No Christian should take a stand against Israel, yet more of them seem to be misled into doing so by their own church heads. The latest to come out of the closet: United Methodists, whose new tagline “It’s time for Palestine” makes one wonder what they could possibly be thinking.

From The Blaze:

Do you ever feel like you woke up one day in a different time and place? Things you never thought to see, occurring all around? One’s equilibrium suffers, surely. Why, when it’s taken years to bring evil to fruition, does it seem so sudden?

Woe to those who come against Israel, for they oppose God.

…the Barack Hussein Obama administration made a move designed to separate us from our guns. Or did they?

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”

“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”

“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

This doesn’t tell us an awful lot and neither do recent emails stating that Clinton has already signed the treaty; she has not.

Jeff Mowry at Before It’s News tried fact checking the treaty but as Nancy Pelosi once said: ‘we have to pass it to see what’s in it’. Many organizations have come out with statements about the treaty, but what is the actual language?

And remember – two thirds of the Senate must approve international treaties before they go into effect. A call or email to your congressman about this topic wouldn’t go amiss, but it could be 2012 before any action is taken. Maybe by then we’ll have the text of the thing?

Lemme get this straight. A trusted, authoritative UN agency went all Chicken Little on us because of a student’s essay and a magazine story??

When are people going to stop giving credence, money and power to governmental entities because of this fabricated bullshit?!?

‘IPCC’s ice melt report based on student essay’

New Delhi, Feb 1: The UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC) claims about ice melting from the world’s mountain peaks was based on a student’s essay, a media report said.

The IPCC report had said that reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was caused by global warming.

The report had also cited two scientific papers as its primary source of information.

According to UK newspaper The Telegraph, one source was the geography student’s dissertation and the other an anecdotal article in a mountaineering magazine.

The claims may cause fresh embarrassment for the IPCC, which had apologized this month over inaccurate forecasts about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.