The Rapture is False!

Until recently I held a mid-tribulation viewpoint but after having posted a few comments onto certain supposedly Christian blogs I began to realize that due to the large amount of contention amongst Christian over this single subject matter that there was something that was truly not quite right.

After all, why would God write something into his scriptures that caused so much controversy amongst those who were supposed to be our brothers and sisters in the LORD?

I did a fair amount of research and found that much to my dismay that I was being duped by the false dogma known Rapture of the Church and that is was nothing more than an add on or recently invented event satanically designed to lead Christians astray

Basically I had found there was nothing in the Bible that even came close to suggesting that millions and millions of Christians would suddenly float up into the skies to disappear up into Heaven forever; what I had found that instead of Rapture of the Church the Bible speaks instead of a resurrection of the dead.

When I made these findings public in the comments area of these said same blogs I was forthright banned forever from saying anything else on this blog lest I upset too many people. Their loss I would say!

Oh No! my Internets under siege! Scientists are predicting a massive solar storm to hit Earth in 2012 with ‘force of 100m bombs’ - or so they say?

If you listen to the media on a regular basis as I do, including late night radio, you may have heard that Astronomers are predicting that a massive solar storm, much bigger in potential than the one that caused spectacular light shows on Earth earlier this month, is to strike our planet in 2012 with a force of 100 million hydrogen bombs.

Several US media outlets have reported that NASA was warning the massive flare this month was just a precursor to a massive solar storm building that had the potential to wipe out the entire planet’s power grid.

Despite its rebuttal, NASA’s been watching out for this storm since 2006 and reports from the US this week claim the storms could hit on that most Hollywood of disaster dates – 2012.

But let us be perfectly honest about this, if it were true, (which I do not believe it is) why would the elitists tell us, (the general public) about an event such as this and risk the general breakdown of the fabric of society unless there was some other ulterior motive attached?

Could it be that they are trying to create a crisis and then find the solution to the crisis ( an old trick of theirs) so that they may usher in a New World Order quicker; or haven't we learnt from the y2k fiasco - or are they going to continue to pull the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting and gullible public?

The 2012 solar storm will not happen. Biblically, the mark of the beast (the microchip implant) needs the power from satellites to function properly so an event of the grandiose scale of massive solar storm force of 100m bombs hitting the earth above is not Biblical in any shape or form whatsoever.

Perhaps there may be a minor disruption but nothing really serious

Does the government believe it’s going to happen? NO! If they did, why would they be spending billions into tracking devices (eg. chip) and other technology that requires satellites and electricity to function properly?

2012 is an especially premeditated event designed to send citizens into a general state of fear and panic. Don’t believe a word of it and in any case if it were to happen your best defense has and will always be the Lord Jesus Christ, both now and forever.

The Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism in todays Modern World

As the administrator of this site I profess to be a fundamentalist Born Again Christian. I am not a Roman Catholic, so I am not here to espouse the virtues, or otherwise, of the Roman Catholic Church; I know the RCC has faults just as any church has, but that is not to say that I do not believe that a practising Roman Catholic can come to a place of repentance and acceptance before God to be accepted into his kingdom just the same as anyone else who calls themselves Christian.

At the same time I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the superior type of attitude that many fundamentalists hold that they are better than the Roman Catholics - and that it is going to only be themselves, and not the Catholics, that are accepted into the Kingdom of God when the Lord Jesus Christ clearly states in his word (the Holy Bible) that anyone who believes in him and calls upon his name shall be saved.

In the eyes of God there is no difference whatsoever between the Roman Catholic and the Christian Fundamentalist.

General Information
The Roman Catholic church, the largest of the Christian churches, although present in all parts of the world, is identified as Roman because of its historical roots in Rome and because of the importance it attaches to the worldwide ministry of the bishop of Rome, the pope. Several Eastern Rite Churches, whose roots are in regional churches of the Eastern Mediterranean, are in full communion with the Roman Catholic church.

In 1980 there were some 783 million Roman Catholics, approximately 18% of the world's population. The 51 million Roman Catholics in the United States (1982) constitute 22% of that country's population. These statistics are based on baptisms, usually conferred on infants, and do not necessarily imply active participation in the church's life nor full assent to its beliefs.

A growing estrangement between the Catholic church in the West and the Orthodox church of the East in the first millennium led to a break between them in the 11th century, and the two regions diverged in matters of theology, liturgy, and disciplinary practices.

Within Western Christianity beginning with the 16th - century Reformation, the Roman Catholic church came to be identified by its differences with the Protestant churches.

Roman Catholic Beliefs
The basic religious beliefs of Roman Catholics are those shared by other Christians as derived from the New Testament and formulated in the ancient Creeds of the early ecumenical councils, such as Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The central belief is that God entered the world through the Incarnation of his Son, the Christ or Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The founding of the church is traced to the life and teachings of Jesus, whose death is followed by resurrection from the dead after which he sends the Holy Spirit to assist believers. This triple mission within the Godhead is described doctrinally as the divine Trinity, God one in nature but consisting in three divine persons.

Roman Catholics attach special significance to the rites of Baptism and Eucharist. Baptism is sacramental entry into Christian life, and the Eucharist is a memorial of Christ's death and resurrection in which he is believed to be sacramentally present. The Eucharist is celebrated daily in the Roman Catholic church. Catholics also regard as Sacraments the forgiveness of sins in reconciliation with the church (Confession), ordination to ministry (Holy Orders), marriage of Christians, postbaptismal anointing (Confirmation), and the Anointing of the Sick.

Catholic ethical doctrines are based ultimately on the New Testament teachings but also on the conclusions reached by the church, especially by the popes and other teachers. In recent times the pope and bishops have formulated guidelines regarding social justice, racial equality, disarmament, human rights, contraception, and abortion. The official opposition to artificial contraception is not accepted by a large number of practicing Catholics. The Roman Catholic church's prohibition of remarriage after divorce is the strictest of the Christian churches, although the church does admit the possibility of annulments for marriages judged to be invalid.

The Worship of the Church
The public worship of the Roman Catholic church is its liturgy, principally the Eucharist, which is also called the Mass. After the recitation of prayers and readings from the Bible, the presiding priest invites the faithful to receive communion, understood as sharing in the sacramental presence of Christ. At the Sunday liturgy the priest preaches a sermon or homily, applying the day's biblical texts to the present lives of believers. The church observes a liturgical calendar similar to that of other Christians, following a cycle of Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost. It also follows a distinctive cycle of commemoration of the saints. The worship of the church is expressed as well in rites of baptism, confirmation, weddings, ordinations, penitential rites, burial rites or funerals, and the singing of the Divine Office. A distinguishing mark of Catholic worship is prayer for the dead.

The Roman Catholic church also fosters devotional practices, both public and private, including Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (a ceremony of homage to Christ in the Eucharist), the Rosary, novenas (nine days of prayer for some special intention), pilgrimages to shrines, and veneration of saints' relics or statues. The devotional importance attached to the Saints (especially the Virgin Mary) distinguishes Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy from the churches of the Reformation. In the last two centuries the Roman Catholic church has taught as official doctrine that Mary from her conception was kept free of original sin (the Immaculate Conception) and that at the completion of her life was taken up body and soul into heaven (the Assumption). Catholics are also encouraged to practice private prayer through meditation, contemplation, or spiritual reading. Such prayer is sometimes done in a retreat house with the assistance of a director.

The Organization of the Church
The Roman Catholic church is structured locally into neighborhood parishes and regional dioceses administered by bishops. In recent times national episcopal conferences of bishops have assumed some importance. Catholic church policy is characterized, however, by a centralized government under the pope, who is regarded as the successor to the apostle Peter, entrusted with a ministry of unity and encouragement. The First Vatican Council (1869 - 70) further enhanced the role of the papacy by declaring that the church's Infallibility (or inability to err on central issues of the Christian faith) can be exercised personally by the pope in extraordinary circumstances. This teaching of the pope's primacy and infallibility is a major stumbling block to the unification of the Christian churches.

The pope is elected for life by the College of Cardinals (about 130). He is assisted in the governance of the church by the bishops, especially through the World Synod of Bishops that meets every three years. More immediately in the Vatican City, the papal city - state within Rome, the pope is aided by the cardinals and a bureaucracy known as the Roman Curia. The Vatican is represented in many countries by a papal nuncio or apostolic delegate and at the United Nations by a permanent observer.

By tradition the all - male ordained clergy (bishops, priests, and deacons) are distinguished from the laity, who assist in the ministry of the church. In the Western (Latin) rite of the Catholic church, bishops and priests are ordinarily celibate. In many of the Eastern Rite churches, priests are allowed to marry. Some Catholics live together in Religious Orders, serving the church and the world under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

Members of these orders of congregations include sisters (or Nuns), brothers, and priests. Priests who belong to religious orders are sometimes called regular clergy, because they live according to a rule (Latin regula). Most priests, however, are ordained for ministry in a diocese under a bishop and are called diocesan or secular priests.

Church discipline is regulated by a code of Canon Law. A revised code for the Latin rite went into effect in 1983. A code for the Eastern Rite churches is in preparation.

The Church in A Time of Change
To initiate renewal in the Roman Catholic church, the late Pope John XXIII convoked a general council, the Second Vatican Council (1962 - 65). This meeting of bishops and their advisors from around the world was also attended by Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant observers. The council initiated changes that are still being carried out in the postconciliar era. The chief reforms in church practices were: changes in liturgical language (from Latin to the vernacular) and reformulation of sacramental rituals; a new ecumenical openness toward other Christian churches; increased stress on the collective responsibility of bishops in the church's mission (collegiality); more acute concern for political and social issues, especially where moral questions are involved; attempts to adapt the Gospel to diverse cultural traditions; reform of priestly education; and partial acceptance of diversity in theology and local practices.

These changes led to uneasiness and concern in some who felt that innovation had gone too far. For others the changes were seen as insufficient and painfully slow. Church leaders now recognize that implementation of the conciliar program will involve a long process of ongoing renewal.

Middle East peace talks to resume shortly...

Talks are now underway for the resumption of Middle East peace negotiations, and even though I am not trying to be unkind I can hardly find an end times site that makes mention of this very fact with the majority of them instead focusing on fabricated events such as the rapture myth.

Perhaps what lies here is a cetain amount of complacency reltive to the subject matter?

With meetings to take place within a matter of few months and a possible solution to the crisis to be achieved within the same time frame; accordingly, when Nigel Farage asked Herman Van Rompuy (see the attached article below) who he was - we may soon get the answer to that indelible question if Van Rompuy were to confirm a seven year covenant between the respective parties?

With the probability of such a scenario becoming a reality the answer to Farage's question is the Antichrist. Time will tell?

Daniel Chapter 9, Verse 27:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Briefing by Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell on His Recent Travel to the Region and Efforts Toward Achieving A Comprehensive Peace
George Mitchell
Special Envoy for Middle East Peace
Washington, DC
August 21, 2010
________________________________________
MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon. We have been trying steadily to work our way through the ranks of the envoys here at the Department of State. And we are very pleased this afternoon, I think coming up on your fifth month on the job, that we thought it was a good time to have George Mitchell, our senior envoy for – our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, to come by and kind of give you a sense of where he thinks things are currently and the way forward.

Senator.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, P.J. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I’ll make a brief statement and then I’ll be pleased to try to respond to your questions.

The President and the Secretary of State have made U.S. policy clear:
The only viable resolution to this conflict is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states. We believe that’s the best way to guarantee Israel’s long-term security. We believe it’s in the security interest of the United States and of the entire region. The President, the Secretary, and the entire Administration are working vigorously toward a future where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace and security, and where Israel has normal relations with its neighbours.

I have made four trips to the region, including several visits to Israel and to over a dozen Arab countries. Our focus right now is to create the context for the resumption and early conclusion of meaningful negotiations. To help achieve this, we’re asking all parties to take meaningful steps. Israelis and Palestinians have a responsibility to meet their obligations under the Roadmap, to which they committed in 2003. It’s not just their responsibility. We believe it’s in their interests as well.

For the Israelis, that means a stop to settlements and other actions. For the Palestinians, that means continuing their efforts to take responsibility for security and to end incitement. We’re also asking the Arab countries to take meaningful steps toward peace and normalization. We’re now engaged in serious and intensive discussions with our Israeli, Palestinian, and our traditional regional partners to support this effort. These are not disputes among adversaries. They are discussions with allies, with all of whom we share the common objective of peace.

We recognize the challenges that lie ahead, and we know that we’re asking all parties to take steps that are difficult for them. We’re encouraged by the progress we’re making in these discussions, although hard work remains. But we intend to bring these discussions to a very early conclusion.

It’s in the interests of all who seek to promote peace – Americans, Europeans, Arabs, Israelis, and others – to support this effort through tangible steps. We all share an obligation to help create the conditions for the prompt resumption and the early conclusion of negotiations.

That completes my statement, and now I’ll be pleased to try to respond to any questions.

MR. CROWLEY: Since this is George’s first time in our briefing room, why don’t you introduce yourselves personally and your outlet so he’ll have a sense of you.

MR. MITCHELL: (Laughter.) I thought you were going to make the choices here. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: I can do that, if you wish.

QUESTION: Sylvie --

MR. MITCHELL: You’re right. I don’t know who’s who, so maybe you might, but go ahead. You’re first.

QUESTION: Sylvie Lanteaume from AFP. The Israeli press says that you agreed to consider national – natural growth of settlements within their boundaries. Is it true?

MR. MITCHELL: I don’t believe in conducting negotiations through the media, but I will --

QUESTION: But it’s already – it’s already out. (Laughter.)

MR. MITCHELL: But I will say that the story is highly inaccurate.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: A follow-up on the same issue. The issue that – Fadi Mansour with Al Jazeera – Fadi Mansour with Al Jazeera channel.

MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The issue that was brought up by the media is practically saying some of these settlement activities are done by private sector. So the Israeli Government has no power over them to stop these activities, and it’s up to the courts or the law to decide on this matter. And that’s why the media is reporting that this is going to be part of a deal between yourself and Mr. Netanyahu that’s supposed to be reached in Paris next week.
MR. MITCHELL: No.

QUESTION: Do you see that as a legitimate demand by the Israeli Government to consider these activities?

MR. MITCHELL: Our position is clear. In 2003, Israel agreed to the Roadmap. It calls for a stop to settlements. We believe there should be a stop to settlements.

QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, Elise Labott with CNN. I was wondering if you could tell us – you just traveled for the first time in your new capacity to Syria.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you tell us about your discussions and whether you see a meaningful opportunity for the Israeli-Syrian track? And what steps specifically is Syria prepared to take? Are they prepared to stop the flow of arms to Hezbollah, for instance?

MR. MITCHELL: Right. The President’s objective from the beginning has been a comprehensive peace in the region. As I have stated repeatedly, publicly and privately, that means peace between Israel and the Palestinians, between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon, and the full normalization of relations between Israel and all of its neighbors.

My visit to Syria was a part of our effort to move toward the President’s objective. And we had serious, productive discussions that will continue as we seek to begin progress on all of the tracks that I’ve described, including Israel and Syria.

QUESTION: Can you just expand on that a little bit? I mean, do you think that, you know, that that track is ripe? Do you see the potential for quick progress on that? And do you see Syria is seriously committed to taking the steps that you need it to take?

MR. MITCHELL: We’re pursuing that approach as vigorously as possible, and we hope very much that we’ll be able to make progress in moving toward all tracks in the near future.

QUESTION: Senator --

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- you’ve now said twice that there should be a stop to settlements.

MR. MITCHELL: Right.

QUESTION: But you didn’t say the phrase “natural growth.”
MR. MITCHELL: Right.

QUESTION: And I just want to confirm that that is – it’s still what the Administration is asking for, a stop to settlements --

MR. MITCHELL: Yes.

QUESTION: -- including natural growth. And secondly, can you give us just a definition of what the United States considers natural growth? What does that phrase mean in your mind?

MR. MITCHELL: There’s been no change in our policy. And there have been – there have been discussions on every aspect of the issue.

QUESTION: Well, what does natural growth mean? I mean, can you just use it in --

MR. MITCHELL: I’m constantly asked by editors, you know, please give a plain explanation of what natural growth is.

QUESTION: If it’s for your editor. (Laughter.)

MR. MITCHELL: Well, of course, one of the issues is that there is no universally used and accepted definition. The most common definition is by the number of births, but there are many variations of that. I’ve had numerous discussions with many Israeli and other officials, and there are almost as many definitions as there are people speaking. But I think the most commonly used measure is the number of births.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) that number, please?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes. Yeah.

QUESTION: There seems to be a lot of focus on the talk about settlements, settlements.

MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: But it seems like (inaudible) of the world, and many people and many governments are forgetting that the real issue is the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied land according to UN Resolutions 242, 338, that this is an issue that, as a country, Israel cannot annex the lands of other countries to it by force. So why are you not triggering the talk about implementing the UN resolutions as much as the United States talks about the need to implement these resolutions on other countries? Why not Israel also?

MR. MITCHELL: We’ve discussed the full range of issues. And our hope, of course, as I’ve stated previously, is that the parties will resume meaningful negotiation on all issues as soon as possible in an effort to reach a rapid conclusion on all issues.
Yes, I’ll come back to you. Go ahead. Did you --

QUESTION: When you say the most common definition is births, are you saying –

MR. MITCHELL: The one that – the most commonly used in conversations with me.

QUESTION: I see. So when the U.S. say no natural growth –

MR. MITCHELL: Right.

QUESTION: -- is that what it’s saying is the definition?

MR. MITCHELL: We’re engaged in discussions on a wide range of issues. And different people have different interpretations of different phrases. And we listen to all points of view. We listen to every aspect of every discussion, and we’re trying to reach an agreement and understanding that helps us move the process forward. And I think I wouldn’t want to get beyond that.

QUESTION: Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. Does the Obama Administration endorse Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. MITCHELL: The prime minister stated a number of objectives that Israel is seeking in the negotiations. The Palestinians have in the past, and no doubt will continue, to state their objectives. Our effort is to begin meaningful negotiations in which those objectives will be part of the discussion, and ultimately to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides.

So our view is that it’s best to get into negotiations. That’s what negotiations are about. Different parties have different objectives in the negotiations. The important thing about the prime minister’s speech is that he set forth his – included in his objective a Palestinian state. So there now is a common objective, which was not the case until that speech was made. And the President rightly noted and welcomed that comment, because now we have both sides moving toward the same objective with different points of view on how best to get there. And what we want is to get into a negotiation on that.

QUESTION: So you’re not asking Abbas right now to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. MITCHELL: What we are saying – the prime minister made very clear that is not a precondition, that’s something that he would require for an ultimate agreement. So our objective is not to try to prejudge every issue before there’s even been a first meeting of the parties. I’ve never heard of a negotiation that succeeded through – in that fashion. What you want to do is to get the parties moving toward a common objective and to start talking about their differences in a way that will enable us to reach an early resolution in a manner that’s ultimately acceptable to both.

QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, Nadia Bilbassy with MBC Television Middle East Broadcasting Center. President Carter just met with Ismail Haniya, in which he clearly said that Hamas is willing to accept a state on the ‘67 border, and I believe this is not the first time they articulated this. I think Khaled Meshaal mentioned it before. Why not engage Hamas in a dialogue to make it part of the solution as opposed to be a part of the problem?

MR. MITCHELL: Right. We’ve made our position clear in that regard. We welcome the participation of any party that will meet the requirements for a democratic dialogue. They’ve been set forth in the Quartet requirements. So we welcome the participation of any relevant party who is prepared to engage in democratic dialogue in accordance with those requirements.

QUESTION: Can I follow on that, sir?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: We understand that you would welcome the participation – James Rosen with Fox News, excuse me. We understand that you would welcome the participation of all groups that would meet the requirements –

MR. MITCHELL: Right.

QUESTION: -- that you’ve set forth. But the obvious fact on the ground is that Hamas is unwilling to meet those requirements and exercises control over a significant percentage, perhaps the majority, of the Palestinian population. So perhaps you could explain for us how you propose to arrange negotiations and a swift resolution with the Palestinians when one of the key parties is unwilling to meet the requirements you’ve set forth. How do you get around that block?

MR. MITCHELL: Well, in every negotiation in which I’ve been involved, parties have taken seemingly irreconcilable positions at the outset. If you accept the premise of the question, which is that because they’ve said it now that will always be the case, then, of course, you can never reach agreement on anything. So our objective is to get a process going to encourage parties to take steps necessary to move that process forward. That doesn’t just include Israelis and the Palestinian Authority and all the Arab states. Hamas should consider whether it is prepared to take steps that would enable it to participate in the process by meeting these requirements.

QUESTION: But aren’t you held hostage and the process held hostage, as long as they do not?

MR. MITCHELL: No.

QUESTION: How come?

MR. MITCHELL: No.

QUESTION: How can you move forward without them?

MR. MITCHELL: We will move forward, and we welcome the participation of those who are willing to participate.

QUESTION: How? How are you going to move forward with --
MR. MITCHELL: We will have a meeting in a room in which those who are interested in proceeding in a democratic fashion will begin the dialogue. That’s how we’ll do it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Libby Leist with NBC. You mentioned several times that you want to see an early conclusion --

MR. MITCHELL: Yes.

QUESTION: -- to the negotiations. Could you define that a little bit more? And when are you going to start looking for each side to take the steps? Can you give us some sense of the sequencing here?

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I don’t want to set a deadline for an end to a process that we haven’t been able to get to begin. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But you did mention three times that you wanted to see an early conclusion. So what does that mean? What is an early conclusion?

MR. MITCHELL: It means that it won’t be open-ended and that it won’t continue on an indefinite basis. But it would be unwise and unrealistic for me here now to try to set absolute and specific deadlines. We have a sense of urgency about this. We want to get going. We want to get this process moving, and we want to bring it to a conclusion. And I think that’s as far as I should go now.

QUESTION: And the sequencing?

MR. MITCHELL: What?

QUESTION: The sequencing. I mean, many say the Israelis have to take the first step.

MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Israelis will say the other side has to take the first step. So what are you looking for?

MR. MITCHELL: I believe there has to be assurance on all sides that steps will be reciprocal. And we’ll proceed in a manner that best ensures that result because that’s the – in my judgment, that’s the best way, and really the only way, to get parties to take meaningful steps.

QUESTION: Sir, as Libby said, you’ve mentioned a very early conclusion, and you’re known to be an optimist. But the prime minister has talked about Jerusalem. You just take that as his position, again, leaving room for a divided Jerusalem in the solution, if the Palestinians stick to their position?

MR. MITCHELL: Look, without reference to a particular issue, I categorically reject the notion that because there is a disagreement between the parties on one or more positions, that there can never be an agreement. If you accept that argument, then no dispute would ever be resolved.
So I’m not commenting on any specific issue, but you have to begin with the premise that the parties will see that their overall self-interest, their long-term security, and the needs of their people will best be met by reaching an agreement that permits a fair and satisfactory resolution to the conflict, and that in the process there will be compromises that have to be made, but they will be justified by the ultimate goal of peace, security, and prosperity.

QUESTION: Sorry. Do those compromises go beyond the parties to the outside? In other words, could there be some compromise made by the United States on the settlements issue?

MR. MITCHELL: Our position is very clear. I’ve stated it.

QUESTION: Well, actually, it’s not. (Laughter.)

MR. MITCHELL: I’ve stated it with absolute clarity. I’m happy to restate it again.

QUESTION: But (inaudible) positions are very clear, though.

MR. MITCHELL: What?

QUESTION: But everyone’s saying that their positions are very clear. I mean, I guess what he is asking – is the United States a party to these negotiations because it may have to provide some security guarantees? I mean, President – Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying his position on Jerusalem, his position on the right of refugees is clear and, you know, unwavering. What about the United States?

MR. MITCHELL: Right. I understand what you’re saying, and we’ll take that into – (laughter). Thank you for that clarification. (Laughter.)
Go ahead. You better speak up, though.

QUESTION: Joe Macaron with Kuwait News Agency. I just want to give you – to re-clarify your answer. You said a few minutes ago about the Hamas, you said they should accept the democratic dialogue. You didn’t mention the Quartet. Do you think Hamas is like (inaudible) change of position, or what do you mean by a democratic dialogue?

MR. MITCHELL: I said the democratic principles which are the Quartet principles.

QUESTION: And my second question is Prime Minister Netanyahu talking about demilitarized Palestinian state, and President Obama said Palestinians are (inaudible) for a viable state. So do you think there’s another point of disagreement on this?

MR. MITCHELL: The United States will not take any action which undermines Israel’s security. The Palestinians are entitled to a viable, geographically contiguous state that provides independence and dignity for their people. We do not regard those two objectives as irreconcilable. They will be part of the discussion and the dialogue. Each situation is unique to the parties and the circumstances, and we’ll address ourself to that in an effort to achieve both objectives, which, as I said, are not irreconcilable.

QUESTION: So, Senator, (inaudible) --

MR. MITCHELL: Just a minute. Right here.

QUESTION: Yes. Joyce Karam with Al Hayat newspaper. I just want to clarify on what you said on the final status issues. Are you saying that Jerusalem, the issue of refugees, borders, these are all final status issues to be discussed during the negotiations? I mean, is that the U.S. position?

MR. MITCHELL: Those are set forth in the prior commitments of the parties.
Yes. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sue Pleming with Reuters. Are you convinced after these four trips that you’ve made that they’re any – that both sides are any closer at all to starting serious negotiations? You’ve used the word “prompt,” “early conclusion,” lots of happy adjectives, but --

MR. MITCHELL: Yes.

QUESTION: But what is your gut feel on this – I mean, you’re a very experienced negotiator – in terms of when these negotiations, really full-blown negotiations, can start? And at what level would they be, and would Obama be involved? Five questions. (Laughter.)

MR. MITCHELL: President Obama’s election, his speech in Cairo, his early commitment to resolution of this conflict, and what I think is the total personal effort of the Secretary of State and the President have made a dramatic difference in attitudes in the region. In addition, the threat from Iran creates a circumstance unique in the region’s history in establishing the possibility of a common interest between nations who, for so long, have been in an adversarial position.

And finally, I’ve said many times, and I repeat: The people of Israel have a state, they want security, and we believe they should have it. The Palestinian people don’t have a state. They want one, and we believe they should have that. We do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. Indeed, as we’ve made clear beyond any doubt through repeated statements made by the President, the Secretary of State, and myself, we believe it is in the interests of both sides that the needs of both be accommodated.

And specifically, in the interests of the Palestinian people to obtain a state, the security of the people of Israel must be central. To the people of Israel, in order to gain security, the needs of the Palestinian state must be central. We think that yes, it is possible. I assure you I would not have taken this position if I did not believe that there is a realistic chance of reaching those objectives. And I say that without for a moment trying to overlook the serious challenges, the difficulty, the level of mistrust and hostility, the many potential problems that exists, many of which have been the subject of questions here today.

But in terms of will, of determination, of perseverance, we have it, we’re going to deploy it, and we’re going to use all of the tools at our disposal to move forward toward that objective.
Go ahead here.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi, Kirit Radia with ABC News. Could you tell us whether the Obama Administration would find it useful to hold some sort of international conference like they – like the Bush Administration did in Annapolis? And would you tell us whether you think that anything that was accomplished in Annapolis still has any bearings on what’s going on now?

MR. MITCHELL: We want to build on the best of the past, to the extent that’s possible and to the extents that it helps us move forward. And when the time comes that – if and when we believe that a conference is – will be helpful in moving toward the ultimate objective, as has occurred repeatedly in the past, why then, we’ll make an announcement.

MR. CROWLEY: We have time for two more questions.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, go ahead and then here.

QUESTION: Nina Donaghy, Fox News. Can you tell me in your assessment what are the realistic prospects of Hamas and Fatah coming together to form a unity government at this point?

MR. MITCHELL: That’s a matter which is being led by the Egyptians. We encourage and support their efforts, provided that any government, whoever participates, and all of its members and ministers, are in full compliance with the Quartet requirements.

QUESTION: Bill Varner with Bloomberg News. Do you have any initial reaction to the extent to which the events in Iran, perhaps future questions about the future credibility of whatever government takes place or questions about, you know, unrest there might have an impact on your efforts and the positions of the Middle East (inaudible)?

MR. MITCHELL: I think it’s too early to make any definitive assessment. We’ve all lived through turbulent periods of history, I think I more than most of you. You may be close. (Laughter.) And events have rarely occurred in the manner that I thought most logical or reasonable under the circumstances. So I’m reluctant to try to be too specific in predicting future events when we’re right in the perhaps early stages of very far-reaching and as yet unpredictable events.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll take one more from Samir and then we’ll wrap it.

QUESTION: Yes, Samir Nader with Radio Sawa.

MR. MITCHELL: Speak up, speak up.

QUESTION: Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. Mr. Solana of the EU, he stated a few days ago that the U.S. will announce its vision for peace in the Middle East before the end of July. Is this true?

QUESTION: And if so, will you do it now? (Laughter.)

MR. MITCHELL: Is this before the end of July? (Laughter.) As I said earlier, we’re going to move as promptly as possible. And in my opening remarks, I said that we hope to conclude the discussions in which we’re now engaged very soon. To me, it’s a matter of weeks, not many months, so he may well be right. But we’re going to see how well we can proceed. And what I’ll do is I’ll – he’s a good friend, so I’ll call him when we’re ready and he can announce that, and then you can have the results then. (Laughter.)

Thank you all very much, a pleasure to see you.

FARAGE ON VAN ROMPUY

Hello again folks! This article entitled: "Don't let's be Beastly to the Belgians" was written by Nigel Farage and appears on the front page of the Summer 2010 edition of: "Bulletin from Brussels - News from the Belly of the Beast". It is primarily about EU President; Herman Van Rompuy. This gentleman is the highest paid [yet unelected] leader in the western world; whose appointment was agreed over a dinner and of whom 500 million folks have no mechanism to remove. I find it difficult to add to Nigel's words:

"We were promised that the new President of Europe would be a traffic stopper; a towering figure who would preside over a post Lisbon Treaty EU. What we got instead was an unknown; nondescript Belgian who writes bizarre poetry in his spare time. I thought it only right to comment. It seems right and proper to point out that the man being paid more than Obama had not been elected into his position and therefore cannot be removed. In his dirge like speech he went much further than any EU official ever before; calling for EU economic government and an evolution of global governance. What right did this ghastly little man have to tell us how to run our country? Yes - I know my comments were a bit strong but at least we got major coverage about who this man is and what power he has. And it is true; he really does have the charisma of a damp rag! On [the BBC's] 'Question Time' the following evening I was subjected to the mock outrage of the establishment; this from people who attack each other across the despatch box every week. In Brussels events were viewed more seriously and Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, imposed the maximum, possible fine of 10 days allowances. I have been told that: "this must never happen again". Quite how they are going to enforce this we will find out when I have recovered from my plane crash. The is the new face of the EU, where criticism is not allowed. Yet when Dany Cohn-Bendit abused the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, that was just fine. In a series of speeches two years ago I predicted the demise of Greece trapped inside the prison of nations that is the Euro. I intend to return to the subject when I am back. Expect the European Parliament to not be very happy"
[end quote]

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED

Dave Hunt vs. Dan Corner Eternal Security Debate 2/3

Please understand that I don't condemn anyone, for the Bible condemns all of us as guilty, dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners. My salvation solely rests in Christ's righteousness, because of the precious blood that He gave for our sins. My intention is not to be unkind; but rather, to expose false teachings.

Daniel D. Corner, founder of Evangelical Outreach, Washington, PA, is a dangerous false prophet! Mr. Corner denies the Eternal Security of the believer and teaches a false gospel of Works Salvation.

Corner has written two popular books titled, "The Myth Of Eternal Security," and "The Believer's Conditional Security." Corner is associated with the Jesus is Lord Ministries International, Word Broadcasting Network, and the satellite Reformation Channel.

These media conduits feature various Anglo-Catholics, Wesleyan/holiness ministers, revivalists, and charismatic preachers.

Beware! Dan Corner propagates his heresy to millions of naive people. The internet is saturated with lies and "doctrines of devils"... "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1st Timothy 4:1).

Dan Corner has corrupted the simplicity that is in Christ and teaches doctrines of devils. The Bible DOES teach the Eternal Security of the believer, which is the only conclusion you can make if you believe Romans 4:5, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

The word of God does not say Judas went to Hell; rather the Bible says he went to his place.

That is, God sent him to a place, neither Hell nor Heaven, whereby his spirit could go out and inhabit the Man of Sin just as he is doing at the moment. NB See my postings on the newly appointed EU president Herman Van Rompuy whom I suspect of being the Antichrist.

Therefore because Dan Corner cannot be relied upon to be accurate even in this small point he cannot be relied upon to be accurate in larger matters such as prejudging the salvation or otherwise of an individual.

Even though the saved person continues to sin all of this talk by Mr Corner about a person that is truly saved doing abominable acts such as murder is erroneous; for once saved God will never ever let go of the saved person when even the thoughts of such actions are repugnant to the Born Again Christian.

Accordingly, Mr. Corner is not doing the works of the Lord but is doing the works of Satan when he says that once a person is saved they could lose their salvation.

Binyamin Netanyahu warns Beirut and Hamas

Israel has handed Lebanon an ultimatum. Before a line can be drawn on the Lebanese-Israeli clash which flared Tuesday, Aug. 3, the Lebanese Army 9th Brigade commander responsible for sending snipers to shoot at Israeli troops clearing brush on their side of the border and killing Lt. Col. (Res.) Dov Harari, must be dismissed or court-martialed, debkafile's military sources report.

This burst of Lebanese sniper fire triggered the clash.The ultimatum was delivered at a three-way meeting at UNIFIL headquarters in Naqura on Wednesday night, August 4, attended by UN, IDF and Lebanese Army officers, after Israel learned that the guilty Lebanese officer is a Shiite who hangs out with Hizballah commanders in South Lebanon. The possibility is not precluded that his Hizballah friends tipped him off to the presence of high Israeli officers within firing distance from the Lebanese border.

This information runs contrary to the IDF's official line on the incident, which absolved Hizballah of involvement in the clash and claimed the Shiite terrorists were taken by surprise no less than the Israeli militaryUNIFIL carried a warning to Beirut that if the Lebanese army failed to punish the officer, Israel would deem it an enemy force and feel free to destroy its military positions along their border.

Our military sources reveal that the Naqura conference was also attended unofficially by the American, French and German military attachés stationed at their embassies in Beirut. They were sent to apply the brakes on any further escalation of the Israeli-Lebanese military showdown.

A UNIFIL spokesman announced early Thursday morning, August 5 that Israel and Lebanon had both pledged to work with the UN to avoid violent incidents in the future. However, on the quiet, our sources report the UN peacekeepers agreed to convey the Israeli ultimatum and warning to Beirut with their own recommendation to remove the Lebanese officer responsible for the outbreak from the South in the interests of restoring calm.

The ultimatum did not give the Lebanese army a deadline for punishing the officer or say what action Israel would take if it was not met, but the Israeli officers at Naqura presented a tough and unyielding front. Jerusalem will not let the death of a high officer go unpunished.

The Lebanese high command and Hizballah were reminded of Israel's reprisal Saturday Aug. 1 against Hamas, for firing a Grad missile at Ashkelon on July 30: Israeli Air Force bombers struck a number of targets across the Gaza Strip, one of which killed the high-ranking Hamas commander, Issa Batran, commander of the organization's missile batteries.

It was to avenge his death that Hamas' military wing, Izzedin al-Qassam, launched half a dozen Grad missiles from Sinai against Eilat on Monday, August 2. (In the event, they missed their aim and hit Aqaba, killing one Jordanian.)

Far from winding down the Lebanese-Israel border crisis, the Israeli ultimatum looks more like the opening move for the next round. The Beirut government is not expected in Jerusalem, Washington or Naqura to punish the Shiite 9th Brigade officer lest Hizballah throw its weight behind him and canonize him as a national Shiite hero. Israel will then feel free to exercise its options for the Lebanese act of aggression.

The state of play between Israel and Lebanon was described by high Israeli military sources Thursday, Aug. 5, as fluid and incendiary. A single tree or rocket could blow up into a major conflagration and spread across the Middle East.

Time is rushing toward another flashpoint: Hizballah's secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, has threatened to pass the buck for the five-year old assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri to Israel to ease the pressure of guilt preying on his own organization. He promises to present "proof" of Israeli secret service complicity at a press conference on Monday, August 9.

Western military and intelligence circles in the Middle East agreed Thursday that Israel cannot afford to let a second casus belli from Lebanon go unanswered after the unprovoked death of its officer.

A tense Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set the scene Thursday night with his first ever videotaped speech that was broadcast on three Israeli TV channels.

He held Hamas and the Lebanese government responsible for three cross-border attacks in as many days. While the third was staged by Lebanon, Netanyahu placed the Grad attacks on Ashkelon and Eilat squarely at the door of the Palestinian Hamas.

He made it clear that Israel would make both answerable when he said: "Don’t test our resolve to defend our citizens."

Is New Oz PM Head of Satanist Lodge?

by Henry Makow Ph. D

In a dramatic coup June 24 2010, Julia Gillard took over as Australian Prime Minister from Kevin Rudd and became Australia's first female PM.

Gillard is the first PM to be unmarried and a lesbian. (She is in a relationship with Tim Mathieson - who is a "beard.") She is the first PM to be sworn in without making reference to God. (Gillard is an atheist and has no religious beliefs.)

A reader has suggested that Gillard is head of the Satanic Alpha lodge of Sydney ("Australia`s global satanic legacy and future.")

This is based on the posthumous confessions of a leading Australian Satanist "Frater 616":

"Some of the deadliest, most effective and disarming assassins are women. Within the Alpha Lodges they are worshipped as embodiments of the Dark Goddess - who is known by many names and is virgin still! Currently the Outer Head of the Alpha Lodge Australasia is a very highly placed and successful Federal politician - whose Satanic name is Bestia."

We asked Aloysius Fozdyke, (the man who brought Frater 616's testimony to the world,) to comment. He is a member of the Alpha Lodge and we assume acts with their authorization.

His reply on the "Bestia"-Gillard connection: " I'd rather not comment at this stage."

Our reader continues, "there is only one female politician in Australia who fits "Frater 616"`s allusions to a "t"; and that person is Julia Gillard."

He says, "a closer study of photos of Julia Gillard (as well as ... European High Commissioner Herman van Rompuy, btw) clearly point to psycho-pathological traits - in Ms Gillard`s case those of the sadistic personality type. I would therefore venture the claim that Ms. Gillard is not only "a communist lesbian", but that she is in fact the head of the Satanic Alpha lodge - the "Bestia" mentioned by Frater 616; and the very person whose predilection is ritual child abuse."

Our reader continues:"In the same manner as Mr. van Rompuy has been placed at the very epicentre of European power (by his handlers Brzezinski and Kissinger; who "just happened to dine with him" in Belgium, on the very night of his election in November 2009.)"

"Ms. Gillard has now been placed in control of the south-east Asian region, quite possibly in preparation for the soon-to-be implementation of specific "new rules of societal conduct"...to be dictated by these very circles."

"Please also note these further clues: 1) Ms. Gillard is childless; although she obviously "enjoys" (as previous minister of education) concerning herself with children, she does not (as stated in an ABC interview of 2009) "especially like them"
.
"2) Ms. Gillard is "an atheist". Oh really? this might not be wholly dishonest, but actually a half-truth: if Ms. Gillard`s master is Satan ("the lord of this world"), as I would suggest, then she is -true to her beliefs- simply "hiding" this fact "in plain sight", as Satanists are wont to do.

"3) Ms. Gillard came to power very suddenly and in a most conniving "unusual" fashion; this would seem to point to hidden strings being pulled; strings such as those found in secret societies and brought to bear at the crucial time - and with deadly force. Further "enjoyment" is then drawn from the distress and shock of the opponent; in our case from the tearful downfall of Kevin Rudd (who would seem as decent a human being as they come, in the guise of politicians anyway.)

4) Ms Gillard is currently the only "highly placed and successful federal (female) politician"...her curriculum vitae, her views, as well as her highly suspect private life and "preferences" fit Frater 616`s description perfectly. all said, I`m sure that by following this admittedly still rather basic line of enquiry, others (perhaps more at home in Australian politics) will be able to add further evidence to my thesis.

In conclusion, the thesis that Gillard is the Head of an important Satanic Lodge is consistent with the claims made by both Frater 616 and Fozdyke that leading members of society, especially politicians, are Satanists. The fact that Fozdyke declines to comment is significant.

Here is the rest of the original article by "Matt" on Gillard. She certainly fits the profile in light of the occult and satanic roots of Communism and Lesbianism:

She was sworn in by Australia's first female Governor General (Quentin Bryce.) Bryce has held numerous high offices with the aim of advancing women's and "minority" rights at the expense of the Australia's European majority. Bryce's daughter is married to Bill Shorten who was pivotal in binging Gillard into the office of PM.

When she was at high school, Gillard was mentored by the Jewish liberal (i.e. Communist) Marlene Pilowski. When she moved to Melbourne to attend university, she became the Education Vice President of the left wing (i.e. Communist) AUS (Australian Union of Students), and later was its President.

Gillard was in the Socialist Forum from her university days. The forum's objectives were to create a socialist / feminist society through Labor governments. It originally consisted of ex-members of the Victorian branch of the Communist Party and some ALP members. Gillard was one of the two original paid organizers of the Forum.

She wrote numerous documents for the Socialist Forum including 'Being a Socialist Teacher' and 'Future Directions of the Left'. It was also through the Forum that she met Labor heavy-weight Joan Kirner and worked closely with her on Labor's Affirmative Action Plan. Gillard wrote the constitution for the pro-abortion feminist organization EMILY's List (in Australia), which supports "progressive" Labor women.

In 2006, when in opposition, Gillard voted for legalizing the abortion pill RU486 and for stem cell research, which both became law. In March 2010, when she was Education Minister, Senator Ron Boswell said that "Julia Gillard's new [education] curriculum reads like a learners manual for international socialism".

As PM, Gillard has tried to assuage Australians by painting herself as a moderate. She has also distanced herself from Rudd, who had become the fall-guy for a bad government. Gillard however should take more blame as she was one of the "gang of 4" that made the decisions. She was directly behind the Building Education Revolution (BER) scandal over building unneeded overpriced schools.

In less than three years, the Labor Government has gone from a 20 billion dollar surplus (left by Howard) to 148 billion debt, and is borrowing an extra $150 million every day. The common theme in Federal and state politics is that Labor governments create massive debt, and the Conservatives (Liberal / National party governments) pay that debt off. The main point though is missed - governments shouldn't be borrowing or repaying money from off-shore lenders in the first place.

Before holding the next general election (on August 21st), Gillard wll have to straighten out 3 key policy areas. She compromised on the mining tax, which was originally introduced by Rudd to pay off debt. With her dodgy projection figures, she claimed it would bring the budget back into the black, but this is unlikely.

The second issue, that of the "boat people". Boat arrivals have increased at over 50 times the rate under Howard because of Rudd's loose regulations. Boat people are considered queue jumpers. Gillard said that they will be processed in East Timor although there is no centre there. She is ignoring the centre already built at Nauru. Gusmao, the PM of East Timor claims he wasn't consulted and didn't want a centre in his country.

The third issue is the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS.) Rudd initially pushed it hard, but it was defeated in the Senate. The average Australian didn't really understand what it was, but many have since woken up that it is essentially a big expense which will effect ordinary people. The ETS is not about saving the environment so much as social change and the redistribution of wealth.

Gillard who has painted herself to be a bit of a non-scary moderate, is red at the centre. The media distracts and woos the dumb masses with news about about her latest haircuts, etc (her gay boyfriend Mathieson is a hairdresser.) It is her aim however to re-engineer society, but years of the Left's influence in Labor governments, education and the media has already done that.

As PM, Gillard just looks like another version of Rudd. Pretending to listen to the people, she instead pushes the NWO agenda. Being a non-religious 50 year old woman in a de-facto relationship is nothing unusual in Australia anymore. Gillard simply mirrors what Australia already is, while helping to push it ever closer to extinction in the name of "tolerance."

LAST DAYS PROPHECY UPDATE