NM

Commentary on world events that relate to Bible prophecy and on Rapture Ready issues world events.

    



Oct 3, 2005

North Korea Has No Intention of Giving Up Its Nukes

When North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program in return for aid, security guarantees and increased diplomatic recognition, western leaders and media praised the triumph of diplomacy. After years of talks, an agree was hammered by representatives from North and South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the United States.

The ink was hardly dry on the document when signs of trouble set in. A few days after the agreement, North Korea said it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provides an atomic energy reactor.

Both the United States and Japan wasted no time in rejecting North's latest demand. "This is not the agreement that they signed and we'll give them some time to reflect on the agreement they signed," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "The Japanese side has continuously said that North Korea's demand is unacceptable," said Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura.

"The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing a light-water reactor," said a North Korean official. The North Korea later appeared to back away from its latest demand, saying only it wanted the United States to supply the reactors "as early as possible."

A 1994 U.S.-North Korea agreement actually promised the North two light-water reactors for power. That project was made mute by the stunning announcement that the North had secretly been processing bomb-grade material which produced two or three nuclear weapons.

At this point, I have no doubt that North Korea intents to continuing its atomic program. It leadership has lied so many times, there is no indication that a paper agreement will result in any type of disarmament.

The Beijing accord requires the North Korea to accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for energy, economic and security aid. At some point it will become apparent that the communist regime has failed to follow through on its pledge. We may get an indication of Pyongyang's duplicity at the next round of talks in Beijing in the first part of November.

There is something very predictable about evil men. They are never satisfied with the status quo. They always want more power and material goods. In the case of North Korea, the enslavement of South Korea is the driving force behind its quests for nuclear weapons.

North Korea is a dictatorship run by a madman by the name of Kim Jong-il. Economic hardship and the lack of technology are the two main obstacles preventing him from building a vast nuclear arsenal.

If the peacemakers knew what the future offered, they might have long ago called for military action against nations like North Korea. Just like in the case of the New Orleans levee system, a small amount of preventive action earlier on could save us from a more costly situation down the road.

Because North Korea is also working on long-range missiles, the western half of North America will soon come within range of attack. It is ironic how our years of offering fuel oil and other economic assistance has helped the Koreans achieve nuclear capability by freeing up valuable resources to devote to its nuclear program.

Organizations like the U.N. and the IAEA may think they can save mankind from itself. In reality, there will be no lasting peace until the Prince of Peace sets up his rule on earth.
-- Todd


Slippery Slope Scenario

One more slippery slope occurrence entered the mix of things trending toward the tribulation hour this past week. It joins a myriad of other factors that, in my view, comprise an interesting scenario, seemingly shaping up for the world immediately following the rapture.

President Bush crossed the line dividing military and civilian control over America’s internal governance. The founding fathers, if it were possible, would –as the saying goes—be turning in their graves, considering what the action might portend.

Let’s look at a couple of brief news blurbs to get the gist of the president’s actions.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Bush, anticipating future disasters, began pushing a politically sensitive proposal to give the military a larger role in search-and-rescue missions.

''Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case,'' he said. But if there is ''a natural disaster -- of a certain size -- that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort,'' Bush said.

The president said he would ask Congress to consider putting the Pentagon in charge of disaster rescues after senior officers indicated the need for such a national plan ("Bush Turns to Rita's Hit on Oil Industry" by The Associated Press, September 26, 2005).

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking at a Pentagon news conference, added to this initiative by the White House.

…Rumsfeld said the active-duty troops could take a greater early role in responding to future domestic natural disasters without assuming police duties.

"It's up to the country, the government, to think that through and decide how they want to be arranged for a catastrophic event of that type," he said.

President George W. Bush said at the Energy Department on Monday that he and the Congress should immediately begin discussing whether to amend federal law so the military could take responsibilities right away in natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which has killed over 1,100 people in the Gulf Coast region since its landfall on Aug. 29.

An 1878 law restricts the role of federal troops when they act on American soil (WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 (Xinhuanet).

The key operative phrase above, for prophetic analysis, is: “a catastrophic event of that type.” Now we indeed live under a representative federal republic and let our leaders speak for us. So, in that sense, the government must make the decision. But it is an issue about which the founding fathers and representatives of "we the people" have been sensitive for centuries. Those who love freedom are, by the very concept of American liberty, extremely apprehensive about the prospects of allowing military primary control over anything to do with the nation’s internal goings-on.

Secretary Rumsfeld almost certainly didn’t have the rapture in mind when he made his conclusion that the nation must decide whether to grant such power to the American military over civilian authority during major catastrophes. Getting even more focused on his comment, it has to be pointed out just WHO he designates as in charge of making such a monumental decision to lock the people down under military control in crises. Mr. Rumsfeld –apparently, like the president, bypassing the consent of "we the people"-- says, in the early part of the statement: “It's up to the country, the government [to make the decision]…”.

Now, I have confidence in the current president and in Secretary Rumsfeld. I believe they have only our nation’s best interest at heart. Problem is, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray,” or however it goes… And, it is an absolute certainty, according to Bible prophecy, that humanistic plans, no matter the altruism of the planners, are going to go totally astray at the moment of and immediately after the rapture.

Clueless about true Bible prophecy --as I believe our top governmental officials to be-- they are looking into locking America into a post-rapture military police state, for certain, and perhaps even a pre-rapture military police state. Whether that un-American state emerges sooner rather than later is likely dependent upon how soon Christ calls “Come up here!” to all who are born again.

This is not to conspiracy monger; rather, it is to urge avoiding the slippery slope toward a one-world mold, which, in any case, Antichrist will certainly establish with the advent of his beast-regime. About that coming military rule – which will be far more genocidal and destructive than was the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, God’s prophetic Word says: "…and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Rev. 13: 7b).

Only the flood that destroyed all people but the eight in the ark will continue to rank as a greater catastrophe than will the rapture when it happens. The United States will almost certainly be affected more than any other nation. This most materially blessed nation in history will have to reconfigure as swiftly as possible. It will be New Orleans times every major city and lesser cities across the continent in acute crises. Absolute military rule will be the unavoidable result.

The prophetic perspective that ricochets and echoes within my thoughts on the immediate post-rapture days, weeks and months, revolves around the likelihood that this great nation will suffer chaos sufficient to require significant reconfiguration as a national entity. The thought keeps coming back to the premise that America will likely –during this terror-filled period—agree to, somehow, join with the European Union in order to reinstitute even a modicum of law and order.

Israel will, in one stunning instant, lose the staunchest allies that nation has had since its rebirth in 1948 –the United States of America as it was before the crisis, and those among the true church of Jesus Christ who knew Israel to be chosen of God as future recipient of His unconditional, unbreakable covenant promises. This is not what I want for our nation; it is the scenario I see as plausible, based upon the many things we have observed lately, particularly the hurricanes and their aftermaths.

Additionally, does it not seem strange, even eerie -- the lack, so far, of criticism and outrage, of negative rhetoric, and virulent invective, from all the Bush detractors on this matter? Do we finally have consensus among the media, the Democrats, and the Republicans?

President Bush has already, in this pre-rapture era, just taken –with apparent unanimous consent of the powers that be-- the U.S. on a first tenuous step toward that slippery slope scenario.
--Terry