Friday, December 16, 2016

全球預言 42 補充 ---7印之一白馬騎士

誰會是出現在《啓示錄》第六章的揭開第一印裏的白馬騎士,我們進入了産難的起頭。
啓6:2, 「我就觀看,見有一匹白馬;騎在馬上的,拿著弓,幷有冠冕賜給他。他便出來,勝了又要勝。」
他是那位騎在白馬上的迷惑之子Deceiver,然而他是否真是敵基督呢?我不覺得,敵基督要在啓示錄的第13章才出現。(詳解請見附錄)。 當奧巴馬他在 2009年獲得諾貝爾和平獎後,他在啓6:2的位置就奠定下來。 第一印揭開,人類進入産難的起頭 . (注意:這是 産難的起頭,是發生在7 年大災難之前。)

Revelation Chapter 6 ---White Horse is the great Deceiver, but is not Anti-Christ or May or May not anti-Christ;
Revelation Chapter 13--- Anti-Christ reveals himself here;

Revelation Chapter 19---White Horse Jesus Christ

(與路加 21:8 「耶穌說:『你們要謹慎,不要受迷惑;因爲將來有好些人冒我的名來,說:“我是基督。”又說:“時候近了。”你們不要跟從他們。」和 馬太 24:4-5 耶穌回答說:你們要謹慎,免得有人迷惑你們。因爲將來有好些人冒我的名來,說:“我是基督。”幷且要迷惑許多人。相吻合, 參考文章)

當人提到“SECOND COMING”, 都知道是指耶穌基督,可是這裏還有另外一位被NEWSWEEK稱呼他“THE SECOND COMING”就是OBAMA。

2008年初次當選美國總統,並於2012年成功連任。2009年10月9日,獲得諾貝爾委員會頒發的諾貝爾和平獎。這白馬擁有和平的冠冕, 但手上拿著欺騙的弓, 以假和平迷惑地上的人。

No US president has ever bowed to a Saudi King. Obama never bowed to the Queen of England. Miss Manners “ Americans do not bow to foreign monarchs because that act signified the monarch’s power over his subjects. When Obama meet the Saudi King, he bow this king.




摘錄:http://www.businessinsider.com/newsweek-on-obamas-second-coming-2013-1




NEWSWEEK NOW SAYS THAT OBAMA IS ‘THE SECOND COMING’ Newsweek celebrated President Obama's upcoming inauguration with a "cover" that calls the event "the second coming," an apparent reference to the return of Jesus Christ...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/newsweek-now-says-that-obama-is-the-second-coming/

Although it is now digital, Newsweek celebrated President Obama’s upcoming inauguration with a “cover” that calls the event “the second coming,” an apparent reference to the return of Jesus Christ, The Blaze reported Friday.

A post at Twitchy called the cover “creepy,” while The Blaze described it as “controversial” and “questionable.” The cover highlights an article by former editor Evan Thomas, who once compared Obama to God “Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn’t felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We’re seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God,” he told Chris Matthews in 2009. This is not the first time Newsweek has used such a theme when portraying Obama.

A COVER IN 2010 CALLED HIM “GOD OF ALL THINGS” AND ANOTHER COVER USED RELIGIOUS IMAGERY WHEN PRAISING THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS LATEST STAND SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE.

After Obama won re-election, Newsweek portrayed him as a conqueror dressed in an 18th century uniform. Twitchy noted that a number of conservatives on Twitter were repulsed by the cover.

“I don’t tend to get indignantly offended that easily, but this Newsweek cover is makes me ill,”tweeted Ben Howe.
“The Second Coming? Really? You’ve got to be kidding me,” another person wrote.

Another Twitter user said the publication went “full Jim Jones,” a reference to the cult leader who led his followers to their death by drinking poison. Twitchy reminded readers that Newsweek was not as nice to George W. Bush when he was inaugurated in 2005. source – Examiner


摘自:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439433/iran-ransom-payment-obama-administration-transfer-funds-unconstitutional


OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO EXPLAIN TO CONGRESS DETAILS OF $1.3 BILLION PAYMENT TO IRAN

by Geoffrey Grider August 23, 2016

The $400 million was part of a $1.7 billion legal settlement reached with Iran earlier this year. Congressional inquiries into how this money reached Iran are failing to get answers. The State and Treasury Departments declined on Tuesday to answer a series of questions from the Free Beacon about the method in which U.S. taxpayer funds were paid to Iran.


HE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS WITHHOLDING FROM CONGRESS DETAILS ABOUT HOW $1.3 BILLION IN U.S. TAXPAYER FUNDS WAS DELIVERED TO IRAN, ACCORDING TO CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWMAKERS WHO SAID THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOW STONEWALLING AN OFFICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE MATTER.

The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice have all rebuffed a congressional probe into the circumstances surrounding the $1.3 billion payment to Iran, which is part of an additional $400 million cash payout that occurred just prior to the release of several U.S. hostages and led to accusations that the administration had paid Iran a ransom.

The Obama administration has admitted in recent days that the $400 million cash delivery to Iran was part of an effort to secure the release of these American hostages, raising further questions on Capitol Hill about White House efforts to suppress these details from the public. The $400 million was part of a $1.7 billion legal settlement reached with Iran earlier this year. Congressional inquiries into how this money reached Iran are failing to get answers. The State and Treasury Departments declined on Tuesday to answer a series of questions from the Free Beacon about the method in which U.S. taxpayer funds were paid to Iran.

The administration is also withholding key details about the payment from leading members of Congress, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), who launched an inquiry into the matter earlier this month.

THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, TREASURY, AND JUSTICE ALL FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE INQUIRY BY MONDAY’S DEADLINE, ACCORDING TO CONGRESSIONAL SOURCES TRACKING THE MATTER.

“The already bizarre circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion payment to the Islamic Republic have only gotten stranger in the weeks since we learned of the $400 million in cash that was sent to the Iranian regime last January 16th,” Cruz said to the Free Beacon. “If this payment was, as the Obama administration insists, a straightforward settlement of an old debt that it would have cost America more to contest, why all the secrecy?”

The State Department said it does not know how the remaining $1.3 billion was transferred or to whom it was transferred. Cruz described this disclosure as “confounding.”

“It is even more confounding that the State Department spokesman claimed Monday not to know how or to whom the residual $1.3 billion was transferred, although he does know the transaction happened,” Cruz said. “That kind of money doesn’t just transfer itself to a rogue regime still under heavy U.S. sanctions for its sponsorship of terrorism. Someone in our government must have the answers the American people deserve.”

CRUZ AND LEE ARE SEEKING TO DETERMINE IF THESE PAYMENTS VIOLATED U.S. LAW. THEY ALSO REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE U.S. OFFICIALS WHO NEGOTIATED AND CARRIED OUT THE PAYMENTS.

“While we are deeply concerned about the national security implications of the administration’s cash-for-hostages scheme, especially in light of reports that Iran has already arrested additional Americans, the purpose of this letter is to inquire about the legality of the payment,” the senators wrote in an Aug. 12 letter.

“It is imperative that the administration provide a full accounting of its conduct with respect to the $400 million cash payment to Iran,” they wrote. “If the administration violated the law, then Congress and the American people should be made aware of it so that they can hold the appropriate officials accountable and take whatever steps necessary to strengthen the law and prevent any reoccurrence.” While the administration has remained silent about the circumstances surrounding the payment, investigative reporter Claudia Rosett recently disclosed that the Treasury Department transferred just under $1.3 billion to the State Department in 13 “large identical sums.” The funds, allocated for “foreign claims,” could shine a light on how the administration moved taxpayer funds into the State Department’s purview in order to provide the additional payment to Iran.

In 13 individual payments of $99,999,999.99, the Treasury Department moved a total of 1,299,999,999.87, which roughly amounts to the remaining money owed to Iran.

source

No comments:

Post a Comment