Who Among You Is A True Patriot?

By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

WASH—Jul 4—KIN-- The Founding Fathers knew that the acts of tyranny by the British in the American colonies were ungodly and unrighteous. The colonists had watched as the British moved massive amounts of troops into America. The British commandeered private homes to house troops and officers. They didn't allow people to gather on the streets to talk. They suppressed free speech. They discouraged worship apart from the government religion. And they taxed the colonists without representation. The Founding Fathers set apart this new nation from the British rule knowing that only the moral and Christ-like could govern righteously.

Perhaps our second President, John Adams, said it best: "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 is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

The Constitution is the covenant with the people that guarantees the nation we have to be a moral nation. Not only did our Founding Fathers risk life and fortune for it, many of our forefathers have died that we may enjoy its liberties.

Throughout history until now, any invasive threat to the Constitution was met with decisive force--the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War II, even the Afghanistan war against terror. If an entity were to invade America and threaten its Constitutional liberties, Americans would fight to the death to preserve the Republic. So today, why is it that we are not called to arms when the immoral, unjust and unrighteous threaten our very existence as a nation? Putting it plainly, we are faced now with an invasion of illegal immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, baby killers, and ungodly socialists and communists who seek to destroy the way of life guaranteed by the Constitution, inked by the blood of our forefathers.

Yet we are allowing them to colonize, to take over and twist the meaning and intent of the Constitution, "unbridled", as John Adams would say. Proverbs 14:34 says, "Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." It is time to stand, as did our forefathers and fight the fight for this nation against the unlawful, the immoral, and the godless. Have we as a nation been so saturated with an imbalance of Biblical grace that we cannot stand against sin and unrighteousness as commanded by the Bible? Wake up Americans. Who among you is a true patriot?

Presbyterian Assembly Votes to Drop Gay Clergy Ban

July 3….(WND) The Presbyterian Church (USA), bitterly divided over sexuality and the Bible, set up another confrontation Friday over its ban on ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians. The denomination's General Assembly, meeting in San Jose, Calif., voted 54 percent to 46 percent Friday to drop the requirement that would-be ministers, deacons and elders live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."
The proposed change to the church constitution requires approval from a majority the nation's 173 presbyteries, or regional church bodies, a yearlong process that has proven to be a barrier to similar efforts in the past. Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. The vote was an "an authoritative interpretation" of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately.

Jews Inch Towards Their Temple

July 2….(Stan Goodenough/JNEWSWIRE) Another step on the long road towards the restoration of Temple Worship in Jerusalem was reportedly taken Monday with the opening of a new workshop in which robes will be manufactured for practicing priests. According to a report in The Jerusalem Post Wednesday, a number of Kohanim, (Jews in the Cohen family line who trace their ancestry back to Aaron, the first High Priest) have already had measurements taken for the biblically-described vestments. One of them is the well-known chief rabbi of Efrat Shlomo Riskin. For the new garments, special flaxen thread is being imported from India, and worms from which just the right color crimson dye is obtained are being brought in from Istanbul, according to the report. The new workshop was inaugurated by the Temple Institute which is situated in Jerusalem's old City, just a stone's throw from the Temple Mount, the site of the first and second temples and the place where, according to the Bible, the Third Temple will be built to welcome the Messiah. Over the years the institute has worked to create, in strict accordance with the biblical pattern, many of the implements required for Temple worship, including the golden seven-branched Menorah, the Table for the Show Bread, and the Breast-Plate, Crown and Robe for the High Priest. Fully one-third of all the commandments handed down to the Jews through Moses cannot be kept without a functioning Temple, said the Post. Many Jews (and a growing number of Christians) believe that just as God is keeping His millennia-old promise to reconstitute the scattered people of Israel in their ancient homeland, He will follow through on His pledge to restore the Temple they have been without since Rome razed it to the ground nearly 2000 years ago. This divine design will not be thwarted despite the fact that Islamic control extends over the Temple Mount to this day, and while Muslims the world over threaten violence and mayhem if the Jews try to build on the site.

Tractor Terror: Bulldozer Crushes 3 People

July 2….(Israel Insider) Four people were killed and 44 were wounded, one seriously, one moderately and 42 lightly Wednesday after a bulldozer driver, an Arab resident of Jerusalem, went on a murderous rampage in the main street of the Israeli capital. An off-duty soldier took the gun from an elite policeman at the scene and shot the terrorist dead. In a bizarre coincidence, the soldier, Moshe Klessner, 18, is the brother-in-law of IDF officer David Shapira, who killed the terrorist in the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva attack, Channel 2 reported. Klessner was assisted in neutralizing the attacker by another elite policeman. Another elite policeman was lightly wounded, apparently by gunfire, suggesting that the tractor-driving terrorist was armed, although the possibility that he was hit by crossfire has not been ruled out. Zion Shetreet, who witnessed the attack, told Ynet that the "tractor turned into the road very suddenly and started trampling over the cars standing in the stoplight. I started yelling for people to shoot him. I saw a security officer running out of a nearby building and aiming an Uzi at him. Police stressed that the incident was definitely a terror attack by Jabr Duwait, a 32-year-old father of two from Jebl Mukaber, the same neighborhood that the Mercaz Harav attacker came from. However, friends of the family identified the attacker as Hussam Dwikat. They said the 29-year-old was a devout Muslim. Three Palestinian militant groups took responsibility for the attack, but the claims could not be independently verified. Israeli police referred to the attacker as a "terrorist" acting on his own and said he was a bulldozer operator who worked in the area for a local construction firm.

Ex-Intelligence official: World Expects Israel to Bomb Iran

(West assumes Israel will hit Iran, Jewish State to be blamed in case of global flare-up, ex-intel officer Yossi Kuperwasser says; Tehran believes likelihood of strike on its nuke facilities very low)

July 2….(YNET)  The West believes that Israel is aware of the magnitude of the Iranian nuclear threat and assumes that the Jewish state will bomb Iran, ex-IDF intelligence officer Yossi Kuperwasser told Ynet Tuesday. Kuperwasser, the former head of the IDF's Research and Assessment Division, believes that the Pentagon source's assessment that Israel will likely strike in Iran by the end of the year shows that the West assumes Israel will do the dirty work for it. "That way, in case of a global flare-up, Israel could be blamed," Kuperwasser says. The former senior officer, who for many years dealt with Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, told Ynet the most problematic issue was Tehran's ability to produce industrial quantities of high-grade uranium. "Within a year to a year and a half, the Iranians will have enough uranium for a nuclear bomb," Kuperwasser says. "This is also the American intelligence estimate, which at the time was harshly criticized, and rightfully so. As far as we know, the Iranians have not yet reached this capability…at the same time, they continue their research uninterrupted." Turning his attention to the SA-20 aerial defense system purchased by Iran from Russia, Kuperwasser admits that the missile system could make an aerial strike considerably more difficult to carry out. "This is a missile system that can to protect against missiles and airplanes. The Iranians have another aerial system today, but they view it as inadequate. Clearly, every addition to the aerial defense system may minimize the effectiveness of an aerial strike," he says.

'West is sensitive to pain, money'

While the West has increasingly internalized the Iranian nuclear threat, the process has been too slow and insufficient, the former military officer says. "The West realizes that this is an Iranian challenge to the existing world order, aiming for Islam to enjoy a different status," Kuperwasser says. "Finally people have woken up, but the question is whether officials in the US and Europe realize the gravity at this time. It looks as though everyone is trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, and they believe that ultimately, if nothing changes, Israel will do the job for the West." "Iran realizes that the West is sensitive to pain and money, and won't embark on an operation that would significantly boost oil prices," he says. "Every time the possibility of a military strike is raised, the Revolutionary Guard's commander speaks out and warns against the chaos. They believe that the likelihood of a strike is very low." "In this poker game, the Iranians are leading at this time," Kuperwasser says. "The pressure should be boosted considerably, and it should be made clear that a military move will be carried out if needed…if the Iranians believe that the West is serious, they will think twice about whether it is worthwhile for them to continue."

Oil Prices Close at Another New Record near $141

(Concerns about tighter supply and mounting tensions in the Middle East)

July 2….(MSN) Oil closed at a new record near $141 a barrel Tuesday on worries about tight supply and mounting tensions in the Middle East. In the US, prices at the gas pump edged to their highest point yet. Crude prices resumed their advance as the head of the International Energy Agency said the world is experiencing its “third oil price shock,” comparing the effects of today’s prices with the oil crises that began with the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979 revolution in Iran. IEA chief Nobuo Tanaka added that OPEC is pumping oil at record levels and other producers “are working at full throttle.” His comments reinforced the IEA’s latest prediction that global supplies will remain pinched despite record prices and falling demand in the US and Europe. Ongoing tension in the Middle East, a concern that has helped fuel oil’s recent rise, continued to weigh on traders’ minds Tuesday. ABC News quoted an unnamed senior Pentagon official as saying there is an “increasing likelihood” that Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the year. Such an attack could prompt Iran to retaliate, potentially disrupting oil supplies in the strategically vital Persian Gulf. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had “absolutely no information that would substantiate” the ABC report when asked about it at a briefing. Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill., called the news report “more of the same” but acknowledged it was having an effect on energy market psychology. “The market’s forced to insert some type of risk premium on geopolitical developments,” he said. Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer and OPEC’s second-largest exporter. About 40 percent of export tanker traffic passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow choke-point bordered by Iran at the mouth of the Gulf.

Experts: Israel Must Stop Iran Nukes Within Year, Sooner if Obama Elected

(Israel must destroy Iran's nuclear program within the next 12 months or risk being attacked with an atomic bomb)

July 2….(Israel Insider) "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared," said Shabtai Shavit, Mossad chief from 1989 to 1996. "We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action." "The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," Shavit told the Telegraph. Shavit added that a victory by Democratic nominee Barack Obama in the November presidential election would significantly lower the chances that the US would approve of military action against Iran. "If Republican candidate John McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it," Shavit told the paper. "If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House." The assessment echoed the assessment of former UN Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who said that an Israeli strike could occur as early as November, since Israel was unlikely to take such a dramatic action before the US election. "I don't think they will do anything before our election because they don't want to affect it. And they'd have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush's term in office or wait for his successor." Bolton said he has given up on the Bush administration's efforts to stop Iran from developing an atomic bomb. "I don't think it's serious any more," he said. "If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards." Bolton said that if Senator Obama is elected in November, Israel could not afford to wait until he takes office on January 20, before taking action. "An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," according to Bolton, who served as ambassador to the UN for less than two years until 2006. "I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President," Bolton said. In an interview with the British 'Daily Telegraph,' Bolton said he believed the Arab world would actually be "pleased" by an Israeli strike. Their reaction, he told the paper, "will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action." Bolton believes that Israel may consider postponing the attack if Senator John McCain emerges as the victor in the race, and said apprehension of Obama's foreign policy in Jerusalem would likely be the motivating factor behind an early strike. Shavit also told the Telegraph that Israel would go it alone if necessary. "When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something," Shavit told the paper. "It's not a precondition, getting an American agreement," he said. Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister said on Sunday he did not believe Israel was in a position to attack the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program. They know full well what the consequences of such an act would be," Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki told reporters. "We do not see the Zionist regime in a situation in which they would want to engage in such an adventurism," he said when asked about the possibility of an Israeli attack. The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards was more specific. He warned that if his country is attacked, Tehran would strike back by barraging Israel with missiles and taking over a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf, according to Jam-e-Jam, not a hiphop artist but an Iranian state newspaper report published Saturday. Teheran is reported jittery after disclosure of last month's massive Israeli military exercise over the Mediterranean Sea, a drill seen as "sending a message" to Iran. Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would strike back, and not just at Israel but at US and western interests, including choking off the Straits of Hormuz, passage for much of the oil from the region. "Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue. Oil prices will dramatically increase. This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Jafari was quoted as saying. Meanwhile, it is being reported that US congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership. The article by reporter Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, published online Sunday, reveals a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush "focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money." Funding for the covert escalation of up to $400 million was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.

Obama Denies Christ in His Own Words

July 1….(Christian Anti-Defamation News) Cathleen Falsani, the author of The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People, interviewed Barack Obama about his faith March 27, 2004, a few days after he clinched the Democratic nomination for the US Senate seat that he eventually won. Because of the intense interest in Obama's faith, she has made the entire interview available uncut and in its entirety. What emerges is a man who is not comfortable discussing spiritual matters, and is a spiritually confused theological eclectic. He is clearly not a Christian by any biblical, historic measure. He repeatedly affirms then denies Christ, says he believes but is filled with doubt. Obama's faith reflects the Universalistic beliefs of his grandparents. The fact that he felt comfortable in Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the most radical churches in one of the most liberal denominations, is entirely understandable. When Falsini asks, "What do you believe?" Obama effectively calls himself a Buddhist, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Christian. If you read the whole interview you will see a person who seems to be trying very hard to not take a stand on the Christian faith, yet at the same time tries to identify as a Christian. It is only fair to take Obama at his word and in context. Please take the time to read the following lengthy article, after all, he might be the next President and leader of the free world.

GG: What do you believe?

OBAMA: I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10. My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith. I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

GG: Have you always been a Christian?

OBAMA: I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian. My grandmother was Methodist. My grandfather was Baptist. This was at a time when I think the Methodists felt slightly superior to the Baptists. And by the time I was born, they were, I think, my grandparents had joined a Universalist church. I had a structured religious education. But my mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world's religions, and talk to me about them. And I think always, her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.

(Obama has accepted the Oprah Winfrey definition of what constitutes being "spiritual." Any one who discusses religion is spiritual. The Bible distinguishes between the carnal person who is unregenerated and who does not know anything about spiritual matters, and the spiritual person who is alive spiritually, having been born again by the Holy Spirit. All mankind is born spiritually dead in sin. Only faith in Christ can make you alive).

I probably didn't get started getting active in church activities until I moved to Chicago. The way I came to Chicago in 1985 was that I was interested in community organizing and I was inspired by the Civil Rights movement. And the idea that ordinary people could do extraordinary things. And there was a group of churches out on the South Side of Chicago that had come together to form an organization to try to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. And didn't have much money, but felt that if they formed an organization and hired somebody to organize them to work on issues that affected their community, that it would strengthen the church and also strengthen the community. So they hired me, for $13,000 a year. And I drove out here and I didn't know anybody and started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job training programs, or afterschool programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communites. This would be in Roseland, West Pullman, Altgeld Gardens, far South Side working class and lower income communities. And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened because I'd be spending an enormous amount of time with church ladies, sort of surrogate mothers and fathers and everybody I was working with was 50 or 55 or 60, and here I was a 23-year-old kid running around. I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it's importance in the community. And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply. So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.

(This is clearly not a Christian conversion. A true Christian comes to Christ acknowledging he is a sinner and deserving of God's just wrath. One flees to Christ in order to be saved from sin and its just consequences. One must humbly admit they cannot be saved by pleasing God by any amount of "good works." By grace you are saved through faith… not of works, lest any man should boast.)

GG: Did you actually go up for an altar call?

OBAMA: Yes. Absolutely. It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.

(Walking to the front of a church, baptism or any other rite, does not make anyone a Christian. You must be inwardly transformed by the Holy Spirit and confess faith in Christ to be saved.)

GG: How long ago?

OBAMA: 16, 17 years ago 1987 or 88.

(Every Christian that has been born again as an adult can look to a very specific time. Not a two year time span.)

GG: So you got yourself born again?

OBAMA: Yeah, although I don't, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

(So Obama says he is born again but he immediately wants to make it clear that he is suspicious of theological truth that under girds his need to be born again. No true Christian says I am born again, but I don't take it seriously.)

I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding. I think that, particularly as somebody who's now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

(Obama admits it is because of his public image he is not willing to affirm the exclusive claims of Christ. Jesus said, "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Father in heaven.")

(For Obama, worship at Trinity is largely about race. Trinity boasts that it is an African Centered Church. The New Testament teaches that we are to be Christ centered and there is no racial distinctions between those who are Christians.)

GG: Do you pray often?

OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do. Its’ not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it. One of the interesting things about being in public life is there are constantly these pressures being placed on you from different sides. To be effective, you have to be able to listen to a variety of points of view, synthesize viewpoints. You also have to know when to be just a strong advocate, and push back against certain people or views that you think aren’t right or don’t serve your constituents. And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I’m having internally. I’m measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I’m on track and where I think I’m off track.

(Because man is fallen, our conscience is fallible. It can be weak or ill informed. Obama does not appeal to scripture for moral reasoning, but to inward feelings. This is not Christian.)

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?

(He laughs nervously) (Christians do not get nervous when asked about their Lord and Savior, they unflinchingly bear witness to his saving power and grace.) OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

GG: Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?

OBAMA: Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

(Obama is apparently referring to the other religions he mentioned earlier, his eastern, Muslim and Jewish beliefs. So it sounds like he runs these other beliefs through his Jesus filter. Unfortunately, he has let these other beliefs control his view of Jesus, not vise versa.)

GG: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA: Well, my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely. (Obama has been shaped theologically by one of the most radical ministers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in one of the most liberal denominations, the United Church of Christ.) I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure. Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country.

As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.

GG: The conversation stopper, when you say you’re a Christian and leave it at that.

OBAMA: Where do you move forward with that? This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.

GG You don’t believe that?

OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.

(Obama just invalidated Christ’s death and resurrection, the Great Commission and 2000 years of Christian evangelism and missions. Believing on Christ is dangerous, being an open minded cynic like Obama is the best public position.)

GG: Do you believe in heaven?

OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.

(Obama denies certainty about things that the scriptures make very clear, it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment. Heaven awaits all those whose name is written in the Lamb’s book of life. Eternal judgment in hell awaits all others.

GG: What is sin and do you believe in sin?

OBAMA: Yes. Sin is being out of alignment with my values.

GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment. (Obama denies objective, transcendent, unchanging moral standards that come from God, only his own inward sense of right and wrong. Note Obama denies eternal consequences for sin, therefore Jesus died for nothing.)
GG: Can we go back to that morning service in 1987 or 88 — when you have a moment that you can go back to that as an epiphany...

OBAMA: It wasn’t an epiphany. It was much more of a gradual process for me. I know there are some people who fall out. Which is wonderful. God bless them. For me it was probably because there is a certain self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book learning, and also a very polyglot background.. I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me. (True Born again Christians do not describe conversion as a symbolic act of a growing faith. It is a moment in which God’s grace is realized and one is brought out of spiritual darkness into the light.)

Next Israeli Prime Minister will Determine its War Options on Iran

 (Moscow has temporarily frozen SA-20B air defense system sales to Iran and Syria)

July 1….(DEBKA) According to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources, the overriding considerations that will determine if and when Israel attacks Iran are these: whether to strike before George W. Bush’s exit, whether Iran’s strategic ties with Syria and the Palestinian Hamas can be severed in advance and what prime minister is chosen to manage the war. These are the determinants, rather than “the red lines” cited by senior Pentagon officials to ABC News Monday as triggers for an Israeli offensive, namely when Natanz nuclear facility produces enough weapons-grade uranium, some time in 2009 or this year, and when Iran acquires SA-20 air defense systems from Russia. DEBKAfile quotes intelligence sources as negating those triggers:

1. Contrary to most reports, including those put out by Teheran, Iran is lagging behind its target date for producing a sufficiency of weapons-grade uranium. It is held up by the technical hitches dogging the smooth, continuous activation of its high-grade centrifuges.

2. Moscow has suspended all sales of sophisticated air defense systems to Iran and Syria alike, so that Israel has no cause for haste on that score.

3. That Iran is heading for a nuclear weapon is no longer in doubt. What Israel must decide very soon is whether to strike Iran’s production facilities before Bush leaves the White or wait for his successor to move in, in 2009.

There is a preference in Jerusalem for a date straight after the America’s November 4 presidential election, except that military experts warn that weather and lunar conditions at that time of the year are unfavorable. If Israel does opt for an attack, August and September would be better, they say - or else hold off until March-April 2009. Israel’s political volatility is another major factor in the uncertainty surrounding an attack. Towards the end of September, the ruling Kadima party is committed to a leadership primary. The party’s choice of prime minister and the factors that determine how he (or she) reaches a decision on attacking Iran can only be guessed at.

4. A final consideration must be Israel’s ability to prevent Syria and Hamas opening war fronts at the time of Israel’s attack on Iran. In other words, the IDF needs to know it must contend with two fronts, Iran and the Lebanese Hizballah, not four. Notwithstanding these major deterrents, the weight of opinion in Israel’s decision-making community at this time is in favor of an early military strike. There is an international consensus that Iran cannot be allowed to attain a nuclear bomb, but no sanctions or incentives are proving effective as preventatives. Therefore, it is felt, the sooner Israel pre-empts a nuclear-armed Iran, the better, because the longer it delays, the more dangerous the Islamic Republic’s retaliatory capabilities will become.

Dick Morris: Obama Wants a European Style Socialist State in US

July 1….(Newsmax) In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, Morris discusses the perils of an Obama administration, especially when bolstered by a Congress tightly controlled by the liberal Democrats. Morris also was critical of John McCain’s present style of campaigning. Newsmax: In your book you talk about the things that Obama would do if he won the White House in November. How would you describe an Obama administration? Morris: I believe that Obama represents a fundamental departure in the underlying goal of the presidency. I think that for 50 years American presidents have emphasized growth. I think Obama, however, would be the first president perhaps since the 30s who emphasizes redistribution, or what he would call “fairness,” over growth. And I think his tax policies represent a deliberate sacrifice of economic growth in order to achieve greater redistribution of income. They mimic or parallel the policies of European Socialists in doing so. Where essentially Europe has said we're not going to grow quickly but instead we’re going to redistribute income and try to help people who are further down. Of course in the United States, we do redistribute income dramatically.

Preparing the Battlefield

(The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran)

July 1….(WND) Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program. Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature. Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed. “The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said. Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership, Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections, were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy. The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the NIE, and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the NIE’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”) Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary. A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a pre-ëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders,” the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world, “have weighed in on that issue.” The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of US Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of US policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”

Michelle Obama Confirms Husband's Support for Homosexual Causes

July 1….(Election News) Michelle Obama told the Democratic Party's Gay and Lesbian leadership Council Thursday night that her husband will repeal federal policies that she says limit the rights of homosexuals. An ABC News report on the event says Mrs. Obama stated that "Barack believes that we must fight for a world as it should be." She said that world would be a place where, what she called, " discriminatory laws" like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be repealed. DOMA gives states the right to reject homosexual "marriages," even when such unions are performed in states like Massachusetts and California where they have been legalized. According to the ABC report, Michelle Obama went on to quote her husband as saying "the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples, whether that means a domestic partnershp, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

US Escalating covert Operations Against Iran

June 30….(AP) US congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday. The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers on a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by US law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees. "The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money." Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal. Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources. Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. US Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article. The US ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told CNN's "Late Edition" he had not read the article, but denied the allegations of cross-border operations. "I'll tell you flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else," he said in an interview from Baghdad on Sunday. The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the New Yorker article said, citing current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said. Among groups inside Iran benefiting from US support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda. The article said US support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene. None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment. The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses.

Iran Preparing to Fire Missiles at Dimona

(British Times quotes defense sources as saying Tehran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions following reported large-scale IAF exercise. Former Mossad chief says Israel has only one year to stop Iran from developing nuclear bomb)

June 30….(YNET) Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, the London-based Times newspaper reported Sunday, quoting defense sources. According to the report, the movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a reported large scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israel Air Force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel's nuclear reactor is located. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, has issued a new warning against Israel not to attack it, saying the country is well within range of its missiles, the Iranian Jam-e Jam newspaper reported on Saturday. "This country (Israel) is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime, despite all its abilities, cannot confront it," he said. "There is the possibility that by attacking Iranian nuclear sites the enemy wants to delay our nuclear activities, but any interruption would be very short since Iranian scientific ability is different from that of Syria and Iraq."

Shavit: Israel won't be afraid to attack alone

Meanwhile, former Mossad Director Shabtai Shavit has warned that Israel has only one year to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In an interview with the British Telegraph newspaper published Sunday, Shavit said that the "worst-case scenario" is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within "somewhere around a year". "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared," he added. "We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action. Shavit went on to say that "the time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time." The former Mossad chief also addressed the possibility that an attack on Iran would be thwarted if Democratic candidate Barack Obama is elected US president. "If (Republican candidate John) McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House," Shavit said. He added that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on the Islamic republic, Israel would not be afraid to do it alone. "When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, (getting) an American agreement," he said.

Iran Threatens to Shut Down Persian Gulf Oil Lanes

June 30….(AP) Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, center, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, in September. Jafari told a newspaper, “Iran will definitely act to impose control” on the Gulf. The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard said the government might shut down vital oil lanes through the Persian Gulf if the country were attacked by the United States or Israel, according to a newspaper report Saturday. Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari warned that if there were any confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, Tehran would try to damage Western economies by targeting oil. "Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz," through which 17 million barrels of oil passes each day. "After this action, the oil price will rise very considerably and this is among the factors deterring the enemies," he said. Iran abuts the strategic strait, and Iranian and Western analysts have frequently said that the country could try to blockade or mine it in the event of a war, a move that would send oil prices skyrocketing. But some military analysts say Iran might not be able to hold the waterway, which is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, in a confrontation with US warships and aircraft. The West and Iran remain locked in a standoff over uranium enrichment, which Tehran insists is meant to produce fuel for energy production, but which the US and its allies allege is the cornerstone of an eventual weapons program. The West has threatened a fourth round of United Nations sanctions as well as a tightening of other economic restrictions if the program is not suspended. US lawmakers are considering resolutions that would require President Bush to increase pressure on Tehran by preventing the export of refined petroleum products and inspecting "all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran." US officials this month also leaked word of a large Israeli military exercise that they described as a prelude to a possible attack on Iran. Tehran has reacted angrily to the pressure, which comes as it considers a package of US and European-backed incentives meant to entice the government to halt enrichment activities. An escalating war of words has rattled nerves and contributed to rising oil prices. Jafari also warned of possible reprisals against countries that allow the US or Israel to use their territory or airspace to launch attacks against Iran. "If enemies from outside the region use the soil of regional countries against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the governments of those countries will be responsible, and it is our obvious right to act in the same way against their military capabilities and abilities of enemies everywhere," Jafari said.

US Commander Briefed on IDF’s Four-Front Strategy in Potential Iran War

June 30….(DEBKA) The visiting Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, carried out a guided tour of Israel’s borders with Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip over the weekend. It was led by the IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and OCs Northern and Southern Commands, Maj. Gens. Eisenkott and Galant. He was briefed on IDF tactics in a war on all these potential flashpoints in the context of a comprehensive conflict with Iran and then held long conversations with defense minister Ehud Barak and Ashkenazi. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that it is very unusual for the top American commander to carry out a close, on-the-spot study of Israel’s potential war fronts. It was prompted on the one hand by skepticism in parts of the US high command of Israel’s ability to simultaneously strike Iran’s nuclear installations and fight off attacks from three borders while, at the same time, Adm. Mullen showed he was open to persuasion that the IDF’s prospective tactics and war plans were workable. Military circles in Washington, commenting on the large-scale air maneuver Israel carried out with Greece earlier in June, have opined that 100 warplanes are not enough for the Israel Air Force to destroy all of Iran’s secret nuclear sites; more than 1,000 would be needed. Israel military tacticians in contact with US commanders have countered that, while Iran’s secret nuclear locations are scattered and buried deep, still, every chain has weak links and is therefore vulnerable. The tough threats issued by Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohamed Ali Jafari on Saturday, June 28, were prompted by the Adm. Mullen’s Israeli border tour, word of which was flashed to Tehran by Syrian-Iranian observation posts inside Syrian and Lebanese borders. (The Sunday Times added that Iran moved its ballistic Shihab-3 missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among its possible targets.) The IRGC chief, Mohammad Ali Jafari issued Tehran’s toughest and most explicit threats yet in response to recent reports of Israeli preparations to strike Iran’s nuclear installations. Hinting at an American attack, he said: “If there is a confrontation between us and the enemy from outside the region, definitely the scope will reach the oil issue.” After this action (of imposing controls on the Gulf waterway), the oil price will rise very considerably,” he said. Speaking to the Iranian newspaper Jam-e Jam, Jafari differentiated between Iran’s responses to possible American and Israeli attacks. The oil weapon would be applied in reprisal for the former, “and this is among the factors deterring enemies”, he said, while “Israelis know if they take military action against Iran, the abilities of the Islamic and Shiite world, especially in the region, will deliver fatal blows.” Jafari noted that Israel was in range of Iranian missiles. He said Iran’s “allies in the region” could also retaliate, referring to those living in “Lebanon’s heartland of South Lebanon,” without naming Hizballah. US forces were “more vulnerable than the Israelis” because of their troops in the region. “Iran can in different ways harm American interests, even far away,” Jafar warned Iran’s neighbors not to let their territory be used.

WEEK OF JUNE 22 THROUGH JUNE 28

IRG Chief Threatens to Hit US, Israel, Block Persian Gulf if Attacked

June 28….(DEBKA) The Iranian Republican Guards commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari issued Tehran’s toughest and most explicit threats yet in response to recent reports of Israeli preparations to strike Iran’s nuclear installations. This week the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullent and Chief Naval Operations chief, Adm. Gary Roughead were in Israel to discuss coordination on the Iran front. Hinting at an American attack, Jafari said: “If there is a confrontation between us and the enemy from outside the region, definitely the scope will reach the oil issue,” said the IRGC commander to the Iranian Jam-e Jam newspaper. After this action (of imposing controls on the Gulf waterway), the oil price will rise very considerably,” he said. The Iranian general’s words may push rocketing oil prices even past the current $143 record per barrel, energy experts calculate. Jafari clearly differentiated between Iran’s responses to possible American and Israeli attacks. The oil weapon would be applied against the former, “and this is among the factors deterring enemies,” he said. “Israelis know if they take military action against Iran, the abilities of the Islamic and Shiite world, especially in the region, will deliver fatal blows.” He noted that Israel was in range of Iranian missiles. He said Iran’s “allies in the region” could also retaliate, referring to those living in “Lebanon’s heartland of South Lebanon,” without naming Hizballah. US forces were “more vulnerable than the Israelis” because of their troops in the region. “Iran can in different ways harm American interests, even far away.” Jafari warned Iran’s neighbors not to let their territory be used. “If the attack takes place from the soil of another country, the country attacked has the right to respond to the enemy's military action from where the operation started," he said.

Heresy Among Evangelicals Who Have Abandoned Christ Leads Others Astray

June 27….(Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst) Beware of those who claim they are Christians and believe there are other ways to eternal life. If one says he is a Christian and yet he also says that there are other ways to eternal life, he is not a Christian, even though he thinks he is. Thanks to many preachers, presidents, presidential candidates and other public figures that say there are many ways to eternal life and also claim Christianity; the American public is seemingly confused and deceived. A Pew Research Poll of some 35,000 people indicated that 57 percent of American evangelicals believe many religions can lead to eternal life. President George Bush, for example, won two elections with heavy favor from evangelical Christians. Bush, who claims to be a Christian, has said that Christians and Muslims worship the same god and that there are other ways to heaven. Presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama raised a Muslim, now claims he is a Christian. Obama also believes in a universal approach to heaven. Recently, the India Times reported that Obama supporters were sending him a temple-sanctified gold-plated two-foot tall Lord Hanuman monkey idol. His spokesman said she would present the idol to Obama, who, the paper says, "is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms." The Democratic Party has revamped its approach toward Christianity after being defeated in two presidential elections by Christian evangelical votes. The Democrats have distorted the Bible in order to say that God's love and compassion toward society, poverty and the environment is cause to overlook sins like homosexuality and abortion. The Republican Party has virtually run away from God's tenants. These watered-down versions of Christianity seem to be taking root in America as poll numbers show that Americans no longer see the Bible as the in-errant infallible Word of God, but rather a book where scripture can be taken and used out of context depending on the situation. Let there be no mistake, however. If one says he is a Christian, then he must believe in Christ and what He said and did. Jesus Christ said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me." This verse alone means that there are no other ways to eternal life except through Christ. Those who believe otherwise are either very confused or are not Christians. And for Christians to follow those deceivers as if they are Christians, these Christians have been deceived. Jesus also said in Matthew 24:11, "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." His warning, "Take heed that no man deceive you."

Erekat: Six Months to Peace Deal

(Top negotiator for Palestinian Authority says solutions at hand for all core issues, now is time for decision-making. Speaking at conference organized by Peres Center for Peace, Erekat says 'Israeli and Palestinian leaders who reach an agreement will be more important to region's history than Jesus')

 June 27….(YNET) "If we want a peace agreement, there are only six months left. This is the time to make decisions," Saeb Erekat said on Thursday evening. Speaking at a conference organized by the 'Peres Center for Peace' at Tel Aviv University, the top negotiator for the Palestinian Authority was joined for a discussion on the recent renewal of Israeli negotiations with Syria by MK Yossi Beilin (Meretz) and former director-general of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Dr. Alon Liel. "Our goal is to reach an agreement. Regarding the core issues: Jerusalem, the refugees and the borders, all these have solutions. This is the time for decisiveness. We will not go back to talks over temporary arrangements or temporary border, we intend to reach an agreement and this is possible for all the core issues. We need to make decisions, and (Prime Minister) Olmert and (Palestinian President) Abbas are capable of making them. "The 'Israeli and Palestinian leaders who reach an agreement will be more important to region's history than Jesus," said Erekat. (FOJ: This person will also be the Antichrist) "Ultimately the only solution possible is that of two states in the 1967 borders. Like it or not, you have three options: two states, a bi-national state, and the current situation," said Erekat, alluding to an 'apartheid state.' The senior Palestinian diplomat also addressed the situation in the Gaza Strip: "We want the truce in Gaza to hold. It is good to give a chance for peace, and the calm is necessary for us." As for the indirect negotiations with Syria, Erekat said: "I hope the Israeli-Syrian channel is successful. We want Syria to be involved in the peace process because we would like to see a final arrangement for the entire region."

'Assad – driving force behind talks'

Alon Liel said that success with the Syrian channel would have a positive effect on the Palestinian one. "If we reach an agreement with Syria before we do with the Palestinians, there will be several elements aiding the Palestinian channel, like the issue of the refugees for instance. Syria will apparently agree to grant the refugees citizenship," he said. "I know that there's a lot of panic in Lebanon about this issue, as they fear that the Palestinian refugees will be settled there as well and alter the country's demographics. What's more, the Syrians will no longer allow Khaled Mashaal (Hamas' exiled politburo chief) to remain in Damascus. If we reach a stage where Syria stops aiding Hamas and Hizbullah, the balance of power will shift in Fatah's favor and this will help the peace process." The former director-general of the Foreign Affairs Ministry said noted that the "driving force" behind the renewed talks with Syria was none other than Syrian President Bashar Assad himself. Olmert, said Liel, would not have initiated the negotiations. "I believe the reason for this is that Assad is afraid of Iran. The Syrians know exactly who the Iranians are, just as we do. They also know how dependent they've become in fields like military strength and their economy. I believe they came to the conclusion that they were under a 'friendly takeover' by Iran, and that Iran may yet do to them what they did in Lebanon." Liel said that only the United States would be able to broker a regional agreement with Syria that would block its "Iranization. "After that, with the help of the Syrians, we will be able to come to the public and ask them something very simple: 'What do you prefer, having Israel surrounded by an Iranian belt in Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip, or a friendly belt that will normalize relations with us and agree to end the conflict?"

IMF to Investigate the US Federal Reserve

June 27….(Der Spiegel) No Fed chief in US history has been forced to submit to the kind of humiliation that Ben Bernanke is facing. This is partly down to circumstances. Inflation is going up and up, and this year's average will likely top 4 percent. But this time Mr. Dollar is also Mr. Powerless. He can raise interest rates in the fall, or he can pray, which would probably be the better choice. At least prayer would not prevent the US economy from growing, a highly likely outcome if interest rates go up. After years of growth, the United States is now on the brink of a recession, one that is more likely to be deepened than softened by a tight money policy. Investments will automatically become more expensive, consumer spending will be curbed and economic growth will slow down, immediately affecting unemployment figures and wages. The textbook conclusion is that this will stabilize the value of money, because no one will dare demand higher wages or higher prices. But the macroeconomics textbooks are no longer worth much in the age of globalization. Modern inflation is driven by the global scarcity of resources. Nowadays purchasing power exceeds purchasing opportunity. Most of all, there is not enough oil, and too few raw materials and food products. These increasingly scarce resources are becoming the focus of disputes among many people and billions of dollars are at stake. This is why the price of a barrel of crude oil (159 liters) has increased from $25 (€16) in 2002 to $135 (€87) in 2008. And it is also why the price of corn has tripled in the same time period, while that of copper has almost quintupled. If the inflation introduced in the United States is excluded, a small miracle is revealed, namely something approaching price stability. Adjusted for inflation, prices are in fact rising by only 2.3 percent. If this were the extent of it, the Fed chief could simply blink like an old watchdog and go back to sleep. Instead, he is barking loudly, which is his job. But he has lost his bite, because the Fed's interest rate policy can do nothing about the scarcity of goods. US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. The entire US financial system is to come under the scrutiny of the IMF. Some of Bernanke's personal adversaries are also contributing significantly to his current humiliation. In the past, the chairman of the Federal Reserve was a pope among the priests of the financial elite. But unlike his predecessor Alan Greenspan, Bernanke is finding that his policies are not universally accepted, even within the Fed. The last seven decisions reached by the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy, were accompanied by a growing number of dissenting votes. Bernanke's critics say that with his policy of cheap money, in other words, recurring rate reductions, he in fact helped fuel the inflation problem he is now trying to combat. Another problem for Mr. Dollar is that it will be several months before his actions take effect. Officials with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have informed Bernanke about a plan that would have been unheard-of in the past: a general examination of the US financial system. The IMF's board of directors has ruled that a so-called Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) is to be carried out in the United States. It is nothing less than an X-ray of the entire US financial system. As part of the assessment, the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the major investment banks, mortgage banks and hedge funds will be asked to hand over confidential documents to the IMF team. They will be required to answer the questions they are asked during interviews. Their databases will be subjected to so-called stress tests, worst-case scenarios designed to simulate the broader effects of failures of other major financial institutions or a continuing decline of the dollar. Under its bylaws, the IMF is charged with the supervision of the international monetary system. Roughly two-thirds of IMF members, but never the United States, have already endured this painful procedure. For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman. When the final report on the risks of the US financial system is released in 2010, and it is likely to cause a stir internationally, only one of the people in positions of responsibility today will still be in office: Ben Bernanke.

Muslim Terrorists Trying To Sink the Dollar

June 27….(IsraelNN.com) Mujahedeen Muslim terrorists may be behind the sinking American dollar as part of a campaign to cripple the American economy, the Middle East Media Research Institute reported. The media watch group, which also tracks Arabic language websites, said that postings on websites the past two years reflects a move towards waging an economic war against the United States. Mujahedeen terrorist groups that operate in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries "have come to the conclusion that it is financial, rather than military, losses that will prompt the US to change its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere," according to MEMRI. An article recently posted in Sada Al-Jihad (Echo of Jihad) magazine and posted on several Muslim websites, discusses the September 11 attacks on the US as having influenced the decline in the dollar. It also cited the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as draining the American economy. Another recent posting stated, "The dollar can expect two additional blows that will break its back, namely the announcement of the return of the religious rule of the Caliphate..." and the reinstatement of the gold standard in international monetary trade. It urged Mujahedeen "to get rid of American dollars" before an "imminent" terrorist attack that "will put an end to the so-called United States of America and destroy its economy completely." MEMRI concluded, "Given that it is highly atypical for Al-Qaeda to give prior of its attacks, the message is probably an attempt to pressure Muslims to sell dollars, in order to generate pessimism in the dollar market and thus accelerate the drop in its value."

Bush: US Lifts Key North Korea Sanctions

June 27….(MSN) President Bush said Thursday he will lift key trade sanctions against North Korea and remove it from the US terrorism blacklist, a remarkable turnaround in policy toward a regime he once branded as part of an “axis of evil.” The announcement came after North Korea handed over a long-awaited accounting of its nuclear work to Chinese officials on Thursday, fulfilling a key step in the denuclearization process. Bush said the move was “a step closer in the right direction” although he made clear the United States remains suspicious about the regime in Pyongyang. “The United States has no illusions about the regime,” Bush said in a statement that he read to reporters in the Rose Garden. Specifically, Bush said the United States would erase trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and notify Congress that, in 45 days, it intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism. North Korea’s declaration falls short of what the administration once sought, and the White House already has come under criticism from some conservatives. Bush said there was still a long way to go. Bush: ‘I’m under no illusions’ Bush said the US message to North Korea was, “We will trust you only to the extent you fulfill your promises. I’m pleased with the progress. I’m under no illusions. If North Korea continues to make the right choices it can repair its relationship with the international community ... If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and its partners in the Six-Party Talks will act accordingly.” While welcoming North Korea’s declaration, Bush repeatedly said it was just a first step. The president said the US action would have little impact on North Korea’s financial and diplomatic isolation. “It will remain one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world,” Bush said. All UN sanctions, for example, will remain in place. Bush said the United States would monitor North Korea closely and “if they don’t fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be placed on them.” He formally notified Congress of his intention to remove North Korea from the terrorism blacklist within 45 days, and said the United States will monitor the North’s activities during that period to make sure it is living up to its promises and is serious about cooperating in the process of denuclearization. Bush said that to end its isolation, North Korea must, for instance, dismantle all of its nuclear facilities and resolve outstanding questions on its highly enriched uranium and proliferation activities “and end these activities in a way that we can fully verify.”

US Builds 4 Missile Launch Base Pads on Iraq-Iran Border

June 27….(Mathaba News) The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced. The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying. He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war. "The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel." According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran. A team consisting of high-profile US marines, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) alongside Pentagon experts oversee the bases.

Syrians and UN Nuclear Inspectors play Hide and Seek

June 26….(DEBKA) DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that the three-man International Atomic Energy Agency team which inspected the El Kibar site bombed by Israel last September, returned to Vienna Wednesday, June 25, with soil and building materials samples gathered secretly without Syrian knowledge. From the Syrians they received different samples said to have been collected at a site which they insisted was a military facility under construction. During their four days in the country, Olli Heinonen, IAEA deputy director and leading negotiator with the Iranian authorities, and his team interviewed Syrian army officers and men presented by Damascus as having been employed at the facility. They denied it was a nuclear reactor and possessing nuclear credentials themselves. But, according to DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources, the inspectors countered with their own list of officers, scientists and technicians, not only Syrians, but also Iranians and North Koreans employed in building the facility. The Syrian side denied this and refused the inspectors permission to interview people on their list. Last week, British, German and Israeli publications released new information from Israeli intelligence sources according to which the El Kibar reactor was intended to be a component of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s use of plutonium in its weapons projects was to be concealed by having it produced in Syria. Wednesday, June 25, the London daily, the Guardian, quoted an adviser to Israel's national security council as saying: "The Iranians were involved in the Syrian programme. The idea was that the Syrians produce plutonium and the Iranians get their share. Syria had no reprocessing facility for the spent fuel. It's not deduction alone that brings almost everyone to think that the link exists," implying that Israel had evidence. War tensions between Israel and Iran have shot up in the last few days on the strength of reported Israeli preparations for an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. By linking Syria’s destroyed reactor to Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli officials were saying in effect that the attack on an Iranian nuclear installation had already taken place …in Syria.

Arabs Seeking to Infiltrate Temple Mount

('Muslim countries vying for influence, expecting Israel to give up holy site')

June 26….(WND) A number of Arab states quietly have sent intelligence agents to infiltrate the Temple Mount to determine how they can obtain more influence over Judaism's holiest site, informed security sources told WND. "It's possible in the coming two years a deal will be made that transfers the Temple Mount out from Israeli hands," said a security source. "The Arab countries are vying for influence, since they think controlling the site means big prestige in the Muslim world." The security sources said the Arab agents mostly are attempting to infiltrate the Waqf, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount, securing all sorts of positions from Waqf garden workers through religious clerics inside the Mount's many mosques. The Waqf is largely controlled by Jordan, which took over top positions from the Palestinian Authority in recent years. The sources said the agents' primary job is to collect information on how to gain more influence on the site. The agents also are to report on which Waqf officials are paid by Jordan, through which clerics can be suspected of having good relations with Israel. The Arab countries want to work their way in so Jordan doesn't get the most control once Israel gives up the Mount," said a security source. Saudi Arabia sent the most agents to the Mount, but other countries, including Egypt, also sent agents, security sources said. "Don't be surprised if in the near future even Somalia sends some people over to study how to have influence on the Mount," said a security source. In line with Israeli-Palestinian negotiations started at last November's US-backed Annapolis conference, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is working to create a Palestinian state before the end of the year. Olmert is widely expected to announce Israeli evacuations from most of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem. The Temple Mount is located in eastern Jerusalem, although Israel is not expected to immediately give up the holy site during the initial attempted creation of a Palestinian state. The Arab countries are "near certain" Israel will eventually evacuate the Temple Mount and likely hand it over to the PA together with a coalition of Muslim states, said an informed security source.

American Churches Have Accepted More Paths to Salvation Than Just Jesus

June 25….(In The Days) Americans of every religious stripe are considerably more tolerant of the beliefs of others than most of us might have assumed, according to a new poll released Monday. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity’s path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals’ fundamental tenets. The new poll suggests a major shift, at least in the pews, and that shift suggests a Falling Away!

 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” (II Thessalonians 2:3)

“Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.” (Isaiah 59:15)

The Religious Landscape Survey’s findings appear to signal that religion may actually be a less divisive factor in American political life than had been suggested by the national conversation over the last few decades. Peter Berger, University Professor of Sociology and Theology at Boston University, said that the poll confirms that “the so-called culture war, in its more aggressive form, is mainly waged between rather small groups of people.” The combination of such tolerance with high levels of religious participation and intensity in the U.S., says Berger, “is distinctively American, and rather cheering.” Less so, perhaps, to Christian conservatives, for whom Rice University sociologist D. Michael Lindsay suggests the survey results have a “devastating effect on theological purity.” An acceptance of the notion of other paths to salvation dilutes the impact of the doctrine that Christ died to remove sin and thus opened the pathway to eternal life for those who accept him as their personal savior. It could also reduce the impulse to evangelize, which is based on the premise that those who are not Christian are denied salvation. The problem, says Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is that “the cultural context and the reality of pluralism has pulled many away from historic Christianity.” Quizzed on the breadth of the poll’s definition of “Evangelical,” Pew pollster John Green said the 296-page survey made use of self-identification by the respondents’ churches, denominations or fellowships, whose variety is the report’s overriding theme. However, he said, if one isolates the most “traditionalist” members of the white Evangelical group, 50% still agreed that other faiths might offer a path to eternal life. In fact, of the dozens of denominations covered by the Pew survey, it was only Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who answered in the majority that their own faith was the only way to eternal life. Analysts expressed some surprise at how far the tolerance needle has swung, but said the trend itself was foreseeable because of American Christians’ increasing proximity to other faiths since immigration quotas were loosened in the 1960s. Says Rice’s Lindsay, the author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite: “If you have a colleague who is Buddhist or your kid plays with a little boy who is Hindu, it changes your appreciation of the religious ‘other.’” While the combination of Americans’ religiosity, more than half those polled said was “very important in their lives,” and their tolerance for the beliefs of others may suggest creedal confusion, this appears not to trouble good-hearted US pew-sitters. Says Lindsay, “The problem is not that Americans don’t believe in anything, but that they believe in everything, and the two things don’t always fit together.” But he adds, the views are consistent with tolerant views expressed by Evangelicals he met in various cities as he toured while promoting his book. Mohler agrees: “We’ve seen this coming,” adding that the query about whether others can make it to heaven “has been the question I get asked by more college students and on my radio program.” More so than Christ’s divinity or Resurrection, he says, “the exclusivity of the Gospel is the most vulnerable doctrine in the face of the modern world.” Liberals and conservatives will interpret the numbers in different ways, says Pew’s Green. “The liberal interpretation is that Americans are becoming more universalistic, religiously. The conservative one is that Americans are losing faith and becoming more accommodationist.” But he says the truth may lie elsewhere. “Just because they don’t want to believe that there’s only one way to salvation doesn’t meant that they don’t take their religion very seriously.” The political implications of the Pew findings are more difficult to gauge. Green says that while Americans’ unexpectedly high tolerance for one others creeds might seem to blunt the sharp religious edge of some of today’s campaign-trail discourse, it could also lead to larger religious coalitions around certain issues as pious believers overcome their inhibitions about working with others. The survey’s biggest challenge is to the theologians and pastors who will have to reconcile their flocks’ acceptance of a new, polyglot heaven with the strict admission criteria to the gated community that preceded it.

Americans Dropping Dogma for Spirituality

June 24….(USA Today) Religion today in the USA is a salad bar where people heap on upbeat beliefs they like and often leave the veggies, like strict doctrines, behind. There are so many ways of seeing God, public policy expert Barry Kosmin says that "the highest authority is now the lowest common denominator." And the wide-ranging ways people construct their spiritual lives could make the so-called religious vote unpredictable in the 2008 elections. Such are the key findings in latest data from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's US Religious Landscape Survey of 35,000 Americans. The survey finds US adults believe overwhelmingly (92%) in God, and 58% say they pray at least once a day. But the study's authors say there's a "stunning" lack of alignment between people's beliefs or practices and their professed faiths. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points for overall findings. The margin is a bit larger for subgroups such as "evangelicals" (26.3% of adults, who share strict ideas on salvation and common historic origins), mainline Protestants (18.1%, who share "a less exclusionary view of salvation and a strong emphasis on social reform") and historically black churches (6.9%, "shaped by experiences of slavery and segregation"). Among the highlights:

• 78% overall say there are "absolute standards of right and wrong," but only 29% rely on their religion to delineate these standards. The majority (52%) turn to "practical experience and common sense," with 9% relying on philosophy and reason, and 5% on scientific information.

• 74% say "there is a heaven, where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded," but far fewer (59%) say there's a "hell, where people who have led bad lives and die without being sorry are eternally punished."

• 70%, including a majority of all major Christian and non-Christian religious groups except Mormons, say "many religions can lead to eternal life."

• 68% say "there's more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion."

• 44% want to preserve their religion's traditional beliefs and practices. But most Catholics (67%), Jews (65%), mainline Christians (56%) and Muslims (51%) say their religion should either "adjust to new circumstances" or "adopt modern beliefs and practices."

Green observes, "Americans are deeply suspicious of institutional religion. Some see religion as about money, rules and power. That's not a positive connotation for everyone."

• 50% say "homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society," but the most consistently traditional religious groups say society should discourage it, 76% of Jehovah's Witnesses, 68% of Mormons, 61% of Muslims and 64% of evangelicals.

• 51% have a certain belief in a personal God, but 27% are less certain of this, 14% call God "an impersonal force," and 5% reject any kind of God. "People say 'God,' and no one knows who they mean," says Kosmin, director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.