Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Peace Talks Essentially Over: 'The Nations' Will Have To Await The AC For A Final Plan

It's too bad those who are pushing for Israel's demise based on retreating back into "pre-1967" borders will need to await the arrival of the antichrist for their plans to be realized. The "good news" is - that wait shouldn't be too much longer. 

Arab League: 'Total Rejection' Of Jewish State Recognition

[Doesn't this say it all?]

Arab leaders back Palestinian refusal to recognize the Jewish character of Israel as a condition for peace, 22-member body states in final declaration on last day of summit in Kuwait.

The Arab League announced on Wednesday a full backing of a Palestinian refusal to meet Israel's demand to be recognized as a Jewish state, a condition Jerusalem says it required for peace.
"We express our total rejection of the call to consider Israel as a Jewish state," read a statement from the final day of the Arab summit in Kuwait.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has reiterated the call for the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish character of Israel as a requirement for a peace agreement.

Arab governments, distracted by the upheaval convulsing the region since the 2011 Arab uprisings, have previously taken few stands on the floundering peace talks, leaving Abbas isolated.
The issue has lately overshadowed other stumbling blocks over borders, refugees and the status of Jerusalem.
Palestinians fear the label would lead to discrimination against Israel's sizable Arab minority, while Israelis say it recognizes Jewish history and rights on the land.

“We express our total rejection of the call to consider Israel as a Jewish state,” said the final declaration of the two-day Arab summit in Kuwait.

The move was widely expected after a draft statement endorsed by foreign ministers on Sunday stressed a “categorical rejection” of the demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and rejected “all pressures exerted on the Palestinian leadership” to agree to that demand.

Abbas was scheduled to meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Amman later Wednesday in an effort to extend talks, which are slated to end in a month.
Kerry’s trip to Amman aims “to continue to narrow the gaps between the parties,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Tuesday, adding that the US diplomatic chief would also be in touch with Netanyahu “over the phone or by video conference.”
His unexpected visit to the region — setting off from the Italian capital just hours after arriving — comes as fresh tensions rose over the peace talks, which Kerry is struggling to keep on track beyond the April 29 deadline.

Abdullah’s speech to the Arab League Summit in Kuwait came as tensions between Israel and Jordan have bubbled up over demands by Knesset lawmakers that Israel impose sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

Jordan “will work to help Jerusalem’s Arab population stay on their land, support their steadfastness, strengthen their presence and stand up to address Israeli violations and measures, particularly those targeting Al Aqsa Mosque, by all available means and in coordination with our brothers in the State of Palestine,” Abdullah said, referring to the mosque atop the disputed holy site.

Jordan considers itself custodian of the holy site, which is administered by the Islamic Waqf trust.
“Jordan will … continue to carry out its religious and historical duty of preserving Jerusalem and its holy Islamic and Christian sites,” he said.
Israeli lawmakers have raised objections to a restriction barring Jewish prayer atop the mount, considered the holiest site in Jerusalem, for fear that it would provoke a violent reaction from Muslims.

Abdullah also touted the importance of achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, calling it the basis for “achieving comprehensive peace and enrooting security and stability in the Middle East.”

“Today the international community is required to assume its responsibilities, move immediately to compel Israel to stop its unilateral policies and measures and urge it to take advantage of the Arab Peace Initiative and the historic opportunity available now to achieve peace,” he said.

Rumors are swirling in the media here about a possible Israeli preemptive strike on Iran this year. Israeli officials at the highest level — including the Defense Minister — are reportedly coming to the reluctant belief that they cannot count on President Obama to take decisive action to neutralize the Iranian threat before it is too late.

Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows this month when she compared Vladimir Putin’s tactics in Ukraine to those of the Nazis.
She was right, but there is an even more ominous similarity between the actions of Iran and those of pre-war Germany.
On May 21, 1935, Adolf Hitler delivered his infamous “peace” speech. In his masterful history of Nazi Germany, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” William L. Shirer quotes the Fuhrer’s remarks at length:
  • “Germany needs peace and desires peace.”
  • “Germany has solemnly recognized and guaranteed France her frontiers.”
  • “Germany has concluded a non-aggression pact with Poland.”
Shirer, a CBS Radio correspondent, called the address “one of the cleverest and most misleading of his Reichstag orations this writer, who sat through most of them, ever heard him make.” He observed the West seemed beguiled by the speech, noting the Times of London welcomed Hitler’s words “with almost hysterical joy.”
“The speech turns out to be reasonable, straightforward, and comprehensive,” stated the Times editorial. “No one who reads it with an impartial mind can doubt that the points of policy laid down by Herr Hitler may fairly constitute the basis of a complete settlement with Germany.”
Yet Hitler was lying to buy time. He would not bring peace, but a horrific war, annexing Austria, invading France and Poland, and ordering the extermination of six million Jews.
Indeed, Hitler’s lies were apparent less than a year after the speech. On March 7, 1936, the Nazis marched into the Rhineland, the demilitarized zone between Germany and France, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
If the West had confronted Hitler then, it could have forced him out of the Rhineland with a limited application of military force.
Such history is worth noting in today’s showdown with Iran. Many in the West seem beguiled by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani. But are they….


David Cameron played a “nukes on the loose” war game with Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and other world leaders to see how they would cope with a terrorist nuclear attack, it has emerged.
The heads of state took part in the computer tests alongside dozens of other leaders during a nuclear summit this week in The Hague.
In a series of anonymous tests, the leaders, who included China’s Xi Jinping, were asked to respond to various events, using a touch screen to record their answers.
The event has been compared with the 1980s film WarGames, which starred Matthew Broderick as a hacker who gains access to a United States military supercomputer, nearly triggering a nuclear war.
U.S. officials said that the test had been designed to give a “scare you to death” shock to make leaders seriously think about the security of nuclear materials.
Mr. Cameron said that “it all ended happily” when questioned Tuesday about the tests.
It is understood that Mrs. Merkel, the German chancellor, complained at being made to take part.
Mr. Obama, the only leader who played the game accompanied by a senior official, is understood to have been pushed for the demonstration to take place. In the war game, played out by actors in a series of short films, terrorists attack an unnamed Western metropolis with a “dirty bomb.”
It could be “the City of London, or Wall Street or Milan,” summit leaders were told. It emerged that the terrorists were from an unidentified global terror network and had stolen their nuclear material.

The German chancellor grumbled at being asked to play games and take tests with the Prime Minister, US and Chinese presidents around a table with dozens of heads of state at a nuclear summit in The Hague.
Her complaints were overruled because Mr Obama was keen on the idea and in on the surprise.
In the war game, played out by actors in a series of short films, a terrorist attack with an atomic "dirty bomb" takes place in the financial heart of an unnamed but Western metropolis. "It could be the City of London, or Wall Street, Milan or anywhere", summit leaders were told.
As the scenario unfolded, it emerged that the terrorists are from an unidentified global terror network and they have stolen nuclear material from an unidentified country that had poorly secured its radiological and nuclear stockpiles.
US officials said that the unconventional approach had been designed to give a "scare you to death" shock to make leaders seriously think about the security of nuclear materials.
But not everyone was happy about playing the war game with the grumbling led by Mrs Merkel who was unimpressed with role-playing at such a high-powered gathering. Mr Obama, who helped plan the game, overrode the moaning. He had Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, his lead national security adviser on the issue, helpfully by his side.

China for the first time will likely have subs equipped with long-range nuclear missiles later this year, part of an increasingly potent submarine fleet, a top US officer said Tuesday,
The head of US Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, said the latest class of Chinese subs would be armed with a new ballistic missile with an estimated range of 4,000 nautical miles (7,500 kilometers).
"This will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent, probably before the end of 2014," Locklear told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Locklear was referring to the production of China's JIN-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine and the new JL-2 missile on board the vessel.
"China’s advance in submarine capabilities is significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable submarine force," the admiral said.

Some of the people working in the Obama administration and in the White House are trying to “completely secularize our military” and are “hostile to Christians,” to the point that they “are anti-Christ in what they say and in what they do,” said Christian evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of world-renowned preacher Rev. Billy Graham.
Franklin Graham made his comments during a Mar. 24 interview with Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, which published an updated report on religious persecution in the U.S. armed forces this month.

“A lot of this is coming from this administration and is being pushed by people within the White House,” said Graham.  “And when I say White House, I’m not saying the president, because I’m not sure how much of this he’s aware of.  But it’s people that work for him that have power, that are sitting in offices, and they are hostile to Christ.”
“They are anti-Christ in what they say and in what they do,” said Graham.  “And they are pushing this agenda into the military. It’s scary.”

Earlier in the interview, Perkins had briefly discussed religious liberty in the military and spoke of moral decline in America. He had also asked Graham, “what will it take for America to come back to our moral principles?”
Graham said, “This is a good question. When you look at scripture, when Israel turned their backs on God – and that’s what we as a nation have done and are doing – there was usually some type of calamity. There was a famine, there was a persecution from their neighbors, nations would come in and overrun them and destroy them.”

He continued, “And it’s, kind of, when they were beaten down to the ground, that they would turn their hearts toward God once again. And they would cry unto the Lord, and He would hear them and He would deliver them. And I don’t know what’s going to have to happen in this country, but my prayer is that America will wake up before that [persecution] happens.”

Global Warming Update:


[Who needs data when the "science" is "settled"?]

Also see:

Noah epic awash in flood of controversy for green agenda and taking liberties with Bible ... Hollywood studio adds "artistic licence" warning for "the least biblical biblical film ever made" starring Russell Crowe as Noah ... It is truly a Hollywood epic of biblical proportions, the original disaster story of the man chosen by God to undertake the greatest rescue in history before an apocalyptic flood engulfs the world. But even before it opens in America this week and Britain on April 4, Noah, a $130 million blockbuster with Russell Crowe in the lead role, is already awash in a turbulent sea of controversy ... Noah's director Darren Aronofsky, a self-described atheist who made the Oscar-nominated hit The Black Swan, has described the movie as is "the least biblical biblical film ever made" and called Noah "the first environmentalist". – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: God's Great Deluge was a product of climate change and Noah was the first environmentalist.
Free-Market Analysis: The damage of warmist fanaticism is spread far and wide across the world; we've continued to cover it because it is one of the clumsiest of dominant social themes and thus one of the most obvious.

"Noah" is not yet in widespread circulation and thus the movie may still turn out to be a hit and probably (given high-profile critical reviews) a money spinner of sorts. The movie is, in fact, receiving favorable ratings on such movie websites as Rotten Tomatoes. But the controversy that has surrounded the movie is notable because it extends far beyond the film's religious premise to the underlying warmist promotion.
In this sense, the "foundering" has to do with the pushback to such messages, a resistance that is growing stronger over time. (Interestingly, audience feedback to the movie on Rotten Tomatoes seems a good deal less enthusiastic than its reception among certain notable film critics, at least thus far.) Here's more:

Amid a wave of criticism from some Christian groups about its loose interpretation of a sacred script, the Paramount studio has taken the unusual step of issuing an "explanatory message" to accompany Noah epic awash in flood of controversy for green agenda and taking liberties with Noah.

After advance test screenings, there were complaints that the film did not adhere strictly enough to the Old Testament verses and portrays Noah as an environmental crusader to deliver a secular ecological doomsday message. "The insertion of the extremist environmental agenda is a problem," said Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters group.

The critique was authored by Brian Godawa and entitled "Noah: Environmental Wacko." Here's an excerpt:
Noah paints the primeval world of Genesis 6 as scorched arid desert, dry cracked earth, and a gray gloomy sky that gives no rain – and all this, caused by man's "disrespect" for the environment. How Neolithic man was able to cause such anthropogenic catastrophic climate change without the "evil" carbon emissions of modern industrial revolution is not explained.
Nevertheless, humanity wanders the land in nomadic warrior tribes killing animals for food or wasteful trophies. In this oppressive world, Noah and his family seek to avoid the crowds and live off the land. Noah is a kind of rural shaman, and vegan hippy-like gatherer of herbs.
Noah explains that his family "studies the world," "healing it as best we can," like a kind of environmentalist scientist. But he also mysteriously has the fighting skills of an ancient Near Eastern Ninja. (Hey, it's a movie, give it a break). Noah maintains an animal hospital to take care of wounded animals or those who survive the evil "poachers," of the land.
Just whose animal rights laws they are violating, I am not sure, since there are only fiefdoms of warlords and tribes. Be that as it may, Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals. Though God has not spoken to men or angels for a long time, Noah is haunted by recurring dreams of a rainstorm and flood that he surmises is God's judgment on man because as Noah says, "At our hand, all he created is dying." The trees, the animals, and the environment. "If we change, if we work to save it, perhaps he will too [save us]." Or as grandfather Methuselah reiterates, "We have destroyed this world, so we ourselves will be destroyed. Justice."
... The notion of human evil is more of an afterthought or symptom of the bigger environmental concern of the great tree hugger in the sky ... Like a magical Mesopotamian Dr. Doolittle, Noah has the ability to "lead" the animals peacefully into the ark as they come from every corner of the earth. And yes, even the insects.
... Meanwhile, Noah has himself become a bit psychotic, like an environmentalist or animal rights activist who concludes that people do not deserve to survive because of what they've done to the environment and to animals. Noah deduces that God's only reason for his family on the boat is to shepherd the animals to safety, "and then mankind disappears. It would be a better world."
He concludes that there will be no more births in this family so that when they start over in the new world, they will eventually die out, leaving the animals in a humanless paradise of ecoharmony and peace. As Noah says, "The creatures of the earth, the world itself, shall be safe." (Except for slamming intergalactic meteors, non-anthropocentric global warming, ice ages, sun spots, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and that "survival of the fittest," eat-or-be-eaten thing. But other than that... "safe.")
His ethical reasoning? The same as all environmentalist activists: The ends justify the means. "We must weigh those [human] lives against all creation." Shades of Malthus and Al Gore.
This is incredible stuff. Why would a studio release a movie almost certain to offend religious elements with a secular interpretation of the Bible, one that would likely offend tens of millions in the US and abroad who are deeply suspicious of the warmist doctrine and then, on top of it, add a goodly helping of eugenic propaganda?
The answer to the above question is that "Hollywood" simply couldn't resist. The international elite that basically runs Hollywood probably found that using the tale of Noah as a metaphor for climate change was simply too tempting to pass up.
As we have been documenting, the top elites have apparently decided that it is feasible to reignite the warmist meme using climate change as the propellant.
The idea is – so far as we can tell – to use military technology to generate hurricanes and other kinds of weather related cataclysms. While this is, of course, a "conspiratorial" approach toward global warming, there is a "patent trail" that seems to prove that weather control technology exists.
Were one to want to promote the meme of "climate change" it would apparently be relatively easy to create certain controlled weather disasters and then blame them on manmade weather changes.
In fact, it doesn't matter whether people believe it or not. Create the rationale and then produce the requisite legislative result.
This is how directed history works in the 21st century. The trouble is that the more the power elite shows its panicked contempt for those masses that the Internet has enlightened about their manipulation, the more polarized factions of society become.


Alice said...

"Mr. Obama, the only leader who played the game accompanied by a senior official..."

Confirming what we've known for a long time.

Sandra said...

Alice, funny..I was thinking the same thing.

When they start to play such "games" it is a scary thought of things to come...but I have peace knowing my perfect peace is in Jesus Christ, something that no man can take from me, no matter what happens.