Articles, Blog, News



(King James Bible)

2Th. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

2Th. 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2Th. 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

2Th. 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2Th. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2Th. 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2Th. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2Th. 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th. 2:16 ¶ Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

2Th. 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

2Th. 3:1 ¶ Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

2Th. 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

2Th. 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil



QUESTION:   I recently saw an article on the coming temple and land grants of Israel. This author said the temple will be built by Jesus after the tribulation and the temple referred to in 2 Thes 2:4 is a spiritual temple. Can you help me work through this?

ANSWER:   Before you invest any time in this, ask your self these questions. How could the temple in 2 Thes 2:4 be a spiritual one if the anti-Christ sets himself up in it proclaiming himself to be God? How could it be a spiritual temple when in the middle of Daniel’s 70th Week the anti-Christ sets up the abomination of desolation there (Daniel 9:27), which Jesus described as a visual event that kicks off the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:15)? And how could it be a spiritual temple if the Lord told John to measure it and count the worshipers there? (Rev. 11:1-2). The Bible’s only spiritual temple is the Church (1 Cor. 3:16) which will be gone in the rapture before the verses above take place. To me, evidence of an actual physical temple during Daniel’s 70th Week is conclusive.


QUESTION:   Nowhere in scripture does it say that the anti-Christ will build the 3rd temple. In fact scripture is clear that The Lord will build the temple (Zech 6:12). If Israel has been converted after the war of Gog Magog why would it allow the beast to have such an honor? Or better yet why would God? To say anyone other than Christ will build the temple is heresy.

ANSWER:   In Daniel 9:27 we read that the anti-Christ will confirm a seven year covenant with the many (Israel) and in the middle of the covenant will put an end to the sacrifice and offering. Both the Lord Jesus and Paul confirmed this as an end times event. Paul said He would accomplish it by standing in God’s Temple proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thes. 2:4).

In Ezekiel 44:7-8 at the outset of the Millennium,the Lord will accuse Israel of letting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, officiate in His Temple. He will be referring to the anti-Christ and the False Prophet.

Following the Battle of Ezekiel 38-39, Israel will return to God, but will be fooled into accepting a false Messiah, the anti-Christ, as Jesus prophesied in John 5:43. I believe Israel will build a Temple, with the anti-Christ’s help, as Daniel 9:27 says. He will then make the Temple desolate, kicking off the Great Tribulation (2 Thes. 2:4 and Matt. 24:15). In a prophetic fulfillment of the Feast of Hanukkah, this Temple will be cleansed and re-dedicated at the time of the Lord’s return, fulfilling Zech. 6:12.






News Clips Obtained From Many Sources – Including


Rapture Ready News


Main News Channels

Other Christian Sites ​​06/02/2018


































By Yaakov Lappin/

Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah-Iran have risen sharply this week, following the discovery of an Iranian program to set up weapons factories on Lebanese soil, for the manufacture of missile guidance systems. Such guidance systems can be placed on Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets and missiles, and turn inaccurate projectiles into precision-strike weapons, capabilities that were once reserved for the great powers. It would allow the Shi’a armed organization to target strategically sensitive targets deep in Israel, and cross a red line drawn by Israel over how far its enemies can build up their military capabilities. These developments have led to a flurry of Israeli warnings in recent days, as part of a diplomatic attempt make Iran and its Hezbollah client desist from their activities. Israeli officials have made it clear that if their warnings will go unheeded, military action will become likely.

“There is no doubt this is a new stage in the attempts by Iran, to build independent capabilities to build advanced missiles systems in Syria and Lebanon,” Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior scholar at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, told JNS. The weapons factories in Syria are likely under direct Iranian control “and those in Lebanon under Hezbollah control,” Karmon said. By building weapons factories in Lebanon and Syria, Iran can kill two birds with one stone, Karmon argued. It can arm its proxies with advanced weapons, and cut out the need for ground transportation of the weapons, across routes that have proven vulnerable to Israeli detection and repeated alleged Israeli air strikes. Israel has made no secret of its determination to disrupt the Iranian arms trafficking network. So far, it’s campaign to do so in Syria has succeeded in dodging a wider conflict. Military strikes in Lebanon, however, could change all of that. Hezbollah has warned in the past that it would respond to such attacks differently from its muted responses to alleged Israeli strikes in Syria. Still, Iran has a clear incentive to take such risks. The factories make Iran’s proxies even more powerful, Karmon said, while limiting the “liberty of the decision making of the two legitimate governments [in Lebanon and Syria].”

Israel’s response in recent days has been urgent, and unusual. The spokesman of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Brig.-Gen. Ronen Manelis, took the rare step of writing a letter directly to the Lebanese people, and publishing it on Lebanese opposition websites, warning of dire consequences if work on the factories continued. Manelis said the entire future of Lebanon and the region is being jeopardized by “the takeover of those who take their orders from Tehran.” ”The most severe things are hidden from view. Lebanon is actually turning, due to the failure of the Lebanese authorities and the turning of a blind eye by many members of the international community, into one large missile factory,” Manelis wrote. “Iran opened a new de facto branch in Lebanon. Iran is here.” He described Lebanon a powder keg, which could blow up at any time due to Iran’s conduct. ”Will Lebanon and the world community allow Iran and Hezbollah to take advantage of the naivety of the heads of the Lebanese state, and set up a factory for accurate missiles, as they are trying to do so these days?” he asked. “The IDF is prepared for all scenarios.” Days later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the commander of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, flew to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. It is believed that during their meeting, Netanyahu warned Putin what Israel would do if Russia’s partners, Iran and Hezbollah, continued building the factories. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has, for his part, been issuing a steady stream of warnings about events in Lebanon, adding that if residents of Tel Aviv are forced to sit in air raid shelters, “all of Beirut will sit in shelters.”

He added, however, that the threat could be stopped “not just with bombs. We are activating all of the diplomatic levers, and other levers, to prevent the production of missiles. The last thing I want is to go into a third Lebanese war… we are taking advantage of all options. What I can stress is that we are determined to stop Lebanon from turning into one big factory for the production of accurate missiles.” Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Netanyahu’s former national security advisor, told JNS that Israel’s warnings have a dual purpose. They represent an attempt by Jerusalem to deal with the threat without resorting to military force, and at the same time, they help create needed legitimacy for military action, in case diplomacy fails. The warnings achieve “both” of these objectives, Amidror said. Karmon said it was far from clear whether these warnings will be effective. ”Israel will have to respond, either by pressing Russia and the U.S. to stop this adventurous Iranian move, or directly by attacking it, including if necessary in Lebanon, which was until now not in Israeli plans to attack preventively,” he said. ”I think the threats by Israeli politicians and military to attack and destroy Lebanese infrastructure in order to deter Iran are not sufficient – and counterproductive in relation to Israel’s standing in the international arena – as the Iranians, like the Syrians before them, will fight to the last Lebanese. Therefore, Israel should threaten Tehran directly,” Karmon, stated. ”It should be remembered that the decision of [former Iranian Supreme Leader] Ayatollah Khomeini to accept the end of the eight- years Iraq-Iran war in 1988 came only after a wave of deadly missile bombings of Iran’s capital.” In addition, Karmon said, a recent Kremlin delegation visit to Israel could create an “opening for a strategic dialogue between the two countries at the highest level, but the question is how much the Russians are willing to deliver on the Iranian file.”




Lebanon is a pressure cooker which could blow at any moment, but don’t worry about confused US policy. Israel’s threats to invade are not irking the Lebanese, but many wish Hezbollah would end a local Shiite-Christian spat.

America’s confused position in Afrin, northern Syria, is not the only location in the Middle East where Washington’s loyalties are at odds with the reality on the ground. Lebanon, a country once called the ‘Switzerland of the Middle East’ for its Western pretentions, is now what many call a failed state which is consumed by corruption. And a confused one, for Washington to grapple with.

Lebanon is one of the highest net recipients of US military aid and because of its unique location (bordering Israel) and its dominance by Iranian-backed Hezbollah, that makes it a special case in the eyes of Washington. Indeed, only recently when Israel threatened to attack, it was the US which “pledged”  support for the Lebanese Army, which it erroneously believes acts as a “counterweight” to Hezbollah. Is the US misinformed and comically out of touch of the recent developments in Lebanon, or is it simply confused about the realities on the ground?

A lot has changed since the 2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israeli forces. Recently, President Michel Aoun made it very clear that the Lebanese Army would support Hezbollah in attacking the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), if Israeli forces entered the country. Given this stark change to 2006, when the Lebanese Army didn’t fight Israel in the south, this new situation would put two US allies at war with each other – the IDF and the Lebanese regular army.

This presents Washington’s foreign policy hacks with a conundrum: does this abnormality of military support act as an incendiary device to pushing Israel to invade Lebanon (for a third time), or simply mean that Israel will merely threaten to do so more than it normally would, without going ahead? Are Israel’s threats strong words from an empty stomach?

In recent weeks, barely a few days pass without Israel making another threat to invade. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently said that Israel would not let Beirut’s residents go to the beach (like they did in 2006) while the south of their country was at war (and Israelis in Tel Aviv were in bomb shelters). In the same week, he also accused Lebanon of illegally taking Israel’s territorial waters – for oil and gas exploration – which he called a “provocation,” resulting in a no-nonsense response from Hezbollah: it will be war if you go there. Concurrent to these statements, an IDF spokesman also warned of war if Iran’s weapons facility, rumored to be in Lebanon, started production.

None of the Israeli threats stirs the average Lebanese though, even though in recent months a massive IDF build-up on the Lebanese-Israeli border has been ongoing.

A good barometer of how worried people are about stability in Lebanon can be found at the bank, where interest rates linked to the local currency indicate whether people are panic selling their lira; another one is inflation in supermarkets

But the best one is without a doubt the price of black market guns. Lebanon has one of the highest concentrations of guns in the world. Yet in the last few months, gun dealers are bemoaning how a Syrian war in its twilight stage, combined with a period of no car bombs or assassinations in Lebanon for at least two years, is forcing prices down to record lows. Two years ago, a brand new Russian Viking pistol was selling on the streets of an Armenian neighborhood in Beirut for over US$2,200; until this Christian-Shiite spat, the price was as low as $1,300.

Yet there is something which the Lebanese really fear and which might spike prices of weapons, certainly assault rifles. In recent days, Lebanon’s house speaker, Nabih Berri, was called a “thug” by Aoun’s son-in-law, Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil  – a man who has a rare talent for poorly-timed or inappropriate statements – leaving the elderly Shiite figurehead somewhat riled. Not wishing to rise to the bait himself, the defamed gentleman in question left it to his loyal militias to enter neighborhoods in Christian areas, burning tires and firing AK47s into the air – managing to pull off an impressive impersonation of “thugs” to boot. 

But it’s no laughing matter. Many Christians are worried that things could escalate and leave Lebanon vulnerable.

This can be really dangerous for Lebanon,” a Christian shopkeeper in an affluent Christian area in Beirut tells me. “This is what started the civil war, exactly this…

“People now will start buying AKs which will push the price up because of these thugs, not because of Israel’s threats,” he adds, while showing me a compact pistol which he says he paid $2,500 for, still glistening in oil.

The ‘demonstrations’, which lasted three days and included the house speakers’ thugs closing the airport for two hours and which also pitched them against a gun-toting Christian neighborhood which scared them away, could get out of hand. This is what the Lebanese fear more than anything. An escalation of rival groups’ anger which could result in just one death – sparking a state of emergency, akin to a civil war.

Shake-up of power in Lebanon

Under normal circumstances, nobody believes that the Israelis would be so stupid to invade, given Hezbollah’s new strength and experience, following Syria and its latest missiles acquired from Iran. But if the country was in chaos, this could be more likely as it would be an opportunity that might not come around again.

The current row is about the house speaker’s own Shiite power base being threatened by the Christian president’s shake-up, allotting top military jobs to Christians and (perhaps) not getting his fair share from oil and gas ‘bonuses’. Corruption is the core issue, although Lebanon’s parliamentary elections are also making the country’s ruling warlords nervous, excluding Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, who has never looked more confident or relaxed in his TV speeches.

Perhaps he chuckles to himself when he hears of the US talking about supplying the Lebanese Army with more weapons, when hardly anyone in Lebanon believes that it is any real match for Hezbollah, regardless of the hardware it might have.

Some here argue that it will be Nasrallah who puts the house speaker’s armed thugs in order, as Hezbollah wants peace here in Lebanon more than anyone. Nasrallah may well be content, as he’s holding all the aces. He has his own Christian president who the West believes is in its own pocket and will protect Lebanon and Hezbollah against any regional hegemony either in Riyadh or Tel Aviv overstepping red lines. It doesn’t really get any better than that. Nasrallah also probably believes that US President Donald Trump would not allow the Israelis to attack Lebanon, where the national army is US-supplied and ready to hit back. It would make the US president look stupid and bewildered, and Washington’s foreign policy appear hit and miss. Chocolate cake. With candles.

There are even those who believe that the constant funding of the Lebanese Army is, in itself, a smart way of both deterring Israel from invading and making its political class an even more astute enemy of Iran. But this merely strengthens the Hezbollah leader even more.

In the meantime, in many Christian areas in Beirut the normal price of a used AK47 (around $1,100 to $1,200) jumped now to $1,600 because of the local clashes. Many Christians are worried that the speaker’s mob will spark a turf war. “The few [Christians] who didn’t have one before are now under pressure from friends to get one,” Philippe, a restaurant owner tells me before smiling. “Of course, I have one. We look now to Nasrallah to intervene and stop these incidents even though it’s not his people.”




OUT OF ROAD: Vice President Mike Pence heads to South Korea and Japan this week to represent the United States at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games and to reassure Seoul and Tokyo that there is no daylight between the allies in confronting the North over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

“I’ll cheer on our athletes, but I’ll also be there to deliver a simple message: That the era of strategic patience is over,” Pence said Friday at an event in Pittsburgh. “We’ll make it clear that all options are on the table. And you can be confident we will continue to bring all economic and diplomatic pressure to bear until North Korea permanently abandons its nuclear and ballistic missile programs once and for all.”

Friday, President Trump met with North Korean defectors and said despite the first talks between North and South Korea in two years, time is running out. “You know, we ran out of road. You know the expression? The road really ended,” Trump said, as he once again blamed previous administrations for failing to stop North Korea’s nuclear program before it could threaten the U.S. “They could’ve done it 12 years ago. They could’ve done it 20 years ago. They could’ve done it four years ago, and two years ago. We have no road left.”

North Korea is planning a big military parade in the days before the opening ceremonies Friday that is expected to showcase its newest intercontinental ballistic missiles, including the Hwasong-14 first tested last July, and the heavier, longer-range Hwasong-15 tested in November.

NPR ON NORTH KOREA: DETER AND DEFEND: Also Friday, the Pentagon unveiled its Nuclear Posture Review, which is designed to provide more options for nuclear deterrence with no overall increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The 75-page unclassified summary contains what it calls a “tailored strategy” for each of the four major countries challenging the U.S. with the potential for nuclear conflict now or in the future.

For North Korea, the U.S. strategy remains deterrence through all three legs of the nuclear triad, submarines bombers, and land-based ICBMs.

“For North Korea, the survival of the Kim regime is paramount,” the NPR states. “Our deterrence strategy for North Korea makes clear that any North Korean nuclear attack against the United States or its allies and partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of that regime.” The message to Kim Jong Un is straightforward: Use your nukes, and you die. “There is no scenario in which the Kim regime could employ nuclear weapons and survive. Further, we will hold the Kim regime fully responsible for any transfer of nuclear weapons technology, material or expertise to any state or non-state actor.”

The other message to Kim is that any attempt to hit the U.S. will fail because of America’s multi-layered missile defenses. Although North Korea’s missile forces are expanding and increasingly mobile, U.S. and allied missile defenses are increasingly capable against North Korea’s missile threat, and the United States has the early warning systems and strike capabilities necessary to degrade North Korean missile capabilities prior to launch.”

LAST WEEK’S MISS: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters Friday that the failed intercept test of a new land-based version of the Aegis system usually installed on warships was not a cause of concern, nor an indication of problems with the system. “I would assume that some tests would fail. The whole reason we test is because the thing isn’t mature yet,” Mattis said at one of his drop-in semi-formal briefings with reporters in the press pen. “That’s normal, that’s good, OK? So I’m not the least bit concerned about that; that’s how you learn.”

RUSSIA REACTS: While one Pentagon briefer Friday pushed back on the idea that Trump’s nuclear review was a “Russia-centric” document, Moscow could see that the major changes were aimed directly at countering its military doctrine of “escalating-to-deescalate.”

In a statement, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the U.S. portrayals of Russia’s nuclear doctrine “have nothing do with reality,” and accused the U.S. of using traditional anti-Russian rhetoric to justify its own “large-scale nuclear weapons buildup.”

The U.S. readiness to use its nuclear arsenal against Russia preemptively is nothing but an “attempt to question [Moscow’s] right for self-defense against an aggression in a situation that is critical for the very existence of the Russian state,” the statement said.

“While just having a flick through the document, one can notice that its confrontational charge and anti-Russian focus stare in the face,” the Foreign Ministry said.

The Nuclear Posture Review is by and large consistent with previous articulations of U.S. nuclear strategy, emphasizing the primary purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is deterrence. But the changes in the Trump NPR include converting about two dozen submarine-launched warheads to a lower yield as a counter to Moscow’s growing arsenal of tactical “battlefield” nukes, which are not limited by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

TIME TO GO? The Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. has agreed to begin withdrawing several thousand U.S. troops from Iraq, now that ISIS has been defeated and only remnants of the group remain. The U.S. has more than 5,000 troops in the country, and AP quotes “Western contractors at a U.S.-led coalition base” as saying some U.S. troops have packed up their weapons and equipment are being transported out of Iraq to Afghanistan. [NOTE: This story has been updated with the correct number of U.S. troops in the country.]

The AP quotes an Iraqi government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi as saying “the battle against Daesh has ended and so the level of the American presence will be reduced.” The U.S. is expected to leave several thousand troops in Iraq to continue to train, advise and assist Iraqi forces.

So far there has been no confirmation from the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad that the withdrawal has begun, but Col. Ryan Dillon tweeted, “@CJTFOIR presence in #Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to the need, and in coordination w/ the @IraqiGovt. @Coalition still training, equipping, providing intel, and assisting our #ISF partners to #defeatDaesh.”

Good Monday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, compiled by Washington Examiner National Security Senior Writer Jamie McIntyre (@jamiejmcintyre), National Security Writer Travis J. Tritten (@travis_tritten) and Senior Editor David Brown (@dave_brown24). Email us here for tips, suggestions, calendar items and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list. And be sure to follow us on Twitter @dailyondefense.


HAPPENING TODAY: This morning Rep. Michael McCaul, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, will give an address at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security. The speech will include U.S. strategy against terrorists, cyber defense, border and aviation security, and leadership abroad, according to his office. Afterward, McCaul will sit down for a panel discussion with Reps. John Katko, Will Hurd and Mike Gallagher on evolving threats to the homeland and the role of U.S. leadership on the global stage.

HAPPENING TOMORROW: Mattis and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Paul Selva appear before the House Armed Services Committee tomorrow morning to testify about the National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is traveling.

MATTIS STILL BULLISH ON THE BUDGET: Congress has until Thursday to pass some new budget legislation or face another government shutdown. Despite the coming cliffhanger and almost certainty of another stopgap measure, Mattis was upbeat on the defense budget prospects during a visit with the Pentagon press corps. “I’m very happy with $700 [billion] for this year and $716 [billion] for next,” he said on Friday. It was the first public confirmation that he racked up a major political win with a $716 billion top line for defense in Trump’s upcoming budget request to Congress. That is a 7 percent increase over what deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney and his White House Office of Management and Budget had projected. Congress passed a $700 billion defense authorization in December, a major hike in its own right, and Trump is expected to unveil the 2019 request on Feb. 12.

The money would be a boon for Mattis and begin to bankroll a buildup and modernization of the military, as well as improvements to the nuclear arsenal. “Look at the strategy and you’ll see where it’s going,” said Mattis, who unveiled the Nuclear Posture Review on Friday, the latest in a series of new strategy documents. But the Pentagon must first get past its current financial predicament. Republicans are readying a vote on another continuing resolution as soon as Tuesday that would delay any hike for Mattis until March 22. “If they do a CR until March 22, that’s halfway through the fiscal year on a continuing resolution and it’s especially disruptive because the budget request for fiscal year ’18 … is significantly higher than the CR level,” said Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Harrison said “we’re definitely into that stage” where the stopgap measures become a painful problem for the Pentagon.

OA-X COMPETITION: The Air Force has whittled down candidates for its new light attack aircraft to Textron’s AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano by Sierra Nevada and Embraer. The two aircraft finalists from the service’s Light Attack Experiment in August will now undergo a battery of testing, though no combat demonstration, this summer at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. The service is looking to purchase a light and inexpensive aircraft capable of fighting insurgencies and carrying out close-air support similar to the A-10 Thunderbolt II, a legendary but aging airframe that is becoming expensive to maintain.

“Rather than do a combat demonstration, we have decided to work closely with industry to experiment with maintenance, data networking and sensors with the two most promising light attack aircraft — the AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said in a statement. “This will let us gather the data needed for a rapid procurement.” The testing will occur May-July and is expected to give the service all the information it needs to make a final decision on which aircraft gets the contract. International partners of the U.S. will be invited to view the tests.

SUPER AD: For the first time in 30 years, the U.S. Marine Corps aired an ad during the Super Bowl, using an online-only spot Sunday to target a young, tough, tech-savvy audience for potential recruits looking for a challenge, the AP reported.

The high-powered, battle-heavy, 30-second ad shows Marines deploying from ships in amphibious vehicles, dropping bombs from aircraft and hurling a shoulder-launched drone into the air. “It’s not just the ships, the armor or the aircraft. It’s something more. It’s the will to fight and determination to win found inside each and every Marine that answers a nation’s call,” the announcer says, as the camera follows a squad of Marines storming off helicopters into a mock firefight while explosions erupt around them.

McFARLAND WITHDRAWS: Trump’s preferred ambassador to Singapore has withdrawn her nomination, following a protracted delay in the Senate. “I have come to this decision because I believe in your mission,” K.T. McFarland, Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, wrote in a Friday letter to the president. “Know that I have no intention of withdrawing from the national debate and I want to help you in whatever way I can.” McFarland joined Trump’s team at the recommendation of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Still, her career in the administration became embroiled in the controversy over then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s conversations about U.S. sanctions policy with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. She was nominated to the diplomatic post when Flynn’s replacement wanted to replace her with another aide.

TRANSGENDER BAN GETS POLITICAL: The American Military Partner Association has blasted the Republican National Committee for what it said was a “disgusting, vile” vote in support of Trump’s effort to ban transgender troops from the armed services. The RNC passed a resolution Friday during its annual winter meeting backing Trump and his position that being transgender should be a “disqualifying psychological and physical” condition.

“Not only did the RNC just degrade active duty service members, but they also maligned countless military families across the country with family members who also happen to be transgender. This is a disgusting, vile attempt to play politics with the lives of our military families,” Ashley Broadway-Mack, the president of the American Military Partner Association, said. The RNC also advocated that Trump’s Justice Department take the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary. Four federal lawsuits opposing the ban are now playing out in Washington, D.C., Maryland, California, and Washington state district courts.




By Daymond Duck –

Pres. Trump promised a peace proposal in early 2018. He gave some of the Arab leaders a preliminary proposal (more than 90 pages) in early Dec. 2017, but at the time of this writing (as far as I know) he hasn’t issued an official proposal.

Some of the terms in Pres. Trump’s preliminary proposal have leaked (no right of return; PA self-government in part of Israel, but no PA military; PA will get some land in the Sinai instead of land the PA wants in Israel, etc.). Others terms have been kept confidential.

It has been reported that what some leaders say in public is different from what they say in private. The situation is fluid and constantly changing. But this article contains my understanding of what I have read up to this time.

As a candidate for Pres. of the U.S., Mr. Trump promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Some said he would never do it. Some said he would start WW III, if he did, etc.

At some point, Pres. Trump realized that every effort to negotiate a peace treaty failed for three reasons: 1) Possession of Jerusalem; 2) PA refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation; and 3) The UN, U.S., EU, Arab nations and others were giving the PA hundreds of millions of dollars per year with no strings attached.

Concerning Jerusalem, on Dec. 6, 2017, Pres. Trump decided to keep his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. He understood that this would cause turmoil, but he believed the turmoil would eventually subside and the door would open for peace negotiations.

Concerning PA recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation, Pres. Trump decided the PA would never recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation; so he decided to seek the recognition of the Arab League instead. Recognition of Israel’s existence as a Jewish nation by the Arab League would make PA rejection meaningless.

Concerning the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being given to the PA with no strings attached, Pres. Trump decided that one reason the PA keeps refusing to sign a peace treaty is because the PA doesn’t want the influx of money to stop. Pres. Trump decided that it is foolish to keep giving the PA large sums of money without getting something in return. Why agree to a peace treaty, if the money is going to be reduced or stopped?

When Mahmoud Abbas learned what is in Pres. Trump’s preliminary proposal he went ballistic. He abandoned the peace process. He rejected Pres. Trump as a fair negotiator. He walked away from the negotiating table.

He spent part of his millions of U.S. dollars traveling around Europe searching for anti-Israel allies. Most told him he would get nowhere without the U.S. and Pres. Trump.

Pres. Trump said Mr. Abbas must return to the negotiating table and stop refusing to negotiate or he (Pres. Trump) will shut down the PA office in Washington, the U.S. will not have anything else to do with the PA, and the U.S. will give the PA no more U.S. money. Pres. Trump even threatened to try to cut off the PA’s income from other nations and entities.

Pres. Trump thinks it will take time, but the PA will eventually change their mind. If they don’t, Pres. Trump will continue the peace process without any input from the PA. It appears that he may already have the approval of the Arab League to do this.

Anyway, the PA has abandoned the peace process, but most of the remainder of the Arab League hasn’t. Most want to get past Pres. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move on with the peace process in exchange for U.S. and Israeli help in dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

It has been reported that Egypt is actually downplaying Pres. Trump’s decision, and one government official has asked some of the media to convince the Egyptian people to accept it.

Jordan is struggling with Pres. Trump’s decision on Jerusalem, but many think Jordan will come around.

Pres. Trump said his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will cost Israel. The Arabs want to hear what this means.

This writer is not suggesting that Pres. Trump will betray Israel, but Pres. Trump needs to be very careful about this. The Bible clearly teaches that what nations do to Israel as the Tribulation Period nears will come back on them (Obad. 1:15).

Concerning Israel, Prime Min. Netanyahu knows that Israel will be called upon to make some painful concessions. He wants the government in Gaza replaced with a government that can control the terrorists and be a reliable peace partner.

He wants a phased agreement that will gradually change things over a period of time (not all at once; could it be 7 years?). He is refusing to give up Jerusalem and Israel’s right to defend itself.

God alone knows the future. But it looks like Pres. Trump will continue to develop his peace proposal; Mr. Abbas is probably on his way out; the 1967 borders are no longer a factor; the Arab League is ready to recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation; the Arab League is ready to make peace; it is ready to establish a regional government in Gaza; it is ready to do what is best for the Palestinian people instead of the terrorists in Fatah, Hamas, etc.

It must be understood that Pres. Trump’s peace proposal is not the treaty that will begin the Tribulation Period. But his proposal will have the potential to morph into a peace treaty that will gain global acceptance and be confirmed by the Antichrist. That would begin the Tribulation Period.

Prophecy Plus Ministries, Inc.

Daymond & Rachel Duck

[email protected]




The Barros affair first caused shockwaves in January 2015 when Pope Francis appointed him bishop of Osorno, Chile, over the objections of the leadership of Chile’s bishops’ conference and many local priests and laity. They accepted as credible the testimony against Karadima, a prominent Chilean cleric who was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for abusing minors. Barros was a Karadima protege, and according to Cruz and other victims, he witnessed the abuse and did nothing.

Pope Francis received a victim’s letter in 2015 that graphically detailed how a priest sexually abused him and how other Chilean clergy ignored it, contradicting the pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward to denounce the cover-up, the letter’s author and members of Francis’ own sex- abuse commission have told The Associated Press.

“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” Revelation 17:5,6 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pope Francis came in to “clean up” the Catholic Church, promising “zero tolerance” for priests who sexually abused their followers. But sadly, this has not been the case. In the most explosive revelations to date, Pope Francis has been caught lying about widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Chile, and about the letter hand-delivered to him written by Juan Carlos Cruz exposing it all. 

The fact that Pope Francis received the eight-page letter, obtained by the AP, challenges his insistence that he has “zero tolerance” for sex abuse and cover-ups. It also calls into question his stated empathy with abuse survivors, compounding the most serious crisis of his five-year papacy.

The scandal exploded last month when Francis’ trip to South America was marred by protests over his vigorous defense of Bishop Juan Barros, who is accused by victims of covering up the abuse by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. During the trip, Francis callously dismissed accusations against Barros as “slander,” seemingly unaware that victims had placed him at the scene of Karadima’s crimes.

On the plane home, confronted by an AP reporter, the pope said: “You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward.”

But members of the pope’s Commission for the Protection of Minors say that in April 2015, they sent a delegation to Rome specifically to hand-deliver a letter to the pope about Barros. The letter from Juan Carlos Cruz detailed the abuse, kissing and fondling he says he suffered at Karadima’s hands, which he said Barros and others witnessed and ignored.

Four members of the commission met with Francis’ top abuse adviser, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, explained their objections to Francis’ recent appointment of Barros as a bishop in southern Chile, and gave him the letter to deliver to Francis.

“When we gave him (O’Malley) the letter for the pope, he assured us he would give it to the pope and speak of the concerns,” then-commission member Marie Collins told the AP. “And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done.”

Cruz, who now lives and works in Philadelphia, heard the same later that year.

“Cardinal O’Malley called me after the pope’s visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope — in his hands,” he said in an interview at his home Sunday.

Neither the Vatican nor O’Malley responded to multiple requests for comment.

While the 2015 summit of Francis’ commission was known and publicized at the time, the contents of Cruz’s letter — and a photograph of Collins handing it to O’Malley — were not disclosed by members. Cruz provided the letter, and Collins provided the photo, after reading an AP story that reported Francis had claimed to have never heard from any Karadima victims about Barros’ behavior.

The Barros affair first caused shockwaves in January 2015 when Francis appointed him bishop of Osorno, Chile, over the objections of the leadership of Chile’s bishops’ conference and many local priests and laity. They accepted as credible the testimony against Karadima, a prominent Chilean cleric who was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for abusing minors. Barros was a Karadima protege, and according to Cruz and other victims, he witnessed the abuse and did nothing.

“Holy Father, I write you this letter because I’m tired of fighting, of crying and suffering,” Cruz wrote in Francis’ native Spanish. “Our story is well known and there’s no need to repeat it, except to tell you of the horror of having lived this abuse and how I wanted to kill myself.”

Cruz and other survivors had for years denounced the cover-up of Karadima’s crimes, but were dismissed as liars by the Chilean church hierarchy and the Vatican’s own ambassador in Santiago, who refused their repeated requests to meet before and after Barros was appointed.

After Francis’ comments backing the Chilean hierarchy caused such an outcry in Chile, he was forced last week to do an about-face: The Vatican announced it was sending in its most respected sex-crimes investigator to take testimony from Cruz and others about Barros.

In the letter to the pope, Cruz begs for Francis to listen to him and make good on his pledge of “zero tolerance.”

“Holy Father, it’s bad enough that we suffered such tremendous pain and anguish from the sexual and psychological abuse, but the terrible mistreatment we received from our pastors is almost worse,” he wrote.

Cruz goes on to detail in explicit terms the homo-eroticized nature of the circle of priests and young boys around Karadima, the charismatic preacher whose El Bosque community in the well-to-do Santiago neighborhood of Providencia produced dozens of priestly vocations and five bishops, including Barros.

He described how Karadima would kiss Barros and fondle his genitals, and do the same with younger priests and teens, and how young priests and seminarians would fight to sit next to Karadima at the table to receive his affections.

“More difficult and tough was when we were in Karadima’s room and Juan Barros — if he wasn’t kissing Karadima — would watch when Karadima would touch us — the minors — and make us kiss him, saying: ‘Put your mouth near mine and stick out your tongue.’ He would stick his out and kiss us with his tongue,” Cruz told the pope. “Juan Barros was a witness to all this innumerable times, not just with me but with others as well.”

“Juan Barros covered up everything that I have told you,” he added.

Barros has repeatedly denied witnessing any abuse or covering it up. “I never knew anything about, nor ever imagined, the serious abuses which that priest committed against the victims,” he told the AP recently. “I have never approved of nor participated in such serious, dishonest acts, and I have never been convicted by any tribunal of such things.”

For the Osorno faithful who have opposed Barros as their bishop, the issue isn’t so much a legal matter requiring proof or evidence, as Barros was a young priest at the time and not in a position of authority over Karadima. It’s more that if Barros didn’t “see” what was happening around him and doesn’t find it problematic for a priest to kiss and fondle young boys, he shouldn’t be in charge of a diocese where he is responsible for detecting inappropriate sexual behavior, reporting it to police and protecting children from pedophiles like his mentor.

Cruz had arrived at Karadima’s community in 1980 as a vulnerable teenager, distraught after the recent death of his father. He has said Karadima told him he would be like a spiritual father to him, but instead sexually abused him.

Based on testimony from Cruz and other former members of the parish, the Vatican in 2011 removed Karadima from ministry and sentenced him to a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes. Now 87, he lives in a home for elderly priests in Santiago; he hasn’t commented on the scandal and the home has declined to accept calls or visits from the news media.

The victims also testified to Chilean prosecutors, who opened an investigation into Karadima after they went public with their accusations in 2010. Chilean prosecutors had to drop charges because too much time had passed, but the judge running the case stressed that it wasn’t for lack of proof.

While the victims’ testimony was deemed credible by both Vatican and Chilean prosecutors, the local church hierarchy clearly didn’t believe them, which might have influenced Francis’ view. Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz has acknowledged he didn’t believe the victims initially and shelved an investigation. He was forced to reopen it after the victims went public.

He is now one of the Argentine pope’s key cardinal advisers.

By the time he finally got his letter into the pope’s hands in 2015, Cruz had already sent versions to many other people, and had tried for months to get an appointment with the Vatican ambassador. The embassy’s Dec. 15, 2014, email to Cruz — a month before Barros was appointed — was short and to the point:

“The apostolic nunciature has received the message you emailed Dec. 7 to the apostolic nuncio,” it read, “and at the same time communicates that your request has been met with an unfavorable response.”

One could argue that Francis didn’t pay attention to Cruz’s letter, since he receives thousands of letters every day from faithful around the world. He can’t possibly read them all, much less remember the contents years later. He might have been tired and confused after a weeklong trip to South America when he told an airborne press conference that victims never came forward to accuse Barros of cover-up.

But this was not an ordinary letter, nor were the circumstances under which it arrived in the Vatican.

Francis had named O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, to head his Commission for the Protection of Minors based on his credibility in having helped clean up the mess in Boston after the U.S. sex abuse scandal exploded there in 2002. The commission gathered outside experts to advise the church on protecting children from pedophiles and educating church personnel about preventing abuse and cover-ups.

The four commission members who were on a special subcommittee dedicated to survivors had flown to Rome specifically to speak with O’Malley about the Barros appointment and to deliver Cruz’s letter. A press release issued after the April 12, 2015, meeting read: “Cardinal O’Malley agreed to present the concerns of the subcommittee to the Holy Father.”

Commission member Catherine Bonnet, a French child psychiatrist who took the photo of Collins handing the letter to O’Malley, said the commission members had decided to descend on Rome specifically when O’Malley and other members of the pope’s group of nine cardinal advisers were meeting, so that O’Malley could put it directly into the pope’s hands.

“Cardinal O’Malley promised us when Marie gave to him the letter of Juan Carlos that he will give to Pope Francis,” she said.

O’Malley’s spokesman in Boston referred requests for comment to the Vatican. Neither the Vatican press office, nor officials at the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, responded to calls and emails seeking comment.

But O’Malley’s remarkable response to Francis’ defense of Barros and to his dismissal of the victims while he was in Chile, is perhaps now better understood.

In a rare rebuke of a pope by a cardinal, O’Malley issued a statement Jan. 20 in which he said the pope’s words were “a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse,” and that such expressions had the effect of abandoning victims and relegating them to “discredited exile.”

A day later, Francis apologized for having demanded “proof” of wrongdoing by Barros, saying he meant merely that he wanted to see “evidence.” But he continued to describe the accusations against Barros as “calumny” and insisted he had never heard from any victims.

Even when told in his airborne press conference Jan. 21 that Karadima’s victims had indeed placed Barros at the scene of Karadima’s abuse, Francis said: “No one has come forward. They haven’t provided any evidence for a judgment. This is all a bit vague. It’s something that can’t be accepted.”

He stood by Barros, saying: “I’m certain he’s innocent,” even while saying that he considered the testimony of victims to be “evidence” in a cover-up investigation.

“If anyone can give me evidence, I’ll be the first to listen,” he said.

Cruz said he felt like he had been slapped when he heard those words. “I was upset,” he said, “and at the same time I couldn’t believe that someone so high up like the pope himself could lie about this.” source




By William Clemens

Agreeing with sin is sin; that needs some explanation. Perhaps an incident in Heaven can explain it perfectly.


Satan, or Lucifer, as he may have been known in Heaven before his fall, was the chief angel with the responsibility to see to it that what God wanted done in Heaven was carried out. He was closer to God than any of the other angels.

Eze 28:14:15 “You were the anointed cherub that covers, and I had put you in the holy height of God where you were; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you.”

At some point Lucifer thought he was doing a pretty good job in running affairs in Heaven and decided he could run Heaven without God and didn’t need God to tell him what to do. That free- will decision to exclude God from his life was the result of pride and was the first sin committed. The sin that corrupted Lucifer was self-generated pride.

As the result of that one sin, Lucifer, the anointed cherub and chief of angels, an archangel, was thrown out of Heaven.

Rev 12:9 “And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

“…and his angels were cast out with him.” Rev 12:4 “And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them onto the earth…” What was the sin of a third of the angels? Scripture does not say the sin of pride was found in them. But what they did do was agree that Lucifer was good at his job and probably could run Heaven as well as God, if not better. Their sin was agreeing with Lucifer’s sin even though they themselves may not have committed the sin of pride.


Where and how can this lesson be applied to humans on earth? With the multitude of sins that we commit as a result of our human sinful nature, there are as many instances where this lesson can be applied. I’ll zero in on two grievous sins that will illustrate it perfectly.

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and is a grievous sin before God. In Leviticus 20 God explains to Moses that sacrificing offspring to Molech is a sin:

Lev 20:2 “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”

But what does God think about someone who does not actually sacrifice but turns a blind eye and allows others to sacrifice their offspring?

Lev 20:4-5 “And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.”

Yet today, how many people say they stand for the right of a woman to make the choice to abort but would never do that themselves? Agreeing that the sin can be committed by someone else, but not yourself, is a sin and will exclude you from Heaven just as the angels who agreed with Lucifer were banned from Heaven.

The second sin to consider is the sin of homosexuality and other immoral sexual acts committed between same-sex genders, and this includes same-sex marriages. The instances in the Bible wherein God calls this lifestyle an abomination are found in Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; and Jude 1:7.

Many people, including some “so-called” Christians, believe it is okay for two people who say they love each other to have a homosexual affair or to be married to a same-sex partner. Sadly, there are denominations “claiming” to be Christian that accept, endorse or even allow the practice of the lifestyle. Again, we have the agreement of a sin; and that in itself is a sin that excludes you from Heaven just as the angels who agreed with Lucifer were banned from Heaven.

It would behoove these “so-called” Christians and particularly their denomination leaders to understand this sin, confess it and reverse any policies in their sphere of influence.


Through the courts and legislation, our nation has accepted abortion and the lifestyles of the LGBT community as normal and acceptable, even though true Christians wish it were not so. Our nation is and has been in great peril by going against God.

When Israel was at odds with God, it was the leadership of the nation that called for repentance; and the whole nation repented. It was only then that God healed their nation.

How can we expect God to heal our nation, even with fervent prayers of Christians, when our government leaders continue to defy God? What we need is Christian leaders in government that will take us in that direction despite the threats from secular anti-religious groups. Repenting as a nation will bring favor from God. Pray that we will elect the leadership that will be bold enough to turn our nation towards God despite the secular onslaught.

William Clemens


Recent Posts