Can It Get Much Worse?

BB&T Acquires Colonial as Regulators Close Five U.S. Lenders
By Alison Vekshin, David Mildenberg and Dakin Campbell

Aug. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Colonial BancGroup Inc., the Alabama lender facing a criminal probe, had its banking operations closed by regulators and taken over by BB&T Corp. in the biggest failure since Washington Mutual Inc. collapsed last year.

Regulators also shut two companies in Arizona, one in Las Vegas and one in Pittsburgh yesterday, pushing the tally of failed banks this year to 77.Branches and deposits of Colonial Bank, ranked second in its home state, were turned over to BB&T in a deal brokered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the regulator said in a statement. The failure of Montgomery-based Colonial followed a Florida expansion that left the company with more than $1.7 billion in soured real-estate loans.

“We’re gaining solid market shares in great markets in Alabama, Florida and Georgia,” Kelly King, chief executive officer of Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based BB&T, said in a statement. “It comes with minimal asset risk to BB&T because of our loss-sharing agreement with the FDIC.”

Regulators are closing banks at the fastest pace in 17 years. The Sept. 25 seizure of Seattle-based Washington Mutual was the biggest bank failure in U.S. history; its branches and assets were sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Colonial is the sixth- biggest, FDIC spokesman David Barr said.

Colonial had assets of $25 billion and deposits of about $20 billion, the FDIC said. BB&T will buy about $22 billion of the assets and the FDIC will dispose of the rest later. The FDIC and BB&T signed a loss-sharing agreement on about $15 billion of assets, the regulator said. The failure will deplete the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund by $2.8 billion, the agency said.

Criminal Matters BB&T won’t assume any assets or liabilities “related to fraudulent, criminal or inappropriate activities of Colonial,” the North Carolina bank said. BB&T also won’t take assets or liabilities related to Taylor Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp., the Florida-based lender that stopped making loans this month after being suspended by U.S. agencies and Freddie Mac.

Colonial provided financing for Taylor Bean and dozens of smaller mortgage firms.Colonial said last month there was “substantial doubt” it could survive and on Aug. 7 said part of its mortgage-lending business was the target of a U.S. criminal probe. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued subpoenas for documents related to accounting for loan loss reserves and participation in the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bank said.

The Colonial takeover will make BB&T the ninth-biggest U.S. bank by assets, moving it from 11th ahead of McLean, Virginia- based Capital One Financial Corp. and Atlanta-based SunTrust Banks Inc. BB&T said it will rank eighth by deposits. The biggest lender based in Alabama is Regions Financial Corp.New Markets “It’s a good acquisition geographically for BB&T,” Chip MacDonald, a partner specializing in financial services at law firm Jones Day, said in a telephone interview. “It complements their Florida operations and gets them into Texas.”Colonial’s 346 branches in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Texas will reopen as outlets of BB&T, the agency said. Colonial employs about 4,500 people, BB&T said, adding that it may sell 44 branches in Nevada and Texas.

“This is the time when smaller banks can take advantage of the weaker banks,” said Ken Thomas, an independent bank consultant in Miami. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair “has had a lot of sleepless nights, but this is one headache gone.”Colonial posted a $606 million second-quarter loss, its fifth straight, mostly because of soured loans to developers and home builders in Florida.

A planned $300 million injection by an investor group led by Taylor Bean collapsed and the bank hasn’t met capital requirements to qualify for money from TARP, the $700 billion U.S. bailout program for troubled financial firms.Other BiddersLosses under BB&T’s agreement with the FDIC are likely to be “very minimal,” Daryl Bible, BB&T’s chief financial officer, said in an interview. “It’s a very low-risk acquisition from a credit perspective.”The FDIC told BB&T that “up to four people were looking seriously” at Colonial, Bible said. At least one other bid was received and it was very close to BB&T’s, he said, adding he didn’t know who made the competing offer.

BB&T has 450 people working on the acquisition this weekend, Bible said. BB&T is considering continuing Colonial’s so-called warehouse mortgage program that helps finance other home lenders, he said.

Something of Historic Proportions is happening?

By Tim Wood
I am a student of history. Professionally! I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus. Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back. Why? We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has 'loaned' two trillion dollars (that is$2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine! And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September.Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us?Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of 'we the people,' who loaned our powers to our elected leaders, Apparently not? We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why? We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, and school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why? We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago? We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose? Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are infree fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare andour entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so. And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary. Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders. No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important. Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: CHANGE. Why? I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now! This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning. And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his 'brown shirts' would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department-by-department, person-by-person, bureaucracy-by-bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media. Did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . .. Change. And the people surely got what they voted for.(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe.. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities, and in less than six years 'a shorter time span than just two terms of the US. presidency' it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors, all with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them. As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me. Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am.But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe, and why I believe it.I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Note by Robert J Muir: Just in case Mr. Wood is not aware of what is happening, as I am sure he is , it's called New World Order

US President Barak Obama set to announce a Middle East peace plan within a few weeks

There have been a lot of quotations made on this blog relative to the signing of seven year covenant by the Antichrist. The covenant is re-quoted below.

The signing of the covenant is quite significant as it not heralds the return of the Lord Jesus Christ back onto the earth, but also it heralds the beginning of seven years of tribulation spelling the end of mankind’s existence here on the earth as we know it. This information is not intended to frighten but only to inform!!!

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. Daniel Chapter 9, Verse 27.

There is news now starting to emerge that a peace plan will be announced in a few weeks by the US president Barak Obama. At this stage I do not know any of the details of the plan, BUT, if it were to be seven year Middle East peace treaty between Israel and all of the Arab states in the region then that is the one we have been looking for.

No I am NOT saying President Obama is the Antichrist.

However news reported by the Times on line (here) suggest we may be on the verge of an historic, and perhaps prophetic, step forward in the preparation for the appearance of the Antichrist; that is if he has not already been revealed in the form the previous British Prime Minister and current head of the international quartet of four towards Middle East peace -- Tony Blair

Times online announced Obama is close to revealing the Middle East peace plan within weeks.

What makes this peace plan different from the rest that have gone before is the suggestion that this plan will include / involve not only Israel and the Palestinians but Syria, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon, see the aforementioned

Thus Daniel 9:27 takes on even more significance when we read "......he shall confirm the covenant with the many...."

Now this does not mean Obama is the Man of Sin but if he isn't then he is paving the way for the coming Antichrist to "confirm" (rubber stamp) the covenant with the "many".

The word "confirm" in the Old Testament is an interesting one. Because it not only can mean to strengthen the covenant but it also means to "act insolently".

Sort of conjures up the picture of Antichrist Chuck Misler gives when he calls this coming evil person "Mr. Big Mouth".

Another interesting development along the same lines is the recent UPI news (here) of a report outlining the details of a future Palestinian State.

We know the Antichrist will base himself and his forces in Israel so the fact that the above report mentions 3 times the deployment of a "multinational force" on the borders, in the Old City of Jerusalem and (now get this, prophecy buffs) they will also be stationed on the Temple Mount, could also be very significant.

Remember the word "could". This means we take note but do not shout to the world that this is it.
Things are moving very fast and we can only do as I always say, do as the master said and "Watch".

May Messiah bless you until next time?

A Letter to Obama

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM LOU PRITCHETT

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Sanities, O'Kelly and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Israeli occupation is a hurdle to peace

By Marwan Al Kabalan

The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was a watershed event in the Middle East.

Its repercussions have shaped the history and politics of the region ever since. The war has also transformed the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, rendering it from an existential question into mere dispute over territories.

During six days of almost one-sided hostilities, Israel captured a huge portion of Arab territories, including the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank of the River Jordan, and the Syrian Golan Heights. The status of these occupied territories has subsequently become the title of the conflict.

Initially, Israel thought that it could keep a good part of these territories after forcing hundreds of thousands of its rightful owners to flee. It, hence, tried to change the demographic and geographic status of the captured land.

Israel's thoughts proved illusions. Following the Camp David Accord of 1978, Israel evacuated 10,000 colonists from the Sinai Peninsula, returning the 70,000 square km desert to Egypt.

After the war of attrition in 1974, Israel was also forced to give back a small portion of the Golan Heights to Syria. In 2005, Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip, evacuating another 4,000 colonists. The rest of the occupied territories remained in Israeli hands.

Since the US was and remains Israel's main backer, the Arab world relied on Washington to retrieve the occupied territories. But, the US, which considered Israel as a "strategic asset" following its 1967 victory, showed no real interest in pursuing peace in the Middle East.

Throughout the Cold War era, the US was single-mindedly preoccupied with the "Communist threat", and had subsequently pursued a policy of containment rather than resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The end of the Cold War presented a golden opportunity to resolve the generations-old conflict. The Bush Sr administration pressured Israel to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. The right wing Yitzhak Shamir government, dragging its feet to the conference, declared that it would negotiate for decades with no real substance.

Fearing further US pressure to implement UN resolutions 242 and 338, Israel accelerated the building of colonies. Israel's main objectives were to create new facts on the grounds, allowing it to permanently annex more Arab land, and keep Palestinian territories divided and surrounded by Israeli colonies.

Throughout the past two decades, Israel's policy was to eat up more Palestinian land while negotiations were under way. This went against the very logic of the Oslo Accords of 1993.

According to Oslo, Palestinians agreed to defer all difficult issues, including colonies, refugees, water resources and the final status of occupied Jerusalem to a later stage in exchange for an Israeli commitment to freeze the building of new colonies and preserve the territorial integrity of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel violated its commitments.

According to UN, Palestinian and Israeli sources, Israel has built more colonies in the occupied territories between October 1991 (Madrid Peace Conference) and 2000 (when the peace process collapsed following the Camp David summit between Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton) than in the previous years since 1967.

Following the Al Aqsa Intifada of 2000, Ariel Sharon came to power in Israel. Supported by the Bush Jr administration, he dropped the peace process all together and initiated a new policy of unilateral disengagement. He proposed a fence to separate Palestinian towns and cities from Israel. He offered to return 42 per cent only of the West Bank - reduced later to mere 29 per cent - to the Palestinian National Authority, while annexing the rest.

Having lost the moral high ground that it once enjoyed in the Arab world, the US under President Barack Obama chose to revive the Middle East peace talks. Both Palestinians and Syrians decided that there will not be peace talks unless Israel freezes its activities of building colonies in the occupied territories.

Clearly, the more land confiscated by Israel the more distant a peaceful solution for the conflict becomes. It is feared that when Israel realizes that peace is the only feasible option for it to live in a secure environment, there will be no more land for peace.

Dr Marwan Al Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations at the faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria. End of quote

I have just watched a mind boggling documentary entitled “Occupation 101”

The movie exposed the absolute myths that have been perpetrated for decades now by the media over the Middle East conflict.

The Palestinians have been constantly blamed for the dozens of acts of violence that have inflamed the region now for as many years. In reality they have been nothing more than innocent victims of deliberate acts of violence perpetrated by Israel!

This conflict does not go back hundreds of years as so many have supposed but only commenced after Israel became a nation in 1948 and began stealing Palestinian land to establish illegal settlements.

The Jews (not the ordinary Jews but the Zionist Jews) have illegally occupied and stolen Palestinian land now for decades and decades, and all of this skullduggery very heavily backed by the US - more than likely in the name of oil.

There can never ever be a peace treaty while the current attitude of the Israeli government remains.

The illegal occupation of Palestinian land will continue and the wall that divides Israel and what is left of Palestine will not come down.

For that reason there can be no two-state solution - nor can there be a peace treaty under those circumstances.

The best part is that there can be no one more to blame for the acts of violence that are committed against completely unarmed Palestinian citizens than the American fundamentalist Christian lobby who mistakenly call the Jews Gods chosen people and stolen Palestinian land - the Jews promised land.

The Jews are not God’s chosen people; certainly, no more than what the Palestinians are!!!

The Antichrist has been revealed and we should know (by the end of October) his identity for certain as he is appointed as the first ever full time president of the EU.

Yet, even he cannot ever hope to achieve a Middle East as the Bible has said would be the case unless there is some form of outside interference from Russia in the Magog battle and Israel is brought to her knees to force her to stop stealing Palestinian land. Only then can there ever be hope for a seven year Middle East peace treaty of Daniel Chapter 9, Verse 27 heralding the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Medvedev Shows Off Sample Coin of New ‘World Currency’ at G-8

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev holds up an 'worldwide coin' as he discusses the concept of an international currency during the Group of Eight (G8) summit in L'Aquila, central Italy.

Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDeKLP5hk

Also check the site:http://www.futureworldcurrency.com/

By Lyubov Pronina

July 10 (Bloomberg) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a “united future world currency.”

“Here it is,” Medvedev told reporters today in L’Aquila, Italy, after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “You can see it and touch it.”

The coin, which bears the words “unity in diversity,” was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of G-8 delegations, Medvedev said.

The question of a supranational currency “concerns everyone now, even the mints,” Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready. I think it’s a good sign that we understand how interdependent we are.”

Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the U.S. dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the G-20 meeting in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lyubov Pronina in L’Aquila, Italy at lpronina@bloomberg.net

Baroness Kinnock, the Europe minister, has given the clearest signal yet that the former Prime Minister is running, for the EU's top job

"The UK government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for president of the council," she said.

Asked if Mr Blair's candidacy for president of the Council of the EU, a position created by the Lisbon Treaty, had been confirmed, Baroness Kinnock repeated that he was the British choice.

"I am not saying there has been any formal confirmation or statement from Tony but it certainly is the government's position. I am sure they would not do it without asking him," she said.

Mr Blair is seen by key European leaders, including President Nicolas Sarkozy, as an international statesman who can help boost the EU's presence on the world stage as its official global representative.

"Blair is seen by many as someone who has the strength of character, the stature, people know who he is and he would be someone who would have this role and step into it with a lot of respect and I think would be generally welcomed," said Baroness Kinnock.

Mr Blair, currently working as international envoy to the Middle East haso never ruled himself out of the EU job but has stressed that the Lisbon Treaty must enter into force before a presidential contest can begin.

"As far as we are concerned nothing has changed. There is nothing to be a candidate for, the job does not exist," said a source close to Mr Blair.

The Lisbon Treaty, the successor to the EU constitution, is awaiting a second referendum in Ireland after Irish voters rejected it last year.

A British Government spokesman said: "The Irish have yet to hold their referendum on the treaty, and if and when the treaty enters into force, and if Mr. Blair decides to run as a candidate as president, then Glenys Kinnock is quite right - he would have the Government's support."

Under the treaty, the current system of six-monthly EU presidencies rotated between 27 member countries will be replaced by a "President of the Council".

The new EU president will be a full-time Brussels official for his two-and-a-half year term, chosen by Europe's leaders but unelected by voters.

Baroness Kinnock has announced that Tony Blair is Britain's official candidate for the job of European Union President later this year.

The job, would involve Mr. Blair co-coordinating EU policy and brokering agreements between leaders of the 27 member states.

It is expected to carry a salary and perks package of at least £200,000 a year.

However, a spokesman for Tony Blair said: "There is no campaign. As we have said time and again on this, there is nothing to be a candidate for since the job doesn't actually exist." End of quote

The Bible tells us that we shall not know who the Beast is until he is revealed.

Accordingly, it is not being too presumptuous, or jumping the gun, to believe that the Antichrist now has been revealed in the form of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

As Bible students have been saying for quite sometime know that the Beast consolidates all of his power for the complete control for firstly the EU, and then the whole of the globe under the banner of the EU presidency there really does seem to be very little doubt now to that reality.

Any statement that I choose to make such as the one above has to be tested and proven with the scriptures themselves and the facts of the matter are that there is a load of scripture that says the Beast is a lion, or in the instance of Blair a former British Prime Minister.

For those that may say that the Antichrist may not be the first president of the EU, nor even the second one, or so on, even years away they may be correct?

However, remembering that the Antichrist comes forth as the peace maker of the Middle East when you bring into the equation Blair’s prominence as the head of the international quartet of four towards Middle East peace then that changes that argument dramatically - particularly he has just come out and said that there will be a Middle East treaty within a year which would make it right after he has been appointed as the full time EU president at around about early January 2010 -- just as the Bible says would be the case.

I am extremely worried for those that have not yet given their lives over to Christ by accepting him as their saviour and deliverer for their time has know almost run out for once this man is in power within a few months then let the end game begin.

The 27 member nations of the EU have already agreed to the EU constitution (the Lisbon Treaty) and once Ireland has agreed to it at the meeting that is to take place on the 02nd of October then the position for the full time president will be created.

Remember also that it was Blair who confirmed a covenant between the Protestants and Catholics over their decade’s long conflicts.

NB If there has been any hurt or misunderstanding that I have caused by any comments that I have made relative to my fellow Christians then I humbly regret in having done so, may God forgive me.

Rejection of Lisbon would generate 'wrangling' at EU level, says Miliband

Tony Blair is the red hot favorite to be appointed as the full time president of the EU once the Lisbon Treaty is approved.

It must be remembered that even though the Lisbon Treaty must be approved before the EU constitution can come into effect as from the 01st of January 2010 and that it was Tony Blair who confirmed a treaty between the warring factions in Ireland and settled the decade’s long conflict over there.

Statement: the Lisbon Treaty will be approved and Tony Blair will receive the appointee the full time president of the EU!

Quote: REJECTION OF the Lisbon Treaty in the October referendum would generate further “institutional wrangling” at European level and lead to a reduction in the number of commissioners, British foreign secretary David Miliband said in Dublin yesterday.

And in response to a question about Tony Blair’s suitability to become president of the European Council, he said the former prime minister would be an “excellent” choice, but added that the position could not come into existence unless Lisbon was ratified.

Speaking at a joint press conference at Leinster House with Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin, he said: “The eyes of Europe will be on Ireland in the early part of October. Obviously it’s now for the Irish people to decide how to vote in the referendum. As you know, the position of the British government is very, very clear and the British parliament is very, very clear as well, that the Lisbon Treaty is good for Europe, we think it’s good for Britain and now it’s for you to decide whether or not you want it for Ireland and therefore for the rest of Europe as well.”

Asked about the implications of a second rejection of Lisbon in October, he said: “Obviously we would then have to try to live under Nice, and as you know, the Nice treaty requires a reduction in the number of commissioners, it doesn’t specify how many, but essentially if we don’t have the Lisbon Treaty we will return to institutional wrangling which has been the enemy of European progress over the last seven years.”

In the light of reported opposition by Spain and Sweden, which currently holds the EU presidency, to having Tony Blair as President of the European Council, which would be established on a long-term basis if the Lisbon Treaty were passed, Mr Miliband was asked about his own attitude to Mr Blair as a possible president.

“I think he’d be an excellent president but there isn’t a vacancy at the moment because there isn’t a post and there won’t be a post unless there is a Lisbon Treaty. In my experience, there’s a lot of respect for Tony Blair around the world, never mind around Europe. He’s made his own contribution to Anglo-Irish relations, which I think is distinctive.

“But he’d be the first to say that there isn’t a vacancy at the moment, because there’s no job.”

Commenting on the recent arrests of British embassy staff in Tehran, he said: “The solidarity that’s been shown by the whole of the European Union, all 27 countries, on this issue of the arrest of the hardworking diplomats who are of Iranian origin but work for the British embassy in Tehran, is much appreciated.” Asked if he could see a time when himself and Mr Martin would be greeting each other at prime ministerial level, Mr Miliband said: “If you start thinking about other people’s jobs, you’re not focusing on your own job and I think we’re both focusing on our own jobs.”

Mr Martin said the two ministers had discussed the forthcoming Lisbon referendum, the arrest of British embassy personnel which Mr Martin described as “absolutely unacceptable” and the situation in Burma in the light of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon’s impending visit there tomorrow. They also had “a brief overview of the Northern Ireland situation, particularly in the aftermath of the European elections and the range of issues that has emerged since then, in terms of devolution of policing, but also in welcoming of course the decision of loyalist paramilitaries to decommission their arms”. End of quote

The Rapture of the Church -- this is a mid tribulation Rapture blog for the reasons stated below.

There are three theories relating to the Rapture of the Church, the pre, mid and the post all being centered on the signing of the treaty of Daniel Chapter 9 Verse 27.

[Daniel 9:27 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.]

That is not to say that any of the theories relating to the Rapture of the Church do not have sound scriptural doctrine to support their beliefs.

I was talking to some fellow believers witnessing in the streets today and we began to talk about that very subject – the Rapture of the Church.

I was asked if I believed in the Rapture, and I said I did.

Their next question was do you believe in the pre-tribulation Rapture theory, to which I replied I do not believe in any of the theories relating to the Rapture of the Church, and that I thought the Rapture could happen anytime.

The person that I was talking to then said do you know that more than 80% of believers think the Christians must be gone from the earth before the Antichrist can be revealed and the treaty of Daniel signed.

If he’s right in saying that (which I believe he is) then what is to hold the Antichrist back from being revealed if the majority of Christians themselves think they must be gone from the earth before he can come forth?

No matter evidence is presented as proof that any particular individual is the Beast they will not believe it simply because they are still here on the earth and haven’t been raptured.

Accordingly, as there is only a very small group of those that do not believe in any theories, or believe in the mid or post theories relating to the Rapture their voice would not be loud enough for anyone to take notice of.

As that is the case, there is nothing, or very little, to hold the Antichrist back if the greater part of Church and indeed the Christians believe that they have to be taken from the earth for the Antichrist to reveal himself, just as the prpohecies themselves said would be the case .

Therefore, it will be the majority of the Christians themselves who will allow the Antichrist to come forth and not necessarily the pagans, although they will also bow down and worship the Beast.

We truly are living in the last days, and just when most feel safe and secure that’s when the slaughter will begin, so don’t say what happened?

Arabs vow to support Obama's Mideast peace drive

CAIRO— Arab foreign ministers vowed on Wednesday to support US President Barack Obama's Middle East peace efforts but said that normalisation with Israel depends on a halt to its settlement activity.

Arab countries "are prepared to deal positively with the proposals of President Obama to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict," they said in a statement after a meeting at Arab League headquarters in Cairo.

They vowed to "take the necessary steps to support the American effort based on achieving comprehensive peace and the creation of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital."

Obama has made relaunching the Middle East peace process a top priority, pledging a "new beginning" for Islam and America in a landmark speech to the world's Muslims delivered in Cairo earlier this month.

He has also bluntly called for Israel to halt settlement activity on Palestinian land while urging Arabs to move closer to making peace with Israel.

The Arab ministers in Cairo did not spell out the steps they planned to take but said that in order to normalise relations with Israel, the Jewish state "must put a complete stop to settlement activity including in east Jerusalem."

Arab League chief Amr Mussa said Arabs were prepared to reconsider dealing with Israel "because there is now an American administration which has since day one expressed its seriousness in ending the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"This therefore requires us to move seriously and to take international positions in consideration," Mussa told a news conference after the talks.

"We give importance to the serious and balanced proposal put forward by President Obama" although "we consider statements by (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu as unacceptable."

In a key policy speech earlier this month, Netanyahu for the first time mentioned the creation of a Palestinian state, but said it had to be demilitarized.

He also said the Palestinians must recognise the Jewish character of Israel and ruled out a halt to all Jewish settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

The Arab ministers' statement comes just two weeks after US envoy George Mitchell called on Arab states to take "meaningful steps and important actions" to make peace with Israel.

"We are working hard to achieve our objective, a comprehensive peace in the Middle East," Mitchell said during a trip to Egypt.

This includes "peace between Israel and its other immediate neighbours and full normalisation of relations between Israel and all of the Arab nations as contemplated by the Arab peace initiative," he said.

The 2002 initiative, backed by all 22 members of the Arab League, offers Israel full normalisation in return for a withdrawal from territory occupied in the 1967 Middle East war, a Palestinian state and an equitable solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

A meeting between Mitchell and Netanyahu scheduled for Wednesday was called off because of disagreements over settlement growth, Israeli media reported.

Officials close to Netanyahu said he had called off the meeting and denied an Israeli newspaper report that Washington had cancelled it over Israel's refusal to halt "natural growth" in the settlements.

Italy backs Netanyahu's peace plans

ROME— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got a warm and supportive welcome Tuesday from Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, while postponing a potentially less comfortable meeting with President Barack Obama's Mideast envoy.

At a joint news conference after talks lasting about two hours, Berlusconi endorsed Netanyahu's plan for a future demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel as a "Jewish state." That means that Palestinians must give up any notion of refugees who left what is now Israel — or their millions of descendants — resettling in their former homes.

And although the U.S. says emphatically that Israel must call an immediate halt to all forms of Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank, Berlusconi was more gentle, speaking only of the need for Israel "to send signals" on stopping settlement.

"It was a very warm welcome," an upbeat Netanyahu briefed Israel-based journalists traveling with him after the Berlusconi meeting. "It would be hard to find a better friend."

Both men also discussed Israel's concerns about what many Western countries say are Iran's nuclear arms ambitions.

Italy is perhaps Israel's greatest ally in Europe, but at the same time is Iran's No. 1 European trading partner, accounting for about 26 percent of total import-export trade between EU countries and Tehran.

Last year alone, Italian imports from Iran amounted to euro4.1 billion ($5.73 billion) and Italian exports amounted to euro1.8 billion, according to the Italy-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Standing next to Netanyahu, Berlusconi said Italy's economic ties to Tehran had always had the blessing of Israel and the U.S., and would continue as long as Washington approved.

Both leaders said they discussed at length the situation in Iran following the disputed June 12 election that returned hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he was the true winner, and his supporters have protested for days to demand a new election.

Netanyahu said the violent crackdown on the protesters "shows the true nature of this regime" that is making governments everywhere reassess their relations with Tehran.

"I believe that the courage shown by the people of Iran in facing bullets in the streets for the sake of freedom is something that deserves the salute of free men and women everywhere," he said.

Making his first European tour since taking office, Netanyahu flies to Paris on Wednesday for talks with President Nicolas Sarkozy who says he is a firm supporter of Israel but nevertheless has also called for "an immediate and complete halt to settlement."

In addition, he insists that Israel must cede sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians, something that is anathema to Netanyahu and his right-wing political partners at home.

While in the French capital Netanyahu had been due to also meet the U.S. Middle East peace envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, who analysts and Israeli officials had expected to press Israel on the settlement issue.

But Netanyahu aides accompanying him in Rome said Defense Minister Ehud Barak would instead travel to Washington next week to hold talks with Mitchell.

A statement read out to reporters said the Netanyahu-Mitchell meeting was being postponed until after the talks with Barak in order to "clarify issues."

Netanyahu says he will not allow construction of new settlements nor allow existing enclaves to expand beyond their current boundaries but he is not prepared to stop building within existing communities.

He says that the ultimate fate of settlements should be dealt with negotiations for a final, lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians and that in the meantime a compromise with the Americans can be found.

"Can we reach agreement on the settlement issue? Yes, if there is a will," he told reporters.

Cash is rapidly becoming extinct as the popularity and the accessibility of micro-chips takes off!

From the Cutting Edge Ministries website: Rev 13:16-18 requires a cashless economy, a fact which has puzzled Bible Scholars for centuries, but now it is coming quickly. Bank bosses foresee the "death of cash".

NEWS BRIEF: "Cash to become extinct as micro-chips take off", News.com.au, June 15, 2009

"CASH is accelerating down the path to extinction as new technologies threaten to mark the end of loose change within a decade. Bank and credit union bosses say cash won't be alone, with wallets and credit cards also likely to disappear too .... cash and cards will be replaced by computer chips embedded in mobile phones, watches or other portable devices."

Once people are conditioned thoroughly as to how convenient it is to "buy and sell" without cash using micro-chips embedded within "mobile phones, watches and other portable devices", they will quickly and easily accept micro-chips embedded within the skin, just as the Book of Revelation foretells.

After all, "mobile phones, watches or other portable devices" can easily be stolen! We believe this argument will be effectively used during the time when Antichrist and his False Prophet are preparing to implement his "Mark of the Beast" global ritual. What kind of time frame do these titans of industry expect the world to go completely cashless?

"Australian Central chief executive Peter Evers believes cash will be replaced for most transactions in five-to-seven years. 'Cash will disappear as there will be other forms of carrying cash, stored value in your phone or whatever it might be. It will transfer automatically', he said."

This phenomenon is also global.
"We're very close in countries around the world. If you go in to Hong Kong or Singapore, the low-value transactions have already disappeared. You can't go anywhere, like on public transport, without pre-purchasing a card. Banks general manager strategy and operations Chris Ward expects Australia to follow the offshore lead, with small cash transactions disappearing first. 'So you can't go and buy a bottle of water from the deli with cash; you've got to go and buy it with your chip', he said"

Small cash transactions have usually been considered to be the most problematic in terms of the entire world moving to a cashless system. After all, experts believe that paying cash to a young boy to mow your lawn will be the very last type of transaction to disappear. But, today's experts are telling us that it is this very type of transaction which is disappearing first!

Clearly, this prophecy of a cashless economy at the time of Antichrist is proceeding along the same general timelines of other prophecies.

Truly, we live in exciting times, as we are seeing the stage set for prophecy fulfillment all the time in our Daily News. Dedicated Christians of old longed to see this type of fulfillment, but passed away, not seeing it develop during their lifetime.

EU leaders reach deal for Lisbon Treaty as Sarkozy accuses Brown of caving into Brussels power-grab

Irish PM Brian Cowen, pictured with Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, wants to hold a re-run of the poll.

The controversial EU constitution is set to come into force by next January after a deal was reached with Ireland in Brussels today.

EU leaders agreed to offer a number of concessions to Ireland's leaders so they can persuade voters to back the Lisbon Treaty in a new referendum later this year.

The news came as French President Nicholas Sarkozy boasted that the EU's powerful new financial regulators will exert unprecedented control over the City of London.

Mr Sarkozy accused Prime Minister Gordon Brown of caving into the Brussels power-grab over Britain's financial centre following a meeting of EU leaders.

His provocative comments are set to infuriate the Prime Minister, who earlier insisted he had fought off attempts for the European institutions to override decisions made by the British Government.

The two new bodies - the European Systemic Risk Council and European System of Financial Supervisors - which will be in charge of regulating and supervising banks across the continent.
But there have been concerns that the bodies would be able to give orders to countries - for instance, to bail out a failing bank.

Critical: Nicholas Sarkozy has accused Gordon Brown of caving into the Brussels power-grab over Britain's financial centre

The summit conclusions, agreed by the European Council, stresses "that decisions taken by the European Supervisory Authorities should not impinge in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of member states".

But they also agree that the bodies will have 'binding and proportionate decision-making powers (over) whether (national) supervisors are meeting their requirements under a single rule book and relevant (EU) law".

The Irish people threw the EU into disarray last June by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty - which critics say is the EU constitution in all but name.

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen wants to hold a re-run of the poll in the first week of October and there is widespread expectation that voters will back the Treaty second time round.

In a classic Brussels fudge, Mr Cowen won legal guarantees that the EU will not be able to override Irish policy on the military, tax and abortion.

But the guarantees will not be ratified by member states until long after the Treaty comes into force - meaning that Tory leader David Cameron will be in the awkward position of having to steer them onto the statute books if the Conservatives win the next election.

The Conservatives are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and have promised to hold a referendum on the Treaty if it has not been ratified by the time they win power.

If the Irish public vote 'yes' and the final remaining countries complete the ratification process, EU leaders hope that the Lisbon Treaty will come into force by January 1, 2010.

Ireland's financial circumstances have weakened considerably since the referendum 'No' vote last year, meaning that voters will be more reluctant to upset EU allies by rejecting the Treaty for a second time.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Treaty is the creation of an unelected EU President - a post which former Prime Minister Tony Blair is in the front-running for.

The British public have been denied the chance to vote on the Treaty, which is almost identical to the EU constitution, despite a Labour pledge to hold a vote at the last general election.

Mr Brown insisted that the Irish guarantees will not affect the Treaty - which has already been ratified by the House of Commons.

He said: 'The guarantees are specific to Ireland. The summit conclusions set out the fact that the protocol does not change the relationship between the European Union and the member states, and that the protocol clarifies but does not change the content and application of the Treaty.'

The Irish protocol will become part of the next EU Treaty change when Croatia joins the Union.

This is expected in the next couple of years.

Supporters of the treaty - a complex set of institutional changes aimed at making the enlarged EU more efficient - were keen to avoid any new round of referendums on it, after years of negotiations.

Mideast peace deal could happen 'within year': Blair

To herald the return of the Lord Jesus Christ back onto the earth -- Christians are looking for a seven year Middle East peace treaty confirmed by the Antichrist.

The correct verse for this is 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.

Now the prime suspect for the correct identity of the Antichrist and head of the international quartet of four towards Middle East peace, Tony Blair, has come forth just yesterday and said that such a deal may be possible within a year

LONDON (AFP) — A Middle East peace deal is possible "within the year," but only if all sides agree to peaceful negotiations, international envoy Tony Blair says in comments to be aired Friday.

The former British premier said there was a "great sense of hope and expectation" in the region after US President Barack Obama's recent speech on relations between the West and the Islamic world.
"If President Obama gets the right partner, on the Israeli side but also on the Palestinian side, his determination to do this I have no doubt about at all," he told interviewer David Frost.

He said Obama has made the Middle East a clear priority. "I have no doubt at all of his sincerity or his determination," he said on Frost over the World, on Al Jazeera's English-language channel.

"So if everyone would commit themselves to a peaceful political negotiation to a two-state solution, you could have this deal within the year. But people have got to be prepared to commit to it."

Obama pledged a "new beginning" for Islam and America in a landmark speech to the world's Muslims made in Cairo earlier this month, fueling hopes of diplomatic progress after his predecessor George W. Bush's departure.

That was followed by a major speech by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu last weekend, in which he offered a conditional acceptance of a Palestinian state, in a break with his right-wing Likud party's ideology.

"I think the Obama speech was really a huge event... I think this was a very big moment, a vital moment, for the region and for the wider world," said Blair, adding: "I think there is a great sense of hope and expectation."

But he added: "The important thing is to understand that President Obama doesn’t need cheerleaders, he needs partners. He needs people who are going to help him achieve what he wants."

Blair said Netanyahu's speech was a "step forward," but acknowledged there was criticism.

"From the outside they're going to be skeptical, some cynical, some worried: 'Well what does this really mean?' and 'Are we going to be able to make progress on a basis that is acceptable to the Palestinian people?'," he said.

"And that's obviously still to be decided.

"So my view is, yes in that sense it is a step forward and now we've got to wait and see what actually happens.

Netanyahu Peace Speech: Israeli Prime Minister Appeals to Arab Leaders For Peace

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a speech at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv, Sunday, June 14, 2009. Netanyahu on Sunday called for creation of a limited Palestinian state for the first time, saying it would have to be disarmed. Netanyahu made the call during a major policy speech about his Mideast peacemaking intentions. (AP Photo/Baz Ratner, Pool)

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed a Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, reversing himself under U.S. pressure but attaching conditions such as having no army that the Palestinians swiftly rejected.

A week after President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world, Netanyahu said the Palestinian state would also have to recognize Israel as the Jewish state _ essentially saying Palestinian refugees must give up the goal of returning to Israel.

With those conditions, he said, he could accept "a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state."

The West Bank-based Palestinian government dismissed the proposal.

"Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations," senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said. "We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain."

Netanyahu, in an address seen as his response to Obama, refused to heed the U.S. call for an immediate freeze of construction on lands Palestinians claim for their future state. He also said the holy city of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty.

The White House said Obama welcomed the speech as an "important step forward."

Netanyahu's address was a dramatic transformation for a man who was raised on a fiercely nationalistic ideology and has spent a two-decade political career criticizing peace efforts.

Story continues below.
“”I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions," he said, calling on the wider Arab world to work with him.”Let's make peace. I am willing to meet with you any time any place _ in Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut and in Jerusalem."

Since assuming office in March, Netanyahu has been caught between American demands to begin peace talks with the Palestinians and the constraints of a hardline coalition. On Sunday, he appeared to favor Israel's all-important relationship with the U.S. at the risk of destabilizing his government.

But his call for establishing a Palestinian state was greeted with lukewarm applause among the audience at Bar-Ilan University, known as a bastion of the Israeli right-wing establishment.

As Netanyahu spoke, two small groups of protesters demonstrated at the university's entrance.

Several dozen hard-liners held up posters showing Obama wearing an Arab headdress and shouted slogans against giving up West Bank territory. Across from them, a few dozen dovish Israelis and foreign backers chanted slogans including "two states for two peoples" and "stop the occupation."

Police kept the two groups apart.
The Palestinians demand all of the West Bank as part of a future state, with east Jerusalem as their capital. Israel captured both areas in the 1967 Mideast war.

Netanyahu, leader of the hardline Likud Party, has always resisted withdrawing from these lands, for both security and ideological reasons. In his speech, he repeatedly made references to Judaism's connection to the biblical Land of Israel.

"Our right to form our sovereign state here in the land of Israel stems from one simple fact. The Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people," he said.

But Netanyahu also said that Israel must recognize that millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, and continued control over these people is undesirable. "In my vision, there are two free peoples living side by side each with each other, each with its own flag and national anthem," he said.

Netanyahu has said he fears the West Bank could follow the path of the Gaza Strip _ which the Palestinians also claim for their future state. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Hamas militants now control the area, often firing rockets into southern Israel.

"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel," he said.

"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state," he said.

Netanyahu became the latest in a series of Israeli hard-liners to soften their positions after assuming office. Earlier this decade, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led Israel out of Gaza before suffering a debilitating stroke. His successor, Ehud Olmert, spoke eloquently of the need to withdraw from the West Bank, though a corruption scandal a disastrous war in Lebanon prevented him from carrying out that vision.

Netanyahu gave no indication as to how much captured land he would be willing to relinquish. However, he ruled out a division of Jerusalem, saying, "Israel's capital will remain united."

Netanyahu also made no mention of uprooting Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, in addition to 180,000 Israelis living in Jewish neighborhoods built in east Jerusalem. He also said that existing settlements should be allowed to grow _ a position opposed by the U.S.

"We have no intention to build new settlements or expropriate land for expanding existing settlements. But there is a need to allow residents to lead a normal life. Settlers are not the enemy of the nation and are not the enemy of peace _ they are our brothers and sisters," he said.

Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians have refused to do so, fearing it would amount to giving up the rights of millions of refugees and their descendants and discriminate against Israel's own Arab minority.

Although the Palestinians have agreed to demilitarization under past peace proposals, Erekat rejected it, saying it would cement Israeli rule over them.

Nabil Abu Rdeneh, another Palestinian official, called on the U.S. to challenge Netanyahu "to prevent more deterioration in the region."

"What he has said today is not enough to start a serious peace process," he added.

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the speech "racist" and called on Arab nations "form stronger opposition" toward Israel. Hamas ideology does not recognize a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East and the group has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel. Netanyahu also came under criticism from within his own government _ a coalition of religious and nationalistic parties that oppose Palestinian independence.

Zevulun Orlev, a member of the Jewish Home Party, which represents Jewish settlers and other hard-liners, said Netanyahu's speech violated agreements struck when the government was formed. "I think the coalition needs to hold a serious discussion to see where this is headed," he told Israel Radio.