Matt 24 watch, 267: Yale's Diplomat in residence Charles Hill and Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, warn of consequences of the Iran "deal"

Charles Hill speaks (article):



His conclusion is striking: "[the US has] handed over our leading role in the Middle East [to Iran]."

The unwisdom of such in light of Iran's global track record since 1979, is patent.

Caroline Glick, Editor of The Jerusalem Post, is equally sobering:

the damage caused to the nonproliferation system by American weakness toward Pakistan and North Korea is small potatoes in comparison to the destruction that Tuesday’s deal with Iran has wrought.

That deal doesn’t merely show that the US is unwilling to exact a price from states that illicitly develop nuclear weapons. The US and its allies just concluded a deal that requires them to facilitate Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Not only will the US and its allies remove the sanctions imposed on Iran over the past decade and so start the flow of some $150 billion to the ayatollahs’ treasury. They will help Iran develop advanced centrifuges.

They even committed themselves to protecting Iran’s nuclear facilities from attack and sabotage.

Under the deal, in five years, Iran will have unlimited access to the international conventional arms market. In eight years, Iran will be able to purchase and develop whatever missile systems it desires.

And in 10 years, most of the limitations on its nuclear program will be removed.

Because the deal permits Iran to develop advanced centrifuges, when the agreement ends in 10 years, Iran will be positioned to develop nuclear weapons immediately.

In other words, if Iran abides by the agreement, or isn’t punished for cheating on it, in 10 years, the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world will be rich, in possession of a modernized military, a ballistic missile arsenal capable of carrying nuclear warheads to any spot on earth, and the nuclear warheads themselves.

Facing this new nuclear reality, the states of the region, including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps the emirates, will likely begin to develop nuclear arsenals. ISIS will likely use the remnants of the Iraqi and Syrian programs to build its own nuclear program . . . . 

After all, now that the US has capitulated to Iran, its avowed foe and the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, who will take future American calls for sanctions against nuclear proliferators seriously? Who will be deterred by American threats that “all options are on the table” when the US has agreed to protect Iran’s nuclear installations and develop advanced centrifuges for the same ayatollahs who daily chant, “Death to America”? For Israel, the destruction of the West’s nonproliferation regime means that from here on out, we will be living in a region buzzing with nuclear activity. Until Tuesday, Israel relied on the West to deter most of its neighbors from developing nuclear weapons. And when the West failed, Israel dealt with the situation by sending in the air force. Now, on the one hand Israel has no West to rely on for sanctions or deterrence, and on the other hand, it has limited or no military options of its own against many of the actors that will now seek to develop nuclear arsenals . . . . Years from now, perhaps historians will point out the irony that Obama, who loudly proclaims his goal of making the world free of nuclear weapons, has ushered in an era of mass nuclear proliferation and chaos.

Israel can ill afford the luxury of pondering irony.

One day the nuclear Furies Obama has unleashed may find their way to New York City.

But their path to America runs through Israel. We need to ready ourselves to destroy them before they cross our border. [read it all]

Patently, the international system of stability is coming apart through a gross failure of leadership, as Charles Hill noted.  This particularly holds for nuclear non-proliferation and other weapons of mass destruction. And the spread of such arms to irresponsible or unstable states should give any sober-minded person serious pause.

Given the precedent of the collapse of the League of Nations in the 1930's in the face of rising aggressive states, that should give us sobering pause. Especially as the logic of other Western states is likely to be that if the US lacks the will, they can do little but follow the strategic surrender of initiative to Iran. Russia and China, likely, see themselves as profiting from a Western geo-strategic withdrawal.

The predictable consequence is war, including much amplified terrorism.

The difference is, this time, nukes are plainly in play in the same unstable Middle East that is the main oil supplier to the world.

The world is sowing nuclear dragon's teeth. END

Earthquake cluster off Barbados July 16 2015

There has been an earthquake cluster off Barbados on July 16, at least one of which was startling to people there.

Heads up. END

Matt 24 watch, 266: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's warning regarding the Iran Nuke "deal"

Video:



Transcript, clip:

The world is a much more dangerous place today than it was yesterday.

The leading international powers have bet our collective future on a deal with the foremost sponsor of international terrorism. They've gambled that in ten years' time, Iran's terrorist regime will change while removing any incentive for it to do so. In fact, the deal gives Iran every incentive not to change.
In the coming decade, the deal will reward Iran, the terrorist regime in Tehran, with hundreds of billions of dollars. This cash bonanza will fuel Iran's terrorism worldwide, its aggression in the region and its efforts to destroy Israel, which are ongoing . . . . 


Amazingly, this bad deal does not require Iran to cease its aggressive behavior in any way. And just last Friday, that aggression was on display for all to see.

While the negotiators were closing the deal in Vienna, Iran's supposedly moderate President chose to go to a rally in Tehran and at this rally, a frenzied mob burned American and Israeli flags and chanted 'Death to America, Death to Israel . . . 

 Why are we so blind, why are we so forgetful of hard-bought lessons of history regarding aggressive dictators? 

I can only conclude that in many influential circles our civilisation has become suicidally self-deluded -- something that growing attitudes to sex, family, morality and principle tend to reinforce. END

Matt 24 watch 265d: Shirley Richards and Ravi Zacharias provide a perspective on the "Christian homophobia/bigotry" accusation and the insinuation that principled objection to homosexualisation of marriage is the moral equivalent to racism

Current series: 1, 2, 3, 4 - this

Sometimes, regardless of whether you are interested in a cultural civil war flash-point, that flash-point is interested in you. Especially, when one is being willfully branded with the false accusation of the moral equivalent to racism.

It is in that context that a response by Atty Shirley Richards in the Jamaica Gleaner (tellingly, published in the notoriously low circulation Saturday issue) came to my attention, e.g.:

Same-sex 'marriage' requires changing the male-female prerequisite, which goes to the very core of marriage. In the first case, an unreasonable limitation - which in the Loving case [of banning inter-racial marriage] was racist in nature - is placed on the man and woman who can enter the institution of marriage, but in this case, the very nature of marriage itself is being changed.

The reference to the Loving case prompts a comparison between the civil-rights struggles of African-Americans and the homosexual debate. However, there are differences between the two. One such difference is that race is immutable, while being homosexual is not immutable. [cf here] Ask Donnie McClurkin, Dennis Jernigan and others who have left the homosexual lifestyle. As others have said, "Being gay is not the new black." . . . .

In another incident, Fox News reported in 2014 that "the city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city's first openly lesbian mayor. Those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court." (LINK provided. Note, this is a case of blatant censorship.)

Describing same-sex 'family life' as "a life which harms no one else" is like ignoring an elephant in plain sight. How does one explain the fact that this "life which harms no one else" is reordering society in its image? What about harm to the individuals themselves? Shouldn't the society be concerned about undeniable medical statistics on the consequences of high-risk sexual behaviour for the participants?

It should be clear to all that the homosexual lifestyle is not a harmless one, neither to the individual nor to society. Furthermore, it is not a lifestyle that is prepared to stay in the bedroom but, instead, insists on forcing itself into the centre of the public square

In this context it is not insignificant that Mrs Richards' support for marriage in accord with the naturally evident Creation Order was re-labelled by the Gleaner's Editor as advocacy of "opposite-sex marriage." By their Orwellian new-speak shall ye know them.

I should add a comment I had to make overnight at UD when the issue was again raised:

. . . the notion that complex human behaviours above things like reflexes and breathing are genetically or otherwise programmed beyond choice is quite problematic, especially when implications for responsible rational freedom are brought to bear. I suggest a comparison of the 12-step addiction recovery methods and movements is helpful (noting that vulnerability to alcohol may have a genetic component), as would be this text. We should be very wary indeed of any scheme, notion, ideology or movement — whether or not it is dressed in a lab coat — that would undermine human responsibility and the point and hope that conscience-guided reason linked to supported moral discipline and recovery methods sustained across several years can lead us to walk in a better way. There are many, many, many cases of successful transformation of people in bondage to all sorts of addictions, dependencies, and destructive lifestyles. A truth that seems to be very politically incorrect and widely suppressed today. Let me just say finally for now that 60+ years ago Alcoholics Anonymous was mocked and derided by the experts and media, especially when a co-founder backslid. But now, its approach, on long significant success, has become a widely respected and adopted model. Teen Challenge is similar. Though of course if you don’t want to have to fight for your life to get off the barbed hook, don’t bite on the seemingly tasty fly floating by.

Further to all this, noted Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias, answering a question, provides food for thought:



We would do well to ponder where our civilisation is headed:

Then, we need to ponder also, what we should do. END

Matt 24 watch 265c: F/N2 . . . a possible homosexualist intended endgame for the cultural civil war

Brent Bozell points out an "obvious" onward homosexualist strategy in America (with implications far beyond the USA):

We've already seen the first signs of businesses punished for failing to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, with six-figure fines and barrels of negative publicity. [--> not to mention mobs baying to punish the "heretics" from political correctness.]

The obvious next step is forcing churches to participate in gay marriages, and if they refuse, it will be time to revoke their tax exemptions. [--> which effectively de-lists as a church and opens up further more ruthless measures] Shortly after the latest court decision, Time posted an online commentary advocating the end of all tax benefits for religious organizations. Naturally, it will follow that churches and religious groups will also be forced to employ people who in no way share their religious beliefs. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy claimed in his majority opinion that "The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." But if the Democrats win the White House again, it's obvious they will appoint more liberal justices that share their obvious devotion to steamrolling "religious freedom" -- which they now routinely put in scare quotes. 

For decades the media have tilted dramatically in favor of gay lobbies. They have won. What next? No one expects the media elites to tap any brakes as America heads over the cliff.

Out here in the Caribbean, we have already seen emissaries sent out to try to "deconstruct" the "texts of terror" in the Scriptures, in Barbados and Antigua -- hosted by the US Embassy.

That should be a warning and wake-up call on what is in store.

Especially, when I saw a microphone snatched away from someone asking a reasonable question, refusal by "New Testament Scholars" to address Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6:9 - 11, walkout and abrupt termination when reasonable questions were asked.

The easy days are over. END