attack Israel, but they would pose a threat to America.
The Obama interview and reiterated pledge to Israel's security followed Netanyahu's latest broadside.
Saying he sees better options than "this bad deal or war," the prime minister said to CNN Sunday:
"I think there's a third alternative, and that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure until you get a better deal." As it stands now, said the prime minister, "It does not roll back Iran's nuclear program. It keeps a vast nuclear infrastructure in place. Not a single centrifuge is destroyed. Not a single nuclear facility is shut down, including the underground facilities that they built illicitly. Thousands of centrifuges will keep spinning, enriching uranium. That's a very bad deal."
Netanyahu said Iran is a country of "congenital cheating" and that it can't be trusted to abide by the terms of the deal.
"This is a dangerous agreement... [it] provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds." - Salah al-Mukhtar, Ammon News.
"Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it's not paying any price... There is also a feeling in Tehran that the U.S. is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians." - Hassan al-Barari, Al-Sharq.
According to Hani al-Jamal, an Egyptian political and regional researcher, the deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power.
Many Arabs have expressed deep concern over the nuclear deal that was reached this week between Iran and the world powers, including the US.
Arab leaders and heads of state were polite enough not to voice public criticism of the agreement when President Barack Obama phoned them to inform them about it. But this has not stopped Arab politicians, political analysts and columnists reflecting government thinking in the Arab world from lashing out at what they describe as "Obama's bad and dangerous deal with Iran."
A happy moment for Iran. P5+1 leaders pose with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif after nuclear negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland on April 2, 2015. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
The Arabs, especially those living in the Gulf, see the framework agreement as a sign of US "weakness" and a green light for Iran to pursue its "expansionist" scheme in the Arab world.
"Some Arab countries are opposed to the nuclear deal because it poses a threat to their interests," said the Egyptian daily Al-Wafd in an article entitled, "Politicians: Obama's deal with Iran threatens Arab world."
The newspaper quoted Hani al-Jamal, an Egyptian political and regional researcher, as saying that the deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power. He predicted that the framework agreement would put Iran and some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt on a collision course.
Al-Jamal advised the Arab countries to form a "Sunni NATO" that would guarantee Pakistan's status as a nuclear power and Arab ally in face of the "Iranian and Israeli threat."
Jihad Odeh, an Egyptian professor of political science, said that Obama's "achievements are designed to dismantle the Arab world. Obama wants to make historic achievements before the end of his term in office by destroying Al-Qaeda, seeking rapprochement with Cuba and reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran."
Although Saudi Arabia, which is currently waging war on Iranian-backed Houthi militiamen in Yemen, "welcomed" the nuclear agreement, it has privately expressed concern over the deal.
Similarly, several Gulf countries that initially welcomed the agreement are beginning to voice concern over its repercussions on the region. For the past several months, the Arabs have been warning against Iran's ongoing effort to take control over their countries.
"The US surely does not want to see a more powerful Iranian hegemony in the region, but at the same time, it does not appear to mind some kind of Iranian influence in the region," said Nasser Ahmed Bin Ghaith, a researcher from the United Arab Emirates. "Iran has been seeking to reclaim its previous role as the region's police." Bin Ghaith said that it was clear that Western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf countries. "The Gulf states should build strategic partnerships with the regional powers of Pakistan and Turkey, who share the Gulf nations' fears of Iranian ambitions in the region," he added.
Echoing widespread fear among Arabs of Iran's territorial ambitions in the Middle East, political analyst Hassan al-Barari wrote in Qatar's daily Al-Sharq against the policy of appeasement toward Tehran:
"Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it's not paying any price; on the contrary, there are attempts by the big powers to reach understandings with Iran. There is also a feeling in Tehran that the US is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians and their proxies. The Gulf countries have learned from the lessons of the past in various areas. The policy of appeasement has only led to wars. Any kind of appeasement with Iran will only lead it to ask for more and probably meddle in the internal affairs of the Arab countries and increase its arrogance."
Even Jordanians have joined the chorus of Arabs expressing fear over Iran's growing threat to the Arab world, especially in wake of the nuclear deal with the US and the big powers.
Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist, wrote an article entitled, "Oh Arabs wake up, your enemy is Iran," in which he accused the US of facilitating Tehran's wars against Arab countries.
Describing Iran as "Eastern Israel," al-Mukhtar said that the most dangerous aspect of the framework agreement is that it allows Iran to continue with its "destructive wars" against the Arabs. "This is a dangerous agreement, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the opposition forces in Iraq and Syria," the Jordanian columnist cautioned. "This agreement provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds. Lifting the sanctions is America's way of backing the dangerous and direct wars against Arabs; the lifting of the sanctions also provides the Iranians with the funds needed to push with their Persian advancement. The US wants to drain Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf countries in preparation for dividing them."
Lebanon's English-language Daily Star newspaper also voiced skepticism over the nuclear deal. "For all the talk of this deal contributing to making the world safer, if Obama is truly concerned with his legacy, especially in the Middle East, he must now work with Iran to encourage it to become a regular member of the international community once again, and not a country which sponsors conflict, whether directly or via proxies, across the region," the paper editorialized. "Otherwise, this deal could just leave Iran emboldened in its expansionist designs."
In addition to the Arabs, Iranian opposition figures have also come out against the nuclear deal.
Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian politician and president of the National Council of Resistance,commented that,
A statement of generalities, without spiritual leader Khamenei's signature and official approval, does not block Tehran's path to a nuclear bomb nor prevent its intrinsic deception.
Continuing talks with religious fascism in Iran - as part of a policy of appeasement - will not secure the region and world from the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Complying with UN Security Council resolutions is the only way to block the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Leniency and unwarranted concessions by the P5+1 to the least trustworthy regime in the world today only grants it more time and further aggravates the dangers it poses to the Iranian people, to the region and to the wider world.
America is in Jeopardy and it is the fault of many: The Democratic Party for not vetting Pres. Obama before he was nominated, the Republicans and Democrats for not impeaching him, and those who voted for him (especially the second time), and all who choose to ignore what the Bible says.
Two important verses in the Song of Moses read: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance" (Deut. 32:8-9).
This means that God divided up the earth when He scattered the nations at the tower of Babel. God gave one group of people part of Africa, another group of people part of Europe, another group of people part of Asia, etc. until He had given away the whole earth except for one small place.
He didn't give anyone the Promised Land. He kept that for Himself and set it aside for Israel.
Later, God called Abraham and made a covenant to give ALL of the Promised Land to Abraham and his descendants in their generation and to be their God (Gen. 17:7-8). He made it plain that the covenant went through Isaac and later Jacob whose name was changed to Israel (Gen. 17:18-21; 28:13; 35:10-12).
God is the Creator of this earth and He has the right and the power to keep a small piece of it for His own purposes. He can make a covenant to set it aside for Israel, if He wants to. He is God and humans are not in a position to tell Him what He can and cannot do. Humans are not in a position to tell Him He can't keep His covenant with Israel, if they don't like it. This leads to four conclusions:
1) Since God kept the Promised Land for Himself, no one has the authority to give that it away.
2) Since God had this put in the Bible, the world has the will of God on this so it comes down to a knowledge of the Bible and whether the world is willing to believe and obey it or not.
3) Since God set the borders of Israel's land, it is a bad mistake for the U.S. or anyone else to try to re-draw those borders to create a Palestinian State or whatever.
4) Since God has already pre-determined that Israel will get all of the Promised Land, those who act contrary to the Scriptures are ultimately going to fail. They will have to answer to God for their actions.
God's promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel is real. His warning that those who harm Israel will be harmed is real.
His warning that what nations do to Israel at the end of the age will come back on them is real. His threat to cut in pieces all that burden themselves with Jerusalem is real. His threat to drag the nations into the battle of Armageddon for dividing the Promised Land is real.
So the pressure that Pres. Obama is putting on Prime Minister Netanyahu to sign a peace treaty that will divide the Promised Land is putting the U.S. (and the whole world) into jeopardy. In God's view, the Palestinians are the occupiers-not Israel. And the pettiness, temper tantrums and revenge of the little man in the White House are not battles with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel. They are battles with the all-powerful God that set the Promised Land aside for His own purposes.
Pres. Obama is anti-Semitic and pro-Muslim. He is ignoring Palestinian war crimes, Palestinian anti-Israel hatred, their constant rioting and terrorist attacks; their tunnels to kidnap and kill Israeli citizens, their Islamic hatred in school literature, their training of children to oppose Israel.
He is ignoring their use of Palestinian children as human shields, the Palestinian rockets that fell on Israeli schools and hospitals, the Palestinian rockets that were fired from civilian centers, the Palestinian rockets that killed their own citizens, the vitriolic language that Jews are pigs, cancers, etc. And he, the sitting president in the White House blames all of this on Israel.
Pres. Obama is ignoring the fact that both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas turned down Israeli offers on a Palestinian State. He is twisting the arm of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but refusing to twist the arm of Mahmoud Abbas to make Mr. Abbas recognize Israel's right to exist. He tried to defeat the election of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but he won't try to defeat the election of Mahmoud Abbas.
These things that our pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic, evil-minded president is doing to Israel's detriment are exposing the U.S., and the entire world to the judgment of God. White House officials say Prime Minister Netanyahu is disrespecting Pres. Obama. No! Pres. Obama is disrespecting God. His anti-Israel, anti-God actions are jeopardizing the whole world and they are going to trigger the Tribulation period.
Prophecy Plus Ministries
Daymond & Rachel Duck
On April 2nd, President Obama announced "a historic understanding with Iran" which would "prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
On April 5th, the President told Tom Friedman of the New York Times, "I've been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch."
Yet in the days that followed, the President admitted that Iran's leaders could race to The Bomb with essentially no "break out" time and with very little way the world could stop them once the deal concluded in 13 to 15 years.
Specifically, the President noted that the deal would be "purchasing" a one year "break out" period during the life of the deal, meaning it would take at least a year for Iran to enrich enough uranium to military grade and build an operational nuclear weapon from the time it made the decision to do so, if it wasn't already cheating. The President says this would be an increase from the current two to three month "break out" time that U.S. intelligence officials says Iran currently has.
This is no small matter.
Mr. Obama will be out of office in 20 months. Preventing a nuclear weapon on his "watch" is not enough. Future American presidents, Members of Congress, the American people, the Jewish and Arab people of Israel, the Palestinians, and everyone else in the Middle East and the world will have to live with the consequences of this deal. What if Iran cheats and builds nuclear weapons in secret during the period of the deal? Or, what if they wait and build nuclear weapons openly in 13 to 15 years when they are free to do so? That's not so far away.
What's more, how can we prevent Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries in the region from pursuing their own arsenal of nuclear weapons? The Saudis have already signaled they are talking to the Pakistanis about buying nukes already built. A nuclear arms race is about to begin.
Meanwhile, Iran's leaders immediately began accusing the White House of "lying" about the agreement. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told reporters that the U.S. assertion that sanctions would be phased out over time was a lie and that the U.S. had proposed immediate termination of all economic sanctions. Zarif also bragged that "none of those measures" that Iran had tentatively agreed to "include closing any of our facilities," and added, "We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development."
What's more, Iran immediately began announcing a series of steps that would prevent the world from really knowing for certain whether they were complying with the deal.
Consider the following developments:
*Iran says absolutely no cameras can monitor its nuclear sites
*Iran's leaders flatly refuse to allow inspections of its military sites
*Iran's leaders say they will start using the fastest-possible centrifuges from the moment the deal takes effect
*Iran's Supreme Leader insists all economic sanctions on Iran must be removed the very day a final deal is concluded
*Iran's Supreme Leader is already accusing the White House of "lying" about the details of the initial agreement, being "deceptive," and having "devilish intentions."
"If Iran cheats, the world will know it," President Obama insists. "If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. So this deal is not based on trust, it's based on unprecedented verification."
But experts say it will be nearly impossible to verify that Iran is not cheating and secretly building The Bomb.
*Dr. Dore Gold, a top Middle East expert in Israel, warns that even though Iran will be limited to about 5,000 centrifuges, that is more than enough to build nuclear weapons without the world noticing. "Pakistan enriched uranium for its first nuclear device with only 3,000 centrifuges," he noted.
*"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable," said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009.
*William R. Harris, an international lawyer who has worked on arms control treaties said Iran could cheat by collaborating with North Korea. "So what would prevent storage of Iranian nuclear weapons at underground North Korean sites? If there is to be full-scope inspection in Iran, the incentives for extraterritorial R&D and storage increase."
Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz expressed grave concerns about the deal in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week.
*"For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests - and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran...."
*"Having both served in government during a period of American-Iranian strategic alignment, we would greatly welcome such an outcome. But there exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Iran's representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means...."
*"The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran's intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East's strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran's hegemonic efforts...."
The deadline for the final details of the Iran deal to be wrapped up is June 30th. An extension is permitted until September 30th. Let's pray a much better, tougher deal can be concluded by then. I shudder to think what the world will look like if the current deal is ratified and set into motion.
Another Sunday, another Clinton - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The UK Guardian reports that Hillary Clinton is expected to announce Sunday that she is running for President of the United States. Present "president" aside, there could not be a worse candidate for arguably the most important job for America. Her announcement scheduled for noon on Sunday is just another insensitivity to church-going Christians in this country. But Clinton is not interested in Christians. Her entire body of work in public life has been anti-Christian. She is an intimate supporter of homosexuality; a radical abortion supporter; she and her husband have collected tens of millions of dollars from Islamist and Arab oil interests; her chief aide is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Don't be deceived.
There are so many reasons why this immoral and unethical person should not even have the audacity to run for President. Her Benghazi involvement alone should be enough to land her in jail pre-campaign. She lied about the reason terrorists struck an American compound, killing the US Ambassador and three others. Clinton took exception to questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, angrily raising her voice in response, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
And what about the official State Department emails that she housed on her own private server? How many government secrets are now in the hands of America's enemies--the Russians, the Islamists, the Chinese? But wait, those are not Hillary Clinton's enemies. They are her supporters. She is a Saul Alinsky communist that would make the current mess in the White House pale in comparison. Clinton's 1969 College Thesis was entitled, "There is only the fight"...An Analysis of the Alinsky Model." Therein, she demonstrates a complete grasp of Alinsky's existentialism, his use of conflict (the dialectic) and his "political faith"--all items upon which Clinton's immoral and anti-American body of work has been built.
Her announcement for President, Sunday at noon is the embodiment of who she is. She has no respect for Christians and is appealing to the rebellious, the takers, the bullies, the haters, and the usurpers. Jesus said in Matthew 7:14-16 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits." Clinton is a prophetess of Communism and Islamism--her life's work is evidence of this fruit. Both Islam and Communism are antichrist because they deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Their chief prophetess is a deceiver. Beware.
Against the backdrop of the US "president" insulting Christians at two recent gatherings--the National Prayer Breakfast in February and the Easter Prayer Breakfast last week--Fox News tackled the question of the "president's" Christianity. The "president," ending his Easter message, was tempted with "veering off" on lecturing Christians about their lack of love, saying, "On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." On Fox News, conservative radio host Kevin Jackson took the "president" to task for his duplicity of criticizing Christianity and giving Islam a pass.
Jackson said, "On the day that he was doing that [Easter Prayer Breakfast remarks], 147 Christians were killed in his home country [sic Kenya]. So what is he talking about? Look, the level of dichotomy with this guy, talking out of both sides of an issue, but never, ever mentioning the nature of Islam, but constantly telling Christians how bad we are." The context of the "president's" remarks on Easter reveal that he was actually tempted to lecture the gathering about the lack of love shown by Christians, saying, "But that's a topic for another day. Where there is injustice--I was about to veer off. I'm pulling it back." Meanwhile, as Jackson pointed out, Islamists slaughtered 147 Christians in Kenya, purposely on Easter.
The "president" was once again trying to make the case that Christians often do not truly represent their religion. Yes, there were and are wrong-minded people who conduct evil in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians, however, are not massacring people on high holy days to make a point. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct followers of Jesus Christ to kill those who do not follow him. The "president" is twisting the words of Jesus and showing his distaste for Christianity. Jesus said in Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." He gave us a new commandment to love one another as he has loved us.
This is a stark contrast to the writings of the false prophet Mohammad who said in Sura 9:5 "...slay the infidels wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush." Sura 8:12 says, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." These are just two examples of how Islam is instructed to handle Jews and Christians. While only God knows men's hearts, we know men by their fruits. The "president's" remarks are extremely offensive and certainly do not represent the "love" he demands others to exercise.
The prophetic Persian nuke deal from the "president's" own mouth - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Much has been said about the US "president's" tentative nuclear deal with Iran. There were some key components in his April 2 announcement of the tentative deal that hasn't been reported in the mainstream, and they are key to discerning the subtlety of what is being communicated. This deal represents a clear path for Iran to continue developing the ingredients it needs for a nuclear weapon and analysts point out the many holes in it that make verification nearly impossible--just like the previous decade where Iran was continuously "allowing" inspectors to verify, but never really "allowing" them to see anything meaningful. This deal could accelerate prophecy and endanger many lives along the way.
The "president" said, "Iran has agreed that it will not stockpile the materials needed to build a weapon. Even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb...And while it is always a possibility that Iran may try to cheat on the deal in the future, this framework of inspections and transparency makes it far more likely that we'll know about it if they try to cheat--and I, or future Presidents, will have preserved all of the options that are currently available to deal with it." It would appear that the "president" expects Iran to cheat, and that the world will know about it--certainly, Israel will know immediately. The potential loss of life is immeasurable.
Congress does not agree with the "president." He said, "This is a deal between Iran, the United States of America, and the major powers in the world--including some of our closest allies. If Congress kills this deal--not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative--then it's the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen." The fact is that there has been much expert analysis and the experts agree that this is a bad deal. The Prime Minister of Israel, whose nation hangs in the balance of such reckless action, has repeatedly said it is a bad deal and has offered both a reasonable and viable alternative.
The "president" discounts Israel's objections, saying, merely, "It's no secret that the Israeli Prime Minister and I don't agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue. If, in fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option." In this option, the US "president" has emboldened the enemies of the Lord by empowering a major player in end time prophecy, Persia--modern day Iran. Even as the Lord chastised false prophets in Ezekiel 13:10 saying, "Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace," the US "president" is trying to seduce an undiscerning world.
Obama to Israel: Nuclear deal with Iran is "our best bet" - but "we've got your backs" - www.debka.com
"If anyone messes with Israel, America will be there." This was the main message US President Barack Obama had for Israel in his New York Times interview with Thomas Friedman Monday, April 6. He was trying to fend off the constant stream of criticism coming from Israel, as well as Washington and the Gulf, of the nuclear framework deal the US-led group of world powers shaped with Iran in Lausanne last week.
On his clash with the Israeli prime minister over diplomacy with Iran, Obama offered a conciliatory note: This deal is "our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon," he said.
"I respect Mr. Netanyahu's security argument and agree that Israelis have every right to be concerned about Iran," a country that has threatened "to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas."
He went on to say, "I would consider it a failure on my part, a fundamental failure of my presidency, if on my watch, or as a consequence of work that I had done, Israel was rendered more vulnerable," he said.
"But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I'm willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them."
Those words from the US president were certainly welcomed in Jerusalem, but they failed to address the deep concerns besetting Israel and the region over Iran's rising belligerence, which has drawn encouragement from Obama's policies:
1. The US president is focusing too narrowly on the nuclear dimension of the Iranian threat, when Tehran is already in the throes of an aggressive drive for regional expansion by conventional military means. It is actively stirring up civil strife and using subversion and terror to disrupt its neighbors.
Obama talks about Israel's security concerns in the future tense in potential terms, when already an Iranian noose is tightening around its borders. He must have been apprised by his own intelligence advisers about the tasks Tehran has awarded its proxies, the Lebanese Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, for turning the heat on the Jewish state - else why has Tehran raised Hezbollah's rocket-firing capacity against Israel to 1,000-1,500 rockets per day? And why send Hamas tens of millions of dollars for rebuilding the terror tunnels Israel destroyed in the Gaza Strip last summer and replenish its rocket arsenal?
Israel does not have the luxury of standing by until a foreign power, however friendly, "has its back." Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israel Defense Forces have made their own preparations for the worst-case scenario. But they also ask: Is it right for Israel to be put in this position so that President Obama can claim what he calls "a historic agreement?"
2. The list of governments skeptical of the value of the nuclear "framework" or "solutions" - depending on which of the Washington or Tehran versions they accept - does not end with Netanyahu. The day before it ran the Obama interview, The New York Times headed a front page story with the caption" Arab allies cry betrayal."
Saudi King Salman has clearly decided to brush off White House attempts to sell its nuclear deal with Iran or wait for Obama to catch up with events in the region. He is forging ahead in the defense of what he considers the oil kingdom's interests. His first step was to go ahead, without consulting with Washington, with military intervention in Yemen to stall the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.
It is worth noting here that even Netanyahu, in his most heated diatribes against the US president's policies, never used the term "betrayal."
3. Obama and his advisers are fond of declaring that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would not delay its program more than a couple of years. For one thing, that theory has never been proved: Iran could be held back from the nuclear threshold by four or, for that matter, six years. Who's to say? By then, Obama would have long been gone and also, by then, the ayatollahs - if they still ruled Iran - might have had a change of heart and decide to drop the current regime's nuclear bomb aspirations.
All these propositions are equally speculative.
Still more short-sighted is the US president's determination that the talks with Iran are a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table."
Even if the issue is resolved to the US president's satisfaction by June 30, which most informed opinion doubts, it will still loom large on the tables of King Salman, Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh el-Sisi, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
4. There is also a question of credibility. Whereas Obama now questions the value of tougher sanctions for deterring Iran from violating any nuclear deals, such as are envisaged Congress, just a year ago he was all in favor of these penalties for bringing Tehran to the negotiating table.
5. In his long interview to The New York Times, the president made no mention of the contrasting versions of the Lausanne process produced by Washington and Tehran- as debkafile was the first to disclose in detail on Saturday, April 4.
So which of the two is the correct one? Or were the two different narratives deliberately cooked up between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif as a selling device for their respective home audiences.
6. Getting to the bottom of the real deal concluded in Lausanne will be further complicated by the secret annexes which were appended and never intended to see the light of day. Middle East rulers can't be expected to take on faith a deal contracted by outside powers with their neighbor, that includes secret clauses to which they are not privy.
7. Nothing is said in either the US or Iranian version about Tehran's long-range ballistic missiles or the "research and development" work performed to outfit them for carrying nuclear warheads. Iran doesn't need these missiles to attack Israel, but they would pose a threat to America.
The Obama interview and reiterated pledge to Israel's security followed Netanyahu's latest broadside.
Saying he sees better options than "this bad deal or war," the prime minister said to CNN Sunday:
"I think there's a third alternative, and that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure until you get a better deal." As it stands now, said the prime minister, "It does not roll back Iran's nuclear program. It keeps a vast nuclear infrastructure in place. Not a single centrifuge is destroyed. Not a single nuclear facility is shut down, including the underground facilities that they built illicitly. Thousands of centrifuges will keep spinning, enriching uranium. That's a very bad deal."
Netanyahu said Iran is a country of "congenital cheating" and that it can't be trusted to abide by the terms of the deal.
Arabs Blast "Obama's Deal" with Iran - By Khaled Abu Toameh - http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/35331/arabs-blast-obamas-deal-with-iran-opinion/#yLu7wv1L8XvvWbPL.97
"This is a dangerous agreement... [it] provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds." - Salah al-Mukhtar, Ammon News.
"Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it's not paying any price... There is also a feeling in Tehran that the U.S. is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians." - Hassan al-Barari, Al-Sharq.
According to Hani al-Jamal, an Egyptian political and regional researcher, the deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power.
Many Arabs have expressed deep concern over the nuclear deal that was reached this week between Iran and the world powers, including the US.
Arab leaders and heads of state were polite enough not to voice public criticism of the agreement when President Barack Obama phoned them to inform them about it. But this has not stopped Arab politicians, political analysts and columnists reflecting government thinking in the Arab world from lashing out at what they describe as "Obama's bad and dangerous deal with Iran."
A happy moment for Iran. P5+1 leaders pose with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif after nuclear negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland on April 2, 2015. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
The Arabs, especially those living in the Gulf, see the framework agreement as a sign of US "weakness" and a green light for Iran to pursue its "expansionist" scheme in the Arab world.
"Some Arab countries are opposed to the nuclear deal because it poses a threat to their interests," said the Egyptian daily Al-Wafd in an article entitled, "Politicians: Obama's deal with Iran threatens Arab world."
The newspaper quoted Hani al-Jamal, an Egyptian political and regional researcher, as saying that the deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power. He predicted that the framework agreement would put Iran and some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt on a collision course.
Al-Jamal advised the Arab countries to form a "Sunni NATO" that would guarantee Pakistan's status as a nuclear power and Arab ally in face of the "Iranian and Israeli threat."
Jihad Odeh, an Egyptian professor of political science, said that Obama's "achievements are designed to dismantle the Arab world. Obama wants to make historic achievements before the end of his term in office by destroying Al-Qaeda, seeking rapprochement with Cuba and reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran."
Although Saudi Arabia, which is currently waging war on Iranian-backed Houthi militiamen in Yemen, "welcomed" the nuclear agreement, it has privately expressed concern over the deal.
Similarly, several Gulf countries that initially welcomed the agreement are beginning to voice concern over its repercussions on the region. For the past several months, the Arabs have been warning against Iran's ongoing effort to take control over their countries.
"The US surely does not want to see a more powerful Iranian hegemony in the region, but at the same time, it does not appear to mind some kind of Iranian influence in the region," said Nasser Ahmed Bin Ghaith, a researcher from the United Arab Emirates. "Iran has been seeking to reclaim its previous role as the region's police." Bin Ghaith said that it was clear that Western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf countries. "The Gulf states should build strategic partnerships with the regional powers of Pakistan and Turkey, who share the Gulf nations' fears of Iranian ambitions in the region," he added.
Echoing widespread fear among Arabs of Iran's territorial ambitions in the Middle East, political analyst Hassan al-Barari wrote in Qatar's daily Al-Sharq against the policy of appeasement toward Tehran:
"Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it's not paying any price; on the contrary, there are attempts by the big powers to reach understandings with Iran. There is also a feeling in Tehran that the US is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians and their proxies. The Gulf countries have learned from the lessons of the past in various areas. The policy of appeasement has only led to wars. Any kind of appeasement with Iran will only lead it to ask for more and probably meddle in the internal affairs of the Arab countries and increase its arrogance."
Even Jordanians have joined the chorus of Arabs expressing fear over Iran's growing threat to the Arab world, especially in wake of the nuclear deal with the US and the big powers.
Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist, wrote an article entitled, "Oh Arabs wake up, your enemy is Iran," in which he accused the US of facilitating Tehran's wars against Arab countries.
Describing Iran as "Eastern Israel," al-Mukhtar said that the most dangerous aspect of the framework agreement is that it allows Iran to continue with its "destructive wars" against the Arabs. "This is a dangerous agreement, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the opposition forces in Iraq and Syria," the Jordanian columnist cautioned. "This agreement provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds. Lifting the sanctions is America's way of backing the dangerous and direct wars against Arabs; the lifting of the sanctions also provides the Iranians with the funds needed to push with their Persian advancement. The US wants to drain Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf countries in preparation for dividing them."
Lebanon's English-language Daily Star newspaper also voiced skepticism over the nuclear deal. "For all the talk of this deal contributing to making the world safer, if Obama is truly concerned with his legacy, especially in the Middle East, he must now work with Iran to encourage it to become a regular member of the international community once again, and not a country which sponsors conflict, whether directly or via proxies, across the region," the paper editorialized. "Otherwise, this deal could just leave Iran emboldened in its expansionist designs."
In addition to the Arabs, Iranian opposition figures have also come out against the nuclear deal.
Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian politician and president of the National Council of Resistance,commented that,
A statement of generalities, without spiritual leader Khamenei's signature and official approval, does not block Tehran's path to a nuclear bomb nor prevent its intrinsic deception.
Continuing talks with religious fascism in Iran - as part of a policy of appeasement - will not secure the region and world from the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Complying with UN Security Council resolutions is the only way to block the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Leniency and unwarranted concessions by the P5+1 to the least trustworthy regime in the world today only grants it more time and further aggravates the dangers it poses to the Iranian people, to the region and to the wider world.
Jeopardy - By Daymond Duck - http://www.raptureready.com/featured/duck/dd169.html
America is in Jeopardy and it is the fault of many: The Democratic Party for not vetting Pres. Obama before he was nominated, the Republicans and Democrats for not impeaching him, and those who voted for him (especially the second time), and all who choose to ignore what the Bible says.
Two important verses in the Song of Moses read: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance" (Deut. 32:8-9).
This means that God divided up the earth when He scattered the nations at the tower of Babel. God gave one group of people part of Africa, another group of people part of Europe, another group of people part of Asia, etc. until He had given away the whole earth except for one small place.
He didn't give anyone the Promised Land. He kept that for Himself and set it aside for Israel.
Later, God called Abraham and made a covenant to give ALL of the Promised Land to Abraham and his descendants in their generation and to be their God (Gen. 17:7-8). He made it plain that the covenant went through Isaac and later Jacob whose name was changed to Israel (Gen. 17:18-21; 28:13; 35:10-12).
God is the Creator of this earth and He has the right and the power to keep a small piece of it for His own purposes. He can make a covenant to set it aside for Israel, if He wants to. He is God and humans are not in a position to tell Him what He can and cannot do. Humans are not in a position to tell Him He can't keep His covenant with Israel, if they don't like it. This leads to four conclusions:
1) Since God kept the Promised Land for Himself, no one has the authority to give that it away.
2) Since God had this put in the Bible, the world has the will of God on this so it comes down to a knowledge of the Bible and whether the world is willing to believe and obey it or not.
3) Since God set the borders of Israel's land, it is a bad mistake for the U.S. or anyone else to try to re-draw those borders to create a Palestinian State or whatever.
4) Since God has already pre-determined that Israel will get all of the Promised Land, those who act contrary to the Scriptures are ultimately going to fail. They will have to answer to God for their actions.
God's promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel is real. His warning that those who harm Israel will be harmed is real.
His warning that what nations do to Israel at the end of the age will come back on them is real. His threat to cut in pieces all that burden themselves with Jerusalem is real. His threat to drag the nations into the battle of Armageddon for dividing the Promised Land is real.
So the pressure that Pres. Obama is putting on Prime Minister Netanyahu to sign a peace treaty that will divide the Promised Land is putting the U.S. (and the whole world) into jeopardy. In God's view, the Palestinians are the occupiers-not Israel. And the pettiness, temper tantrums and revenge of the little man in the White House are not battles with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel. They are battles with the all-powerful God that set the Promised Land aside for His own purposes.
Pres. Obama is anti-Semitic and pro-Muslim. He is ignoring Palestinian war crimes, Palestinian anti-Israel hatred, their constant rioting and terrorist attacks; their tunnels to kidnap and kill Israeli citizens, their Islamic hatred in school literature, their training of children to oppose Israel.
He is ignoring their use of Palestinian children as human shields, the Palestinian rockets that fell on Israeli schools and hospitals, the Palestinian rockets that were fired from civilian centers, the Palestinian rockets that killed their own citizens, the vitriolic language that Jews are pigs, cancers, etc. And he, the sitting president in the White House blames all of this on Israel.
Pres. Obama is ignoring the fact that both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas turned down Israeli offers on a Palestinian State. He is twisting the arm of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but refusing to twist the arm of Mahmoud Abbas to make Mr. Abbas recognize Israel's right to exist. He tried to defeat the election of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but he won't try to defeat the election of Mahmoud Abbas.
These things that our pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic, evil-minded president is doing to Israel's detriment are exposing the U.S., and the entire world to the judgment of God. White House officials say Prime Minister Netanyahu is disrespecting Pres. Obama. No! Pres. Obama is disrespecting God. His anti-Israel, anti-God actions are jeopardizing the whole world and they are going to trigger the Tribulation period.
Prophecy Plus Ministries
Daymond & Rachel Duck
The President vows "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch." That's only 20 months. What about after? Here's the latest details on the draft nuclear deal & its flaws - Joel C. Rosenberg - https://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/the-president-vows-iran-will-not-get-a-nuclear-weapon-on-my-watch-thats-only-20-months-what-about-after-heres-the-latest-details-on-the-deal-its-flaws/
On April 2nd, President Obama announced "a historic understanding with Iran" which would "prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
On April 5th, the President told Tom Friedman of the New York Times, "I've been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch."
Yet in the days that followed, the President admitted that Iran's leaders could race to The Bomb with essentially no "break out" time and with very little way the world could stop them once the deal concluded in 13 to 15 years.
Specifically, the President noted that the deal would be "purchasing" a one year "break out" period during the life of the deal, meaning it would take at least a year for Iran to enrich enough uranium to military grade and build an operational nuclear weapon from the time it made the decision to do so, if it wasn't already cheating. The President says this would be an increase from the current two to three month "break out" time that U.S. intelligence officials says Iran currently has.
This is no small matter.
Mr. Obama will be out of office in 20 months. Preventing a nuclear weapon on his "watch" is not enough. Future American presidents, Members of Congress, the American people, the Jewish and Arab people of Israel, the Palestinians, and everyone else in the Middle East and the world will have to live with the consequences of this deal. What if Iran cheats and builds nuclear weapons in secret during the period of the deal? Or, what if they wait and build nuclear weapons openly in 13 to 15 years when they are free to do so? That's not so far away.
What's more, how can we prevent Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries in the region from pursuing their own arsenal of nuclear weapons? The Saudis have already signaled they are talking to the Pakistanis about buying nukes already built. A nuclear arms race is about to begin.
Meanwhile, Iran's leaders immediately began accusing the White House of "lying" about the agreement. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told reporters that the U.S. assertion that sanctions would be phased out over time was a lie and that the U.S. had proposed immediate termination of all economic sanctions. Zarif also bragged that "none of those measures" that Iran had tentatively agreed to "include closing any of our facilities," and added, "We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development."
What's more, Iran immediately began announcing a series of steps that would prevent the world from really knowing for certain whether they were complying with the deal.
Consider the following developments:
*Iran says absolutely no cameras can monitor its nuclear sites
*Iran's leaders flatly refuse to allow inspections of its military sites
*Iran's leaders say they will start using the fastest-possible centrifuges from the moment the deal takes effect
*Iran's Supreme Leader insists all economic sanctions on Iran must be removed the very day a final deal is concluded
*Iran's Supreme Leader is already accusing the White House of "lying" about the details of the initial agreement, being "deceptive," and having "devilish intentions."
"If Iran cheats, the world will know it," President Obama insists. "If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. So this deal is not based on trust, it's based on unprecedented verification."
But experts say it will be nearly impossible to verify that Iran is not cheating and secretly building The Bomb.
*Dr. Dore Gold, a top Middle East expert in Israel, warns that even though Iran will be limited to about 5,000 centrifuges, that is more than enough to build nuclear weapons without the world noticing. "Pakistan enriched uranium for its first nuclear device with only 3,000 centrifuges," he noted.
*"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable," said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009.
*William R. Harris, an international lawyer who has worked on arms control treaties said Iran could cheat by collaborating with North Korea. "So what would prevent storage of Iranian nuclear weapons at underground North Korean sites? If there is to be full-scope inspection in Iran, the incentives for extraterritorial R&D and storage increase."
Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz expressed grave concerns about the deal in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week.
*"For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests - and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran...."
*"Having both served in government during a period of American-Iranian strategic alignment, we would greatly welcome such an outcome. But there exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Iran's representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means...."
*"The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran's intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East's strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran's hegemonic efforts...."
The deadline for the final details of the Iran deal to be wrapped up is June 30th. An extension is permitted until September 30th. Let's pray a much better, tougher deal can be concluded by then. I shudder to think what the world will look like if the current deal is ratified and set into motion.
Another Sunday, another Clinton - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The UK Guardian reports that Hillary Clinton is expected to announce Sunday that she is running for President of the United States. Present "president" aside, there could not be a worse candidate for arguably the most important job for America. Her announcement scheduled for noon on Sunday is just another insensitivity to church-going Christians in this country. But Clinton is not interested in Christians. Her entire body of work in public life has been anti-Christian. She is an intimate supporter of homosexuality; a radical abortion supporter; she and her husband have collected tens of millions of dollars from Islamist and Arab oil interests; her chief aide is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Don't be deceived.
There are so many reasons why this immoral and unethical person should not even have the audacity to run for President. Her Benghazi involvement alone should be enough to land her in jail pre-campaign. She lied about the reason terrorists struck an American compound, killing the US Ambassador and three others. Clinton took exception to questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, angrily raising her voice in response, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
And what about the official State Department emails that she housed on her own private server? How many government secrets are now in the hands of America's enemies--the Russians, the Islamists, the Chinese? But wait, those are not Hillary Clinton's enemies. They are her supporters. She is a Saul Alinsky communist that would make the current mess in the White House pale in comparison. Clinton's 1969 College Thesis was entitled, "There is only the fight"...An Analysis of the Alinsky Model." Therein, she demonstrates a complete grasp of Alinsky's existentialism, his use of conflict (the dialectic) and his "political faith"--all items upon which Clinton's immoral and anti-American body of work has been built.
Her announcement for President, Sunday at noon is the embodiment of who she is. She has no respect for Christians and is appealing to the rebellious, the takers, the bullies, the haters, and the usurpers. Jesus said in Matthew 7:14-16 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits." Clinton is a prophetess of Communism and Islamism--her life's work is evidence of this fruit. Both Islam and Communism are antichrist because they deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Their chief prophetess is a deceiver. Beware.
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY ALL NEW PROPHECY AND CREATION DESIGN WEBSITES. THERE IS A LOT TO SEE AND DO..........
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.