Israel, Obama, Ad Nauseum
Biden came out a weeki ago to give the official Obama policy for dealing with Russia, which is, as it was before, not to do what Bush did, but to talk with Russia and attempt to be as close a friend of the nation as possible. The emphasis on this policy has been so over-worked for media consumption that the Obama administration has little choice but to accomplish something through the talks, otherwise they'll look like fools for harping on having talks if they accomplish nothing. The question is, what will they accomplish that they can brag about? Will it in reality be an adverse thing? We'll see. I'm adding this story here because Biden said the following concerning Georgia:
"'We will not recognize any nation [e.g. Russia] having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances,' Biden said."
It sounds like a threat against Russia, as per its expansionist goals, even while Biden is trying to hold Russia's hand. Bush was smart enough not to bother forming a romance with Russia, but the Obama team is intent on doing so even when it sees that the romance isn't going anywhere good. My point, however, is the last sentence above, because I fully expect the Obama team to violate it in total hypocrisy when it comes to the sovereignty of Israel. Obama will NOT allow Israel "the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances." Obama wants to facilitate the Palestinian cause at the expense of Israel...which may be the real reason that Israel is accepting Russia's role in the "peace process."
What will Obama do when Israel snubs him? Obama has an open door for talking with Russia on the "peace process" because both nations are a part of the Quartet...that has been put in charge (without Israel's consent) to oversee the creation of a Palestinian state in Israel. Israel has to find new ways of rejecting that process while keeping America on side for protection against the Arabs. But what if Obama threatens to remove the protective hedge? What if Obama and Russia together come to an agreement on forcing Israel's will...while Israel refuses to have its will forced?
Can you see this coming to pass as the lead-up to the great tribulation? It seems feasible to me. I can't predict the details, but with Obama in the White House, and the birth of the Global Order overdue, I expect Israel's hand to be forced. And here we now have Russia moving in to increase the pressure. Israel can act only so long as though it welcomes both Russian and American intrusions, but once the cat is out of the bag, some visible arm-twisting should begin. Plus, Netanyahu promises to let the cat out of the bag as a rule, for he seems fearless and frank at this time. He's already informed the snooping George Mitchell that Israel is a sovereign nation.
When a king has a bad queen that he's intent on keeping, he can only keep her if he goes along with some of the bad things she's wanting. The king is Obama, and the bad queen is Russia. It's a bad partnership that Obama is intent on making in an effort to bridge the Global Order. But the queen wants it's own form of globalism, wherefore it's useless for the king to say, "I'll be your husband so long as you go along with my plan for globalism." The queen will not put up with it, and Bush was smart enough to know it. The only choice the king has, if he wants to keep the marriage going, is to do some of the things that Russia wants done.
But what happens if Gog turns out to be a Russian? Assuming that the marriage between the king and the queen still exists at the time, I'd expect the queen to say that she doesn't know who this Gogi upstart is when in fact he is being sponsored secretly by her to do exactly what the king forbade her: to expand her nation into the sovereign states of others. Especially grievous will be the queen's expansion into Iraq, where the king is scheduled to remove his own presence.
Yet the end of the matter, if Obama is the False Prophet, is a partnership with Gog too. Can we see, therefore, what adverse thing doing the unBush thing can lead to?
I don't know whether the king and the queen will ever get to bed, for they might break it off before the romantic dinner even starts. But wouldn't Obama love to get to bed so that he can boast about the great progress he's made doing the unBush thing? I can tell you this, Europa will get to bed with Gog. So why shouldn't Obama? It is even more important for the king to have an affair with Europa than to keep the queen on side, you see.
There is no news today, so I'll probably take the rest of the day off, without pay of course.
I'm in for lunch and found a new article in the J-Post:
"Kadima on Monday accepted Israel Beiteinu's list of coalition demands and Avigdor Lieberman's party said it hoped Likud would soon follow suit.
...Meanwhile, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu urged Kadima to join a national unity government."
The significance of Lieberman's coming in third place is that he'll play tie breaker when Netanyahu's Likud and Livni's Kadima don't see eye to eye on legislation/policy. The article says that Lieberman "wants the next coalition committed to toppling Hamas in Gaza." This is probably the reason that the Obama team doesn't like him.
The Likud also wants to eradicate Hamas. If a Likud partnership with Lieberman means more war in Gaza, the Global Order will be put on freeze all the longer. Until Muslims are made happy with the Israeli situation, there will be no Global Order. Until Palestinians are happy with their lot in Israel, the Muslims elsewhere will have their excuse to threaten the West.
Why does God despise the United States? Instead of eradicating porn from the internet, New York is now talking about taxing porn companies. Instead of eradicating porn, which has the effect of corrupting the participants as well as the viewers, New York now wants a share in the profits. It is a well-established fact that porn leads viewers to commit adultery, and adultery leads to broken marriages, and broken marriages are painful and costly things in many ways. Moreover, porn increases rape incidents manifold.
Today, Haaretz has an article telling that Israeli women in Tel Aviv are actively trying to root out porn in retail stores. I have always wondered here the Western church leaders have been while porn has become progressively worse with each passing decade. Asleep at the wheel, I guess.
In his address before a delegation of visiting American Jewish leaders on Monday, Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that his offer to the Palestinians should he be appointed prime minister would be considerably less than a sovereign state. http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064610.html I'm not sure I quite understand Livni's position as stated in the article below, but will get you a better article when I come across one. It sounds as though she is for a Palestinian state, but not inside Israel. I'm not sure if she means in the West Bank, or outside of that.
To show a little of what the present president of Pakistan is like, he has just offered the Taliban it's own "state" in northern Pakistan in return for an end to violence. This will likely give al-Qaeda a decent hang out. I mention this only due to a theory in a recent update, that the assumed nuclear bomb of Abaddon (Revelation 9) will come from the Apollo cult in Pakistan but acquired by terrorists.
In a large article dated the 15th, we read:
[Pakistan] is now at war with Muslim extremists trying to destroy the government of President Asif Ali Zardari.
As correspondent Steve Kroft reports, the growing insurgency run by the Taliban and al Qaeda is threatening the stability of a key U.S. ally that is believed to have as many as a hundred nuclear weapons.
...During the past year, Islamic extremists have launched more than 600 terrorist attacks inside the country, killing more than 2,000 people.
The theory involved a place called "Avidia" (that I tentatively identify as the root of Avatar and Abaddon) said by Ptolemy to be in Bactriana. It's interesting that Bactriana was in northern Afghanistan but extending to the north-western Pakistani border...near enough to areas in which al-Qaeda fighters have forged their territories.
To show how ridiculous it is to deal with Hamas, and why Israel should not:
"On Saturday night, with rumors swirling that Israel and Hamas were just hours away from a cease-fire deal, Osama Hamdan, a Hamas representative in Lebanon, said that Israel's insistence on including Schalit's release in any truce agreement with his organization was jeopardizing the chances of reaching such an agreement, Reuters reported."
If the release of only one Israeli soldier is what keeps Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire, the man is either dead, or Hamas is a psychopath. Hamas wants a large list of their own fighters released in return for the one man, as well as all border crossings opened. Why would prime minister Olmert even think of forming a ceasefire with this pathetic excuse for a Palestinian government? Why would Olmert embarrass himself in this way?
Hopefully, Olmert knows that Schalit is dead and is therefore playing it as a card to deny Hamas the ceasefire. DEBKAfile claims that Olmert is the one, in defiance of Barak's methods, to make the Schalit issue the lead card upon which the ceasefire will now hang. If Hamas isn't willing to give up one man, then Hamas is not going to get what it wants. The next government may be much more hard-line.
Israel Today has included a statement made by Livni and an interpretation of her position:
"'We need to give up half the Land of Israel,' said Livni, and insisted that failing to do so would bring about the Jewish state's demographic demise.
Livni said that there are no peace plans that are favorable to Israel, and so it is better for Israel to devise its own unfavorable peace plan than be forced to accept a far more unfavorable one devised by the international community."
Somehow, I just don't think Israelis are going to be wild about Livni's plan. And come to think about it, does the Quartet have detailed plans for what the Palestinian state might look like. Is the Quartet, under Obama, planning to do more than facilitate a state? Is it also deciding the state's borders? Israel Today also has this to say (same webpage above):
"US President Barack Obama is preparing to quietly manipulate the post-election Israeli political scene to ensure that a unity coalition that will comply with his policies for the region takes power in Jerusalem.
That according to London's Daily Telegraph, which cited unnamed sources close to the Obama administration as saying that as long as the president can keep his actions under wraps, he is ready to interfere in Israel's internal politics."
Al-Jazeera sheds more light on Livni's thinking:
"'If we don't continue with the [internationally-sponsored Annapolis peace process], we will not be able to count on the support of the international community against Iran, Hezbollah...,' she said.
"We can carry out negotiations while still fighting against terrorism."
She's implying that Netanyahu's position will remove the protective international hedge from Israel. Some prophecy thinkers feel that this is the hedge that God will remove in order to begin Israel's great tribulation.
If the following is true, there will be signs to support it:
"The Obama administration has pledged to the Palestinian Authority it will closely monitor Jewish construction in the West Bank and will protest any new housing developments in the biblical territory, a top PA negotiator told WND."
Obviously, Obama will not want Israel to build homes in the Israeli realms slated to become the Palestinian nation(s). But what's he going to do if the rightist parties tell him to bud out of their affairs?
The Iranian defence minister visited Moscow yesterday, reportedly requesting the purchase of the dread S-300 anti-aircraft system to protect against an Israeli air attack. The Jerusalem Post claims that Russia is not selling the system to Iran, but to this claim we naturally need to add the fact that Russia's foreign minister (Lavrov) was in Israel over the weekend seeking Israel's permission to head a peace initiative. In other words, even if the sale of the S-300 has been ongoing, we'd expect Russia not to admit it, but moreover the visit of the Iranian official to Moscow, at the very time that Moscow visited Israel, appears staged for the very purpose of deceiving the Israelis with a false sense of assurances. The J-Post writes:
"Israel 'heard from [Lavrov] very clearly that Russia would not sell weapons to any countries in the area that would tip the strategic balance in the region,' one source said. The S-300 is considered to be just such a weapon.
...Russia's Kommersant newspaper reported [today] that Russia and Iran had already signed an $800 million deal for five of the S-300 systems, but Moscow had not yet decided whether to ratify the sale.
Pravda carried a story on its Web site Tuesday saying that Russia - at least for now - was not approving the sale since that might hurt Moscow's dialogue with the new Obama administration."
The deal was signed, this seems to be a fact. Iran is therefore expecting the delivery of some goods at a certain time, probably now. Russia finds herself on a high wire trying to make friends with Obama and meanwhile trying to steal his peace-process show from him. What's Russia going to commission Pravda to say, that the sale of the S-300 is happening now? Of course not. Instead, Russia would to leak to Pravda that Russia changed its mind concerning the Iran deal. DEBKAfile adds the following:
"Western military sources say the Moscow talks are refining a formula to enable Iran to deploy the S-300 batteries guarding Bushehr at its other nuclear sites as well. They noted that the Russian defense minister made a big deal of the Bushehr transaction as a symbol of the close ties between Moscow and Tehran.
In Paris, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei complained Iran 'is right now not providing any access, any clarification with regard to the whole area of possible military dimensions.' They are not following the Security Council's request, he said, to allow us to 'please clarify this issue.'
The fact that Russia is so eager to have ties with Iran right now, during a period in which the West is highly suspicious or antagonistic against Iran, is prophetically important if Gog is a Russian agent. Iran must be so pleasingly disposed to Russia at this time that Gog should have no trouble having Iran on his side when he appears in Iraq. If Ahmadinejad could have much control of Iraq along with Gog, it would be nervana.
What could be so important to Russia that it continues full-steam ahead in building Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor while consequently downgrading relations with Europe, the United States, and many others? It doesn't seem like a good business strategy because more business relations will be lost than what is gained through the reactor plus arms sales to Iran and even smaller anti-Israeli nations (Sudan is coming back on Russia's arms list as I speak).
Therefore, the only way I can explain Russia's tenacious ties to Iran is a desire to plant a large Russian foot in the Middle East in partnership with Iran (ultimately, the long-term purpose will be to make money). But what does this foot look like? Can we guess that whatever Iran has revealed as its Middle East policies are exactly Russia's policies i.e. that Iran is paving the way for Russia's goals? I don't think too many Middle East analysts would deny that, if it could, Iran would seize Iraq. The details of Iran's involvement in Iraq since the Bush war have been sketchy, but it is generally agreed that Iran seeks to influence Iraqi politics for its own ends.
The Jerusalem Post has a story today about the sorrow felt by Israeli president, Peres, for his previous trust placed in Hamas. By Israeli law, almost 10,000 Israelis were forcibly evacuated (a few years ago) from Gaza in order to hand power over to Hamas, but as Hamas has since failed Israel, Peres has just made an apology. Remember, Peres is the one who will choose the next Israeli prime minister...perhaps within days. It sounds, by this apology, as though he's leaning heavily toward the harder line of Netanyahu. The J-Post shares a statement from Netanyahu's party on its latest position on Hamas:
"Regarding Israel Beiteinu's demand that the Hamas regime in Gaza be overthrown, [Netanyahu's] Likud asserted that it rejects 'Kadima's policy of arriving at agreements with terrorists, such as the tahadiyeh (calm) of June 2008.' The statement said that Likud would 'choose a different method of subduing terrorism and overthrowing the Hamas regime,' but did not go into detail as to what steps would be on the agenda."
I'm just emphasizing here the moving of Israel's majority toward a rub against the Quartet agenda. What sorts of sparks this rub will produce have yet to be seen. When nothing gets done due to resistance from Israeli leaders, the Quartet should begin to weigh in with a heavier hand, which should then embolden al-Qaeda and other anti-Israeli fighters. The only question is, when will Hezbolah deem it right for launching an invasion from Israel's north? What is Hezbollah and Syria waiting for? If ever the axis had a golden opportunity (and political excuse) for invasion, it was as Israel's military was to a significant extent preoccupied way down in Gaza. Probably, some unknown element that will assure victory with certainty wasn't yet in place.
The Israeli cabinet today supported Olmert's new tack on the Hamas deal, deciding that there will be no ceasefire until Schalit is released. Hamas the bonehead is refusing to release him, making itself look even more boneheaded than before.
Please, Hamasso, release Schalit and you shall have your ceasefire. Then you can re-arm in the calm.
No, never, Irania. This has to do with pride.
But then give back just Schalit's watch and ring?
Then just his shirt.
You are making me look bad, Hamasso, for having you as my man. Just clip his toenails and send them back as a good gesture. I'll pay the stamp.
Not even that, Irania. Israeliana has to know who's boss.
Israeliana is laughing at you, boss, and you're making Obimbo's job harder.
And Israeliana's laughing at you because my shipment's up in Cyprus! So I'll tell you what, smart cake, when you deliver the bang to me, I'll consider sending Schalit's entire head back.
You mad, Hamasso?
Hamas wants 1,400 prisoners in Israeli jails released for the one man, Schalit. Is this not an insane organization? I'm making the point leaders of the anti-Israelis are in fact veering on the brink of insanity. Israel is about to be defeated by lunatics. There is just no other explanation. I'm also making the point that beheadings are becoming more popular amongst terrorist Muslims. I don't think Israel knows how seriously in peril it is.
An article out today discloses the American military's concern with Iran:
"US General David Petraeus urged Iran on Saturday to stop backing extremist groups that contribute to ongoing violence in Iraq, and said the US is watching Tehran 'very, very closely'."
Obama believes that by opening talks with Iran, it will tend to cool it's anti-American terrorist acts. But isn't it predictable that Iran is just now starting to smell blood purely because Obama is intent on reducing American presence in Iraq? I doubt very much that Iran will put closure to its Iraq initiatives now that America's days are numbered in Iran. Only an Obimbo would think so.
Of concern to Iran is the build-up of American forces in Afghanistan. Obama has just agreed to sending in 17,000 more, and Iran can't be too happy about this. Another problem for Iran is that Obama seems slow in reducing the Iraqi numbers. Iran likely believes that by befriending Obama, it will get him to vacate the Iraqi front more quickly. We have yet to see whether Obama will keep his 16-month campaign promise. Iran slowed its terrorist acts significantly in Iraq about the time that Obama looked shoed-in to become the next U.S. president; this may suggest that Iran's strategy was modified for that very reason. That is, Iran deciding to facilitate the U.S. pull-out (by cooling terrorist acts) that Obama had promised.
Obama and Biden have an extremely high view of themselves, thinking that Iran is going to shut down its anti-Israeli plots in return for mere talk with them. I can only conclude that America is now led by a couple of buffoons. As I've said, these clowns are intent on making success out of whatever is the direct opposite of the Bush agenda. Did Bush turn west? Obama and Biden will turn east. Did Bush go with yellow socks? Obama and Biden will go with red. Did Bush love his mother? Obama and Biden will hate their mothers.
Nonetheless, Iran has apparently started to smuggle in new bombs into Iraq:
A U.S. military commander said Wednesday that some Iranian-made weapons found in Iraq had been manufactured as recently as 2008...
He said his soldiers had found about 500 makeshift bombs and hundreds of 107- mm and 122-mm rockets since June 2008, as well as the components needed to make the roadside bombs that have frequently hit U.S. and Iraqi military convoys.
'We have never captured any munitions (at the time they are) being smuggled across the border, but it is very big,' said Battaglia...
This effort could be in anticipation of Obimbo's pull-out, a pull-out that is slated to take place for only one reason: it counters the Bush agenda. Here's how much Ahmadinejad loves Obama:
"Addressing thousands of people in the central Iranian city of Yazd on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad didn't mention Obama by name but said a 'humiliating' fate awaited American leaders if they tried to pursue Bush's policies.
Ahmadinejad [yesterday] said Iran is waiting to see 'real changes' in US foreign policy and warned that Tehran-Washington ties won't improve if no fundamental changes were introduced to US policies."
What are the changes Ahmadinejad wants to see? A military pullout from the Middle East.
Why does the administration continue to brag to this day on holding Iran's hand when that effort is already looking like Obama's next embarrassment?
What about the two-state solution that was Bush's baby? How will Obama, who can't resist going along with it, deviate from the Bush agenda? By leaning Palestinian? We will see. We already know that another George (Mitchell), Obama's right-hand man on the issue, is looking for a second home in Israel (Jerusalem, I think) to make a wider way for Obama's intrusions. West-Bank Palestinians are looking ahead to Mitchell's appearance:
"Palestinian leaders say they are awaiting Mitchell's order to Israel to freeze its colony building, in line with the conclusions of a report Mitchell delivered in 2001 on the causes of Palestinian struggle.
Mitchell is expected to make his second trip to the region as Obama's envoy at the end of the month. But political realities in the US seem to offer little hope.
Israelis who see the 'one-state solution' as a disaster for Israel give a one-word explanation: demographics. They note that as early as 2017, Palestinian Arabs, both inside Israel proper and in the occupied territories, will outnumber Israeli Jews. That, they say, would spell the end of Israel."
There can be little doubt that George Bush sought a two-state solution because he believed that the survival of Israel was better than it's total destruction. Obama, on the other hand, would rather see the ultimate destruction of Israel (my personal opinion) by way of empowering Palestinians. I've stressed at least twice that Obama will threaten to remove Israel's American blessings if the tiny nation doesn't do his will, but today you can read the same from Mustafa Barghouti, an elite Palestinian politician:
"For some moderate Israelis like Pinkas, the 'one-state solution' is anathema and the 'two-state solution' is now so distant that the only option is a 'shelving' of all final-status negotiations while a viable Palestinian partner is developed.
But Barghouti says the only outcome of that will be more unrest.
What's needed is a sign of hope to Palestinians, he says, in the form of an order from Obama and Mitchell that Israel freeze its colony activity or face a loss of US assistance. 'If that doesn't happen,' he says, 'they can kiss the 'two-state solution' good-bye.'"
Who's Obama going to side with, the Barghouti Palestinians who want Israel's American hedge mowed down, or the begging Israelis who don't want to give Obama an inch toward his "peace" solution? Where is the glory in achieving a peace deal by removing Israel's protection? Any American president of the past could have done it; but none did because none had a Muslim background. Is Obama about to become a god in the Muslim world? Not in his first term. He'll need to balance his pro-Palestinian agenda with pro-Israeli rhetoric for the purposes of winning the 2012 election. After that, he can go hog wild in support of Palestinians.
Russia is intent on entering the Israeli picture all the more:
"Visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said [in Cairo yesterday] that his country is seeking to setup a strategic partnership with Egypt at all fronts.
...Lavrov said he delivered a message from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Mubarak on Russia's desire to upgrade its ties with Egypt to the level of a strategic partnership.
Russia supports Egypt's efforts to help overcome the crisis in the Palestinian territory of Gaza Strip, heal the rift among Palestinian groups and close Arab ranks, said Lavrov.
[Egypt's] Abul Gheit said Medvedev's message tackled the current developments in the Middle East and expressed Russia's desire to work with Egypt to deal with the regional problems.
How can Russia play in Egypt's sandbox while Russia needs to keep Hamas on board? Won't Russia, when it comes to meddling in Egypt's truce initiative, need to show some pro-Hamas leanings in order to keep Hamas on side? How much sand will Egypt fling in Lavrov's eyes when he shows pro-Hamas leanings?
Canadians are acting as though the light of God were coming. Obama is making the great white north his first foreign affairs venture, but the economic issues at play only highlight that a liar is about to visit. During his campaign, Obama said he was in favor of doing away with NAFTA, but AFTAwards, in secret talks with the Canadian embassy, he said he was only kidding. I'm bursting at the seams with LAFTA.
The joke is on Canada because Obama isn't going there to strengthen energy deals or climate deals, as reported, but to get the Canadians to commit to Afghanistan. Better Canadians die than Americans, that's what Obamessiah is thinking, because he figures that there will be too much carnage in the war...that he's escalating. How will Obama get Canada to participate more strongly in Afghanistan? By telling the prime minister that he has no intention of doing away with NAFTA. That's his new position lately. Later, he can always change his mind.
No sooner does Hillary Clinton pass by way of North Korea and the dictatorship says it's going to launch a high-tech missile in spite of UN prohibitions. Way to go, Hillary. No wonder Obama doesn't want you in Israel. Obama has come out to say that he opposes the fairness doctrine...that Bill Clinton came out to defend last week.
The following revelation, if it be true, may serve to reveal what the Iranians ship carried as it made its way to the Syrian port of Latakia:
"Satellite images show evidence Syria is developing the ability to make chemical weapons, Jane's Intelligence Review reported [yesterday]. Photos available from commercial providers of satellite images show heavy defenses and significant construction at the al-Safir site in northern Syria and a neighboring missile site, Jane's said.
...A military checkpoint guards the entrance to the facility, Jane's said, with checkpoints for every section inside. That suggests the facility is not an industrial chemical plant.
All that has been said about the ship in Cyprus is that it was carrying raw products for weaponizing. Might they have been intended for Syria's chemical-weapons factories???
If Syria's chemical weapons are intended for Hezbolah and Hamas, it may explain why the evil axis did not together invade Israel recently when it had the political excuse to do so. We may assume that they are waiting for the chemical weapons to be useful on some missiles made for the purpose. Not a nice thought to end off tonight, but such may be the story where lunatics are desperate.
This morning, even though I wasn't seeking more info on the Cyprus matter, I stumbled upon a short article possibly explaining why the Cyprus authorities were tight-lipped in exposing what the arrested ship was carrying:
"President Dimitris Christofias of Cyprus on Wednesday underlined his country's commitment to develop and deepen ties with Syria in all fields, referring to the distinguished historic relations connecting the two neighboring countries."
There is no quote shared in the article. If we can trust the SANA news media (of Syria) to be telling the straight truth, then the Cypriot president over-seeing the ship's unlawful cargo has not enough love for Israel to resist a strong relationship with Syria. Moreover, it can be suspected the president did not wish to expose the nature of the weapons material because he did not want to damage ties with Syria. This assumes that the material had Syria as its customer.
This month, Syria (ruled by the Baath party) was in the Sudan gathering anti-Israeli steam:
"[Sudanese] President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir on [February 5) received a delegation of al-Baath Arab Socialist Party headed by its Assistant Secretary General Abdullah al-Ahmar...Talks during the meeting dealt with the Arab situation and the [international i.e. Western] conspiracies fabricated against the Arab Nation, particularly the Zionist continued aggression on Gaza Strip, the situations in Sudan and the conspiracy being hatched against Sudan targeting its national unity and sovereignty. The Sudanese President...stressed his country's backing of Syria to liberate the occupied Syrian Golan and return it back to national sovereignty...The party's official also discussed in a meeting with Speaker of the Sudanese Parliament Ibrahim al-Taher the parliamentary relations between the two countries, the latest developments in the occupied Palestinian lands, the repercussions of the Israeli aggression on Gaza and the situation in Darfur.
Clearly, both Libya and Sudan are on-side the anti-Israeli mission. While I have assumed that the invasion of Israel will begin from Lebanon, there is no reason that part of the attack will not also come from the Golan Heights, as this portion of southern Syria is adjacent to southern Lebanon. The visit of the Syrians to Sudan may have dealt with the smuggling operation if Sudan is an accomplice.
This is a good place to describe the sort of Baath party that now rules Syria. It is not the original party as founded by Bitar and Aflaq. After a period of schism and decline, the Assad family took over the party. As evidence that Bitar and Aflaq were from the Rhodes circle of socialist Illuminatists, the Baath party's "main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism."
I imagine that Rhodes peoples attempted to stick their tentacles into every curve of Baath-party progress, but how successful they were I don't yet know. I imagine that, initially with Bitar and Aflaq, the Rhodes people sought to implant themselves in Syria using Muslim agents. Whether the Assad family has been loyal/supportive of the Rhodes people I cannot venture a guess (yet), for while there is a pro-Zionist Rothschild faction in Israel, I theorize that a branch of Rhodes became anti-Israeli/Zionist.
The article above adds: "In 1966 a military junta representing the more radical elements in the [Baath] party displaced the more moderate wing in power, purging from the party its original founders, Michel Aflaq and Bitar." The government of Assad (father of the current Syrian president) then went on to out-muscle the remaining Marxist elements in the party...which may suggest a break from the Rhodian Illuminati.
In any case, the Iraqi Baathists (eventually ruled by Saddam) were a stem of Syrian Baathists so that the prophesied rise of Iraqi Baathists may be facilitated by president Assad. I don't yet know what Gogi significance it could have, but Syrian Baathists have just met with the "Head of the Russian National Resurrection - People's Will party Sergy Paporin. The two officials stressed the [party cooperation] Agreement represented a starting point for further relations..."
I found a 2005 quote: "...Deputy Speaker of the Duma Sergie Paporin..." Zhirinovsky (whom I've suspected to be Gog, the man, or at least a major player in the Gogi invasion) has also been the speaker of the Duma, though now he's the Duma vice-chairman,wherefore details of talks between Syria and Paporin are bound to reach the ears of Zhirinovsky. Moreover, words from Zhirinovsky may reach Assad via Paporin without the world knowing. The article (below) from which the above quote was taken speaks on Syrian-Russian ties, meaning that the Zhirinovsky-Paporin duo may have been communicating with Assad from as early as 2005.
On the Israeli political scene, we find things coming to a head:
"Shortly after Avigdor Lieberman announced his endorsement of Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu for prime minister, Kadima Chair Tzipi Livni vowed Thursday she would not sit in a government that fails to advance the peace process.
'Kadima won't be a fig-leaf for a paralysis government,' she said, hinting that she would not join a rightist coalition headed by Netanyahu.
The Obama camp must be feeling a little paralyzed as this reality unfolds. Daniel Kurtzer, speaking on Obama's behalf just a couple of days ago, said: "There will be an image problem for an American administration to support a government in Israel that includes a politician [i.e. Lieberman] who was defined as racist." Strong words of self-interested animosity reaching the levels of Bush bashing. I'm not a Lieberman fan as he's a liberal, but I wouldn't use "racist" against an Israeli who shows some contempt for Arabs wanting the destruction of his nation. Am I a racist for viewing Arab extremists as lunatics? Is no bad word allowed as a description of evil? Shall we only use good words to describe evil among Arabs...lest we be racist?
Is Obama having secret talks with Hamas? Was the leaked report true about a month ago when it made this claim? Why is a Muslim U.S. congressman a part of a visit to Gaza now?
" Two U.S. lawmakers traveled to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Thursday, the first congressional delegation to enter the area since the Islamic militant group took power nearly two years ago.
The Democratic congressmen, Brian Baird of Washington and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, were in Gaza early [today], the U.S. consulate said.
...Since taking office last month, President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he hopes to improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world. As the first Muslim member of Congress, Ellison could play a key role in that mission. He could not immediately be reached for comment."
Let me tell you what is evil. To promise during an election campaign to send troops into Afghanistan before one has assessed the dangers of such a mission. In an AP article of yesterday, we glean Obama's ignorance of the Afghan situation:
"The White House has said it will not make further decisions about its next moves in Afghanistan until it has completed a strategic review of the war, in tandem with the Afghan government."
Did Obama commit to sending 17,000 young Americans into Afghanistan (the Democrats called them "boys" when they wanted to bash Bush) not because he thinks it's the right thing to do, but because he feels he had better keep his campaign promise??? In other words, is he risking the lives of American boys just so he can keep the pledge he made...based solely on his selfish (i.e. evil) desire to win power? Am I a racist for saying this just because he happens to be black?
To show that Obama doesn't really want to send them, the article adds that "Army Gen. David McKiernan also predicted that the bolstered numbers of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan - about 55,000 in all [includes the additional 17,000] - will remain near those levels for up to five years. This sounds as though Obama has notified the army that he's not giving any more fighters, or, at least, that he doesn't want to give more.
North Dakota may be a good place to spend the tribulation:
"North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.
The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person."
Pro-aborts are up in arms over this decision. They say that a woman has a right not to be pregnant. I agree, but I say that women should do it the "old-fashioned" way: refrain from sex outside of marriage. The Bible makes it clear in the Mosaic Law that a man who murders a pregnant woman is guilty of two murders. Pro-abortionists feel the very same today, but what they want is to view the fetus as a valued human citizen if the mother wants it, and then to view the fetus as mere cells if the mother doesn't want it. Excuse me, but what the mother may or may not want does not determine the reality. If the heart beats, he/she is alive. If someone stops the heart beat, it's murder. God is about to come to abort America.
Just found out that John Kerry is in Gaza as well. Just as it's being said about Keith Ellison (also in Gaza today), Kerry reports that he's not planning to meet with Hamas leaders. But why, then, is Ellison going to Gaza, since he's a Muslim (the first and perhaps only Muslim congressman)? Surely a Muslim has been chosen to represent Obama because Obama is using the visit to set up talks with Hamas. These men may not have as their mission to talk with Hamas today, but their purpose must be to open the hearts of Hamas leaders for future talks. Not that there is anything necessarily evil about talking to Hamas if the message is a good one, but it is evil for Obama to make it appear as though no talks are planned when in reality they are planned. It makes one suspect that the message to Hamas will not be a good one.
I decided to do a little research on Ellison. It turns out that: "While attending law school, Ellison wrote several articles in support of Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam..." Hooo-wee, when I found out that Ellison is also black, it made me think of Obama's Chicago church and it's twisted Christianity...wherein the African-Muslim radical (Farrakhan) was also praised. That church is pro-Palestinian, moreover. (Details of his support for Nation of Islam, and some back-peddling when later the involvement became detrimental to his political agenda, are at webpage below.)
When in Jerusalem with a Democrat pack of intruders during Bush's last years, Ellison visited the scene of the Abomination of Desolation: "Ellison called his visit to Islam's third-holiest site, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as 'personally moving'." (article above). How is Ellison expected to play out for Israel when Gog comes to that same "holy" site, proclaiming himself to be god in the midst of his many armed Muslim supporters?
As a result of finding that Ellison has served on the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, I found the description below, convincing me that its leaders will have much to do with pushing the skincode:
"The subcommittee' jurisdiction includes domestic monetary policy, and agencies which directly or indirectly affect domestic monetary policy, multilateral development lending institutions such as the World Bank, coins and currency including operations of the Bureau of the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and international trade and finance including all matters pertaining to the International Monetary Fund and the Export-Import Bank."
The subcommittee's parent, the House Committee on Financial Services (or "Financial Services Committee"), is chaired currently by the Jewish, anti-Christian homosexual, Barney Frank. It is a testament to the destruction coming on America that the people would allow such a despicable man, not only to succeed in politics, but to enter the highest levels of representation. It may be politically incorrect to speak in this way, but I believe in Biblical correctness. A man who stoops down to another man's private parts is pathetic, the shame of his parents, but Frank wants more people to be just like him. I have spotted his anti-Christianity. He has plenty of poison for us. If he oversees the skincode, watch it!
Frank (as with other Democrats, e.g. Bill Clinton) supports the killing of a baby if it's only partially out of the womb, so long as the mother agrees to the killing. He therefore has a murderous spirit and great lack of pro-life sentiments. Watch it. This murderous spirit has been fueling on anti-Christian sentiments for years. It views its own existence threatened by Christians. And it is threatened, though not nearly enough. God bless all who resist and fight against this evil tide (though we do not fight with weapons of the world).
The members of this cult do not so much as want to see hint of Christianity. Frank himself went on a tirade when Obama had Rick Warren merely pray at his "auguration." We are talking lunatics here on par with extremist Arabs. If they could get away with it, anti-Christians would mass-murder us. The more we persuade society that anti-Christians are the real enemies, the better it will go for us in the tribulation. The more the anti-Christians persuade society that we are the cancer of society, the worse it will be.
We believe that the only way to a healthy nation is to have society please God. We believe that a nation at enmity with God will collapse the entire house on all citizens. Not too many people will believe that America is collapsing at this time due to Christian values, but many wiser people see the writing on the wall and are therefore making the correct move toward God. The "birth pangs" in the first half of the Week (i.e. before people have received the skincode) are for the Purpose of bringing many people to Christ. Expect a new wave of believers to wash up on your shores everywhere...even while many abandon Christ for the False-Prophet cult.
Speaking of a collapsing house, John Kerry visited with Livni today (says Haaretz), and for all that may be in the cards, he's not going to visit with Netanyahu. I wonder if Kerry is carrying an Obamessage to Livni. She continues to say today that she'll form the opposition to Netanyahu's coalition government.
Avigdor Lieberman has promised to make Netanyahu accept civil unions. Livni said she has no problems with Lieberman's quest for civil unions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not "civil unions" the talk of homosexual communities almost exclusively? Where is this abomination coming from if not from the West? Isn't it meant as a stepping stone to homosexual marriages? In all the times that God allowed Israel to be devastated by enemies, never had Israel stooped to such a thing as legal and open homosexual marriages. Netanyahu, the non-religious secularist, is in a political bed with Lieberman the abomination. This is what may form the next Israeli government.
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
The 2016 prediction for Armageddon (from my human intellect and therefore subject to retraction) is explained here.
If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage, see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the
Table of Contents