This Happened On Planet Earth…July 2019…End Times Signs

Published on Jul 22, 2019
Matthew 24:3-14 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all[a] these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences,[b] and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.





Powers of this Dark World & Spiritual Forces of Evil in the Heavenly Realms

Published on Jul 22, 2019





Why the Pre-Trib Rapture View is the Only View That Makes Sense

Published on Jul 22, 2019




1Th. 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape
Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6)
1Cor. 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: AND THAT NO MAN CAN SAY THAT JESUS IS THE LORD, BUT BY THE HOLY GHOST.
THE TRIBULATION OF THE UNJUST (Those who have rejected Jesus Christ as their Saviour) IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION CHAPTER’S 6 to 22:
Rev. 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth:
Luke 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them
so won’t you accept Jesus now and be removed from that event and live forever with Jesus in the Family of God?
2 “(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)” (2nd Corinthians 2:6)




QUESTION:    We all know that there are different methods of interpreting Scripture. Some “spiritualize” it and attribute it to allegory. Others, such as me and you interpret Scripture “literally, historically and grammatically.” Is there any place in Scripture where God told us how he wanted us to interpret his Word? How did we come to the consensus that Scripture was to be interpreted “this” way as opposed to “that” way?
ANSWER:    From ancient times, people have used allegory to explain away passages they were uncomfortable with or in denial about. They justify doing this because some of the Bible is meant to be taken allegorically, such as Psalm 91:4,
“He will cover you with His feathers and under His wings you will find refuge.”
This is not meant to imply that God is a bird, but rather to evoke the image of a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings to protect them. Jesus applied this image to Himself in Matt. 23:37.
So how do we know when the Bible is meant to be taken literally and when it isn’t? The “golden rule” of interpretation goes like this. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. God in revealing His Word neither intends nor permits the reader to be confused. He wants His children to understand.” (Dr. D. A. Waite) If a passage of Scripture describes something that could actually happen just as it’s described, then it’s best to assume that’s what the Lord intends to do.

QUESTION:    Re: Inspiration of Scripture.  We often hear people claiming this confidently but is there really a verse that really claims that the entire Bible is the word of God? 2 Tim. 3: 16 speaks along those lines but to me it refers more to Old Testament scriptures rather than all other scriptures, because much 0f the New Testament hadn’t been written yet. What are your views on this?
ANSWER:    2 Timothy was Paul’s last letter, written during his final stretch in prison, which would end with his execution.   The New Testament hadn’t been compiled yet, but all of Paul’s other letters, 3 of the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, James, Peter’s letters, and Jude were probably already in circulation.  Only John’s letters, his Gospel, and the Book of Revelation came later.
Even so, when God inspired Paul to write,
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
I believe He had the entire Bible in mind, even those parts that hadn’t been written yet.
God could do this because He knew the other books would be written, and He knew what they would say, because He’s the ultimate Author of all Scripture.
To me that means it’s reasonable for us to assume that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 refers to all 66 Books of the Bible.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”.

QUESTION:    I’m having trouble understanding Romans 10:17. It says,
“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Why didn’t Paul just say “Faith comes by hearing the Word of God”?
ANSWER:    Romans 10:17 is part of a passage on salvation that begins in verse 13 where Paul said,
“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Then he asked a series of questions to bring us to the heart of the matter, which is preaching the Gospel. He asked,
“How can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?”
He was saying that the process begins with preachers being sent to preach the Word. People who hear the word being preached believe, and believing, they call upon the name of the Lord and are saved. So when Paul said that faith comes through hearing and hearing comes by the Word of God, he meant the faith to be saved comes through the preaching of the word by the preacher who is sent.
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory (Ephesians 1:13-14).



Tracking bible prophecy
Rapture Ready News
Main News Channels
End Times Headlines
Other Christian Sites
God is in control, and He told the nations the consequences of dividing the Promised Land and declaring peace and safety on their own terms (Joel 3:1-2; I Thess. 5:3)




2Chr. 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;
2Chr. 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land


Matt. 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
Matt. 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another

·        California Is Launching a Creepy’Cradle to Career’ Data System to Track EVERYTHING About Children  




Matt. 24:6 And ye shall hear of WARS AND RUMOURS OF WARS: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Matt. 24:7 FOR NATION SHALL RISE AGAINST NATION, AND KINGDOM AGAINST KINGDOM: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Muslim Countries in the Middle East will launch an attack on Israel
PROPHECY OF ELAM – (Possible Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Program




Lebanese terror group commanders say forces being sent to south for possible conflict, as pressure on Tehran grows
By TOI staff and Agencies 20 July 2019, 5:21 pm 16 Edit
Hezbollah supporters take part in a rally to mark al-Quds day in Beirut, Lebanon, May 31, 2019. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)
As tensions rose in the Persian Gulf over the weekend with Iran’s seizure of a British-flagged tanker, several commanders of Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, said they were deploying forces for possible war with Israel, warning that the growing pressure from sanctions on Tehran could trigger such a conflict sooner rather than later.
Officers in the organization told the Daily Beast in a report published Friday that its forces were setting up for war on both Lebanon’s and Syria’s border with Israel.
“We will fire the first shot this time,” said “Samir,” identified as a Hezbollah officer commanding 800 fighters on the border with Israel. He did not give his real name as he is not allowed to speak to the media. “The sanctions now have us preparing for dealing with the Israeli front,” he told the US publication.
Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up
The 2006 Second Lebanon War began after Hezbollah launched a surprise attack on an Israel Defense Forces patrol on the northern border in July that year, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing the bodies of two of them.
Samir, a veteran of that war, spoke of the group’s greatly improved capabilities, as well as new weaponry targeting aircraft and naval vessels acquired in Syria and a more “seasoned” fighting force after years of battle in the country alongside forces loyal to President Bashar Assad.
Illustrative image of a tank flying the Hezbollah terror group’s flag seen in the Qara area in Syria’s Qalamoun region on August 28, 2017 (AFP Photo/Louai Beshara)
Samir said Hezbollah had been wanting to open a new front with Israel but was held back by Assad.
“Our wish before the war in Syria was to go and open a front in the Golan but [the Syrian Government] set a red line,” the commander said, describing the limits the Assad regime placed on Hezbollah’s operations in its territory. “Now there are no red lines.”
Samir indicated that a new conflict with Israel would be “nothing like those that came before.” And he said Hezbollah could be deployed if Iran is pushed into a corner.
“If any missile hits Iran, it will be treated like Israel did it,” he said.
Samir said the punitive measures on Iran were being felt by the terror group as Tehran reduced financial support and salaries for Hezbollah fighters were cut.
Another commander, “Assir,” noted that many Hezbollah fighters returning from the conflict in Syria were being sent to the Israeli border.
“People who finish their mission in Syria go to the south,” he said. “There are some units in Syria but a lot go back to Lebanon or to the Golan. Thousands have come back.”
A third commander who spoke to the Daily Beast, identified as “Ayman,” said that despite military readiness, there was a strong desire to avoid war as the devastation of the 2006
conflict is well remembered.
The 34-day war saw thousands of rockets rain down on Israel’s northern region and claimed the lives 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers, and nearly 1,200 Lebanese, including several hundred Hezbollah fighters, according to the Israeli army.
In the 13 years since that summer war, Israel has repeatedly accused Hezbollah of violating United Nations resolution 1701, which ended the war. In June, the head of the IDF Northern Command, Maj. Gen. Amir Baram, threatened overt and covert action against Hezbollah and Lebanon, in response to its efforts to build up terrorist infrastructure along the border.
Hezbollah, Baram said, was “building infrastructure in the villages right here across [the border] and trying to threaten us with attack forces.”
The Northern Command chief said that in a future war against the terror group the country of Lebanon was likely to “pay a heavy price” for allowing Hezbollah to take root there.
The head of IDF Northern Command, Amir Baram, speaks at a memorial ceremony for the 2006 Second Lebanon War, on June 11, 2019. (Israel Defense Forces)
“Hezbollah’s loyalty was and remains to the supreme leader of Iran, not to the citizens of Lebanon. As a direct result of this, the nation of Lebanon will pay a heavy price in the next campaign for cooperating with Shiite terror,” Baram said, referring to the sect of Islam practiced by Hezbollah and Iran.
Since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, the Israeli military has acknowledged carrying out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria on targets linked to Iran and Hezbollah.
Israel has accused Iran of seeking to establish a military presence in Syria that could threaten Israeli security and attempting to transfer advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, which Jerusalem has vowed to prevent.
Tensions between Iran and the West have escalated in recent months amid a deepening standoff between the Islamic Republic and the United States over Tehran’s nuclear program, with a string of incidents involving tankers and drones.
The latest involved Iran’s seizure of a British oil tanker in the strategic Strait of Hormuz which it said was in response to Britain’s role in impounding an Iranian supertanker two weeks earlier. At the same time, the country’s foreign minister insisted Iran was simply maintaining maritime law.
Spokesman of Iran’s Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, was quoted on Saturday in the semi-official Fars news agency as saying “the rule of reciprocal action is well-known in international law” and that Iran’s moves to “confront the illegitimate economic war and seizure of oil tankers is an instance of this rule and is based on international rights.”
The council rarely comments on state matters, but when it does it is seen as a reflection of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s views. The council works closely with Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters.
Concurrently, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted: “Unlike the piracy in the Strait of Gibraltar, our action in the Persian Gulf is to uphold int’l maritime rules.”
The British-flagged and Swedish-owned Stena Impero tanker with 23 crew aboard was seized by Iran late Friday. Maritime trackers show it was headed to a port in Saudi Arabia.
On July 4, Britain’s Royal Marines took part in the seizure of an Iranian oil tanker carrying more than 2 million barrels of Iranian crude oil by Gibraltar, a British overseas territory off the southern coast of Spain.
Britain has said it would release the vessel if Iran could prove it was not breaching European Union sanctions on oil shipments to Syria. However, on Friday, a court in Gibraltar extended by 30 days the detention of the Panama-flagged Grace 1.
Iranian authorities had reported earlier Saturday that Iran had seized the British-flagged vessel late Friday after it rammed an Iranian fishing vessel — an explanation that portrayed the seizure as a technicality rather than a tit-for-tat move in the current tense climate.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it seized the Stena Impero for breaking “international maritime rules” in the strait, a choke-point for around a third of the world’s sea-borne oil. The tanker was impounded off Bandar Abbas port for allegedly failing to respond to distress calls and turning off its transponder after colliding with a fishing vessel, authorities said.
Britain initially said Iran had seized two ships in the Gulf, but the British owner of the Liberian-flagged Mesdar said it had been released after being temporarily boarded by armed personnel.
Meanwhile, European powers urged Iran on Saturday to release the British-flagged tanker in what Britain called a “dangerous” move.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said Friday’s incident showed “worrying signs Iran may be choosing a dangerous path of illegal and destabilizing behavior.”
“Our reaction will be considered but robust. We have been trying to find a way to resolve the Grace 1 issue but WILL ensure the safety of our shipping,” said Hunt.
Hunt warned that “if this situation is not resolved quickly there will be serious consequences.”
But, he told Sky News, “we’re not looking at military options, we are looking at a diplomatic way to resolve the situation.”
The British government advised British ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz for “an interim period.”
“We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s unacceptable actions, which represent a clear challenge to international freedom of navigation,” a spokeswoman said after an overnight meeting of Britain’s COBRA emergencies committee.
Germany and France also urged Iran to release the tanker, whose seizure Berlin called a “dangerous further aggravation of an already tense situation.”
The Guards said Thursday they had seized another “foreign tanker” and its crew days earlier for allegedly smuggling fuel, without giving further details.
Trump said Friday’s incident “only goes to show what I’m saying about Iran: trouble. Nothing but trouble.”
The Stena Impero had been heading for Saudi Arabia on Friday when it hit a fishing vessel, according to port authorities at Bandar Abbas, off which the tanker is now anchored. Allah-Morad Afifipoor, director-general of the Hormozgan province port and maritime authority, said experts would investigate the incident.
The tanker “has 23 crew and they are all on the ship,” he said, quoted by the Fars news agency.
The Philippines said 18 Indians, three Russians, a Latvian and a Filipino were aboard. Both Manila and New Delhi said they had contacted Tehran to seek their nationals’ release.
Afifipoor said the fishermen had issued a distress call after the collision, contacting the port authority when they “didn’t receive any response.”
“One of the reasons the British tanker was seized for further investigation was that for a period of time it was moving on its route with its transponder turned off,” he told ILNA news agency.
Tracking service MarineTraffic showed the Stena Impero had last signaled its location near the island of Larak at 9:00 p.m. (1630 GMT).
Its owner said the ship was transiting the Strait and was in “international waters” when it was “attacked by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter.”
The incident came as US President Donald Trump and American officials insisted, despite denials from Tehran, that the US military had downed an Iranian drone that was threatening an American naval vessel in the Strait.
Trump said the drone had been threatening amphibious assault ship the USS Boxer.
The Revolutionary Guards released video footage they said disproved the US claims.
The seven-minute video, apparently shot from high altitude, shows a convoy of ships the Guards said they were tracking as they passed through the Strait. The vessels could not be immediately identified, although one resembles the USS Boxer.
As tensions soared, Iran’s arch-rival Saudi Arabia said it would once again host US troops to boost regional security.
The Pentagon said the deployment “ensures our ability to defend our forces and interests in the region from emergent, credible threats.”
The US military also said its patrol aircraft were monitoring the Strait, and announced a “multinational maritime effort” to ensure freedom of navigation in key waterways.
The escalation comes more than a year after Washington unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement and began ratcheting up sanctions against Tehran.
Earlier this month, Iran exceeded the deal’s caps on uranium enrichment, aiming to pressure the remaining parties to make good on promises to help prop up its economy.
Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait if attacked


F-35s Go to War: Why Israel’s Strike on Syria Was so Successful
by Petri Mäkelä
The Israeli Air-force had apparently been waiting for a provocation as the resulting counterattack against the launchers and the Iranian military infrastructure was an overwhelming one. 
On May 9th the Iranian Quds force that belongs into the Revolutionary Guards Corps launched a rocket salvo against the Israeli forces in the Golan heights. The IDF had anticipated the move and placed several Iron Dome batteries to protect the region, so the attack did very little damage and several rockets were shot down.
There have been conflicting reports on whether the weapon used to attack Israel was a Russian built BM-27 Uragan or an indigenous Iranian Fajr-5.
The Fajr-5 system is an indigenous Iranian 333 mm artillery rocket that is mounted on Mercedes-Benz 2624 trucks in 4-tube launchers. System has a maximum range of 75 km and rather abysmal accuracy with a 3 km CEP. Combination of a 900 kg class conventional warhead and the low accuracy makes the FAJR-5 more of a terror weapon than any kind of precision battlefield instrument.
The Israeli Air-force had apparently been waiting for a provocation as the resulting counterattack against the launchers and the Iranian military infrastructure was an overwhelming one. Unlike in the response for the February drone incident, the IAF was well prepared with a large strike package that had a sizable SEAD element on hand.
While nothing precise is known about the composition of the Israeli force, it managed to force the Syrian army to turn on the air defense systems Russia had supplied to it. The Syrian army managed to shoot several of the longer range SAM:s against the IAF fighters, but none hit their intended targets. The Israeli’s claim to have struck against most Iranian installation in Syria.
The Israeli SEAD element managed to destroy at least some of the SA-2, SA-22, SA-5 and SA-17 launchers and radars during the engagement. It’s noteworthy that the SA-22 aka. Pantsir-S1 systems that are designed to act as a point defense against cruise missiles were unable to defend themselves against the limited number of Israeli munitions sent their way.
The Russian air-defense systems deployed to protect the Russian expeditionary force in Syria didn’t engage the Israeli strike package. It’s highly likely that Russia was informed about the attacks in advance as the Israeli Prime Minister was visiting Moscow on 9.5.2018.
It’s interesting to see what aircraft the Israeli Air-force used in the attack and that was the F-35I employed. This also casts a further shadow of doubt over the Russian air-defense systems and their ability to intercept coordinated attacks. On the other hand the level of training and integration of the Syrian army might be too low to effectively use these systems without direct Russian support.
It’s also interesting to see how the Russian-Iranian relations develop as Russia doesn’t seem to be willing to protect Iran or Syria from Israeli strikes. As an open conflict against a high tech nation like Israel could tax the limited number of advanced Russian weapon systems available for expeditionary ops, it’s not surprising that the Kremlin seems to avoid that scenario.
As Iran seems to be unable to respond with a symmetric way against Israel, the next retaliation by Tehran is most likely an asymmetric one.



British Airways cancels all flights to Cairo for a WEEK as a ‘precaution’
British Airways has suspended all flights to Cairo after heightened terrorist activity in the region, leaving the holiday plans of hundreds of families in chaos as the school summer break begins.
German airline Lufthasna has also announced it has temporarily suspended flights from the Egyptian capital.  
The decision reportedly follows growing concerns about ISIS activity in Egypt. 
ISIS fighters operate within the Sinai peninsula in Egypt but there are indications their activities are spreading, including to the capital city.
ISIS terrorists bombed a Russian jet over Egypt’s Sinai desert in 2015 killing all 224 on board. Britain banned flights to beach resort Sharm el-Sheikh after the incident.
Passengers about to board a BA flight from Heathrow to Cairo yesterday were told their flight had been cancelled and there would be no alternative BA flights for seven days.
A passenger on the cancelled BA155 flight was given a letter from the airline. It said: ‘We constantly review our security arrangements at all our airports around the world and have suspended flights to Cairo for seven days as a precaution to allow for further assessment.’
British Airways said: ‘We constantly review our security arrangements at all our airports around the world, and have suspended flights to Cairo for seven days as a precaution to allow for further assessment.
‘The safety and security of our customers and crew is always our priority, and we would never operate an aircraft unless it was safe to do so.’



Iranian Revolutionary Guard commandos drop from helicopter to hijack British tanker
Darren Boyle for MailOnline
Mark Nichol For The Mail On Sunday
  • The Stena Impero was seized in the Strait of Hormuz at 4pm yesterday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces   
  • British-registered tanker was ordered to turn to the north and was taken into Iranian territorial waters
  • Warship HMS Montrose, which was patrolling the Persian Gulf, did a U-turn and raced to help captured ship
  • A second vessel, the British-operated Mesdar was seized by Iran but was released after being inspected
  • Following an emergency COBRA meeting, Iran was warned it faces ‘serious consequences’ for their actions 
Military chiefs will this week brief Britain’s new Prime Minister on the mounting Iran crisis and tell him: ‘Send in the Marines’.
After the dramatic hijacking of the Stena Impero oil tanker carrying 23 crew by Iranian Special Forces, top brass were last night devising a list of options for a rapid military response.
It is understood they will seek the green light to deploy Royal Marines on British vessels travelling through the Strait of Hormuz to act as a deterrent to further aggression.
The involvement of the elite Iranian troops in the capture of the Stena Impero was broadcast on Iranian state television yesterday.
Its release came during a day of drama which saw the Iranian charge d’affaires in London summoned to the Foreign Office and another meeting of Cobra, the UK Government’s emergency coordination committee, to discuss the rapidly escalating crisis.
Iran had earlier released a propaganda video showing the moment Iranian Revolutionary Guard commandos drop from a helicopter to hijack a British tanker.
Footage shows troops wearing ski masks and carrying machine guns rappelling to the deck of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero from their aircraft last night. 
It comes as Jeremy Hunt expressed his ‘extreme disappointment’ in the regime. He explained that any measures to be taken over Iran’s seizure of the British-flagged tanker in the Gulf will be announced in Parliament on Monday.
The UK foreign secretary wrote on Twitter: ‘Just spoke to Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and expressed extreme disappointment that having assured me last Saturday that Iran wanted to deescalate situation they have behaved in the opposite way.’   
A defence source revealed today that a Royal Navy warship raced to help the vessel but arrived ten minutes too late. 
HMS Montrose, which was patrolling the Persian Gulf, was forced to do a U-turn when it received orders to assist the UK-flagged Stena Impero, which had been seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Strait of Hormuz. 
Iran’s seizure of the British ships was a deliberate act of provocation because the ships were in international waters.  
Mr Hunt said the Iranian actions yesterday raised ‘very serious questions’ about the security of British and international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. 
Mr Hunt stressed the UK-flagged tanker was in Omani waters when it was seized ‘in clear contravention of international law’.  
‘Stena Impero was seized in Omani waters in clear contravention of international law, it was then forced to sail into Iran.
‘This is totally and utterly unacceptable. It raises very serious questions about the security of British shipping, and indeed international shipping, in the Strait of Hormuz
Mr Hunt said MPs would be updated about what ‘further measures’ the Government will take, on Monday, adding that the threat level had been raised to three.
Germany and France have supported Britain by condemning the actions of the Iranian regime. Berlin has described the seizure as an ‘unjustifiable intrusion’ on shipping using the Persian Gulf. 
A spokesman for the German foreign ministry said the ship and crew should be released immediately.
Both Paris and Berlin stressed the need to ‘de-escalate’ the situation in the Gulf. 
The Foreign Office earlier summoned the Iranian charge d’affaires, Mohsen Omidzamani, following the incident.
Iran’s hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders know that their most powerful card is the most direct: to threaten the passage of oil and gas through the busy Strait of Hormuz, where the shipping lanes are only two miles wide.
The strait has correctly been described as a choke point – and choking is very much what gas and oil producers in the Gulf now face. The IRGC has already sabotaged six ships moored in Gulf harbours by attaching mines to their hulls. It used a missile to shoot down one of America’s 35 Global Hawk surveillance drones. And now it has seized a tanker flying the British flag.
UK ships have been told to stay away and others will do the same. But remember this: 85 per cent of Gulf oil is exported to Asia – China, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea – and without that oil these states would be plunged into economic crisis, with knock-on effects for the entire global economy.
As, day by day, the tension rises, so does the risk of armed conflict – perhaps as the result of a misunderstanding or an accident. While Trump realises that his voters do not want another American-led war in the Middle East – the recent ones in Iraq and Afghanistan will have cost $5 trillion by about 2040 when the bills for injured veterans come in – some of the hawks around him do. Trump has already felt obliged to bolster the US Navy in the region, to shoot down an Iranian drone and to move 500 troops to Saudi Arabia.
On Tuesday , this crisis will drop into the lap of a completely new prime minister, almost certainly Boris Johnson, whose record of dealing with Iran as Foreign Secretary went no further than issuing ill-judged remarks about jailed mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe that have helped keep her behind bars.
A deal offering some sort of trade-off between the impounded Grace 1 and the Stena Impero is now an absolute priority for the new PM. While we are about it, the UK should reimburse Tehran the £400 million it owes for Chieftain tanks which Iran paid in the days of the Shah. We took the money but did not deliver the tanks.
We should be urging the Asian nations that depend upon Gulf oil exports to open their bulging wallets to help protect these vital shipping routes. What responsibility has been shouldered by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Indian premier Narendra Modi or Xi Jinping, the President of China? The UK has somehow found itself at the heart of the crisis even though we don’t import much Gulf oil.
If America is foolish enough to attack, Iran will punch back – and with serious consequences for the region and the wider world. For an economy as precariously poised as ours, a huge hike in oil and gas prices would be catastrophic.



Turkey Prepared To Reinvade Cyprus If Needed – Erdogan Says Following EU Sanctions
Turkey’s military is prepared to reinvade Cyprus “if needed for the lives and security of Turkish Cypriots,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday. 
“The entire world is watching our determination. No one should doubt that the heroic Turkish army, which sees [Northern] Cyprus as its homeland, will not hesitate to take the same step it took 45 years ago if needed for the lives and security of the Turkish Cypriots,” state-run Anadolu News Agency quoted Erdogan as saying.
Erdogan issued the statement as the nation marks the 45th anniversary of Turkey’s deeply controversial invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, long condemned by the bulk of UN member countries. 
But the provocative remarks come amidst what EU-member Cyprus has dubbed a “second invasion” involving illegal Turkish oil and gas drilling, accompanied by Turkish warships, F-16s, and drones to ensure “protection” of its drilling vessels. 
The EU agreed on Monday to bring financial and political sanctions against Turkey after repeat warnings of the past weeks over Ankara deploying multiple offshore drilling vessels into international recognized Cypriot waters. 
The European Union announced Monday from Brussels:
“Today, we will adopt a number of measures against Turkey — less money, fewer loans through the European Investment Bank, freeze of aviation agreement talks. Naturally, other sanctions are possible.”
The most serious measure will involve a cut of 145.8 million euros ($164 million) in European funds allocated to Turkey for 2020, according to a prior AFP report
Erdogan appeared to directly address the crisis in his Saturday statement:
“Those who think the wealth of the island and the region only belongs to them will face the determination of Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.” 
…Indicating an unwillingness to back down on Turkey’s oil and gas exploration claims inside Greek Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone. 
Turkey has laid claim to a waters extending a whopping 200 miles from its coast, brazenly asserting ownership over a swathe of the Mediterranean that even cuts into Greece’s exclusive economic zone. So far Ankara has responded to EU sanctions by reaffirming its rights to waters of all parts of Cyprus’ coast. 
Should the Turkish military attempt to enforce its drilling claims and run up against Cypriot and Greek vessels, it could spark a deadly encounter which would force the EU and NATO to finally weigh in more forcefully. 
And just on the heels of the Russian S-400 standoff with Washington, the next major Turkish showdown with the West looks to be fast heating up in the eastern Mediterranean



A Bank With $49 Trillion In Derivatives Exposure Is Melting Down Before Our Eyes
by Michael Snyder
Could it be possible that we are on the verge of the next “Lehman Brothers moment”? 
Deutsche Bank is the most important bank in all of Europe, it has 49 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives, and most of the largest “too big to fail banks” in the United States have very deep financial connections to the bank.  
In other words, the global financial system simply cannot afford for Deutsche Bank to fail, and right now it is literally melting down right in front of our eyes.  But after what we have witnessed in recent days, many now believe that the end is near for Deutsche Bank.  On July 7th, they really shook up investors all over the globe when they laid off 18,000 employees and announced that they would be completely exiting their global equities trading business
It takes a lot to rattle Wall Street.
But Deutsche Bank managed to. The beleaguered German giant announced on July 7 that it is laying off 18,000 employees—roughly one-fifth of its global workforce—and pursuing a vast restructuring plan that most notably includes shutting down its global equities trading business.
Though Deutsche’s Bloody Sunday seemed to come out of the blue, it’s actually the culmination of a years-long—some would say decades-long—descent into unprofitability and scandal for the bank, which in the early 1990s set out to make itself into a universal banking powerhouse to rival the behemoths of Wall Street.
These moves may delay Deutsche Bank’s inexorable march into oblivion, but not by much.
And as Deutsche Bank collapses, it could take a whole lot of others down with it at the same time.  According to Wall Street On Parade, the bank had 49 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives as of the end of last year…
During 2018, the serially troubled Deutsche Bank – which still has a vast derivatives footprint in the U.S. as counterparty to some of the largest banks on Wall Street – trimmed its exposure to derivatives from a notional €48.266 trillion to a notional €43.459 trillion (49 trillion U.S. dollars) according to its 2018 annual report. A derivatives book of $49 trillion notional puts Deutsche Bank in the same league as the bank holding companies of U.S. juggernauts JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, which logged in at $48 trillion, $47 trillion and $42 trillion, respectively, at the end of December 2018 according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). (See Table 2 in the Appendix at this link.)
But the important fact to remember is that Deutsche Bank traded these derivatives with other financial firms. So, is this going to be another Lehman Brothers situation whereby one bank’s problems becomes other banks’ problems?
Pay close attention to this.
If the situation gets out of hand, the Federal Reserve and other central banks will have no choice but to cut interest rates even if it’s not the best thing for the world economies.
watch the global derivatives market.  It played a starring role during the last financial crisis, and it will play a starring role in the next one too.
The fundamental structural problems that were exposed during 2008 and 2009 were never fixed.  In fact, many would argue that the global financial system is even more vulnerable today than it was back during that time.
And now it appears that the next “Lehman Brothers moment” may be playing out right in front of our eyes.
Now more than ever, keep a close eye on Deutsche Bank, because it appears that they could be the first really big domino to fall.



Woke Capitalism: Answering a Question Nobody Asked
by Doug Casey
International Man: Everything seems to be increasingly politicized these days… in a way that it wasn’t just a few years ago. To name a few, we see it in sports, with large corporations like Procter & Gamble in their razor blade ads.
Politics is creeping into more and more areas. It’s a trend that seems to be accelerating.
How did this happen and what does it mean?
The politicization of the country is poisonous. Politics is not like the fiction of some friends getting together and deciding what movie to see. It’s about force and coercion. This is the myth of democracy, which amounts to a somewhat gentler version of mob rule.
Politics is about getting control of the reins of the State. It’s a question of one group of people getting to tell every other group what they must and must not do. And how much they have to pay for the privilege.
In theory, the purpose of the State—which itself is congealed force—is to protect its citizens within its bailiwick from illegitimate force. That means police to protect you from force within the country, a military to protect you from outside force, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force.
But the State has gone far, far, beyond those boundaries. In fact, it does none of those three things well today. Instead, it tries to control every other aspect of life, at the expense of its subjects.
That’s why everything has become politicized in the US. Americans have come to see the State as their parent, so they’re constantly pleading with it, like children, asking it for favors and benefits. Like children, they expect the State to magically support them.
They don’t seem to understand that the State isn’t a cornucopia. It’s the opposite. It’s a dangerous parasite. A huge tapeworm in the body of society.
Over the last 100 years the average American’s mind has been captured by the idea of politics and the State. It’s the Stockholm syndrome—where people are captured by kidnappers and actually grow to love and support them—writ large.
Where’s this trend going to go?
I’m a believer that trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a crisis. Only then can the trend change. So the growth of the State—which is abetted by the politicization of American society—is going to continue growing until we reach a crisis. I don’t know what will happen during that crisis. Will it change direction, or will it mutate into something even worse? Could it be as bad as what happened in France in 1789, Russia in 1917, Germany in 1933, or China in 1946? It’s unpredictable.
For instance, it’s completely taken over the education system—and the public applauds that, because they think it’s “free” and “fair.” Most teachers today—almost all college professors—are cultural Marxists, leftists, socialists, welfare statists, and the like. And they indoctrinate the students in their classes.
There was always a tendency for this to be the case, because academics naturally tend to live in a bubble. They resent the fact that although they’re well educated, they generally earn far less than businessmen. That resentment is evident in their political and economic views.
Even as recently as the ‘60s relatively few kids went to college. Now practically everybody goes to college. Not only is the indoctrination now far more virulent, but far more people are being exposed to it.
You can see this in the Democratic Party, where the two dozen or so people running for president vie with each other to promise more free stuff than the last person. They’re coming up with the most collectivist possible ideas. The millennials—who’ve been indoctrinated in college, high school, and even grade school—accept these ideas. Kids will have a much bigger effect on the 2020 elections than they did in 2016.
Not only don’t I see any change in the trend—I only see an acceleration of the current trend from every point of view.




How Central Banks Could Benefit From A “Protectionist-Driven” Global Downturn
Authored by Steven Guiness,
Derivatives, along with other financial instruments, are an inherent weakness built into the system. But instead of automatically interpreting such weaknesses as a threat to central bank autonomy, it is feasible that they present an opportunity for further far-reaching ‘reforms‘ to the financial system.
To globalists, crises open the gateway for establishing broad consensus for major economic change. Because out of chaos invariably comes consolidation of resources.
The question is, how could substantial financial instability be of benefit to the Bank of England? After the initial phase of the 2008 crisis had played out, the Bank for International Settlements put into motion new regulatory standards called ‘Basel III‘. Conceived on the global stage, the new regulations were designed to be implemented by national jurisdictions over a gradual period of time. Many of the standards are now in place, but the full roll out is not due to be completed until around 2021.
One of the aims of the FPC, as expressed in the Financial Stability Report, is to ‘ensure that systemically important payment systems support financial stability.’ This resonated with me because as I have touched on in previous articles, the Bank of England is targeting the year 2025 for the wholesale reform of the RTGS payments system in the UK. A reformed RTGS would have the capability of connecting to distributed ledger technology (DLT). As explained elsewhere, blockchain is a form of DLT, and works in conjunction with cryprocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
Changes on this scale would represent a major overhaul of the UK’s financial system, and would conveniently coincide with the BIS 2025 initiative. This initiative, as outlined by the BIS, will ‘foster international collaboration on innovative financial technology within the central banking community‘.
Based on the documentation I have read from the BIS, the IMF and the BOE, the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDC’s) is very much part of the drive for ‘innovative financial technology.’
The prospect of central banks issuing their own form of digital currencies in the future is, according to BIS general manager Agustin Carstens, something that might come sooner than people realise:
Many central banks are working on it; we are working on it, supporting them. And it might be that it is sooner than we think that there is a market and we need to be able to provide central bank digital currencies.
Whereas attention is directed to the short term actions of central banks, longer term plans provide a clearer perspective on the direction that global institutions want to take the financial system in the medium to longer term. 
It appears that globalists are targeting the period between 2025 and 2030 as the time when digital currencies would start to be implemented, resulting in the eventual abolition of physical money.
A crisis of this magnitude could quite easily be used by central banks as a rationale for a new approach to how currencies are disseminated and controlled.
Back in the present, the conventional theory pushed throughout alternative media is that protectionism is something that central banks and international institutions like the BIS and the IMF fear. On examination, I am doubtful of this claim. The FPC’s report makes it clear that even in the event of a ‘protectionist-driven slowdown‘ running in parallel to a no deal Brexit, the financial system would ‘absorb, rather than amplify, the resulting economic shocks.’ It remains to be seen whether this rhetoric bares any semblance to reality.
My concern is that rather than fear the breakdown of what globalists call the ‘rules based global order‘, it is in actuality an essential variable for orchestrating reforms of the system.



Farage: Brussels ‘Bully Boys’ Will Build a Bigger EU
Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has warned that “bully boys” like the next European Commission president will construct a more federalised European Union.
“The EU bully boys (and girls) are not pretending anymore,” Mr Farage wrote in The Telegraph on Friday. “A deeper and more centralised political union is to be built, with no dissent allowed.”
Remarking on Ursula von der Leyen’s recent confirmation as President of the European Commission by the European Parliament — where the former German defence minister was the only candidate on the ballot — Mr Farage called her a “fanatical federalist” whose appointment was “the result of a Franco-German stitch-up“.
“Von der Leyen has an incredibly ambitious programme for her five-year term. In 20 years of sitting in the Strasbourg chamber, I have never heard a speech like the one she gave this week, in which she set out an overt bid for the EU to take control of all kinds of arrangements inside individual nation-states, from an EU minimum wage to the harmonisation of corporation tax,” Mr Farage wrote.
The EU’s latest senior appointments:
🇺 A failed German Defence Minister
🇺 A failed Belgian PM
🇺 A former Finance Minister found guilty of negligence
🇺 A Spanish politician done for insider trading
The EU showing total contempt for the people of Europe.
— Change Britain (@Change_Britain) July 15, 2019
“In terms of foreign policy, member states’ vetos must be removed so that a new European army can be deployed with a minimum of fuss. All aspects of the Union will be backed up by the rule of law, presided over by EU prosecutors,” he added, calling what the “EU fanatic” was planning an “updated form of Communism”.
During her speech on Tuesday, Mrs von der Leyen called for a “Green New Deal for Europe” which would force the bloc to cut carbon emissions drastically by 55 per cent by 2030, demanded “an EU-wide Rule of Law Mechanism” to punish countries deemed to have betrayed progressive European “values”, and hinted at greater strengthening of the “European Defence Union”, a proto-EU army.
However, Mr Farage assessed that the next president of the EU’s most powerful office could been a boon for Boris Johnson’s premiership, calling the German the “pin-up girl” for “any future Brexit campaign”.
He said: “In fact, by the end of her speech, I felt that Brexit was a little closer to being realised. Her vow to “stand ready” to delay Brexit tells us all we need to know.”
The likely next European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, has said: “My goal is the United States of Europe – based on the model of the federal states of Switzerland, Germany or the US”. Remaining in the EU is not status quo but a common tax, military and much more.



Modern Civil War Without Guns – So Far
Monty Pelerin
Does our country run the risk of a civil war? Is such a horrible event even possible today?
The answers are “Yes” and “Yes.” Furthermore, a case can be made that we are already in such a civil war.
I received the following via email. The main piece was written by Jack Minzey, a person  I was unfamiliar with.  His take on this issue seems unique and accurate! According to him,  we are already in a Civil War whether  we recognize it or not.
If the late Mr. Minzey is correct, it is only a matter of time before current conditions turn  violent or parts of the country attempt to  secede. The divisions are so pronounced that it is difficult to see how they are solved within the current political  framework and consistent with our Constitution.
Here is the email:
Recently Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written. Jack passed away Sunday, 8 April 2018. Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein. This is the last of his works:
Civil War
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.  That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
That’s a civil war.
There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.
Your very own dictatorship.
The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.
Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has ‘discretion’ to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the ‘discretion’ to reverse him. That’s how the game is played That’s how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.
Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.
That’s not a free country.
It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.
Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.


4 Christians executed for wearing crosses
Four Christians singled out for wearing crosses were executed in their village in the African nation of Burkina Faso.
The murders bring the death toll of Christians killed in attacks since February to 27, reported Faith Wire.
In several attacks, including the latest, the armed terrorists challenged Christians to convert or die.
“Unidentified armed men” entered the village June 27, according to Open Doors USA field workers, and “told everyone to lie down,”
The attackers then “proceeded to look for Christians by asking for first names or looking for anyone wearing Christian insignia,” the field workers said.
Open Doors identified the slain men as David Zoungrana, his younger brother Philippe, Theophile Ouedraogo and Ernest Kassoaga.
Open Doors said the men were not afraid to make a public statement of their belief in an area known internationally for its display of seven adobe mosques.
Faith Wire reported the terrorists torched a shop belonging to Zoungrana. They moved on to another village, Pougrenoma, where they warned residents against calling in any government officials or military forces.
The terrorists vowed to return, telling the Christians to convert or risk execution.
A 72-year-old priest was murdered on the border at Nohao in February. He and two other priests walked into a jihadist attack as they traveled from Togo, Faith Wire said.
Also in February, a 54-year-old pastor, Jean Sawadogo, was murdered on the road between Tasmakatt and Gorom-Gorom.
On April 23, a pastor was murdered near the main town of Arbinda in the Sahel.
Six people were murdered April 28 at a church in the small town of Silgadji near Djibo in northern Burkina Faso.
Suspected Islamic militants arrived on seven motorcycles around midday, towards the end of the service, and killed 80-year-old pastor Pierre Ouedraogo, his son, brother-in-law, a primary school teacher and two others.
They were told to convert, and when they refused, they were executed one by one.
On May 12, six people were killed, including a priest, by gunmen who stormed a church in Dablo in northern Burkina Faso during worship.
They burned down the church, shops, health center and other community buildings.
Four Christians were executed May 13 in Singa in the municipality of Zimtenga in the central north.
On May 26, four worshippers were murdered during a church worship service in Toulfe.


Recent Posts