Wednesday, February 29, 2012

From Bible Gateway

Questions About Easter: What Is Significant About the Lamb’s Bones Not Being Broken?

This is the first in a series of posts during Lent that answer comon questions about Easter. These Q&A’s are drawn from our library of devotionals and other partner content. Today’s is from the “Investigating the Bible” devotional, which you can read online or sign up to receive via email.

What Is Significant About the Lamb’s Bones Not Being Broken?

When God gave Moses and Aaron the rules for the Passover, some might have sounded unconventional—for example, the clear prohibition against breaking any bones of the lamb that was sacrificed and eaten by each household. Why did God insist on this?
This command—that the Passover lamb not have its legs broken—carries symbolic weight. When Jesus, whom John the Baptist proclaimed to be “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), was crucified, not one of his bones was broken. John 19:31–34 tells us that when the soldiers came to Jesus to break his legs to hasten his death, they found that he was already dead, so they pierced his side with a spear but did not break his legs. As John testifies, “These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken’” (John 19:36). The Exodus 12:46 rule is also echoed prophetically in Psalm 34:20: “He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” To the last detail of his death, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah, verifying that he was, as John the Baptist claimed, the sacrificial Lamb of God.

From The Patriot

The Foundation


"Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle." --Thomas Jefferson

From Townhall

"Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It's nothing more than ‘childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.’ Very seldom does any issue that doesn't involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling ‘nice’ or ‘mean’ to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues." -- John Hawkins, September 21, 2007

Liberals are actually worse than children, not just because it's so appalling to see adults who view themselves as highly intelligent and sophisticated thinking like little kids, but because in some respects, left-wing thinking is inferior to that of children. There are things that five year olds all across this country know that liberal child-men are intellectually unable to comprehend.
1) Life's not fair. There's probably not a kid in this country who hasn't said, "That's not fair," and has heard a "Life's not fair" in return. You could actually go farther than that. Not only is life not fair, the word "fair" is completely arbitrary and primarily dependent on whose goose is getting gored.
If you're paying 35% of your income in taxes and are being told that it's not "fair" you're only paying that much when almost half the country isn't paying any income tax at all, you probably disagree in the strongest of terms. On the other hand, someone making $10,000 a year might not think it's "fair" for someone else to make so much more money than he does after taxes. If you're a black, Harvard educated business owner with 10 million dollars in the bank, you may think it's perfectly fair that your son gets into a college over a more qualified son of a white garbage collector because of Affirmative Action, but it's pretty easy to see how the person being discriminated against because of his race wouldn't feel the same way.
In other words, one person's "fair" is another's person's "unfair" which can become a huge problem when the government starts defining what's "fair" and putting the force of law behind it. Yes, some of that has to happen in order to have an orderly and law abiding society, but increasingly, what's "fair" is becoming little more than an overbearing government and tyrannical judges abusing the law to do favors for the politically well-connected and voting blocks they think will help "their side." No matter what they do, life will never be “fair" and trying to make it so is an inherently "unfair" exercise in utopianism that has proven to lead to considerably more misery than simply accepting that "Life isn't fair" in the first place.
2) You can't have everything you want. This is something most kids learn when they don't get a pony at Christmas or when their parents take them into a dollar store and tell them they can have "two things."
This is not a lesson liberals seem to have ever learned because their thinking is, "If it's a 'good idea,' then it should be funded, regardless of what it costs, regardless of whether it's worth the money." It's like liberals start with the assumption that we have infinite money and if anyone opposes spending for any reason, it must be because he’s "mean." Did you know we actually have a higher debt load per person than Greece ($44,215 vs. $39,000), a nation that's only being saved from default because richer countries are paying its bills? So what happens when we run out of money, go into a depression, taxes explode, and the checks from the government slow down and stop? Judging by what's happening in Greece, liberals will start throwing Molotov cocktails in the street and blame everyone but themselves for spending the country into oblivion.
3) Good people make the world work. Most fairy tales, boiled down to their essence, consist of someone being put in danger and either learning to overcome the danger through working hard and showing virtue or having a "good" prince, teacher, or fairy godmother help the hero triumph. Who is Superman? Captain America? Spider-Man? They're personifications of goodness and righteousness come to life to protect people and to right wrongs. Children not only believe in goodness; they want to BE that hero when they grow up.
Liberalism, on the other hand, undercuts Christianity at every opportunity and sneers at goodness and virtue. Liberals believe enforcing moral standards is one of the worst things you can do. They consider judging people for bad behavior to be "mean" and impermissible. The liberal replacement for decency, character, and virtue is the pseudo-morality of being "nice, tolerant, and non-judgmental." Of course, you can be "nice, tolerant, and non-judgmental" and still be a bad person, a coward, and generally worthless as a human being. Being genuinely good requires a moral code, it requires drawing a clear line between right and wrong, and it requires having the fortitude to stand up for what's right. The real heroes, the people who make the country work as opposed to parasites who leech off the efforts of better men, generally turn out to be exactly the sort of good people that liberals hold in complete and utter contempt.
4) Liberals think EVERYONE should get a trophy. Oh, you're the right race? It should be easier for you to get into college. You're the right gender? Well, you should get paid more even though you work less because you take three months off to take care of your children. You want to work for a non-profit? Well, you should make as much as that guy running a small business because some people think that's just as valuable.
Wrong.
Life is a competition on an almost infinite number of levels with an almost infinite number of ways to "win." As P.J. O'Rourke has said, "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." If you think "banksters" and CEOs have it so much better than everyone else, you don't demand that the government put you on the same level they are; you become a banker or CEO. If you're a secretary and you don't think it's right that a fireman makes more than you do, become a fireman. If you like having lots of leisure time, but you want to make the same money as someone who works two jobs, then you make your choice as to what you value more and you live it.
Everyone can't be on the same level. Some people will be born with richer parents, better looks, more athletic ability, more brains, a better environment, etc., etc. All of them won't be good at the same things and the only way to make sure they all "get a trophy" in the same areas is to make sure that everyone is equally mediocre. Smart people push for equality of opportunity and let everyone rise to his own level while liberals try to tear people down and turn them all into losers to insure equality of results.
5) Nobody owes you a living. There are a lot of people who have come to believe that they're owed a certain standard of living just for being born in this country. Oh, you're an American citizen? That means you're owed a free education, a house, medical care, a job you enjoy with lots of vacation days, and then early retirement with someone picking up the bills.
Wrong.
You're actually owed "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" all of which you're primarily responsible for getting and maintaining yourself. Even most people's parents expect them to move out at 18 and take care of themselves and newsflash, the government isn't your parents. Because Americans are a benevolent people, we've chosen to put a basic safety net in place to take care of people who fall on hard times. Unfortunately, it has been so abused that we have a whole movement full of bums, thugs, and losers with their hands out, demanding that everyone take care of them because they think they should be children for life and the government should take the place of their mommy and daddy.
Again, wrong.
At the end of the day, you are responsible for taking care of yourself. You want a bike, get a paper route. Want to go to college at a private school for 6 years to get a degree in lesbian studies, then get a job, pay your bills, and pay off your own loans. Live below your means, save some money, get married before you have a kid, and if, God forbid, you do fall on hard times and take government assistance, have the common decency to feel a deep sense of shame for leeching off your betters instead of paying your own way.

From Townhall

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution contains two clauses addressing religious liberty: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It's a shame that in their modern misguided zeal to read the first clause as mandating a complete separation of church and state, liberals do great damage to the second clause and defeat the overarching purpose of both: ensuring religious liberty.
Ever since the so-called Christian right began its organized activism during the 1980s, liberals (and some others) have become increasingly nervous about (and critical of) Christian influence in politics, let alone the public square.
This issue has reared its controversial head during the Republican presidential primary because of candidate Rick Santorum's unashamed and outspoken commitment to his Catholic faith and Christian values. It's not just leftists who are complaining; many on the right are, as well.
For years, there has been an uneasy alliance inside the Republican "big tent," between those who embrace social conservatism and those who would just as soon see it deleted from the party platform. With our anxiety about the national debt, economic issues are naturally at the forefront of people's concerns. Some believe that those who are still articulating social issues in this period of crisis are at least annoying and possibly detrimental to the cause of electing a Republican who can build a wide enough coalition to defeat the primary culprit in America's race to bankruptcy: President Barack Obama.
I think it's a false choice to say that we conservatives must pick between economic issues and social ones. It's also a mistake to believe there is a clear dichotomy between economic conservatives and social conservatives. As I've written before, Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool -- economic, social and national defense issues -- and the three are compatible and probably embraced by most Republicans.
Our center-right tent is big enough to include libertarians, economic conservatives who either are indifferent to social issues or consider themselves socially liberal, and so-called neoconservatives, who tend to emphasize national defense issues over the other two -- although they might reject that characterization. We all must unite to defeat President Obama.
But with Santorum's rise in the polls, many are expressing their anxiety about his perceived religiosity and are depicting him as a threat to religious liberty.
Some are abuzz about his interview this past weekend with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week," in which Santorum stated that he does not believe separation of church and state is absolute. He stated that the First Amendment's free exercise clause guarantees that the church and its members have as much right to try to influence policy as anyone else. And he's absolutely correct.
Not only are the words "separation of church and state" not contained in the Constitution but this phrase from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not mean what many people say it does.
The First Amendment's establishment clause says that Congress shall not establish a national church, because the Framers didn't want the government telling us whom or how to worship. Their overarching concern, then, was protecting religious liberty. The free exercise clause also strengthens the religious freedom guarantee.
The point is that both clauses are dedicated to religious liberty, and neither purports to ban religious expression from the public square or from the mouths of public officials.
No matter how expansively one reads the First Amendment's establishment clause, no one, including Jefferson, would have made the ludicrous argument that presidents (or other public officials) must leave their worldview at the door of the White House and govern apart from it, as if that would be possible. Advocating policy positions based on one's worldview is light-years away from establishing -- or even supporting -- a national religion.
Christian conservatives are not the ones demonstrating intolerance and threatening the freedoms of religion and religious expression. They would never consider being so presumptuous and tyrannical as to try to silence those who disagree with them, ban them from the public square, or advance the spurious argument that they are not entitled to advocate policies based on their worldview.
Ironically, it is probably the secular left that is most responsible for the dramatic rise and persistent influence of the Christian political right in politics, with their gross judicial activism in abortion jurisprudence and their judicial tyranny coercing states to accept same-sex marriage against the will of the people. They are the ones who demonize as "homophobes" and "bigots" those seeking to preserve traditional marriage. Christian conservatives don't try to shut them up, but many are now trying to shut us up -- through the specious application of the First Amendment, no less.
The last people anyone needs to fear on religious liberty are Christian conservatives, who are its strongest guardians. Above all others, they will fight to preserve everyone's right to express and practice his religion or non-religion as he pleases.

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.

From Townhall

When New York churches no longer can meet in public school settings, a federal court orders a Rhode Island public school to remove a prayer banner that has been posted for more than five decades (and it complies), the federal government mandates that Catholic institutions cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization (at no cost to the patient), the U.S. Air Force removes "God" from the motto of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, atheists continue to contest "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, town councils can't pray to start their meetings, evangelical pillars like Franklin Graham are subdued by gotcha gangs in the mainstream media, and cultural icons like Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow can't even bow in silent prayer without criticism, you can be assured that religious liberty is under assault by secular progressives across America. And leading the national charge is none other than our president, Barack Obama.
Though America's Founding Fathers opposed the reign of kings or priests, they actually advocated the role of religion in society and civic service, including intermingling their own Christian faith in political convictions and choices. And I believe they would want us to vote in a president who is committed to the same.
As I wrote in my latest New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism," skeptics are quick to point to Thomas Jefferson, who generally is hailed as the chief of church-state separation. But proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from the fact that he endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church's priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.
Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the "wall of separation between church and state," he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation's government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress' website notes, "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church."
For our founders, moral fortitude was dependent upon the liberties of religion, not the laws of men. John Adams, our second president, explained: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Benjamin Franklin put it this way: "That wise Men have in all Ages thought Government necessary for the Good of Mankind; and, that wise Governments have always thought Religion necessary for the well ordering and well-being of Society, and accordingly have been ever careful to encourage and protect the Ministers of it, paying them the highest publick Honours, that their Doctrines might thereby meet with the greater Respect among the common People."
Because our founders firmly believed that religion prevents liberty from turning into licentiousness, President George Washington warned the nation in his Farewell Address to beware of leaders who dismantle the role of religion and Christianity: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
No wonder John Jay -- the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington himself -- wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Thank God for the present members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bipartisan group of 103 members of the House of Representatives dedicated to preserving religious freedom in America. But they also need a fearless leader in the Oval Office who will stand up with them against the attacks on our religious liberties, not one who initiates the assault. We need a president who defends our First Amendment's freedom (SET ITAL) of (END ITAL) religion, not freedom from religion.
Last week, I mentioned that before ever considering running for the White House, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his wife, Callista, fought for America's Judeo-Christian heritage by writing two volumes and creating a DVD tour by the same name, "Rediscovering God in America."
In 2010, also before his run for the presidency, Newt stated categorically on the tour for his insightful book "To Save America" that the Obama regime is "the most radical administration in American history. ... (This is) a secular socialist machine ... deeply opposed to God being in public life ... deeply opposed to religious values defining how we think about things. ... They clearly represent a value system that any reasonable person would call secular ... on a scale that is the opposite of the Founding Fathers."
Just this past Sunday morning, for roughly 30 minutes, Newt defended America's Judeo-Christian heritage from the pulpit at First Redeemer Church in Cumming, Ga.
Newt's passion to protect our religious liberties is one more reason in a long list that my wife, Gena, and I are encouraging all Americans to support and vote for Newt Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary. (I'll address another huge reason, Newt's new plan to bring gas back down to $2.50 per gallon, in my next column.)
Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook's "Official Chuck Norris Page." He blogs at http://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CHUCK NORRIS
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
BY A 15 yr. OLD SCHOOL KID
who got an A+ for this entry

(TOTALLY AWESOME)!


Since the Pledge of Allegiance
And

The Lord's Prayer
Are not allowed in most
Public schools anymore

Because the word 'God' is mentioned.....
A kid in Arizona wrote the attached
NEW School prayer:



"New Pledge of Allegiance"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.


If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.


Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene..
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.


For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all..

In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks...
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong..


We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles
..
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God
must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

From Americans For Prosperity

Nearly two years ago, President Obama signed his deeply unpopular health care package into law. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the constitutionality of several elements of that package, including the individual mandate. We may not get a better chance to overturn this affront to our health care freedom; that's why we're taking action now, and we need your help!
Americans for Prosperity just launched a redesigned website - www.HandsOffMyHealthCare.com - complete with a People's Brief to the Supreme Court. Americans for Prosperity believes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the President's entire health care law must be struck down with it.
On March 27th at 1PM, Americans for Prosperity will be hosting a major Hands Off My Health Care rally in Upper Senate Park, right across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court. We've put together a powerful coalition that includes groups such as the 60 Plus Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Concerned Women for America, Doctor Patient Medical Association, Eagle Forum, Hagerstown Tea Party, Heartland Institute, Family Research Council, Let Freedom Ring, Tea Party Express, Tea Party WDC, and more!
Click here to register for the Hands Off My Health Care rally!
We're asking everyone who believes in health care freedom to join us, and help send a message to the Supreme Court and all of Washington that the President's health care law is not only unconstitutional, but offends the freedoms upon which this country was founded.
Americans for Prosperity® (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to

From Prophecy News

Homeschooling Families Can’t Teach Homosexual Acts Are Sinful In Class

Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.

“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.

“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.

Reacting to the remarks, Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defence Association said the Ministry of Education is “clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes.”

“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” a government spokesperson told LifeSiteNews.“A government that seeks that sort of control over our personal lives should be feared and opposed,” he added.

The HSLDA and other homeschooling groups warned this week that the new Alberta Education Act, which was re-tabled by Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservative government on Feb. 14th to replace the existing School Act, threatens to mandate “diversity” education in all schools, including home schools.

Section 16 of the new legislation restates the current School Act’s requirement that schools “reflect the diverse nature” of Alberta in their curriculum, but it adds that they must also “honour and respect” the controversial Alberta Human Rights Act that has been used to target Christians with traditional beliefs on homosexuality. ‘School’ is defined to include homeschoolers and private schools in addition to publicly funded school boards.

McColl emphasized that homeschoolers were already included in the current definition of ‘school’ in the School Act, going back to 1988 or longer. And Section 16, she said, “is specifically with regards to programs, courses, and instructional materials.”

According to McColl, Christian homeschooling families can continue to impart Biblical teachings on homosexuality in their homes, “as long as it’s not part of their academic program of studies and instructional materials.”

“What they want to do about their ideology elsewhere, that’s their family business. But a fundamental nature of our society is to respect diversity,” she added.

Pressed about what the precise distinction is between homeschoolers’ instruction and their family life, McColl said the question involved “real nuances” and she would have to get back with specifics.

But in a second interview Wednesday evening, McColl said the government “won’t speculate” about particular examples, and explained that she had not yet gotten a “straight answer” on what exactly constitutes “disrespect.” She did say that families “can’t be hatemongering, if you will.”

In the first interview, she justified the government’s position by pointing to Friday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Quebec government’s refusal to exempt families from its controversial ethics and religious culture program. That program, which aims to present the spectrum of world religions and lifestyle choices from a “neutral” stance, is required of all students, including homeschoolers.

“Just last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada released a unanimous decision on – now it’s S.L. v. the Commission scolare des Chênes 2012 – and that’s the same, section 16 has to apply to everyone, including home education families,” she said.

Pro-family observers warned that the ruling risked emboldening other provincial governments in their effort to impose “diversity” programs. The last two years have seen major battles in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and now Alberta over the increasing normalization of homosexuality in the schools.

The Supreme Court’s narrow ruling did not specifically address homeschooling, however, and left the door open to further court challenges. The court argued that the Quebec family seeking the exemption had simply failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to show that their children’s participation in the course would impede the parents’ ability to raise the children in their Catholic faith.

Patty Marler, government liaison for the Alberta Home Education Association, said she was surprised at the Ministry’s straightforwardness, and questioned how they are going to be able to draw the line between school time and family time.

“We educate our children all the time, and that’s just the way we live. It’s a lifestyle,” she said. “Making that distinction between the times when we’re homeschooling and when we’re just living is really hard to do.”

“Throw in the fact that I do use the Bible as part of my curriculum and now I’m very blatantly going to be teaching stuff that will be against [the human rights act],” she said.

Marler pointed out that the issue has direct implications on how families teach their children about marriage because the Alberta Human Rights Act was amended in 2009 to define marriage as between two “persons” instead of a man and a woman. “When I read Genesis and it talks about marriage being one man in union with one woman, I am very, very clearly opposing the human rights act that says it’s one person marrying another person,” she said.

According to Faris, the issue with McColl’s statements “isn’t about sexuality or anything else on the gay issue, it’s about the government trying to control how we teach our own children in our own homes.”

He said her comments are “particularly interesting in light of the - at the very least - misleading information that a lot of homeschoolers have been getting when they’re calling the Minister’s office, saying ‘Look, there’s no changes here. We’re not going to do anything differently’, and other things like that.”

“The long arm of the government wants to reach into family’s homes and control what they teach to their own children in their own homes about religion, sexuality, and morality,” he said. “These are not the words of a government that is friendly to homeschooling or to parental freedom.”

The Progressive Conservative government has 67 of the 83 seats in the province’s legislature, so the bill’s passage is essentially assured. But an election is imminent and the new right-wing Wildrose Alliance Party is expected to have a strong showing. A Forum Research poll last week showed the upstart party polling at 30% behind the government’s 37%.

The Home School Legal Defence Association is calling on Alberta citizens to contact the Education Minister and their elected representatives.

From Prophecy News

Coming Intervention In Syria May Expose New World Order Doctrine Of "Responsibility To Protect "




NATO countries are strongly considering the possibility of an international deployment to Syria if the Syrian opposition does not make major advances in the next few weeks, according to informed Middle Eastern diplomatic and security officials.

Egyptian security officials, meanwhile, outlined what they said was large scale international backing for the rebels attacking the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad – including arms and training from the U.S., Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Several knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

The security officials also claimed Saudi Arabia was sending weapons to the rebels via surrogates, including through Druze and Christian leaders in Lebanon such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt; Saudi-Lebanese billionaire Saad Hariri, who recently served as Lebanon’s prime minister; and senior Lebanese opposition leader Samir Farid Geagea.

Syrian sources claimed to WND that Jordan’s fingerprints can be seen on the opposition forces entering the country. They claimed that just this week they shot dead 15 armed smugglers coming into the country from Jordan and that Jordanian forces helped to cover the smugglers’ tracks on the Jordanian side of the border. They said the incident did not make it to the news media.

While Turkey, the U.S. and Arab countries may be arming the opposition, Russia has been directly aiding Assad’s forces on the ground, according to informed Middle Eastern diplomatic and security officials.

In one recent incident, when opposition forces successfully destroyed a Russian-provided tank in the rebel stronghold of Homs using an anti-tank missile, the officials said that Russian technicians took fragments of the missile to study the components in a Russian lab to determine the exact missile used.

WND previously reported Russian military experts have been inside Syria helping Assad’s regime face down the months-long insurgency.

NATO war in Syria in March?

Meanwhile, according to the Middle Eastern diplomatic and security officials speaking to WND, the international community is considering launching NATO airstrikes on Assad’s forces as soon as March if the opposition does not make major strides toward ending Assad’s regime.

The NATO members, however, have been satisfied with the momentum of the opposition in the last few days, which saw a number of defectors from the Syrian military join the rebels, a move that also precipitated the downfall of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime before the NATO campaign in Libya.

Similar to Gadhafi, Assad’s regime has been accused of major human rights violations, including crimes against humanity, in clamping down on a violent insurgency targeting his rule.

Mass demonstrations were held in recent weeks in Syrian insurgent strongholds calling for the international NATO coalition in Libya to deploy in Syria.

Just yesterday, 50 foreign ministers from Western and Arab nations got together in Tunis to demand that Syria allow aid to be delivered to civilians in the absence of any international force to resolve the conflict.

Damascus officials claimed to WND that NATO troops are currently training in Turkey for a Turkish-led NATO invasion of Syria.

Any deployment would most likely come under the banner of the same “Responsibility to Protect” global doctrine used to justify the U.S.-NATO airstrikes in Libya.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by President Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

George Soros-funded doctrine

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited Responsibility to Protect doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

The Global Center for Responsibility to Protect is the world’s leading champion of the military doctrine.

As WND reported, billionaire activist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Center for Responsibility to Protect. Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros.

WND reported the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term Responsibility to Protect while defining its guidelines.

The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.

Two of the global group’s advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the doctrine, with the duo even coining the term.

As WND reported, Soros’ Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Center for Responsibility to Protect. Also, Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.

Soros’ Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are … instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa.”

Soros: Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”

In the article Soros said, “True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

“In particular,” he continued, “the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”

More Soros ties

“Responsibility” founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairmen with Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corp. Charitable Foundation, on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term Responsibility to Protect.

In his capacity as co-chairman, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to “sovereignty as responsibility.”

Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Thakur is a fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a “crisis management organization” for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei and other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease “excessive” military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros’ own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

‘One World Order’

WND reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote: “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”

He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote.

“A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train,” he added.

Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”

Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ Western power.”


From Prophecy News

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’





Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life.

The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one.

They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption?

Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

From Prophecy News

The World Against Israel - Biggest Anti-Israel Conference Ever?




An “International Conference on Jerusalem” is being held 26-27 February in Doha, Qatar. The conference was scheduled by the Arab League during its meeting in Sirte, Libya in 2010. Its purpose is to combat the “Judaization of Jerusalem.”

In the words of the Global Muslim Brotherhood Report, which tracks Muslim Brotherhood activities, this month’s conference “represents an unprecedented coalition arrayed against Israel.”

This isn’t hyperbole. The conference is unusually well advertised in English, being referred to in the media regularly as a “conference on Jerusalem,” rather than sparsely as a “conference on al-Quds,” the Arabic (and larger Islamic) term for Jerusalem. Yousef al-Qaradawi, “spiritual leader” of the Muslim Brotherhood, has held a number of conferences on Jerusalem in the last decade, hosting them around the Arab world and flying largely under the radar in terms of his media posture with the West.

Researchers on the earlier Qaradawi conferences were more likely to find them under “al-Quds” than under “Jerusalem.” But the February 2012 conference is simply billed – even in a number of Arab-world English-language media – as the “conference on Jerusalem.”

Yet that doesn’t fully convey the conference’s confident tone. The conference is being given a higher profile than usual in English-language outlets, but the English transcriptions (such as the ones at the official conference website) don’t all provide the event’s full name: “International Conference for the Defense of Occupied Jerusalem.” Implied in this posture is a sense of momentum behind, and mainstreaming of, anti-Zionist themes.
US participation

This unabashed posture is certainly bolstered by the attendance of representatives from around the globe. Thirteen of them are from the United States. One, Kenneth R. Insley, Jr., bills himself as a consultant to the US State Department. Mr. Insley’s Zoom Info profile describes him as the Director of Public Diplomacy for the Capital Communications Group, and a board member of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation, Inc.

The Foundation’s Links page includes a number of virulently anti-Israel groups such as the Holy Land Trust and the Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem/Society. (Note: the Foundation’s website does not show Insley as a board member, but the last update is marked with a date of March 2008.)
CIF Watch was able to obtain Insley’s prepared remarks for the Jerusalem conference (which was originally scheduled for 2011 but was postponed by the Arab Spring). Among other things, Insley warned (emphasis at CIF Watch):
It is now well understood by almost everyone that either Israel will cease to be a democratic state, or a Jewish one, because it can’t have both without the creation of a Palestinian state…or it will lead to Armageddon.

Another associate of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation is attending the conference: Albert Mokhiber. Mr. Mokhiber is listed only as an “attorney” on the conference roster, but he’s being modest: he is a former president and vice-chairman of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or ADC. (His daughter Leila currently serves as the ADC’s Outreach and Communications Coordinator.) Mr. Mokhiber is also listed as a member of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation’s advisory board, at least as recently as 2008.

A notable recent victory of the ADC was, of course, partnering with the FBI to eliminate “discriminatory” and “inflammatory” items about Arabs and Muslims from the Bureau’s training material, a project that trashed 1,000 documents and presentations.

Among the other groups involved in the effort is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which, like ADC, has close links to anti-Israel organizations, including the terror group Hamas. And sure enough, CAIR is represented at the anti-Israel Jerusalem conference this month by Mr. Nehad Awwad Hammad, CAIR’s national executive director.

The other Americans include many “usual suspects,” such as Alison Weir of the Council for the National Interest (please note: not Alison Weir the biographer and novelist) and Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now.

Sadly, one of the Americans is Bishop Georgi Panossian, Primate of the Armenian Orthodox Church. At the conference from the various nations are four Catholic bishops, two patriarchs, an Anglican minister from the UK, and a representative of the Roman Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem, as well as attendees from Religions for Peace (including the American William F. Vendley).

The holocaust-denying, anti-Zionist rabbinical group Neturei Karta has six persons attending. (*UPDATE*: Challah Hu Akbar has remarkable conference video of Mahmoud Abbas and the emir of Qatar shaking hands with Rabbi Meir Hirsch of Neturei Karta.) Of course, there is representation from Islam as well.

Eight attendees are listed as representing the United Nations:
Amb. Mutlaq Majid Alqahtani, Chairman, UN General Assembly
Ms. Elpida Rouka, Chief, Regional Affairs Unit, UNESCO
Dr. Raymond Dolphin, UN Officer for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Mr. Robert Serry, UN Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process
Mrs. Shifa Awni al Jayousi Abdeen, Program Officer, Office of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process
Mr. Filippo Grandi, Commissioner General, UNRWA
Mrs. Maria Mohammedi, External Relations and Projects Officer, UNRWA
Mr. Peter Ford, Representative of the Commissioner General, UNRWA

European and other participants: Government officials

European nations are being represented by their officials as well as academics, activists, and media professionals. Mr. Ranier Fsadni’s roster entry describes him as representing the European Commission, for which he served in the past as the operations director for the Euro-Arab Liaison Office. Fsadni, a Maltese professor, is also advisor to the prime minister of Malta on Mediterranean and Maritime Affairs.

Finland has a member of parliament and an advisor to the Ministry of Education and Culture at the conference; France has her ambassador to the Holy See, Stanislas de Laboulaye there; Spain has a Mr. Jose Antonio Martin Pallin representing the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court); and Sweden has a member of parliament and two officials of the Center Party at the conference.

Turkey is also represented by a member of parliament, as well as a deputy prime minister (see below). Former Australian prime minister Robert “Bob” Hawke, a Labor politician long described as an “emotional” friend of Israel, is at the conference. The roster reflects one anti-Zionist Arab member of the Knesset in attendance, purportedly representing Israel; other reporting indicates there are at least four.

The largest delegations are, of course, from the Arab Muslim nations. But the US, UK, Netherlands, and Sweden are heavily represented. Other participants come from Canada, South Africa, Denmark, China, Russia, Australia, India, Germany, Iran, Pakistan, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy.

Oh, and Yousef al-Qaradawi is attending too.

Conference topics

The conferees have so far enjoyed a series of anti-Israel perorations, such as the one delivered by the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, in his conference-opener. According to the website OnIslam, the emir asserted the following:

There is no Palestinian State without Al-Quds and there is no Al-Quds without Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay, in Doha for the conference (but not on the roster), had this to say:

“Without the liberation of Jerusalem, no real peace and stability can be achieved in the Middle East or farther afield…”

Atalay described Jerusalem as “a captive city in the hands of Israel,” saying that Israel’s policy is aimed at denying Jerusalem’s thousands-year-old history with Muslims, Christians and Palestinians. …

“Israel’s oppressive attempt is aimed at changing Jerusalem’s historic fabric by intimidating Palestinians. Turkey will not allow that.”

Mahmoud Abbas, long-superannuated head of the Palestinian Authority, delivered a speech Sunday morning in which he simply ignored facts and made up “history” to justify calling on Arabs to “fight the Judaization of Jerusalem.” Abbas called Jerusalem “the cause of every Arab, Muslim, and Christian,” a grotesque but far from unusual attempt to establish a common interest between Muslims and Christians in seizing Jerusalem from the control of Israel.

Abbas’s themes have become well-worn in the campaign to erase the Jewish heritage of Israel and delegitimize the modern state. Elder of Ziyon has a worthwhile takedown of Abbas’s conference remarks. Challah Hu Akbar also calls out the theme of “Temple denial” in Abbas’s speech; that is, the denial that a Jewish temple has ever actually existed in Jerusalem. (For numerous articles on the documentation of Jewish history in Israel, see Emet m’Tsiyon. The Jewish Virtual Library’s Israel portal has comprehensive links.)
Sudden al-Aqsa Syndrome

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Report points out that this conference takes place in the wake of inflammatory statements made less than a week ago about the al-Aqsa mosque, by Hamas and al-Qaradawi. Hamas accused Israel of seeking to “storm” the al-Aqsa mosque, and asserted the mosque’s need for “rescue” from the “occupation.” Qaradawi followed up the Hamas statement with the announcement that al-Aqsa is a “red line” for Muslims, and urged Palestinians and other Arabs to rise up and liberate the mosque from the “Jewish occupation.”

The trend of sudden claims about peril to the mosque has been gathering steam for about two weeks. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, who is not to be outdone in Temple denial, reportedly proclaimed earlier in February:

Arabs and Muslims must protect Al-Aqsa before it is ruined by the Jews. According to Hussein, Israel is trying to destroy Al-Aqsa in a variety of ways and that all the violations “cannot be summed up in words.”

And on 12 February, Xinhua relayed a Syrian news report that Israel’s Likud Party had called for Jews to storm the al-Aqsa mosque, citing what turned out to be false reports that Israeli right-wing websites were circulating posters inciting the attack. The poster presented as evidence of the incitement campaign was an obvious fraud – and hilariously inaccurate, rendering “Manhigut Yehudit,” or the “Jewish Leadership” movement, incorrectly as “Manhigut HaLikud” – meaning “Likud Leadership,” which is not the movement’s name. A number of websites are referring to this incident as a “prank” against Likud and Manhigut Yehudit leader Moshe Feiglin.

More on Sudden al-Aqsa Syndrome is here and here (Elder of Ziyon and Challah Hu Akbar are doing a superb job following this). Meanwhile, two US congressmen were caught in a rock-throwing attack by Palestinian Arabs at the Temple Mount on the 24th – a repeat of an earlier attack on tourists on 19 February. In each case, Arab anger at the “Jewish” threat to al-Aqsa is invoked.

Global March to Jerusalem

If you thought the only thing lacking was an activist plan to complicate the security situation, you were wrong. A “Global March to Jerusalem” is being planned for 30 March, and is to involve foot marches (being organized by Hamas), a fly-in to Ben Gurion Airport, and – of course – a flotilla. CIF Watch has this one cold; start here and work backward through comprehensive summaries of the usual-suspect activists behind the “march.”

Conclusion

We can hope the following: that the US State department will publicly repudiate the conference in Doha, as it has previously repudiated the anti-Semitic “Durban” conference series; that Ban Ki-Moon will rebuke the UN officials who claim to represent his organization at the conference, and state the UN’s fundamental interest in impartiality and the rule of law; that Christians around the world will make a point of rejecting the participation of Christian leaders in the Doha conference; and that Western governments will discipline their officials who are in attendance this week, and discourage their citizens from challenging Israel’s authority to secure her territory and enforce law and order on it.

I am hopeful that the State Department may at least distance itself from the conference, and that Christian leaders in many countries will reject the conference’s premise and the idea of Christian participation. Perhaps the rest is not as unlikely as – regrettably – it seems to be.

From Prophecy News

How Close Is Israel To Attacking Iran?




Ramat David Air Force Base is located in the picturesque Jezreel Valley in northern Israel. If it were not for the occasional F-16 fighter jet that takes off there every few hours, a visitor would be forgiven for mistaking its rolling green pastures for those in Tuscany.

Due to its proximity to the northern border, Ramat David will be a prime target for Hezbollah and Syria in a future war. For that reason the base has put a strong emphasis over the past year on “operational continuity,” a new IDF concept aimed at ensuring that during a future war, planes will be able to take-off, land to refuel and rearm, and take-off again.

The base’s trademark, however, is the F-16 fighter jets that are parked in its hangers and whose job it is to protect Israel from threats originating in the North. Every day or so, the jets are scrambled to intercept incoming civilian aircraft that fail to respond to Israel’s air traffic control and raise concern of a potential 9/11-like attack.

In July 1980, Israel received its first batch of four F-16s, which were flown to Ramat David by American pilots.

The delivery of the planes was somewhat of a fluke since they had originally been intended for delivery to Iran.

But in late 1979, then-US secretary of defense Harold Brown came to Israel and offered his counterpart Ezer Weizman the opportunity to purchase the jets, since they could not longer be supplied to Iran following the Islamic revolution. Israel immediately agreed and later used the planes in Operation Opera, the bombing in 1981 of the Osirak reactor in Iraq.

“At least we gained something from the Islamic revolution in Iran,” a senior IAF officer recently said in jest.

In 2007, Ramat David again played a key role in the bombing of the second nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel.

According to a report in Der Spiegel, the planes which bombed the al-Kibar nuclear facility in northwest Syria also took off from there.

While the IAF still has some of the old-model F-16s it received from the US in the early 1980s, it has spent the past 15 years upgrading its fleet, the backbone of which consists today of the F-16I known as the “Sufa” (Storm) and the F-15I known as the “Ra’am” (Thunder). Israel has a total of 101 F16Is and 25 F15Is.

If and when Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities it will be looking to cause a storm with a lot of thunder.

Ramat David’s location in the North could make it the base the IAF would choose to use in the event that Israel attacks Iran, enabling it to conserve fuel for a mission during which every drop will count.

ULTIMATELY, THERE are three major questions Israeli military planners need to ask themselves before embarking on such an operation.

Firstly, can IAF F-15s and F-16s fly to where they need to go with the appropriate munitions? Secondly, will they be able to overcome Iran’s air force and air defense systems? And thirdly, will they be able to penetrate the facilities, some of which – like Fordow and Natanz – have been built deep underground? This is why, when it comes to the viability of Israel’s military option, the answer depends on who you ask.

Either way, the general assessment within the IDF and shared by the three recent chiefs of staff – Dan Halutz, Gabi Ashkenazi and Benny Gantz – is that Israel has the ability to knock out some of Iran’s key facilities. However, they agree that the extent of the damage would set the Iranian nuclear program back by only a few years, rather than completely destroying it. For this reason, one IDF general has termed such an attack a “bridge loan,” in reference to the short-term bank loan homebuyers use to tide them over until they can secure permanent financing.

This is primarily because Iran has already mastered the technology. Even if Israel causes significant damage to a number of key facilities in the nuclear production line, it is just a matter of time before Iran makes the necessary repairs and has the facilities up and running again.

In 2006, Moshe Ya’alon, who had just stepped down as IDF chief of staff and was mulling an entry into politics, gave a lecture at the Hudson Institute in Washington, and provided crucial insight into how the IDF viewed such an operation.

Firstly, Ya’alon said, Israel would need to attack a few dozen sites.

Secondly, the strikes would need to be “precise, like a targeted killing” – in reference to the IAF’s expertise in striking terrorists with precise munitions in the crowded streets of the Gaza Strip.

Thirdly, Israel would have to “disrupt” Iran’s air-defense systems and could use other capabilities to do so, not just aircraft, Ya’alon said without elaborating. The assumption was that he was referring to Israel’s electronic warfare capabilities, rumored to have been used successfully when IAF jets infiltrated Syria in 2007 to bomb the country’s nuclear reactor.

Ultimately, Ya’alon concluded, such a strike would be difficult but feasible.

Ya’alon holds by this assessment today even though some six years have passed since the Hudson lecture.

While Defense Minister Ehud Barak has argued that just nine months or so are left for Israel to stop Iran – before it moves into the so-called “immunity zone,” following which a strike would no longer be effective – Ya’alon has argued that this is not the case.

“Anything built by man can be destroyed by man,” he said earlier this month, stressing that as a former chief of staff he knew what he was talking about.

What is certain is that Iran has learned the lessons from Iraq and Syria.

Instead of keeping all of its eggs in one basket, it has scattered its nuclear facilities throughout the country, some of them in eastern Iran, making the attack mission even more difficult for Israeli aircraft.

Military planners would also likely feel compelled to attack Iran’s centrifuge fabrication sites, since their destruction would make it extremely difficult for Iran to reestablish its program – although the destruction of Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and Fordow on their own would be enough to set back the Ayatollah’s dream of obtaining the bomb. Other targets would likely include Iran’s ballistic missiles and launchers.

While the operation would be done mostly by air, Israel could, according to foreign reports, also potentially utilize its Jericho roadmobile, two-stage solid-propellant missile, which has ranges varying from around 1,900 to over 4,800 kilometers and is capable of carrying a one-ton conventional or non-conventional warhead. The latest version of the missile – called Jericho III and tested in early 2008 – has enhanced accuracy and puts every Arab capital, including Tehran, within striking distance of Israel.

Israel also has three Dolphin-class German-made submarines, which according to foreign news reports, can carry cruise missiles capable of delivering a large warhead to ranges of over 100 km. Some reports suggest that the subs might be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, granting Israel second-strike capabilities.

But the question ultimately comes down to how close Israel really is to attacking Iran. Judging by the events that preceded the strike against the Syrian reactor in 2007, it is highly likely that the meeting on March 5 between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama will be critical for Israel as it nears a final decision.

What the two leaders say to one another in the Oval Office will have an impact not only on what decision Netanyahu makes but also what happens the day after he makes that decision.

If, for example, Israel decides to attack, Netanyahu will need to ensure that he can depend on US support – diplomatic and military – in the aftermath. If Israel decides not to attack, Netanyahu will need to walk away from the meeting with a commitment that Obama will stop Iran at all costs, even with military force.

From Prophecy News

3 Doomsaying Experts Who Foresee Economic Devastation Ahead




Behind the mainstream Wall Street happy talk about more stable financial markets and an improving economy are grim warnings of tough times ahead from a small cadre of doomsayers who warn that the worst of the financial crisis is still to come.

Harry Dent, author of the new book The Great Crash Ahead, says another stock market crash is coming due to a bad ending to the global debt bubble. He has pulled back on his earlier prediction of a crash in 2012, as central banks around the world have been flooding markets with money, giving stocks an artificial short-term boost. But a crash is coming in 2013 or 2014, he warns. "This will be a repeat of 2008-09, only bigger, when it finally hits," Dent told USA TODAY.

Gerald Celente, a trend forecaster at the Trends Research Institute, says Americans should brace themselves for an "economic 9/11" due to policymakers' inability to solve the world's financial and economic woes. The coming meltdown, he predicts, will lead to growing social unrest and anti-government sentiment, a U.S. dollar with far less purchasing power and more people out of work.

Celente won't rule out another financial panic that could spark enough fear to cause a run on the nation's banks by depositors. That risk could cause the government to invoke "economic martial law" and call a "bank holiday" and close banks as it did during the Great Depression.

"We see some kind of threat of that magnitude," Celente, publisher of The Trends Journal newsletter, warned in an interview.

Robert Prechter, author of Conquer the Crash, first published in 2002 and updated in 2009, is still bearish. He says today's economy has similarities to the Great Depression and warns that 1930s-style deflation is still poised to cause financial havoc. Prechter predicts that the major U.S. stock indexes, such as the Dow Jones industrials and Standard & Poor's 500, will plunge below their bear market lows hit in March 2009 during the last financial crisis. The brief recovery will fail as it did in the 1930s, he says.

If he's right, stocks would lose more than half of their value. "The economic recovery has been weak, so the next downturn should generate bad news in a big way," Prechter said in an e-mail interview. "For the third time in a dozen years, the stock market is in a very bearish position."

These dire forecasts differ sharply with the brighter outlooks being espoused by the bulls, or optimists, on Wall Street. Recent stock performance and fresh readings on the economy also suggest a future that is less gloomy than the doomsayers predict.

The Dow, for instance, is in rebound mode and has climbed back to levels not seen since the early days of the financial crisis in May 2008. Tech stocks in the Nasdaq composite are trading at levels last seen in 2000. Data on auto sales, manufacturing and consumer confidence have been firming. Job creation is also on the rise. The unemployment rate dipped to 8.3% in January, its lowest level in three years.

As a result, stock market strategists such as Rod Smyth of RiverFront Investment have been raising their outlooks for 2012. Smyth raised his target range for the S&P 500 to 1250-1500. If the market hits the top of the range, stocks would have risen 10%. Similarly, Brian Belski, strategist at Oppenheimer, recently said he remains comfortable with his year-end 2012 target of 1400. That's up 2.5% from here. Bespoke Investment Group published research that shows the market, which is closing in on a new bull market high, has done well in the past once it breaks through old highs.

Bulls are betting that Europe's banking system will be stabilized, minimizing the risk of a severe credit crisis. Bulls are also encouraged by recent data from around the world that show modest growth and a pickup in economic momentum.

So what has the super-bears so worried?

Dent says the combination of aging Baby Boomers exiting their big spending years and a shift toward debt reduction and austerity around the world will cause the economy to suffer another severe leg down, making it more difficult for the government and Federal Reserve to avert a new meltdown. He has not always been bearish. In 1993 he wrote The Great Boom Ahead.

Celente, who as far back as 2008 has been warning of economic calamity, argues that the ballooning debt and the growing divide between the haves and have-nots has put the U.S. in a weakened state.

As a result, he says, the nation is more vulnerable to potential shocks. He worries about potential chaos caused by people all trying to yank their money out of financial markets at the same time. He also sees risk in the event there is a loss of confidence in elected leaders.

Societal unrest in the form of street protests and increased crime are possible, too, he adds. Markets could also be spooked by an oil price shock due to a military conflict between Israel and Iran, or a bad outcome to Europe's debt crisis.

"2012 is when many of the long-simmering socioeconomic and political trends that we have been forecasting and tracking will climax," Celente noted in his Top 12 Trends 2012 newsletter. In an interview he added: "When money stops flowing to the man on the street, blood starts flowing in the street."

While bulls are urging investors to get back into stocks, the doomsayers are advising a far different strategy. Dent's investment advice is simple: "Get out of the way." He recommends buying short-term U.S. Treasury bills and the U.S. dollar, which will benefit from safe-haven cash flows. He says stocks will fall sharply in value.

Celente's advice centers on survival. He says buy gold so you don't lose purchasing power when the value of the dollar plummets. He says buy a gun to protect your family against desperate people in search of food and money. He says plan a getaway to places with more stable finances and governments.

From Prophecy News

55 Interesting Facts About The U.S. Economy In 2012




How is the U.S. economy doing in 2012? Unfortunately, it is not doing nearly as well as the mainstream media would have you believe. Yes, things have stabilized for the moment but this bubble of false hope will not last for long. The long-term trends that are ripping our economy and our financial system to shreds continue unabated. When you step back and look at the broader picture, it is hard to deny that we are in really bad shape and that things are rapidly getting worse.

Later on in this article you will find a list of interesting facts that show the true state of the U.S. economy. Hopefully many of you will find this list to be a useful tool that you can share with your family and friends. Each day the foundations of our economy crumble a little bit more, and we need to wake up as many Americans as we can to what is really going on while there is still time.

We have accumulated way too much debt, we consume far more wealth than we produce, millions of our jobs are being shipped overseas, our big cities are decaying, family budgets are being squeezed more than ever, poverty is rampant and we have raised several generations of Americans that expect the government to fix all of their problems.

The U.S. economy is at a crossroads, and the decisions that the American people make in 2012 are going to be incredibly important.

The statistics listed below are presented without much commentary. They pretty much speak for themselves.

After reading this list, it will be hard for anyone to argue that we are on the right track.

The following are 55 interesting facts about the U.S. economy in 2012....

#1 As you read this, there are more than 6 million mortgages in the United States that are overdue.

#2 In January, U.S. home prices were the lowest that they have been in more than a decade.

#3 In Florida right now, some drivers are paying nearly 6 dollars for a gallon of gas.

#4 On average, you could buy about 10 gallons of gas for an hour of work back in the mid-90s. Today, the average hour of work will get you less than 6 gallons of gas.

#5 Sadly, 43 percent of all American families spend more than they earn each year.

#6 According to Gallup, the unemployment rate was at 8.3% in mid-January but rose to 9.0% in mid-February.

#7 The percentage of working age Americans that have jobs is not increasing. The employment to population ratio has stayed very steady (hovering between 58% and 59%) since the beginning of 2010.

#8 If you gathered together all of the workers that are "officially" unemployed in the United States into one nation, they would constitute the 68th largest country in the entire world.

#9 When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

#10 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is hovering close to an all-time record high.

#11 According to Reuters, approximately 23.7 million American workers are either unemployed or underemployed right now.

#12 There are about 88 million working age Americans that are not employed and that are not looking for employment. That is an all-time record high.

#13 According to CareerBuilder, only 23 percent of American companies plan to hire more employees in 2012.

#14 Back in the year 2000, about 20 percent of all jobs in America were manufacturing jobs. Today, about 5 percent of all jobs in America are manufacturing jobs.

#15 The United States has lost an average of approximately 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

#16 Amazingly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001.

#17 According to author Paul Osterman, about 20 percent of all U.S. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty-level wages.

#18 During the Obama administration, worker health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent.

#19 An all-time record 49.9 million Americans do not have any health insurance at all at this point, and the percentage of Americans covered by employer-based health plans has fallen for 11 years in a row.

#20 According to the New York Times, approximately 100 million Americans are either living in poverty or in "the fretful zone just above it".

#21 In the United States today, corporate profits are at an all-time high. The percentage of Americans that are living in "extreme poverty" is also at an all-time high according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

#22 In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

#23 The poorest 50 percent of all Americans now collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

#24 The number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent since 2007.

#25 According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4% of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1% of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6% of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6% of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.

#26 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million.

#27 As the economy has slowed down, so has the number of marriages. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, only 51 percent of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married. Back in 1960, 72 percent of all U.S. adults were married.

#28 In 1984, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or older was 10 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35 or younger. Today, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or older is 47 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35 or younger.

#29 If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.

#30 After adjusting for inflation, U.S. college students are borrowing about twice as much money as they did a decade ago.

#31 According to the Student Loan Debt Clock, total student loan debt in the United States will surpass the 1 trillion dollar mark at some point in 2012. If you went out right now and starting spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars.

#32 Today, 46% of all Americans carry a credit card balance from month to month.

#33 Incredibly, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.

#34 The average interest rate on a credit card that is carrying a balance is now up to 13.10 percent.

#35 Of the U.S. households that do have credit card debt, the average amount of credit card debt is an astounding $15,799.

#36 Overall, Americans are carrying a grand total of $798 billion in credit card debt. If you were alive when Jesus was born and you spent a million dollars every single day since then, you still would not have spent $798 billion by now.

#37 It may be hard to believe, but the truth is that consumer debt in America has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971.

#38 At this point, about 70 percent of all auto purchases in the United States involve an auto loan.

#39 In the United States today, 45 percent of all auto loans are made to subprime borrowers.

#40 Mortgage debt as a percentage of GDP has more than tripled since 1955.

#41 According to a recent study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.

#42 To get the same purchasing power that you got out of $20.00 back in 1970 you would have to have more than $116 today.

#43 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1700 an ounce.

#44 The number of Americans that are not paying federal incomes taxes is at an all-time high.

#45 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

#46 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#47 During 2012, the U.S. government must roll over nearly 3 trillion dollars of old debt.

#48 The U.S. debt to GDP ratio has now reached 101 percent.

#49 At the moment, the U.S. national debt is sitting at a grand total of $15,419,800,222,325.15.

#50 The U.S. national debt is now more than 22 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president.

#51 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#52 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.

#53 If Bill Gates gave every single penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for about 15 days.

#54 Right now, the U.S. national debt is increasing by about 150 million dollars every single hour.

#55 Spending by the federal government accounted for about 2 percent of GDP back in 1800. It accounted for 23.8 percent in 2011, and according to former U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker, it will account for 36.8 percent of GDP by 2040.

Bad news, eh?

But it isn't just our economy that is decaying.

We are witnessing a tremendous amount of social decay as well. As I wrote about the other day, America is rapidly decomposing right in front of our eyes.

When the water level of a river drops far enough, it will reveal rocks that have been hidden from view for a very long time. Well, a similar thing is happening in America right now. For decades, our debt-fueled prosperity has masked a lot of the social decay that has been going on.

But now that our prosperity is evaporating, a lot of frightening stuff is being revealed.

Unfortunately, another major financial crisis is rapidly approaching and economic conditions in the United States are going to get a lot worse.

So what is our country going to look like when that happens?

That is a very good question.