The Antichrist Deceives Christians (Revelation 13)

Thursday, January 14, 2016 11:00 pm.
Pascale Warda
Chaldean Christian politician Pascale Warda has welcomed this call. Mrs Warda has asked all Iraqi citizens to support the reinstatement of the rights of the Christians owners – a cause that is also supported by several civil society groups in Iraq.
Many Christian homes have been stolen, with the collusion of corrupt officials, who put themselves at the service of individual frauds and organized groups of fraudsters.
The ‘legalized’ theft of the properties belonging to Christian families was closely linked to the mass exodus of Iraqi Christians, following the US-led military intervention to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Opportunists took possession of homes and property which had been left empty, in the hops that none of the owners would come back to reclaim their property.
MPs and Christian associations have long appealed to the local administrative institutions, asking them to cancel the false certifications.
Muqtada al-Sadr is the leader of the Sadrist Movement, the party to which at least 30 Iraqi lawmakers belong. He was also the founder of the Mahdi Army, the militia – officially disbanded in 2008 – created in 2003 to fight the foreign forces in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Source: Fides

We Are Babylon The Great (Rev 17)

Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of ‘Lying,’ Being ‘Deceptive,’ and Having ‘Devilish’ Intentions

5:42 PM, Apr 9, 2015

President Obama has long known that the real decision maker in Iran is Ayatollah Khamenei, the so-called supreme leader. While other Iranian officials have negotiated with Western powers over the mullahs’ nuclear program, Khamenei’s opinion is the only one that really counts. It is for this reason that Obama began writing directly to Khamenei early in his presidency.
Earlier today, Khamenei broke his silence on the supposed “framework” the Obama administration has been trumpeting as the basis for a nuclear accord. Khamenei’s speech pulled the rug out from underneath the administration.  
Khamenei accused the Obama administration of “lying” about the proposed terms, being “deceptive,” and having “devilish” intentions, according to multiple published accounts of his speech, as well as posts on his official Twitter feed.  
Khamenei also disputed the key terms Obama administration officials have said were agreed upon in principle. Economic sanctions will not be phased out once Iran’s compliance has been “verified,” according to the Ayatollah. Instead, Khamenei said that if the U.S. wants a deal, then all sanctions must be dropped as soon as the agreement is finalized. Khamenei also put strict limits on the reach of the inspectors who would be tasked with this verification process in the first place.
Beginning earlier this month and in the days since, Obama and his advisers have attempted to portray the negotiations as major step forward. During an appearance in the Rose Garden on April 2, Obama said the U.S. and its allies have “reached a historic understanding with Iran.”
Khamenei does not agree. “There was no need to take a position” on the supposed deal before today, Khamenei said. “The officials are saying that nothing has been done yet and nothing is obligatory. I neither agree nor disagree [with any deal].”
“What has been done so far does not guarantee an agreement, nor its contents, nor even that the negotiations will continue to the end,” Khamenei elaborated.  
“I neither support nor oppose it,” Khamenei reportedly said of the proposed deal. “Everything is in the details; it may be that the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details.”
It gets much worse.
When Obama announced that a “framework” for the deal was in place earlier this month, the administration released a fact sheet purportedly showing the agreed upon “parameters.” The White House said the terms outlined in the fact sheet “reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran.”
Khamenei would beg to differ.
“The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues,” Khamenei said, according to Reuters. Khamenei added that the fact sheet, which doesn’t match Iran’s understanding, exposes America’s “devilish” intentions.
Khamenei’s social media team emphasized many of these points on his official Twitter feed, which published quotes from his speech. One tweet reads: “It’s all about the details. The disloyal side may want to stab ‪#Iran in the back over the details; It is too early to congratulate. #IranTalks.”
The second tweet reads: “What’s been done so far secures neither the main deal nor its contents nor is it even clear whether ‪#talks will bear fruit & lead to a deal.”
In a third tweet, the Ayatollah calls into question the Obama administration’s integrity. The fact sheet was supposedly an example of the White House’s “lying.” Khamenei’s Twitter feed contains this post: “I trust our negotiators but I’m really worried as the other side is into lying & breaching promises; an example was White House fact sheet.”
A fourth tweet reiterates the point: “Hours after the ‪#talks, Americans offered a fact sheet that most of it was contrary to what was agreed. They always deceive & breach promises.”
During his speech on April 2, Obama said that sanctions “relief will be phased as Iran takes steps to adhere to the deal. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place.” Other “American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.”
Khamenei is having none of it.
The supreme leader said that sanctions “should be lifted all together on the same day of the agreement, not six months or one year later.” Rhetorically, he asked: “If lifting of sanctions is supposed to be connected to a process, then why do we negotiate?”
Again, Khamenei’s Twitter feed emphasized the point: “All ‪#sanctions should be removed just when the deal is reached. If sanctions removal depends on another process then why we started to talk?”
Similarly, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said today that the sanctions should be lifted on the “first day” the deal is implemented.
The gap between the administration’s rhetoric on sanctions relief and the Iranian position is hardly surprising. Even before the administration announced the supposed framework for a deal earlier this month, Khamenei made it clear that all sanctions needed to be ended at the beginning of any deal.
During a speech on March 23, Khamenei said the phased approach to ending the sanctions was American “trickery.” Khamenei explained: “That is unacceptable because the lifting of the sanctions is part of the negotiations and not the result of the talks. Therefore, as the esteemed president [Rouhani] made clear, the sanctions should be lifted immediately after an agreement is reached.”
In his talk today, Khamenei also drew limits on the inspectors’ hypothetical reach inside Iran. “No unconventional inspection that’d place Iran under special monitoring is acceptable. Foreign monitoring on ‪#Iran’s security isn’t allowed,” his social media team quoted him as saying.
Khamenei drew red lines around Iran’s military sites, which are at the heart of the dispute over the regime’s nuclear work. “The country’s military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries…or [to] stop the country’s defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection,” Khamenei said.
Obama administration officials, including the president, have said that they had work to do to conclude a deal. But Obama himself presented the “framework” as a “historic understanding” between the two sides.

Welcome to The Quran Obama: Taqiyya Means You Just Got Had (Rev 13:16)

In his eagerness to conclude a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program, U.S. President Barack Obama has knowingly or not, overlooked what is known to Muslims as “taqiyya.”

According to the Middle East Forum “The Quran allows Muslims to have a declared agenda, and a secret agenda (Jihad, slaughter, and mayhem) during time of weakness, this is called Taqiyya.” To put it in simpler words, it is the “art” of deception, or more correctly, of deceiving non-Muslim infidels.

While negotiations with the P5+1 are ongoing, last Monday (February 2, 2015) Iran’s military launched a satellite into space called Safir-e Fajr. According to the Iranian Arabic-language Al-Alam TV, the Fajr satellite was successfully placed 450 kilometers above earth. Iran’s “moderate” President Rouhani proudly noted “Our scientists have entered a new phase for conquering space. We will continue on this path.” The Iranian Defense Minister General Hossein Dehgan added that the 21-meter, 26 ton launcher named Safir–Fajr shows “the ability of Iran to build satellite launchers.”
This new development should elevate the Obama administration’s concerns, if not cause full-fledged alarm over the Islamic Republic development of satellite technology that could have military purposes, including the continued development of long-range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could reach American soil. But in typical taqiyya form, Iran has denied having a military role for its space program and its nuclear program.

The Obama administration, instead, is concerned about the upcoming address of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress and the American people. Netanyahu, the White House fears, might reveal Iran’s deception, which might compel the administration to re-think the current P5+1 negotiation with Iran, and perhaps justify the Mark Kirk (R-IL)-Robert Menendez (D-NJ) bill to impose sanctions on Iran. President Obama maintains now that he refuses to “set artificial deadlines” to the negotiations with Iran, but he also conceded in a press conference that “we are not going to have talks forever.” The New York Times reported (May 19, 2009) that Obama told Netanyahu during his White House visit, “We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear –and deploying – a nuclear weapon.”

After two deadlines following the interim agreement have expired, and a third will expire this summer, President Obama’s words sound rather hollow. In his threat to veto the Kirk-Menendez bill, he sounds more like Iran’s defense attorney than being committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. All the while, Iran is proceeding with spinning centrifuges.

According to the Times of Israel (January 31, 2015) which quoted Israel TV Channel 10, the deal taking shape between Washington and Tehran “would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium in over 7000 centrifuges. It quoted an unnamed Jerusalem source saying “The terms of the deal would leave Iran closer than was thought to nuclear weapons, mere months from producing enough material for a bomb.” The same article suggested that the U.S. has agreed to 80% of Iran’s demands.

The existential threat to Israel from a nuclear Iran has prompted PM Netanyahu to accept Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address U.S. Congress in early March. Netanyahu feels that he has no choice but to speak out against the imminent deal with Iran. Sources close to Netanyahu suggest that Netanyahu’s address will praise Obama’s efforts rather than criticize him, and it will not be a partisan speech, or focus too much on the proposed sanctions by the U.S. Congress. It would simply address the dangers of the deal currently concocted between the P5+1 and Iran. In his address to the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu should chronicle Iran’s deception and taqiyya tactics in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance has chronicled Iran’s deception on its nuclear program. In 2002, the dissident group, National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) announced the location of two nuclear sites in Iran; a nuclear fuel production facility in Natanz, and heavy water facility in Arak. On September 12, 2003, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors Resolution called on Iran to ensure no further failures to report, and demanded not to introduce nuclear material into its pilot enrichment cascade in Natanz.

September 24, 2005, Resolution: GOV/2005/87 finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligation to comply with NPT Safeguards Agreement , as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non-compliance in the context of Article XII.C  of the Agency’s (IAEA) Stature; finds also that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities has given rise to…

On January 10, 2006, Iran broke the IAEA seal at Natanz. John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the UN reported that the “Iranians reverted to form by breaking IAEA seal at the Natanz enrichment facility and resuming ‘research work.’” In its September, 2008 report, the IAEA said that the document describes experimentation in connection with symmetrical initiation of a hemispherical high explosive charge suitable for an implosion type nuclear device.

The New York Times reported (November 16, 2009) that the “International inspectors who gained access to Iran’s newly revealed underground nuclear enrichment plant voiced strong suspicions in a report that Iran was concealing other atomic facilities.” Iran however, will not allow inspectors access to military sites, nor will it allow inspectors to interview key nuclear scientists.

On February 19, 2010, the Washington Post revealed that U.N. nuclear inspectors, citing evidence of an apparent ongoing effort by Iran to obtain new technologies, publicly suggested for the first time that Iran is actively seeking to develop a weapons capability. On August 30, 2012, the IAEA released a report showing a major expansion of Iranian enrichment activities. The report said that Iran has more than doubled the number of centrifuges at the underground facility at Fordow, from 1,064 centrifuges in May to 2,140 centrifuges in August.

The Chicago Tribune (November 7, 2014) quoted nuclear expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security as saying “…it will be difficult if not impossible for Western inspectors to accomplish these goals without knowing exactly how far Iran’s scientists have advanced in nuclear weapons research.” Albright added, “If Iran gets a deal without disclosing the past military dimensions of its program, it would continue to be able to say that there was never any military nuclear program, and it was justified in denying inspectors to military sites. That creates a dangerous precedent: The Iranians could leverage that agreement to bar inspectors from suspected nuclear sites in Iran, simply calling them military sites.”

On November 25, 2009, President Obama seemed to have had much less trust in Iran’s aims regarding its nuclear program. At a news conference at the conclusion of a G-20 Pittsburgh, PA summit he stated, “Iran’s action raised doubts about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.” This was said in the context of Iran’s clandestinely building an underground plant (near Qom) to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Asked about the use of military force against Iran, Obama said, “I have always said that we do not rule out any option when it comes to U.S. security interests.”

The Iranians have now figured out that the Obama administration’s eagerness to strike a deal with them overrides most other considerations. Their taqiyya tactics of deceiving the IAEA and the P5+1, including the U.S. notwithstanding, Tehran’s arrogant defiance in insisting that it will continue to build up its nuclear program, as well as its space launchers, makes it clear that the Obama administration might ultimately accept a nuclear Iran.

Government Has Long History Of Nuclear Deception

Home Office dismissed nuclear winter threat as scaremongering, files show
1984 memo released by National Archives shows civil servants decided not to research possible consequences of nuclear war

Owen Bowcott | The Guardian
Monday 29 December 2014 19.01 EST

Threats that civilisation would be devastated by “nuclear winter” after conflict with the Soviet Union were dismissed as scaremongering, according to Home Office files.

Officials were more interested in monitoring the activities of campaigners opposed to cruise missiles, documents released by the National Archives in Kew reveal.

A confidential file on “Nuclear winter – global atmospheric consequences of nuclear war” shows that civil servants in the department’s emergency planning section, F6, decided they did not need to research the disputed phenomenon.

An internal memo in December 1984 records: “It was agreed with F6 that no assessment of the [nuclear winter] theory would be carried out by the branch and as such our interest is limited to general reading which could not be regarded as following the subject in any depth.”

The theory predicted that multiple exchanges of nuclear warheads would result in firestorms generating massive black smoke clouds that would rise into the stratosphere, blocking out sunlight and depressing temperatures at ground level around the Earth for months if not years. It had gained popular currency with the release of the US television film The Day After in 1983 and the BBC’s Threads in 1984, both of which dramatised the consequences of a nuclear conflict.

After newspaper reports that American scientists had confirmed the hypothesis, MPs who sought advice were provided with a briefing note informing them: “The government believes that the outbreak of war is extremely unlikely and our policy of deterrence is aimed at keeping it that way.”

Another Home Office memo records: “This theme has been taken up with enthusiasm by the anti-nuclear movement, which has tended to present the nuclear winter … as accepted scientific fact ignoring important qualifications expressed even by scientists working on the theory. Unfortunately such a presentation has been generally accepted by the public.”

Closer attention was paid to anti-nuclear activists. “CND is planning to … recapture its earlier momentum by major campaigns against cruise and Trident in 1985,” the Home Office files note. ”The main focus of its protest activity will switch to RAF Molesworth and will involve increased willingness to use tactics of civil disobedience to disrupt construction work at the site.”

Faslane Peace camp, according to one memo, “is reported to be bankrupt”. CND itself, the Home Office, concluded, “is no mere front organisation and there is no evidence of Soviet funding”.

The Greenham Common women, it was said, received support from CND and other organisations, “although some are clearly uncomfortable about their strident all-female attitude”.

Anti-nuclear groups were under surveillance. “Data is now collected on demonstrations and incidents by anti-nuclear groups at MoD establishments,” the file states.

In the battle for public sympathy, pro-nuclear groups received official help. “Continued government support – both financial and through the provision of nuclear PR material – will be necessary,” one report records. “Co-ordination of [their] activities … is best left, in general, to the groups themselves although periodic advice and encouragement from ministers will continue to be valuable.”

Architectural drawings of DIY nuclear blast-proof shelters were commissioned for the latest edition of the Protect and Survive pamphlets. They suggested householders excavate holes in their living rooms and build “igloo shelters”; the components cost £554 – about £1,500 in today’s money.

Preparations for BBC emergency broadcasting in the event of a war came up against the realisation that it would be difficult to protect transmitters against the destructive effects of electromagnetic pulses caused by nuclear explosions.

“The primary purpose of broadcasting to the outside world after a nuclear attack,” one letter remarked, “would presumably be to let the world know that organised society still existed in the UK.”

The corporation’s World Service submitted a plan to provide a 24-hour, worldwide service from six sites that would have to be nuclear “hardened”. It included rations for “10,000 man days” and protective clothing. The estimated cost was £15.8m (about £44m now).

“Our immediate reaction is that these proposals are based on a much too ambitious specification which we simply cannot afford,” a Foreign Office official responded.

A separate memorandum was headed: “Spontaneous evacuation of civil population in a future war.” A weary civil servant observed: “Another hare, the breakdown of public morale in a war emergency and consequent flight from the capital, was let loose.

“This is a hoary subject in the civil defence planning world (as opposed to the real world) on a footing with others such as ‘will staff turn up for duty on the day?’

“No one doubts the need to maintain a war effort … If the public is not with the war effort then the war would be loseable without a single nuclear weapon being exploded on England’s green and pleasant land.

“The guts of the matter is that in a war emergency a task of the police would be to ensure that, as it does in peacetime (eg peak holiday weekends), that the country does not come to a grinding halt through traffic congestion howsoever caused.”