Jesus Christ: The Prince Of Peace Will Make War With Mankind!

"Big Ivan"- the world's largest nuclear bomb - http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba1Big.jpg

Someday soon, war will be history. Your Bible makes that promise. Swords will be beaten into plowshares; nuclear bombs will be melted into playground equipment.

But guess what. That time of peace won’t be brought about through negotiations and treaties. It will come only after the King of kings returns and forces peace on mankind.

At this point in man’s history, there is no hope of peace. The nuclear club currently has nine states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be “nuclear weapons states” (NWS), an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China.

Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this. [Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe Israel and the Middle East | Guardian Unlimited“. Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1970616,00.html]

Now, according to Bloomberg, “Venezuela[n] President Hugo Chávez said the South American country plans to develop a nuclear energy program with Russia ….” Chávez discussed his nuclear ambitions with Vladimir Putin
during his visit to Russia last week.

But apparently there’s no reason to be worried about South America’s preeminent anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring nation acquiring nuclear technology: “We’re not going to make an atomic bomb,” Chávez said on state television last week. “We’re going to develop nuclear energy with peaceful purposes.” Well that’s a relief!

Then there are states alleged to have nuclear weapons programs or have been been accused by Israel or the United States of currently attempting to develop nuclear weapons technology.

• Iran – A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate of December 3, 2007 judged with “high confidence” that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. And the Associated Press from September 17, 2009 year says: Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report.

Iran makes no secret of the fact that it wants to be the preeminent power in the Middle East. Domestically, both conservatives and reformers support their country’s right to develop nuclear technology, and many Iranian military leaders see nukes as a necessary supplement to Iran’s less-advanced conventional forces, which have been hampered by U.S. sanctions.

Is Iran a warmongering nation? Listen to their rhetoric. Observe their actions, not just in terrorism and spreading fear and hatred the world over, but even within their own nation, in crushing dissent and trumping the rights of the populace. Of course they are a serious threat to world peace with such a devastatingly dangerous weapon.

Other Threats To World Peace

• Syria – on September 6, 2007, Israel bombed an officially unidentified site in Syria which it later asserted was a nuclear reactor under construction (see Operation Orchard) [6 September 2007 Air strike at globalsecurity.org.] The alleged nuclear reactor was not yet operational and no nuclear material had been introduced into it. Press reports indicated the air strike followed a shipment delivery to Syria by a North Korean freighter, and that North Korea was suspected to be supplying a reactor to Syria for an alleged nuclear weapons program. The White House briefed Congress and the IAEA on April 24, 2008, saying that the U.S. Government was “convinced” that Syria had been building a “covert nuclear reactor” that was “not intended for peaceful purposes.”[Statement by the Press Secretary]. Syria is closely watching developments in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. If Iran and North Korea use the threat of nukes to deter the United States, Syria (which suspects it’s in the superpower’s cross hairs) may decide that it has little choice but to follow suit. Syrian leaders are also keeping a close eye on nuclear developments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If one or both nations go nuclear, Syria may decide to keep pace.

• Myanmar – a report in the `Sydney Morning Herald‘ and Searchina, a Japanese newspaper, reported two Myanmarese defectors saying that the Myanmar junta was secretly building a nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facility with North Korea’s help, with the aim of acquiring its first nuclear bomb in five years. According to the report, “The secret complex, much of it in caves tunnelled into a mountain at Naung Laing in northern Burma, runs parallel to a civilian reactor being built at another site by Russia that both the Russians and Burmese say will be put under international safeguards.”[Searchina, “Reasons for digging tunnels in Burma”, August 11, 2009]

In 2002, Myanmar had notified IAEA of its intention to pursue a civilian nuclear programme. Later, Russia announced that it would build a nuclear reactor in Myanmar. There have also been reports that two Pakistani scientists, from the AQ Khan stable, had been dispatched to Myanmar where they had settled down, to help Myanmar’s project. During an ASEAN meeting in Thailand last week, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton highlighted concerns of the North Korean link. “We know there are also growing concerns about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma which we take very seriously,” Clinton said.[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest-of-World/Myanmar-building-nuke-reactor-says-media-report/articleshow/4846971.cms]

The Next Nuclear States

Japan – it has twenty-three tons of weapons-usable plutonium and the ability to produce weapons-grade uranium without much trouble. Sometimes described as a “virtual” nuclear weapons state, Japan has one of the world’s largest and most advanced civilian nuclear programs. It could likely have nuclear weapons within a few months of deciding it wanted them. It is the only nation ever to have nuclear weapons used against it, Japan has long been staunchly anti-nuclear. But the country has also grown increasingly nervous about what it sees as deteriorating regional security. North Korea’s great leap may tip Japanese public opinion, and some politicians are calling for the country to debate openly whether it should have nukes. The country could withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty with three months’ notice by claiming its “supreme interests” are at risk.

Taiwan – as recently as the late 1980s, Taiwan was within a few years of becoming a nuclear-armed state. But the United States and others insisted it back down. Taiwan now has no uranium enrichment capability, and its sole facility for handling plutonium was torn apart. Its weapons-grade remnants likely include fewer than five pounds of plutonium and two tons of uranium. But its scientific know-how has probably survived. As the military balance between China and Taiwan tilts increasingly in the mainland’s favor, Taiwan could decide that it needs nukes to restore equilibrium fast. Like North Korea, Taiwan can argue that it faces an existential threat from a superpower.

Saudi Arabia -in 2003, members of the government stated that due to the worsening relations with the USA, Saudi Arabia was being forced to consider the development of nuclear weapons; however, so far they have denied that they are making any attempt to produce them.[Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen. “Chinese nuclear forces, 2006,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62:3 (May/June 2006): 60-63.]

In March 2006, the German magazine Cicero reported that Saudi Arabia had since 2003 received assistance from Pakistan to acquire nuclear missiles and warheads. Satellite photos allegedly reveal an underground city and nuclear silos with Ghauri rockets south of the capital Riyadh.[http://nuclearthreatinitiative.org/db/china/nfuorg.htm] Pakistan has denied aiding Saudi Arabia in any nuclear ambitions.[25]

Source: ForeignPolicy.com

Table of Global Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles, 1945-2002

End Year	US	SU	UK	FR	CH	Total
1945	6	—	—	—	—	6
1946	11	—	—	—	—	11
1947	32	—	—	—	—	32
1948	110	—	—	—	—	110
1949	235	1	—	—	—	236
1950	369	5	—	—	—	374
1951	640	25	—	—	—	665
1952	1,005	50	—	—	—	1,055
1953	1,436	120	1	—	—	1,557
1954	2,063	150	5	—	—	2,218
1955	3,057	200	10	—	—	3,267
1956	4,618	426	15	—	—	5,059
1957	6,444	660	20	—	—	7,124
1958	9,822	869	22	—	—	10,713
1959	15,468	1,060	25	—	—	16,553
1960	20,434	1,605	30	—	—	22,069
1961	24,111	2,471	50	—	—	26,632
1962	27,297	3,322	205	—	—	30,823
1963	29,249	4,238	280	—	—	33,767
1964	30,751	5,221	310	4	1	36,287
1965	31,642	6,129	310	32	5	38,118
1966	31,700	7,089	270	36	20	39,105
1967	30,893	8,339	270	36	25	39,563
1968	28,884	9,399	280	36	35	38,633
1969	26,910	10,538	308	36	50	37,841
1970	26,119	11,643	280	36	75	38,153
1971	26,365	13,092	220	45	100	39,822
1972	27,296	14,478	220	70	130	42,193
1973	28,335	15,915	275	116	150	44,791
1974	28,170	17,385	325	145	170	46,195
1975	27,052	19,055	350	188	185	46,830
1976	25,956	21,205	350	212	190	47,913
1977	25,099	23,044	350	228	200	48,920
1978	24,243	25,393	350	235	220	50,441
1979	24,107	27,935	350	235	235	52,862
1980	23,764	30,062	350	250	280	54,706
1981	23,031	32,049	350	275	330	56,035
1982	22,937	33,952	335	275	360	57,859
1983	23,154	35,804	320	280	380	59,938
1984	23,228	37,431	270	280	415	61,623
1985	23,135	39,197	300	360	425	63,416
1986	23,254	40,723	300	355	425	65,056
1987	23,490	38,859	300	420	415	63,484
1988	23,077	37,333	300	410	430	61,549
1989	22,174	35,805	300	410	435	59,124
1990	21,211	33,417	300	505	430	55,863
1991	18,306	28,595	300	540	435	48,176
1992	13,731	25,155	300	540	435	40,161
1993	11,536	21,101	300	525	435	33,897
1994	11,012	18,399	250	510	450	30,621
1995	10,953	14,978	300	500	400	27,131
1996	10,886	12,085	300	450	400	24,121
1997	10,829	11,264	260	450	400	23,203
1998	10,763	10,764	260	450	400	22,637
1999	10,698	10,451	185	450	400	22,184
2000	10,615	10,201	185	450	400	21,851
2001	10,491	9,126	200	350	400	20,567
2002	10,640	8,600	200	350	400	20,190
US = United States, SU = Soviet Union/Russia, UK = United Kingdom, FR = France and CH = China

Notes:

• US warhead estimates exclude a small number of warheads awaiting dismantlement and are accurate to within a few hundred warheads.
• SU/Russian warhead estimates exclude warheads awaiting dismantlement or in reserve status. The total number of intact warheads is estimated to be 18,000.
• UK and French stockpile estimates are believed to be accurate to within a few tens of warheads.
• Chinese warhead estimates are probably not accurate to better than 50 percent, due to the uncertainty in the number of tactical warheads.
• In addition to the above, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals, and South Africa produced six gun-assembly type weapons in the 1980s, but dismantled them in the early-1990s. Estimates of the composition and evolution of the arsenals of Israel, India and Pakistan are extremely difficult to make. Israel may have a stockpile of some 100-200 nuclear weapons, India 30-35, and Pakistan between 24 and 48 nuclear weapons.

Source: www.nrdc.org

“Not since the early days of the Cold War have proliferation experts and the general public been so attuned to the threat of nuclear weapons–and with good reason. There are more than 28,000 nuclear devices in existence today, more and more countries are acquiring the means to produce them, and there is mounting evidence that al Qaeda has every intention of using a nuclear weapon if only it can get its hands on one.

Once al Qaeda or another group possesses a weapon, deterring or preventing an attack will be all but impossible. Luck, as much as money and hard work, has helped prevent such an attack to date. A second, more complex danger stems from the proliferation of nuclear capabilities to governments. In the long term, the wider state acquisition of nuclear weapons dramatically increases the odds that one might be used, intentionally or not. This concern applies not only to so-called rogue regimes, but to key U.S. allies as well. Given the global insecurity of much weapons material, state proliferation also contributes to the risk of a nightmarish nuclear terrorism scenario.” [ForeighAffairs.com]

It is obvious we have a series of developments which not only show these weapons not going away, there are going to be a lot more of them. The world will  democratize nuclear weapons as too many states go nuclear and all hopes of eliminating them will finish, despite the naive efforts of US President Barack Obama. That is what human nature is all about. The Bible says if Jesus Christ would not return, all life on earth would perish – largely due to nuclear detonation.

Thankfully, once Christ returns, neither America nor Afghanistan nor any other nation will have to wage another war, neither will there be any more threat of war. As the sun begins to set on the Feast of Trumpets this year (September 19, 2009), it is worthwhile to remember that this day commemorates the return of Jesus Christ to prevent man from obliterating all life on earth. God speed that day.

The Obama Bow: Fealty To A Foreign Potentate!

  

sharprightturn.wordpress.com/

President Barack Obama’s bow in front of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz during their recent meeting at the sidelines of the G20 conference in London has astounded many people.  OK, so what you might say, it’s no big deal, right? Well, yes it is!

First of all, media from media networks to newspapers, neither have aired the video of the incident nor reported on it. In fact, so blase are they that Washington Post reporter Michael A. Fletcher’s gave this breezy dismissal of the event: “I’m not sure what the etiquette is for such greetings, but I’m sure the president was only trying to convey respect … Remember some years ago when President Bush touched cheeks with and held the hand of a Saudi monarch during a visit to his Texas ranch? Another sign of respect. I would not make too much of it.”

But there is a difference. Though George W. Bush holding hands with and kissing Abdullah on the cheeks, while begging down the price of oil was over the top, it did not hold the same consequences as President Barack Obama’s obeisance to the Saudi king.

Let’s examine what I mean.

The White House denies that the president bowed. 

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.” 

I don’t know if they were watching a different video clip than the one that shows Obama’s head below the King’s shoulder level, a significant stoop by any measure. Or did they miss one of the President’s hands dangling at the knees?

Michael Goldfarb summed up the problem for Mr. Obama succinctly in the Weekly Standard: “So who you going to believe — Barack Obama or your lying eyes?” The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration.

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

It’s deeper than a matter of etiquette

Is it really a matter of etiquette for an American President to bow to royalty? Was this merely a generic breach of protocol; a rookie mistake for a young President? Protocol experts told FOX News that no rule exists on presidents bowing.

“To my knowledge, there is no rule at all,” said Lloyd Hand who was chief of protocol for President Lyndon Johnson. “Protocol is 95 percent common sense judgment and 5 percent specific rules and that has nothing to do with bowing.”

OK, so it’s not a matter of protocol, but rather of judgment and common sense. In that vein, the US has some of the best intelligence in the world and Mr. Obama should be well vested in whom he is dealing with. King Abdullah is a Sharia dictator who fosters religious repression, de facto slavery, subjugation of women, and, not least, the international export of jihad and Sharia through “charities,” mosques, madrassas, textbooks, university endowments, Sharia finance and, of course, terrorists, some 15 of whom attacked the United States in 2001 (Townhall.com, April 9, 2009).

By showing deference to this person, Mr. Obama besmirches the memories and lives of Americans dead and maimed in action aginst their foes. And as the Washingtom Times said in their editorial, “By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king’s subjects, not his peer.”

It’s certainly more deference than Queen Elizabeth received, who was the recipient of a handshake and an I-Pod equipped with Mr. Obama’s  speeches. Oh, I almost forgot: A sweater-clad first lady did show some (over) familiarity with the queen by putting her arm around the monarch.

This diplomatic disrespect was also evident in buying cheesy DVD box sets and toy Marine 1 helicopters for the British Prime Minister and family. And as for that Churchill bust, we no longer need it because we’re all about change! 

“Now remember that Obama said he was going to improve America’s image throughout the world….and showing respect and adhering to protocol is unarguably the first way to achieve that if you believe that is your purpose…..so then ask yourself:

Why did Michelle Obama not curtsy to the Queen?
Why did Obama know to tip his head to the Queen, but mastered a full waist bow to the Saudi King?
Why did Obama use two hands in his gesture to the Queen when one hand is protocol?
Why did he give the queen a cheap Ipod made in China by cheap labour? 
Why was there no more thought put into PM Brown’s gift?

These gestures may SEEM small, but this lack of respect, uninformed gaffes, or outright purposeful messages being sent by the Obamas are fully in line with their subtle anti-Americanism and disdain for British history and culture.  – (Sharprightturn)

Will past associations show in future actions?

Mr. Obama had a close association with the  “hate America” pastor  Jeremiah Wright who states that the foundation of his beliefs are in systemized black liberation theology. Here is what Glenn Beck said on his CNN broadcast, March 19, 2009:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power which is the power of black people to destroy their opinion pressers here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

This is one of the most anti-God, anti-Bible statements one can utter! Christ died for the sins of all humanity. And all humanity is going to be a part of God’s Family, in God’s time frame.

Rolling Stone featured “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama” in its Feb. 22, 2007, issue stating: “This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from ….” The magazine insisted that Jeremiah Wright was not “an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics.” The article also quoted another pastor, who said, “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from, just look at Jeremiah Wright.” (The Trumpet.com, July 25, 2008).

And much has been made about Barack Obama’s association with William Ayers, a man who hasn’t expressed one ounce of remorse for his terrorist attacks on federal targets during the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, he wishes his organization could have committed more murderous acts of domestic terrorism.

What does all this portend? 

If history is our guide, we know that the success of a nation under crisis is tied to two essential words that Lincoln knit to a new birth of freedom – “under God.”  These were the two most important words in Lincoln’s entire presidency.

“This nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom” — A. Lincoln, Nov. 19, 1863.

When Barack Obama (who ironically strives to mimick Lincoln) took the oath of office as America’s first African-American president, these words were conspicuous for their absence. This is a man who relies on himself, not on God. He sees his enthusiasm for dialogue and negotiation as one of his chief selling points.

“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” his website proudly asserts. In a January interview, he said he wanted to hold a Muslim summit in hopes of bridging the gap between Islam and the West. He told the Daily Telegraph he would “do so with the credibility of someone who has lived in a Muslim country.”

Obama is also proud of his opposition to the September 2007 Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which branded Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization and authorized the U.S. to use “all instruments … of national power in Iraq” to combat the destabilizing influence of Iran. (The Trumpet.com, July 25, 2008).

If you want to know what a person really believes – observe his actions and aquaintances, rather than his words. Since being elected he has bent over backwards (and now forwards) to show deference to the Muslim world. All this while famously hanging out for years with people who hate America. Is there a connection?

Leaders – and world events – are of God

God’s Word informs us that there can be no power in this present world, except as God allows, so I don’t take sides, nor get into emotional debates. I can say though—with certainty—that this president of the United States is the one God put into that office. The movement behind Barack Obama’s improbable rise to power, as well as his celebrity-like status internationally—says a lot about where we are in Bible prophecy.

The movement to elect Mr. Obama’s reveals just how naive many of our people are when it comes to the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East and, to a certain degree, the whole world—Iranian-backed Islamic extremism. The Bible reveals that neither America nor Israel has the will to confront this prophesied “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40). That task will be left to a Vatican-led European Union. And it will result in a spectacular clash that will then lead to a worldwide war!