REGRESSION FROM THE CONSTITUTION
POLITICAL+STRATEGIC+LAND CHANGES
OBAMA NOW CHANGING THE LANDMARKS
PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT OUR DESTRUCTION
BY VICIOUS MEN DESCRIBED TO TIMOTHY BY PAUL
AS REPRESNTING THE NORM OF SOCIETY IN LAST DAYS
April 10, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Obama is not only attempting to make Jerusalem, the Landmark of God in Israel, a joint city of Arabs and Jews, but is also changing the political deterrent Landmark nuclear policies that have prevented a nuclear holocaust for more than 60 years.
Proverbs 22:28 – Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Deuteronomy 19:14 – Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.
In the Old Testament a Landmark was a fixed object used to mark out or identify an owner’s property.
Obama is trying to shift God’s landmark grants to suit the wishes of descendants of Ishmael rather than those of Jacob.
Obama is also changing the nuclear landmark polices by our former Presidents that have prevented a nuclear holocaust for many years.
Obama is not dealing with peacemakers in his far left political persuasion circles. He is dealing with the last days assortment of ungodly trucebreakers Paul described in his second Epistle to Timothy.
He is a novice among fierce world leaders.
II Timothy 3:1-5 – This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. [2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, [3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, [4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; [5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Begin 4 Excerpts from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert
April 10, 2010
Excerpt 1 – Global Politician
Imposed Solution in the Middle East
Barry Rubin
There is growing evidence that the U.S. government is thinking of presenting its own comprehensive peace plan on the Israel-Palestinian issue. If the Obama administration does move in this direction, however, I predict that it will be a major failure and humiliation. The administration has just signaled to the Palestinians that they want to make the indirect talks fail, since then the U.S. government will make an “imposed” offer that will adopt almost all of their demands.
In addition, the strategy is deeply against diplomatic norms. U.S. policy has always been to insist that the two parties will decide on the issues.
For many years, Israel has been making concessions based on an understanding that there would be no attempt at an imposed solutio
n. This, then, would be the third commitment from past years that the Obama administration would break.
The first was that any diplomatic solution could include Israel keeping some areas – settlement blocs – across the pre-1967 borders (though a State Department note back in October 2009 hinted that would be possible). The second was agreeing that Israel could build in east Jerusalem if it stopped building in the West Bank, a promise noisily and insultingly broken recently.
Why, then, should Israel trust any promise in the future made by this government? The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, IDC Herzliya. (Global Politician)
Excerpt 2 – Scripps Howard
A Premature “Two-State” Solution
Clifford D.
May
There is no reason to believe that Palestinian security forces are ready to operate effectively on their own – though Abbas cannot be expected to acknowledge that.
Nor are other Palestinian institutions mature. Establish a Palestinian state without first establishing the rule of law, guarantees of basic human rights, a relatively clean and efficient civil service, and an end to terrorist incitement in media and mosques, and the result almost surely will be a failed state. Then what? Send American troops in to stop Hamas, al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias from taking over
? Ask the Israelis to do the job?
Consider beginning with this small step: a referendum. Ask the Palestinians flat out: Are you prepared to accept a two-state solution? Are you willing to co-exist with a Jewish neighbor? Are you open to compromises in the interest of peace
? Or would you rather continue the conflict as long as necessary to defeat the Israelis? Based on the results, determine what can be achieved and what cannot, at least for now. The writer is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (Scripps-Howard)
Excerpt 3 – Commentary
Obama’s Diplomatic War on Israel Is Just Getting Started
Jonathan Tobin
The idea that peace can only be obtained by the U.S. imposing it on the parties fits in with the vision that the president’s staffers exude.
They are not interested in the fact that such attempts have always failed because of Palestinian intransigence, or that such attempts have ultimately led to more, not less, violence. The administration’s simmering resentment against Israel seems to be driving this development more than anything else. (Commentary)
Excerpt 4 – American Enterprise Institute
Is the White House Emboldening Iran? –
Michael Rubin
Successful nuclear deterrence requires that the Iranian leadership prioritizes the lives of Iranian citizens above its geopolitical or ideological goals, and that the White House is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians should authorities in Tehran or their proxies ever use nuclear weapons. The president, however, is not. During his campaign for president, Obama criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for declaring that the U.S. could “obliterate” Iran should the Islamic Republic
use nuclear weapons. After such a reaction, neither the Supreme Leader nor any of his senior advisors believes Obama is willing to pull the retaliatory trigger.
Realists who suggest that Mutually Assured Destruction worked should reread history.
Deterrence almost broke down on several occasions, bringing the U.S. and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war: The Berlin crisis and the Cuban missile crisis each nearly escalated beyond control. Simply put, the world got lucky, and that was with only two main nuclear powers: Any Iranian bomb would trigger a cascade of proliferation that would lead to half a dozen nuclear Middle Eastern states.
The Islamic Republic ascribes to a value set far different than our own. Iranians may not be suicidal, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who would have custody over Iran’s nuclear program may be far more willing to absorb mass death. It may be comforting to believe that the U.S. can contain or deter Tehran’s worst ambitions but, absent any preparation to do so, the White House instead emboldens the Islamic Republic. Every war in the Middle East has as a common variable the aggressor’s overconfidence. The writer is a resident scholar at AEI. (American Enterprise Institute)
Begin Excerpt 5 from BBC News
Netanyahu cancels US nuclear trip
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled a visit to the US where he was to attend a summit on nuclear security, Israeli officials say.
Mr Netanyahu made the decision after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal, media reports said.
Mr Obama is due to host dozens of world leaders at the two-day conference, which begins in Washington on Monday.
Israel has never confirmed or denied that it possesses atomic weapons.
“The prime minister has decided to cancel his trip to Washington to attend the nuclear conference next week, after learning that some countries including Egypt and Turkey plan to say Israel must sign the NPT,” Reuters news agency quoted a senior Israeli official as saying.
Israel’s Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor will take Netanyahu’s place in the nuclear summit, Israeli radio said.
More than 40 countries are expected at the meeting, which will focus on limiting the spread of nuclear weapons to militant groups.
Landmark treaty
Israeli reports said there were concerns that Egypt and Turkey would call for Israel to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Along with India, Pakistan and North Korea, Israel is one of just four states that have not signed up to the NPT, which has 189 signatories.
Earlier this week, President Obama unveiled the new Nuclear Posture Review – which narrows the circumstances in which the US would use nuclear weapons – outlining his country’s long-term strategy of nuclear disarmament.
On Thursday, the US president and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a landmark nuclear arms treaty in the Czech capital, Prague.
That treaty commits the former Cold War enemies to reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each – 30% lower than the previous ceiling.
The BBC’s Kim Ghattas in Washington says the cancellation of Mr Netanyahu’s Washington visit comes at a time of frosty relations between the two states.
The Israeli premier failed to see eye-to-eye with Mr Obama during his most recent US visit last month on the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, our correspondent adds.
Washington criticised the building of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem, which prompted the Palestinians to pull out
of US-brokered indirect peace talks.
There were also reports that one of Mr Netanyahu’s confidants called Mr Obama a “disaster” for Israel.
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.