Previous Update: September 14 - 18

Updates Index

September 20 - 29, 2009

See September 21 -- 22 -- 23 -- 26 -- 27 -- 28 -- 29

September 20

Has Obama reached the point of masquerading as a prophet? I wouldn't say so. The title, "False Prophet," suggests one who speaks for God...words that are not God's. I suppose Obama has ventured in this direction at times, but so far it's not his norm, not the defining attitude of his presidency. But there is still plenty of time for him to start taking that tack.

He is NOT reducing U.S. missile programs on behalf of globetrotting interests. He is moving ahead with "miraculous" fire from the sky:

"...There is nothing equivocal about that pledge. Obama is promising a missile shield system not only more effective but more ambitious than the [Bush] one he has rejected.'

...[Obama] announced a 'new missile defense architecture in Europe [that] will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.'

...'This approach is also consistent with...NATO's missile defense efforts and provides opportunities for enhanced international collaboration going forward.'"

Obama can barely say anything on behalf of his country's interests without including world interests. He's even giving credit to the world economy for the stabilizing U.S. economy. He makes it sound as though there is a world agenda to create one economic engine -- as if all nations are better off and more secure revolving around it:

"With the leaders from the Group of 20 nations set to meet next week in Pittsburgh, Obama said in his weekly address on the radio and Internet that international cooperation has 'stopped our economic freefall.'

'We know we still have a lot to do, in conjunction with nations around the world, to strengthen the rules governing financial markets and ensure that we never again find ourselves in the precarious situation we found ourselves in just one year ago,' Obama said.

...'We cannot let the narrow interests of a few come before the interests of all of us,' Obama said. "

He's right. We cannot give control to the narrow interests of the few globalists. Yet, he is actively involved in exactly that narrow entity...while wanting the majority to believe that he's for their interests. He never ceases to say, "for the people," when pushing his agenda. But the American people did not elect him to be concerned for the global economy. It's not news that globe-spanning corporations want to rid the planet of national borders, customs brokers, currency exchanges, and all other inconveniences in inter-national sales of their products, but the American people did not elect Obama to look after those interests. Hypocrite. In getting himself elected, he feigned opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Hopefully, there will be trouble to color his presidency in all manner of ironies, for that is what he deserves for being false. We await only his role as prophet. More false fronts:

"...commentator at Canada Free Press says he has obtained copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Barack Obama as their nominee for president in 2008 that suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew there was an unresolved issue with his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution.

Writer JB Williams describes himself as a 'no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy.' And he say's he's gotten possession of copies of the documents in question.

The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, 'are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.'

One image of the certification for Barack Obama's nomination, includes the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden 'are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.'

The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, down to a typographical error in 'through.' But in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.

...'Now this is 'he stuff real conspiracies are made of!' Williams, who also maintains his own website, wrote. "Please allow me to connect the dots here...'

'The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one,' he wrote. 'One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.

'The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of president is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama president,' he wrote.

...'The fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was under way, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful,' Williams wrote.

'Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer's funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama's eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?' He described the discoveries as 'actually very serious business.' 'We are talking about the top-down leadership of the ruling political party knowingly and wantonly defrauding voters by way of playing monkey business with fraudulent election documents.'"

I can't imagine that Obama sleeps well, no matter how cool he plays himself. If there truly were verification that Obama is legal for being president, the sentence would NOT have been omitted in the second version of the document. The only question is: does the Hillary team wish to see Obama exposed? From now on, Obama will be a sucker i.e. one who needs to suck up to his political enemies for fear of being exposed by them.

Hillary has been for the global village for years, perhaps all her political life:

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the world needs a 'global architecture of cooperation' in a speech previewing U.S. goals for the 64th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which begins next week.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C..."

The American people did not elect Obama to form a global co-operation architecture, especially now that money to build bridges is scarce.

How do globalists rob the workers of the global village:

"...The swine flu pandemic could kill millions and cause anarchy in the world's poorest nations unless 900m can be raised from rich countries to pay for vaccines and antiviral medicines, says a UN report leaked to the Observer.

The disclosure will provoke concerns that health officials will not be able to stem the growth of the worldwide H1N1 pandemic in developing countries. If the virus takes hold in the poorest nations, millions could die and the economies of fragile countries could be destroyed."

Another scare story from the Gaurdian; another story to rob the peoples. Like the depression that never materialized because Obama got the stimulus money, so we now have a flu crisis that will never materialize because the world got flu shots. Globalists create the problem; then go in to fix it, but instead of fixing that which isn't really broken, manipulation takes place toward globalist interests. The article goes on to say, "In Britain, Douglas Alexander, the development secretary, pledged to give 23m."

Alex-ander? Wasn't I just on that surname in the previous update? Whose money did he pledge? Not his own. All government officials in on this scheme, pledge some money today, and be a "hero" like Mr. Alexander.

The following not from nutty conspiracy theorist, but from Reuters:

"Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms.

General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama. But GE isn't the only company benefiting. Reuters paints the broader picture...

GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama."

Obama gave Putin his wished on the missile shields at a time when Russia was apparently caught shipping a missile shield to Iran. Of course:

"Russian prosecutors found no suspicious materials on the ship Arctic Sea despite media reports it was carrying the advanced S-300 missile defense for Iran, Russian newswires reported [yesterday].

The ship was searched with the help of modern appliances, inside and outside."

Since Russia was accused of carrying the weapons, what evidence is it if Russia searches the ship to claim no foul play? Why wasn't the ship searched by an independent third party?

Hmm. Look at this figure: "Turkey and four European Union countries signed a transit deal in July for the $7.9 billion euro EU-backed pipeline to carry Caspian and Middle Eastern gas to central Europe..." The current arms deal between Obama's government and Turkey is worth 7.8 billion. What do you suppose could be going on there to connect the two issues? way, no deal, Turk. But if you agree to have us put a pipeline through your country, we'll find the money to build it by selling you 25 bils worth of Globama's weapons for only 7.8 bils; we'll pay a tenth of a billion out of our own pockets. How can you gobble at that?

You drive a hard bargain, Mr. Eeyoo. But all I have to say is, it's a cocka-doodle-doodle- deal!

Look at the word Obama used when speaking on this deal: Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies,." The new global word: architecture. But it's not new. Freemasons view an Architect of the Universe, and it isn't God. Obama sees himself as a global architect, or at least the word is being used by his co-conspirators, which should explain why Hillary has started throwing that word around too. Of course, we all are supposed to let this important

September 21

The Russian president has just claimed, as per assurances from the Israeli president Peres (he does not run the Israeli government), that Israel had NO plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But as a sign that Netanyahu-Russia relations are going sour due to the Arctic-Sea affair (i.e. the ship "hijacking"), the Israeli foreign office has countered Medvedev's claim in not a very kind way:

"'...I don't think that, with all due respect, the Russian president is authorized to speak for Israel...'

...In a transcript of the interview with Medvedev released by the Kremlin [yesterday], The Russian president hedged on the question of whether Russia would support Iran if it were attacked by Israel."

If 2009 is the first of Gog's seven years, then something needs to get his wheels rolling fast. An Israeli attack on Iran could start the wheels of Gog rolling fast. BUT, I can already hear myself saying, "Sorry, all, I was wrong about 2009." Even so, events are going in a prophetic direction.

The next three days are cloudy, and because I'm on solar power exclusively, I can't afford much time for these updates or computer time at all as I need all I can get for the house construction. I've skimmed the major headlines to assure that I haven't missed an important story. So, that's all for today. I'll come back to the Magdalene topic when the sun comes back.

September 22

Russia is pressing into Abkhaz waters immediately after Georgia laughed it off its threat. It's as if this part of Georgia now belongs to Russian oversight:

"Russia deployed Novorossiysk, a coast guard vessel, to breakaway Abkhazia to protect its 'territorial waters.'

'Novorossiysk is the first from those coast guard boats, which will be protecting Abkhazia's waters,' Russia's state-owned Vesti television station reported on September 21.

Up to ten coast guard boats of Sobol and Mangust types will be deployed in Abkhazia's port of Ochamchire...

'...Faik Mamedov, captain of the vessel, Novorossiysk, told Vesti television station...Novorossiysk was from the series of 'artillery ships' with 'quite serious capabilities.'"

That's making a threat to Georgia not to perform any monkey business in Abkhaz waters. What will Georgia do in the face of this? Waiting...

Jimmy is going to his grave fighting for the Palestinian cause:

"...'As [US] President Barack Obama has made clear, the key factor that prevents peace is the continuing building of Israeli settlements in Palestine, driven by a determined minority of Israelis who desire to occupy and colonize east Jerusalem and the West Bank,' Carter said. "

This is like Carter being forced to cease building his dog house because a neighbor wants the piece of property that the dog house is to be planted on, and moreover the neighbor wants to kill Carter while taking that little plot of ground so that ultimately he can have Cater's entire property. This is why Carter is going to his grave blind and blockheaded.

Global warming. Look at the EU surname in charge of this sham:

"Todd Stern, US envoy for climate change...

...Separately, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate change chief..."

September 23

This morning this computer acquired a modem problem, apparently. I don't know how long it will be before it's fixed. This message compliments of an internet cafe.

There was a good chance that it was lip service to the American people when Geithner said some months ago that he and Obama opposed the Russia and Chinese push for a new world currency:

"US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shocked global markets by revealing that Washington is 'quite open' to Chinese proposals for the gradual development of a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund.

There was some backtracking and Obama even came out to assure that the dollar was safe. But in a related story:

"The United States will urge world leaders this week to launch a new push in November to rebalance the world economy, but there are doubts national governments will bow to external advice.

...The United States envisages the [International Money Fund] playing a central role in a process of 'mutual assessment' by making policy recommendations to the G20 every six months."

Clearly, Obama and his financial team wants to the International Money Fund to have control of the financial world. We now know with more certainty than before that the Democrat leadership is tightly partnered with the IMF. Remember the global-currency coin that Medvedev introduced on behalf of the EU, then put that together with Obama's missile-defence decision recently to make Russia very happy so as not to upset the erection of the beastly global order. This is going to be a flop, but none do they know it.

It's time to leave the internet cafe. Back-on hopefully by early next week, depending on whether there is an external modem in town.

September 26

Now that Iran has been caught enriching uranium (or so the West tends to believe) at a secret, second site, even Russia feels the need for a public outcry, or something like it:

"Medvedev said the undeclared construction of an enrichment facility flies in the face of UN Security Council demands for Iran to stop uranium enrichment at its only declared enrichment facility. He suggested the UN nuclear agency should take steps immediately to investigate the second site and called for Iran's 'full cooperation' with the probe."

BUT, is this outcry merely public without any intention to see Iran stop what it's trying to achieve? Is Russia perhaps behind the second facility? Some say that Russia would not want to see Iran achieve nuclear weaponization, but then why has Russia to date not been anywhere near as concerned as other nations? Perhaps Russia is getting a fantastic sum of money to give Iran the pieces it still needs to succeed.

Iran's second site was discovered today as it came out with a confession:

..."Sure, the facts are new. They are these: In addition to a uranium-enrichment site at Natanz that international inspectors have monitored for years, Iran has been constructing a facility inside a mountain near the city of Qom. This facility is under the control of the Revolutionary Guards, the elite corps under the "Supreme Leader's" orders and imbued with that pious zeal for which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is celebrated. It appears to be too small to be useful in enriching uranium for large-scale energy production, but would be suited to enriching it for atomic warheads. It also appears to have been designed with an eye toward avoiding detection. The IAEA has now requested access to the facility. If granted..."

What choice does Russia now have, since for years it claimed that Iran wasn't doing anything secretive. It needs to at least voice opposition as though totally surprised and proven wrong. Another article:

"The urgency of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was underscored today when a leaked report revealed that the UN inspection agency believes the Islamic republic has 'sufficient information' to make a nuclear weapon and has 'probably tested' a key component."

So why the appearance in the West of complete surprise?

"...U.S. officials in Washington said Western governments have been aware of Iran's second enrichment plant for some time and decided to reveal their intelligence assessments when the Iranians realized the plant's secrecy was compromised, BBC News reported.

Obama first learned of the plant as president-elect, before his inauguration Jan. 20, the officials said.

...Today, in a statement delivered at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, Obama stated that the disclosure of Iran's second nuclear enrichment plant is 'inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear program' and is further evidence that Iran is 'breaking the rules' other nations follow. "

Oh? Why is Obama only now barking up Iran's tree? Why not months ago? Why does he act surprised? Because we're not supposed to know that he knew all along.

It sounds like he wants to slap Iran's wrist, and that's what the West will do, with more sanctions. Therefore, why shouldn't there be a third secret site that will continue operations for years during which Iran keeps the West preoccupied with this second one? I think Iran has the carrot, and that the West is the donkey.

Obama, at his UN speech, called the Israeli possession of Jerusalem and surrounding area an "occupation." Tell me, how does a Christian in his right mind say that, as though Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel forever? Clearly, Obama has no faith in God. Lip service, perhaps, when it serves his agenda, but that's about it.

I don't see any other pertinent news today, and have accidentally deleted some new material on the Magdalene topic that I wished to enter. So, for today, that's it. God bless you, and you bless God.

September 27

There's no news I'd like to report for today. I'm waiting to see how the Iran situation flows over, whether anything beyond the threat of sanctions takes place.

I'm yawning this morning. It's been two nights in a row that I've gotten up in the middle of the night due to numb fingers that have plagued me worse than ever in the past month. No need to feel bad for me as this is relatively mild compared to what others have. I praise God that, after years of cyatica that would with all certainty make pain during work, he removed it from me a few months ago when I prayed (that's putting it nicely) passionately (that's again putting it nicely) with some reasoning. I was surprised, actually, that he heard an angry (for lack of a better word at the moment) prayer.

I know he answered it because the problem went away immediately afterward, and has never since re-developed during the very type of work --house framing -- that usually triggers it. It may yet come again; I sense the problem still threatens in the lower back-hip area, but never once has it come on since the "request." At the time, I had run out of patience with the nasty mosquitoes and all, and it was then that I demanded from Him some back relief as it's just as easy for Him to say yes as to say no. He felt sorry for me, and answered. Could it be that he gives us painful things so that we start praying with some passion? Does he consider our normal prayers lame, a little like lip service?

I'm saying this because some of my email friends have had long-term painful problems that God, apparently, has not removed. I can't imagine that, at times, utter frustration with God wouldn't set in. I think there are three choices. Praise God anyway and let the problem persist; drift away from him in anger; be sincere and show frustration before Him for the sake of not doing the previous option.

I'm not recommending that we become ugly-angry with God, but rather sincerity is more appreciated than lip service. Speak as you truly feel, make your case if any exists, and discern the reason(s) that the prayer is not being answered. Satisfy the reason(s), then ask again.

I don't think that a long-term ordeal is a Job-type test from Him to see how we will react. But like Job, state your case. Tell what you have done for Him as reason to have the pain removed. Tell how you have maintained faith in all the trials, how you have been kind to His people, how you hope the best for them. Why then, should you have this long-term pain? What else is lacking? Or is it an irreversible curse, so long as you're in that body, as "reward" for some past sinful behavior? Are there other explanations? Whatever, I'd rather have God answer in a thunderbolt than not at all, and I wouldn't mind a couple of beautiful daughters either.

There are once again going to be two-to-three days in a row of cloud-cover, and besides the time has come for me to reduce the Iraq updates to less than daily until something important takes place. I appreciate those of you who have followed along for the past year, or for as long as you have since finding me here, and I feel I owe you the reward of knowing the timing of the Week...meaning that I will continue to monitor news to that end. I've got a trib-related chapter on solar power coming out soon, and will announce it when done. Y'all have a good, painless day.

September 28

Bill Clinton is right up there in global affairs, just where he wants to be:

"World leaders gathering in New York to resolve global problems? Sounds like the UN General Assembly -- well, except when they're all across town with Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party legend basked [September 22] in his unofficial role of world problem solver as he opened the fifth annual session of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), timed to coincide with the huge UN meeting a few blocks away.

...President Barack Obama gave the keynote speech...

In the audience sat another 60 current and former heads of state, along with the chief executives of Coca-Cola, Nissan, ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs, while Hollywood stars like Matt Damon and Demi Moore added the sort of pizazz the United Nations rarely enjoys."

The Cling-ons are not going away. If Obama had to be at this gathering, and if Goldman Sachs was there also, you know the Democrat-supporting Illuminati was front-stage-center. What is Clinton up to in the guise of his "humanitarian" Initiative? Note that he stuck his own name to the organization's name. He desires to arise again, bigger than before, but a black star he will be. If the final 1260 days are in his lifetime, he and his wife should be a major part of the persecution machine:

"...Bill Clinton was asked on NBC's 'Meet the Press' whether the [right-wing] conspiracy is still there. He replied: 'You bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was.'"

Bill has been verbally supporting Obama lately, and vice versa. A political partnership of sorts must be developing even though a competitive spirit must divide their friendship. If there exists a conspiracy anywhere, it's in the Clinton circle of globalists. The "right-wing conspiracy" only wants that group to be forsaken, as it should be, for it aims to control all matters of all lives of all peoples for the filling of the bottomless stomachs of the globalists. So long as we say this, no one can accuse us of malice, and no Illuminatist can argue with us because they all know that it's true. You bet. Sure is. But that won't stop them from conflicting against us.

Was the following really an accident?

"An American aerial surveillance drone crashed into the offices of [the Iraqi Islamic Party] in the northern city of Mosul, the US military said [yesterday].

Or was there another reason for the "crash"? My first guess: to destroy documents that the Americans knew were in that office. If true, the documents were not good news for the American agenda.

In Georgia, where a game of "chicken" is expected to be played out to the point of starting a new war, it may not get nasty until November:

"A unit of Russian coast guard boats will be deployed in Ochamchire to protect Abkhaz 'territorial waters' in mid-November, Yuri Zvirik, commander of the Russian Federal Security Service's boarder guard unit deployed in the breakaway region, said on September 28."

To make it more certain that war will again break out, we have Saakashvili acting the fool once again:

'President Saakashvili said on September 24 that he had no regrets about resisting Russia and 'Georgia will regain back what they (Russians) have captured temporarily.'"

How could Saakashvili make such a claim seriously, unless he thinks that the United States/NATO will be behind him in the coming war with Russia? I have yet to hear how Obama feels about the current saber rattling in Abkhazia, but with he and the NATO leader currently getting warm in bed with the Russian leadership, I doubt very much that Saakashvili will have their support. But one never knows. Bluntly stated by the bin-Laden "ghost" is this:

"'...a voice attributed to bin Laden tells Europeans in the four-minute audio message. 'Its people were bombed and humiliated, so they asked for help from America to restore sovereignty over what had been seized from them.

'But the latter provided them with nothing but empty words; and after they insisted, American ships finally came, not to restore Ossetia and Abkhazia, but rather to provide what they had no need for: a few tents and a little food and laundry detergent. So reflect on that deeply,'; according to the English-language subtitles of the message."

I still expect bin-Laden to join forces with Gog, that the two together should be involved in prophetic fulfillment. In the statements above we see the words that must be melting Gog's heart with love for bin-Laden. BUT, that's a long distance from what I expect further: that Gog should enter the Muslim war pact, overwhich Osama is a ruler, to destory Israel.

September 29

Surprisingly, Hamas leaders seem very interested in patching things up with Fatah, though one senses personal ambition on both sides rather than a true spirit of unity. But look at the underlying reason for the unity movement...that appears to have reached some solid success:

"Hamas said [yesterday] that it has accepted an Egyptian initiative for ending its power struggle with Fatah, paving the way for new presidential and parliamentary elections.

Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas representative from the Gaza StripAzzam al-Ahmed, a senior Fatah official and close adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, welcomed Hamas's apparent positive reply to the Egyptian plan and expressed hope that it would facilitate the signing of a reconciliation accord between the sides. ...Ahmed Yusef, a political adviser to Hamas, described the Egyptian initiative as balanced and acceptable.

...Ahmed said Hamas and Fatah should resolve their differences so that they would be able to 'confront the occupation's schemes and defend the Aksa Mosque against attempts to turn Jerusalem into a Jewish city...The time has come to end this tragic chapter in the history of our people,' he said. 'Otherwise, Israel will continue to exploit our differences and divisions.'"

We could have guessed as much, but it's best to have them make the claim in their own words: unity has the purpose of bumping Israel off. In fact, Hamas would not be interested in joining Fatah unless the latter took an offensive stance against Israel.

Apparently, that time has come. Israel was hoping that Fatah would take an Israel-accepting position, but with the Obama-Carter drive to paint Israel as the problem, Fatah appears to be deciding that the continuation of Arafat's armed struggle is something for which the time has arrived.

Yes, Arafat's PLO, when it accepted peace initiatives with Israel that were sponsored by Carter on the one hand, and Bill Clinton on the other, always had its eye on ultimate armed conflict once its political position had been well-established. That's the sin of Carter, Clinton, and Obama: they have urged Israel to accept the politicization of what are truly terrorists in lamb's clothing. But ultimately, it's the sin of Israel for looking to the American Democrats for security. In the end, betrayal from the United States...fashioned by the jealous God of Israel.

But Egypt, rather than becoming more problematic in the eyes of the Iran axis, seems lately to be part of the betrayal of Israel as it convenes the unity movement. However, I think that Egypt wants to see real peace, and that it's willing to accept Israel as a state on its border. Therefore, as Palestinian leaders begin to show a spirit of war against Israel, Egypt should instead polarize around the Western will: the "two-state solution." Egypt has the power to make things very difficult for Hamas' will, and therefore Egypt always stands to be viewed as the enemy of the Iran axis.

I therefore think we'll see Egypt complaining about the very unity initiative it now sponsors, for the Palestinians should hijack it and make it what it was not intended to be: an effort to overcome Israel. Proof that Egypt currently welcomes the Israeli state is in this:

"DUBAI: Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said in remarks published in the press [yesterday] that...'There are increasing suspicions and the new plant in Qom (southwest of Tehran) signals intentions that should not be allowed'...

...The discovery of the plant's existence 'is a negative development and we believe that Iran should have notified the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) years ago.'"

That's meant to be an open slap in Iran's face.

Israel is very nervous these days as it sees the landscape changing. It could easily handle the Palestinian threat with or without the United States, but the simultaneous threat from the Iran axis is becoming a looming cloud. The leaders seem hand-cuffed by the West; they know that they will be held responsible for whatever fallout takes place on Western interests if Iran is attacked. There's no telling how such an attack will galvanize Arabs against Israel. There's also the possibility that Obama, though he puts on a good-friendship show with Israel, despises the Netanyahu government and would soon choose to let the Arabs have their way with it. At present, anyway, Obama appears to be very anti-Iran, and Israel therefore has breathing room:

"...US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said [on September 27] that Iran had until Thursday to agree to inspections and voluntarily halt its hidden nuclear program, or the United States and its allies would seek crippling sanctions."

"Crippling" sanctions? Does a harder slap on the wrist stop a fiend?

It's hard for me to believe that Iranian's top leaders are not in constant communication with Hamas and even some Fatah representatives. It's hard to believe that they do not have in-place plans to eradicate Israel. But what happens when all the quarreling Arabs unify under the purpose of eradicating Israel? The covenant of Daniel 9:27. If Hamas is ready to unite with Fatah, might this get the ball rolling for other unions as well? For example, Hamas has recently had shoot outs with al-Qaeda groups trying to lodge themselves in Gaza. Might Hamas also unite with them for the one cause? Seems reasonable.

If you are being misled by prophecy writers concerning the re-building of the Jewish Temple in time for the final 1260 days, I would point to an article in the Jerusalem Post this morning. After a few Israelis, in the spirit of their Yom-Kippur holy day, entered some part of the Temple site, some Arabs began to throw stones, and "Hamas called on Palestinians and all Arabs to take to the streets to protest the events." Could you imagine what rebellion, not to mention sizzling pressure from the West, would take place should Israel attempt to build a Jewish temple in that place?

Forget it. There's nothing to indicate that such a thing could see success in the coming years. Revelation 11 implies that there will be no Temple for the anti-Christ to trample when he invades the sanctuary; he merely has a courtyard to trample. And Daniel 9:26 tells that he will invade a part of -- an extremity -- of the Temple site, which by all logic should be the Western Wall alone.

I can easily envision the anti-Christ sitting in the Dome of the Rock, proclaiming himself to be God, with his Arab fighters cheering on, but nothing to date would suggest that God has paved a political way for a Jewish Temple to be built beside the Dome, or even just outside the Temple-site walls.

Pre-tribulationists have long been expecting the anti-Christ to form a peace treaty with Israel, thereby supposedly opening a way for the Temple's re-building. But this has got to be a false vision. Even if such a peace treaty did come to pass, I doubt very much that Palestinians would suddenly accept the rebuilding of a Jewish temple, for even should that treaty take place, we know it would merely be a ruse for the real purpose of ambush and war.

At this time, the vision of pre-tribulationists (and post-tribulationists alike) for the realization of the anti-Christ's peace treaty are based on the Western push for a two-state solution. That is, out of this push, the anti-Christ should arise and weld the two-state solution. The reason that I object to any-such vision is that Daniel 9:27 does NOT identify the "covenant" as a peace treaty let alone a treaty with Israel. Those are two huge leaps of assumption. We are simply told that the anti-Christ will form a deal of some sort with "many" peoples, and that one preliminary result of this deal will be the invasion of an extremity of the Temple site. Therefore, the deal could just as well be an open war pact as it could be a peace-treaty ruse. At this time, we see war pacts all over the place among Arabs of many nations.

PLUS, Arab nations/peoples wishing to see a peace treaty and a two-state solution have no apparent will to invade Jerusalem. Thus, since the makers of the Daniel covenant DO invade Jerusalem, we should look more to a war pact among the terrorists types than to a peace treaty developing out of the two-state push.

I see a major problem developing from pre-tribulationist writers AFTER they come to accept their error. In the tribulation period, will they desire to be the leaders? I sense that they do. I sense that, in the same foolish spirit that teaches a second Second Coming (seven years before the Second Coming), they will direct believers into wrong methods of enduring the 1260 days. I mean, what sort of ruinous and reckless foolishness is it to tell the Body of God that the Bible has NO evidence of a post-trib rapture?

I recently responded to a pre-tribber who accused me of being no Christian at all because I didn't speak to him in love when responding to his pre-trib arguments (that has become a typical pre-trib tactic in hopes of making us submissive to them). The reality is, he hates me because I oppose his beloved pre-trib theory. The question is, will that hate linger into the 1260 days, AFTER they realize that there will be no pre-trib rapture? Might that hatred be taking such firm root now that it becomes habitual?

I responded to this particular emailer that the Bible has ample evidence of a Coming of Jesus at Armageddon, and that there is ample evidence that the rapture occurs at the that these two simple points together amount to humongous Biblical evidence of a post-trib rapture. But he would have none of it. He closes his eyes to it, and hopes in an alternative Second Coming seven years before the one at Armageddon, and meanwhile takes my name out of the Book of Life for not respecting his position to the point of "speaking in love." There's a time for love, and a time for a knife to the cancer.

I replied in technical terms and did not know that I was supposed to respond with some sort of special love for him in order to prove my faith valid in his eyes (besides, I've had enough emails over the past dozen years that I can't continually put my whole heart into them all). The point is, his own hatred came though. The question is: should I entertain a pre-tribber on my tribulation retreat? I'm not sure. What if they become thorns in our sides? Are some of them the foolish virgins that we are directed in the parable to reject? Are they those who will betray us? Have you discussed your trib plans with a pre-tribber? Best not to.

If you're wondering why post-tribbers are quiet in pre-trib churches, it may be that God doesn't want pre-tribbers to mark us out as post-tribbers with serious intentions of living off the land for the 1260 days. Perhaps God knows that special persecution is coming to us from the actions of fanatical pre-tribbers. I don't know for sure, but the thought crosses my mind. Perhaps it's not Arabs or Illuminatists that we ought to be most concerned about, but rather pre-tribbers.

I'm not trying to instigate a war between us, nor a spirit of mistrust, but the issue needs to be addressed. If you're living on a property that you're planning as your trib retreat, should you share that with your entire church? Chances are, you haven't shared it because you realize there's danger there. Why? Why can't we trust pre-tribbers?

While living in Texas and thinking of making my place there a trib retreat, I did not share my post-tribulationism with most believers either in my own pre-trib church or in other churches. In fact, if I did mention it, as I did to the pre-trib pastor and his wife, and a few others, I didn't mention anything about actually planning to prepare a place. No wise post-tribber wants wide focus on, or gossip about, their trib retreat. But those of you who are not living on your retreats, go for gusto and share/argue post-tribulationism to your heart's content. Just don't tell where your retreat is, once you purchase it.

Ironically, I can see pre-tribbers viewing us as anti-society cultists whose trib plans need to be spoiled at any cost, and especially for the sake of the children among us. That view will allow them to betray our plans in good conscience. They might not persecute, but to betray/spoil our plans is enough to do the ultimate harm.


Updates Index

If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage,
see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the

Table of Contents