CHRIST’S Judgment Seat faces ALL the Saved,
And God WILL NOT STOP the Inevitable Final War,
Since His WORD INDICATES He will cause it to Occur!
Obama’s Passive Diplomatic Dialog makes a false Peace
Possible by turning the United States into a toothless Tiger.
Iran Will Use Our Timidity to Encourage The Islamic Jihad Mind,
And ten Arab nations will start the final war of the Age of Gentiles
In the Land of Israel at a Future Point in Time between 2010 & 2015!
God’s children do not have much time left to commit their lives to Christ!
It is time for the saved to commit their lives to Christ by becoming Disciples!
All The Saved Will Stand Before Christ’s Judgment Seat Judged For Discipleship!
It’s time to worship Jesus as the most important being in this present life you Live!
THE SAVED ARE ABOUT TO BE PUT THROUGH A PERILOUS TESTING OF THEIR FAITH. IT IS TIME FOR THE SAVED TO BECOME DISCIPLES OF JESUS IN WHOM THEY HAVE BEEN SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH!
Luke 14:25-27 – And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, [26] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
[27] And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
John 4:23,24 – But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
I Timothy 3:14,15 –These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: [15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Ephesians 2:22 – In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians 3:21 – Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
II Timothy 3:1,12-14 – This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. [12] Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus sh
all suffer persecution. [13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. [14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
Ephesians 5:26,27 – That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Hebrews 10:25 – Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
AN INTERTWINING OF DANIEL 7:25-27, REVELATION 17:12,17 & 19:19-21 TO SHOW THE INEVITABILITY OF THE SOON COMING WAR!
Revelation 17:12 – And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Daniel 7:25 – And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Revelation 17:17 – For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Daniel 7:26 – But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
Revelation 19:19-21 – And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. [20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
[21] And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Daniel 7:27 – And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
April 3, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
PALESTINIANS UNHAPPY + BASHAR ASSAD UNHAPPY + NETANYAHU & LIEBERMAN IN POWER = WAR BEGINS BETWEEN 2010 AND 2015.
Begin Excerpt from DEBKAfile Special Report
Independent Norwegian poll: Palestinian majority opposes two states
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 3, 2009, 10:42 AM (GMT+02:00)
Amid the ping-pong between Washington and Jerusalem over the validity of a Palestinian state established alongside Israel as the end-product of peace negotiations, the Norwegian Fafo institute which sponsored the 1993 Oslo Framework accords decided to find out how the Palestinians felt about this solution. Its main discovery was that a majority, 53 percent, of Palestinians (like Israelis), is against two states.
This figure breaks down into 33 percent, who opt for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms – to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent, which favors a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population.
When Hamas members are polled separately, support for two states drops to 21 percent.
Publication of these findings by the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, which is supported by Norwegian foreign ministry and respected by European Middle East policy-makers, indicates that its researchers have given up on the Oslo Accords and the two-state goal pursued by Washington.
However, DEBKAfile’s Washington sources expect extreme reluctance on the part of the Obama administration to abandon this goal because it is the only policy objective it has developed and is being used, furthermore, as a key to open the administration’s diplomatic door to the Muslim world, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena (now lumped together as the “Afpak” front).
The US president’s advisers are urging him to speed up Israel-Palestinian peacemaking for these ends – even if it means foisting the two-state objective on the Israelis.
Proof that the Palestinians too will have to be whipped into line brings the venture close to a mission impossible.
Begin Excerpt from Arutz Sheva
Assad Vows to Recapture the Golan Heights
Nisan 8, 5769, 02 April 09 04:13
By Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) Syrian President Bashar Assad has vowed to recapture the Golan Heights one way or another, and reaffirmed his nation’s relationship with the Hizbullah terrorist organization.
In an interview published Thursday in the Kuwaiti newspaper a-Sharq, Assad promised to take the Golan from Israel. “There is no escaping the fact that the day will come when we will free the Golan, through peace or through war,” he was quoted as saying. “When a citizen loses hope, he will turn to the path of resistance in one form or the other.”
The comments followed the installation this week of the Netanyahu government. Included in the coalition are the Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home), Jewish Home, United Torah Judaism (UTJ) and Sephardic religious Shas parties, all considered to be right-wing. The Labor party, which clinched the coalition, is considered at this point to be a centrist-to-leftist force.
The Syrian president said, however, that he is not concerned with the newest players in the government.
“All Israeli governments are the same: Ariel Sharon carried out a massacre in Palestine, and Barak aided the war in Gaza such that there is no difference between Right and Left in Israel,” he claimed.
Assad also expressed his support for the Lebanon-based Hizbullah terrorist group in the same interview, explaining that “Hizbullah has an issue with Israel, and we have the same issue. We therefore support the organization.”
The Syrian president noted that Hizbullah’s influence in Lebanon has grown and the group has developed into a political as well as terrorist entity, increasingly grasping control of the Lebanese government.
“We are speaking about a national organization with a religious agenda that acts in the framework of the Lebanese homeland,” Assad said. “We see here a national party.”
Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post
Diplomacy: In like a lion
April 2, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israeli politicians, it seems, have this thing for Frank Sinatra. Tommy Lapid reportedly asked that Sinatra’s hit “I did it my way,” be played at his funeral last year, and his good friend Ehud Olmert – sounding just a tad self-aggrandizing – used the same line to sum up his long political life in his farewell speech to the Knesset on Tuesday.
But the politician for whom Sinatra’s hit seemed most apt this week was none other than new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who could have done worse than had that song played as musical accompaniment to his maiden address as the country’s top diplomat.
“I’ve been coming to these ceremonies for dozens of years,” one veteran Israeli diplomat said, “and I never witnessed anything like this.”
The diplomat was referring to the way Lieberman took a traditionally parve, staid, banal ceremony – in which an incumbent minister formally hands over authority to the one taking over – and turned it into his own version of J’accuse.
And the one whom he was accusing, his predecessor Tzipi Livni, sat on stage, listening poker-faced, but probably stunned, as her successor trashed the polices she has championed for the last eight years.
Very undiplomatic. Very Lieberman.
There were those in the Foreign Ministry who said Tuesday, before Lieberman took formal control of the ministry, that the office would mellow the man, and that within weeks of his taking the reins, there would be a line of foreign statesmen who, after meeting Lieberman, would say how pleasantly surprised they were by his “pragmatism.” Then Wednesday Lieberman addressed the Foreign Ministry, and those assumptions melted away. It was not necessarily what Lieberman said that was so startling, but rather the in-your-face, no-holes-bared, this-is-who-I-am-get-used-to-it manner that some in the hall found so refreshing, and that others found so troubling.
Afterwards, one western diplomat said he had found nothing really new in Lieberman’s words, and that by ditching the Annapolis process, the foreign minister was not really diverging much from the Obama administration, which also has not embraced Annapolis, and which is still in the process of formulating its policy on the matter.
Livni, after trashing her political opponents at a fiery Knesset speech on Tuesday (“ministers of nothing, deputy ministers of naught”), came to the Foreign Ministry the next day in a much more conciliatory mood, preceding Lieberman by saying that, despite their differences, they – and all governments – agreed on the fundamental premise of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. She added that even as head of the opposition, she would stand at the service of the country and represent it abroad when called upon to do so.
And then – bam – Lieberman lowered the boom.
“I think that we have seen the cheapening of many concepts, first and foremost of the word ‘peace,'” he said, making it clear early on that his speech would not be vacuous niceties.
“The fact that we say the word ‘peace’ 20 times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We have seen the disengagement and witnessed the Annapolis accord. I read in the newspaper about the far-reaching proposals made by the prime minister to the other side, which I do not think have ever been made, outside of Barak’s visit to Camp David.
“Israel Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition; Avigdor Lieberman was not the foreign minister. Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t have hampered bringing peace. But I do not see that it brought peace. To the contrary. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors – Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly becoming extremist.
“We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying ‘I am prepared to concede,’ and using the word ‘peace’ will lead to anything
? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. ‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’ – if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong. We certainly desire and want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility.”
ONE OF the elements that was so striking about Lieberman’s comments – comments he made knowing that the world would be watching and listening carefully – was how starkly they contrasted with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s remarks to the Knesset the day before.
Netanyahu’s words were conciliatory, about how Israel did not want to rule over any Palestinians, how peace was possible, and how he would pursue it. His speech represented baby steps on his long journey aimed at convincing the world he was not the peace obstacle they had made him out to be.
And then Lieberman took the stage and gave a completely different performance. By so doing, the new foreign minister was not only addressing the world, but also Netanyahu.
His message to the prime minister was clear: “I am foreign minister, and I will have a huge say in determining foreign policy.”
Indeed, with one 15-minute speech, he changed the country’s extant diplomatic policy, saying that Israel was no longer obligated by the Annapolis process. And he did so without consulting with the security cabinet, or with the regular cabinet, or with any governmental forum.
If, under Livni, large chunks were bitten out of the Foreign Ministry’s purview, with the Prime Minister’s Office – as is traditionally the case – handling policy with the Americans, and the Defense Ministry running interference with the Egyptians, and even making inroads in policy vis-a-vis the Europeans, Lieberman sent a message to Netanyahu: “I intend to be an active foreign minister; don’t even think about circumventing me.”
Lieberman’s words came a day after Jeffrey Goldberg, writing on the Atlantic’s Web site about an interview he conducted Tuesday with Netanyahu, wrote, “Netanyahu will manage Israel’s relationship with Washington personally – his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of the anti-Arab Israel Beiteinu party, is deeply unpopular in Washington.”
Lieberman’s clear reply Wednesday: “Not so fast.”
There were, in fact, a number of different messages in Lieberman’s speech, meant for different audiences, but which all gave the country a good indication of where the new foreign minister is headed.
HIS FIRST message was to his constituents, many of whom – like him – Russian-speaking immigrants. Sounding downright Obamaesque, and showing some signs of emotion, Lieberman started his speech by saying that he began his journey in Israel at Hebrew University’s Givat Ram campus, just down the road from the Foreign Ministry, as a student in the international relations department.
“When you go from being a student in international relations to the foreign minister, those are generally things that are only talked about, but also can turn out to be true.
Also, as a new immigrant, to then achieve the status of deputy vice prime minister, is another dream come true. This only shows that we are a land of opportunities, that everything is possible, even more so than in the US,” he said.
HIS SECOND message was to the Foreign Ministry employees.
Lieberman made clear that unlike Livni, who, according to numerous ministry employees, treated the ministry and its employees with barely hidden disdain, he intended to hug the ministry.
To applause, and also in marked contrast to what Livni did, Lieberman said he would appoint as director-general someone from inside the ministry: a small gesture, but one that boosts morale and gives workers a sense of their own worth.
He also said he would attend the weekly meetings of the ministry’s top echelon, something – according to a senior ministry official – Livni did only on a handful of occasions over the last three years.
This, too, adds to the workers’ sense that they are being taken seriously.
HIS THIRD message was to the Egyptians. Interestingly enough, outside of Somalia, which he held up as an example of a failed state, and Mauritania and Qatar, which he used to illustrate how concessions had not gained Israel any diplomatic benefits, the only other country he mentioned by name was Egypt.
In an obvious attempt to mend fences with Cairo, Lieberman praised the country for its stabilizing role in the region, stressing that he respected Egypt, and that he only expected that it respect Israel as well.
This was a far cry from his Knesset speech a few months back, in which he said that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak could “go to hell,” if he refused to visit Israel. It was also an indication that he had internalized former prime minister Ariel Sharon’s line that one sees things differently when sitting in positions of responsibility.
HIS FINAL message was to the world, and it – in quintessential Lieberman fashion – was extremely direct: “Let us have no illusion; what was has failed.”
And his answer was not necessarily to search for something new and improved, but rather to go back to what was essentially ditched – the road map.
The “performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” accepted by Israel with 14 key reservations in 2003, is what Lieberman – sounding a lot like Sharon – wants now to return to: a set, spelled-out, phase-by-phase approach to peace-making that calls for the destruction of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, including in the Gaza Strip, and the establishment of effective Palestinian governing institutions before final-status negotiations are undertaken. Oh, and yes, it also calls for Israel to stop all settlement construction.
The Annapolis process tried to short circuit this process, positing instead that the sides should talk about the final-status agreement now, but only implement it later, when the situation on the ground was ripe.
Lieberman said no, that doesn’t work, Annapolis had failed.
Ironically, he is unlikely to find many inside the Obama administration who will argue with that, since the new administration has not as yet shown itself enamored of the process set into motion by former president George Bush, and embraced tightly by then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.
But buried within Lieberman’s thundering “no” to Annapolis, was also a “yes” to the two-state solution, because that is where the road map – which Lieberman unequivocally said he accepted – ultimately leads.
And it is the new foreign minister’s acceptance of the two-state solution that the new government’s new spokespeople have already been grasping at as proof for the world that Lieberman, see, isn’t really all that bad; he accepts two states for two peoples. The thing they will now need to try to explain is that he just does things his own way.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.