The Canadian and Chinese Nuclear Horns Grow (Daniel 7:7)

China General Nuclear’s uranium unit chief seeks investment in Canadian mines

canda-chinese nuclear agreement

BEIJING: The uranium subsidiary of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN), one of the country’s two state reactor builders, is looking to invest in mines in Canada “in the near future”, a top official with the firm said on Friday.Zhou Zhenxing, the chairman of CGN Uranium Resources, told an industry conference that the firm had already secured uranium projects in all other major producing nations, including Namibia, Kazakhstan and Australia, and was now focusing its efforts on Canada.”Canada’s uranium reserves are among the largest in the world and we hope to cooperate with Canadian enterprises to complete the mission,” he said.Zhou said he had already been involved in discussions with Canadian officials, but gave no additional details.

CGN is the state-owned parent of CGN Power Co. Ltd , which raised around $3.2 billion in an initial public offering in Hong Kong this week.

Officials said on Thursday that China’s state-owned assets regulator was currently considering proposals to merge CGN with its rival, the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).

China is in the middle of a huge reactor building programme, and aims to raise capacity to 58 gigawatts (GW) by 2020. Chinese think tanks estimate that capacity could rise further to 200 GW by 2030, from around 19 GW now.

The World Nuclear Association has estimated that annual Chinese demand for primary uranium will rise tenfold by 2030, which would put it at around 40,000 tonnes.

With around three quarters of its uranium demand already sourced from overseas, China’s major nuclear firms have been busy securing supplies across the globe, and they have also stepped up exploration efforts at home.

Since China is also dependent on overseas firms to turn much of its uranium supply into usable fuel, CGN and CNNC were collaborating on the construction of a $6.5 billion processing plant in Guangdong, but the project was shelved last year amid protests from local residents.

The Bush Administration Was The Beast Of The Sea (Revelation 13:1-10)

National Politics Bears No Stamp Of God’s Approval


Published: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 10:56 p.m.
Richard Hilliard’s recent letter states that God has given the U.S. a second chance [“God Has Given U.S. 2nd Chance,” Nov. 16].
I don’t believe God has anything to do with it. He would not put his seal on anything as corrupt as politics. Our problems are not the fault of President Barack Obama.

His predecessor was the beginning of our problems. He and his leader R.B. Cheney thought they would look good in the historical record if they were wartime presidents. So they got a few other countries to form a so-called coalition and talked the American people into believing that Iraq had nuclear weapons of mass destruction that would reach the U.S.

Quoting part of Cheney’s speech for invading Iraq, “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” when, in reality, he had very few small arms, let alone weapons of mass destruction of any kind.

The Iraq war cost 4,500 young American soldiers their lives, and many others were maimed and crippled for life. Countless Iraqi people lost their lives. The cost in money for this bogus war is almost $2 trillion.

Did God approve of this? The writer speaks of taking our country back. I ask where to? The Dark Ages? In my 84 years, I don’t recall our country being taken from us. This country doesn’t belong to one political party or another.

Religion should have no place in government. It says so in the U.S. Constitution. The God I’ve been taught to believe in would not condone what’s going on in these fanatical religious organizations that try to claim our county has been blessed by God.

The U.S. has been blessed by the hardworking immigrants who came here to escape religious tyranny.


The United Nations Points The Finger At Israel’s Nukes

U.N. General Assembly Demands Israel Mothball Its Nuclear Arsenal

By Juan Cole


This post originally ran on Juan Cole’s Web page.

The United Nations General Assembly (where all 193 countries in the world get a vote) has almost unanimously   demanded that Israel give up its nuclear weapons and cooperate with making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone.  The only dissenters were Israel and the United States, along with three small South Pacific islands that always vote with the US, presumably in order to receive foreign aid.  Some 161 countries voted for the measure.

The US complained that the resolution singled out one country for opprobrium but this allegation is frankly dishonest.

First of all, you can’t complain about singling out a country that is alone in flouting UNGA directives on nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East.  Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a stockpile of nuclear warheads (several hundred).  No other country in the region has so much as a proven military nuclear program.  (Iran, often accused of wanting a nuclear bomb, has never been found by inspectors to have miliitarized its civilian enrichment program, and former Israel defense minister Ehud Barak admitted it publicly).  Egypt brought the resolution because it is made insecure by Israel’s bombs.  Current Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once suggested blowing up the Aswan Dam and washing all Egyptians into the Mediterranean.  With crazy people like that in the Israeli government, Egypt is right to be concerned about them having their finger on the nuclear trigger.

Saying Israel has been ‘singled out’ here is like saying Federal prosecutors ‘singled out’ fraudster Bernie Madoff for prosecution over his investment pyramid scam.  Rather, they just prosecuted the one major financier known to have committed billions of dollars in fraud.  It wasn’t like there were a lot of Bernie Madoffs, though there certainly were a lot of other kinds of shenanigans on Wall Street.Moreover, it was a busy UNGA session, and if anyone bothered actually to look at their votes that day, you would find the UNGA also reprimanded Syria for having chemical weapons (though most of these have been destroyed via Russian mediation) and also asked Pakistan and India to give up their nukes.

So actually Israel wasn’t singled out at all, but is just in the same category in this regard (having weapons of mass destruction) as Syria, Pakistan and India.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal was acquired with British, French and American connivance, and some of the components for it were illegally smuggled out of the US by Zionist secret agents.

Tel Aviv’s stockpile of nuclear bombs has been a deeply destabilizing factor in the Middle East.  Its existence certainly impelled Iraq to try to develop its own nuclear bomb (though it never got very far).  Since Iraq’s attempt in this regard was made the basis for the Bush administration to launch its 2003 war on Iraq and to occupy the country, it is not too much to conclude that Israel’s nuclear weapons are indirectly what mired the US in a fruitless 8-year war in the Middle East.

Iran is suffering from very severe international and American economic sanctions, which amount to a financial blockade (a kind of declaration of war) on the country, devastating its middle class.  The reason for this attempt to de-industrialize Iran and make its people povery-stricken is the unproven allegation that Iran is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its additional protocol.

But Iran’s supreme theocrat has given numerous oral fatwas against making, stockpiling or deploying nuclear weapons, and UN inspectors have been allowed into Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and never found any evidence of attempted weaponization.

So Israelis are allowed to get rich and given sweetheart trade deals with the US (they even still get direct civilian aid, which is to say they are Welfare Queens on a massive scale), even though they have actually done what Iran is only vaguely suspected of maybe one day wanting to do.  They don’t suffer sanctions the way the Iranians do, over the imaginary Iranian nukes, while they have real ones!

The unfair policies of the US in this regard has driven the arms race in the Middle East.  Israel is a serial violator of its neighbors’ sovereignty and keeps launching wars on them, confident in the advantage its nuclear stockpile gives it.  I am against nuclear proliferation, but anyone could understand why Iraq felt like it needed a nuclear counter weight to Israel.  Those Iranian hawks who want a nuclear bomb want it in some important part because they know of Israel’s stockpile.

There will never be any real stability in the Middle East until Israel complies with the UNGA resolution.  Apologists who point out that the Middle East has lots of problems not caused by Israel are being dishonest.  The point is that Israeli policies themselves do cause a lot of problems.

Iranian Nuclear Threat Destabilizes the Middle East: Opinion

By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
on December 04, 2014 at 3:05 PM, updated December 04, 2014 at 3:24 PM
The Shiite Crescent (Horn)

The Shiite Crescent (Horn)
By Joshua Block

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already announced plans to press forward with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. In a speech broadcast on Iranian state television less than one week since diplomatic talks expired in Vienna, Khamenei stated, “Peacetime offers great opportunities for our armed forces to. . .build up on preemptive capacities.”

Khamenei’s call for increased military activity should hardly be viewed as the words of a leader whose regime is pursuing nuclear power to generate electricity, as Iran has repeatedly claimed. Rather, it is an ominous dictate from the powerful throne of the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism that could further destabilize the disarray known as the Middle East.

Time is on Iran’s side, having been granted a seven-month extension until the next deadline for diplomacy. The United States and its allies should be concerned that Tehran will exploit the absence of vigorous pressure to continue its nuclear work and further dig in its heels against making the concessions necessary to meet the demands of the international community. At this critical juncture, now is not the time to withdraw pressure. Iran must finally be required to dismantle its nuclear capacity.

During the past year, Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and destabilization of its neighbors has continued – and in many ways worsened – even as Iran has engaged the West in nuclear talks. Iran’s terrorist arm, Hezbollah, is a major strategic threat, having been responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any group except al-Qaeda.

In 2009, at the beginning of his first term in office, President Obama announced that his administration would be seeking to “directly engage” with Iran. The administration’s foreign policy strategy was and is based on the hopeful belief that Iranian behavior could be moderated through a series of cooperative and coercive measures. Unfortunately, that notion has collided with reality as Iran has repeatedly sought to undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.

There is both logic and appeal to the administration’s original plan. Iran boasts a range of hard-power utility options that can, so the argument goes, be obtained through cooperative measures and then wielded against extremists to beat back their progress across the region. Iran, which sits strategically at the rim of the Persian Gulf, maintains a dominant toehold in Lebanon and parts of Syria through its proxy, Hezbollah, and it exerts influence in Iraq by fueling sectarian tensions there.

Vitally, Iran also controls the Strait of Hormuz, thus it administers the free flow of oil to the West. In other words, in a destabilizing Middle East in which state borders are rapidly collapsing and thousands of people are being killed daily, Iran appears to be a one-stop foreign-policy-shop.

The main problem with power-sharing agreements, however tempting, is that they inevitably come with consequences. In the case of Iran, the world’s leading financier of terror, the consequences of cooperation would be counterproductive, if at all even possible.

The downside of forming a tactical alliance with Iran against a third party has a long-held and poor precedent by U.S. standards. Iran has historically supported all sides in conflict, hoping to gain influence over the side that wins. Today, in addition to helping prop up Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, Iran also is playing key destructive roles in Lebanon and Iraq.

Tehran also provides support to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS, despite the fact that each group seeks to eradicate Shi’ism, the religious underpinning of the Iranian regime. Iran has spawned important tactical relationships with these terrorist groups because they share a common adversary, the U.S., and they all maintain virulent anti-American agendas.

With a new deadline set for talks after the deadline was extended yet again, the P5+1 must avoid at all costs agreeing to a deal which falls short of dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities or relying too heavily upon Iranian promises of transparency. The Iranian strategy of double-dealing remains the country’s modus operandi, thereby undermining diplomatic channels and creating a debilitating ripple effect of destabilization across the Middle East.

Joshua S. Block is President & CEO of The Israel Project.