"And when this comes to pass-surely it will come-then they will know that a prophet has been among them."
(Ezekiel 33:33)

When This Comes To Pass

Dear Friends,

      Greetings! It would seem to be pretty obvious at this late date that we are living in very unusual times. In fact it would seem to appear that we are living in unprecedented times. Yet there are still some who seem to be unaware of what is happening.

      Jesus even said in Matthew 24; “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

      Right through the Great Tribulation and up to the Second Coming it appears that there will still be those who will not be able to “discern the signs of the times”. (Matthew 16:3)

      How could this be possible! There is an interesting verse in 2 Peter, chapter 3, which says; “For this they willingly are ignorant .” (2 Peter 3:5) They don't want to know the truth, they prefer to take the blue pill. (The term red pill and its opposite, blue pill, are pop culture terms that have become a common symbol for the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). The terms were popularized in science fiction culture via the 1999 film “The Matrix”.)

      Also 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, shows us; “Because they received not the love of the truth God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” That is all that is left when truth is rejected. James, chapter one, even speaks of deceiving your own heart.

      And of course, one of the main signs of the times in which we are now living, is expressed in 2 Timothy, chapter 3; “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

      Concerning the 'End of Days' Jesus gave us His personal warning in Luke 21; “Take heed that ye be not deceived.” Our best way to make sure this does not happen is to stay close to Jesus who said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6))

      We hope you find the following articles, videos, etc. informative. We are also including a new study by John Benjamin, author of 'Earthshaker', on Daniel 2. See what you think.

'Indefinite Detention' Bill Passes Senate 93-7

Americans completely stripped of all rights under Section 1031

Paul Joseph Watson - Infowars.com -

December 2, 2011

The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

One amendment that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.

Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists," also failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.

Feinstein was able to include a largely symbolic amendment which states that "nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens," but this measure is meaningless according to Republican Congressman Justin Amash, a fierce critic of the bill.

"Some have asserted that Sen. Feinstein's amendment, S Amdt 1456, protects the rights of American citizens and preserves constitutional due process. Unfortunately, it does not. It's just more cleverly worded nonsense," Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

Though the White House has threatened to veto the bill, the fact that Obama administration lawyers yesterday reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored assassination of U.S. citizens would suggest otherwise. Not voting for the bill, or in other words upholding the oath to protect the Constitution, has been described over and over again as "political suicide".

"The bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

As Spencer Ackerman highlights, the bill completely violates the sixth amendment in that it allows American citizens to be locked up indefinitely, including in a foreign detention center, without any burden of proof whatsoever. An American merely has to be declared a terrorist and they can be abducted off the streets and never seen again.

"The detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn't limited to foreigners. It's confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas' Robert Chesney -- a nonpartisan authority on military detention -- "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority," writes Ackerman.

Misreading the Fight Over Military Detention: Obama Regime Has No Constitutional Scruples

Paul Craig Roberts

December 5, 2011

During an interview with RT on December 1, I said that the US Constitution had been shredded by the failure of the US Senate to protect American citizens from the detainee amendment sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment permits indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. I also gave my opinion that the fact that all but two Republican members of the Senate had voted to strip American citizens of their constitutional protections and of the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act indicated that the Republican Party had degenerated into a Gestapo Party.

These conclusions are self-evident, and I stand by them.

However, I jumped to conclusions when I implied that the Obama regime opposes military detention on constitutional grounds. Ray McGovern and Glenn Greenwaldmight have jumped to the same conclusions.

An article by Dahlia Lithwickin Slate reported that the entire Obama regime opposed the military detention provision in the McCain/Levin amendment. Lithwick wrote: “The secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI, the CIA director, and the head of the Justice Department’s national security division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the bill are a bad idea. And the White House continues to say that the president will veto the bill if the detainee provisions are not removed.”

I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples.

However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war . As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detentionsupports this conclusion. The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.

Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.


Business Insider

Ron Paul And The Tea Party Can't Save You: 2012 National Defense Act Is 'Terrifying'

David Seaman

Dec. 2, 2011

There has been considerable confusion over the past few hours as to whether the Senate -- which passed the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) -- included a last-minute "waiver" to protect American citizens from some of the bill's more outrageous and fascist elements, including the right of the US government to detain citizens -- even those on American soil, and not charged with a crime -- indefinitely in military prison. This means that peaceful protesters could be rounded up, dishonestly labeled as potential terrorists or "suspicious," and imprisoned for life without a trial or attorney. This means that federal military personnel would be patrolling our streets, literally signaling the end of our free republic.

The offending section of the NDAA has been compared to the internment camps the US government ran during World War II, except this time around it will be Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party members, and young Occupy Wall Street organizers in the detainment camps.

It doesn't matter if a last-minute waiver is in the bill; the offending portions are currently worded so vaguely, that any US citizen can be considered a "terrorist" or an aid to terroristic activity. Any US citizen who is inconvenient to the US government can be detained and silenced.

Also, the intent was extremely bad here -- Sens. John McCain, Carl Levin, and Lindsey Graham INTENDED for this bill to redefine the US homeland as a "battlefield" (Graham's words, not mine), allowing the revocation of even our most basic civil rights and access to due process.

When the intent is bad, an intentionally vague section of the NDAA can be interpreted by authorities in the worst possible way. The whole bill must be thrown out, except for key parts to continue military operations and crucial funding of our armed forces.

Let me remind you that this is not a drill. This is not an inflammatory blogger's post. This actually happened, and with the Senate's passage of this bill, it is very close to becoming law. The US mainstream media is not covering this AT ALL, as I pointed out in a recent column. The only source for even remotely accurate information right now is on the social networks, especially Twitter -- this reminds me of something you'd experience in Iran or Syria, not in America.

The best CNN has done, for example, is to mention there's been some "controversy" about new "detainee rights" outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act.

The network neglects to tell its readers and viewers that "detainee" now means American citizen. This is chilling. Americans now have the same rights as random enemy combatants in Afghanistan. Your government is now treating you as it'd treat a member of the Taliban. Congress has committed treason against the American people.

Up until now, no matter how much (or how little) wealth you had... no matter how much or little education and influence you had... every American was at least guaranteed a freedom from fear: your government could not come in the middle of the night with military non-police forces, without charge, and take you away.

If the National Defense Authorization Act clears the House and is not vetoed by President Obama, that will no longer be true. None of us will be safe. And you won't be given access to a trial or a lawyer.

The media is not telling the public about this bill, which means you have to, before your right to speak out disappears. Tell everyone. This cannot be allowed to stand. This is still the United States of America. And any senator who voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act in its current form should be forced to resign from public office immediately. They've crafted a bill that turns America's military against its own people and suspends habeas corpus.


Out of CHAOS... The New World Order!

(An Excerpt of a Post by lamarzulli)

November 30, 2011

What touched off the Arab Spring and caused millions of people to demonstrate in the Middle East, all at the same time?  Where did the so-called Libyan Freedom Fighters, get the rocket launchers and weapons that enabled them to win their fight with Gaddafi?  Why after all these years are we pulling our boys out of Iraq, just when the situation in the region has reached a fever pitch?  Why is it that European nations were force fitted into what is now the E.U. only to face a possible disaster in the making, as the Euro may come crashing down?  How is it that the Federal Reserve printed 7 TRILLION dollars and we're just finding out about that this week?  How did they get away with that? Why is Congress even thinking about a bill that would allow our government to detain anyone that they suspected of terrorism?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. It is a managed agenda.

I believe we are headed to a complete collapse of the global financial system, that will be triggered by a war in the Middle East.  I know, some of you are rolling your eyeballs at this, but look what is happening on the national and global scene.  It is more than alarming and the handwriting is on the wall. We are already a border line fascist state as government has teamed up with industry, which is what Fascism is. Fannie & Freddie, the banks, the auto industry, our educational system and with Obama's Health Care in the wings, it is easy to see that BIG government is usurping more and more of our rights and liberties every day.

There's a reason that Congress wants to get this detainment bill passed. (See: Senate Passes Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans ...) When the collapse comes the government will have the power to round-up anyone they choose and hold him or her indefinitely. This is more like Hitler's Germany than the UNited States of America.  I think the scenario might go something like this.

1. Middle East war.  This could be a combination.............. of (war) scenarios.  At any rate it's a game changer and serves the catalyst to start the global collapse.

2.  The shipping lanes of the Straights of Hormuz and the Gate of Tears would be choked off.  This will send oil, the life-blood of the planet, skyrocketing.

3. The collapse of the Euro and the dollar follow.

4.  False flag terrorists attacks are carried out in the US and elsewhere causing Marshall law to be declared.

5.  Our saviors show up...

This is a very chaotic, scenario, some would even call it paranoid.  However, this is what I see shaping up on the horizon.  Out of Chaos, Order. In order to take control of the nations, there must be a controlled chaos, that brings down the old system so that the all controlling, New World Order can rise, like a Phoenix from the ashes. The Elite are all over this and it is a carefully managed agenda.

I hope I'm wrong with my assessment, however, what I see taking place around us is alarming to say the least.  Most Americans are too busy trying to pay the bills and others are distracted by the endless stream of mindless drivel that oozes from the boob-tube.  Wake up, as the freedoms that were set down in our Constitution are being eroded daily.  Out of the chaos that is coming, a global, New World Order, that will be created, with one man to rule it.... the Anti Christ.


Zero Hedge

"China Will Not Hesitate To Protect Iran Even With A Third World War"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/30/2011 16:09 -0500

Fast forward to 2:08: "It is puzzling to some that Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University, said China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War... Professor Xia Ming: "Zhang Zhaozhong said that not hesitating to fight a third world war would be entirely for domestic political needs...." And don't forget Russia, which recently said it is preparing to retaliate against NATO and has put radar stations on combat alert: "Russia is another ally of Iran, with similar policy to that of China. Toward Iran.



Russia 'delivers missiles to Syria'

Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles reportedly delivered as part of $300 million deal

Published: 12.01.11, 20:11 / Israel News

Russia has delivered supersonic cruise missiles to Syria despite the violence shaking the Arab country and Israel's furious condemnation of the deal, a news report said on Thursday.

"The Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles have been delivered to Syria," a military source told the Interfax news agency without disclosing when the shipment was made.

Russia signed a contract reportedly worth at least $300 million (222 million euros) in 2007 to supply its traditional Arab world ally with a large shipment of the cruise missiles.

Reports said Russia intended to deliver 72 of the missiles to Syria in all.

The deal immediately angered Israel, which fears the weapons may fall into the hands of Hezbollah terrorists in neighboring Lebanon.

Russia has since also come under growing pressure from Washington, which wants all military sales to President Bashar al-Assad's regime halted because of his deadly crackdown on Syrian street protests.

But Moscow has defended Assad against global pressure and this week argued that its arms sales were permitted under international law and would continue.

Another Russian official told Interfax that the missiles, which operate as part of the Bastion mobile coastal defense system, "will be able to protect Syria's entire coast against a possible attack from the sea."

Each Bastion system is equipped with 36 cruise missiles as well as truck-mounted radar and other equipment.

It was not immediately clear how many of the missiles Russia has delivered to Syria so far.


The Guardian

Putin prepares the Russian empire to strike back

The reincarnation of the current PM as president poses a challenge to western powers for which they seem ill-prepared

Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, who seems set to become president in March. Photograph: Reuters

As prime minister for the past four years, Vladimir Putin never really went away. But his looming reincarnation as the all-powerful, executive president of Russia – the country's "paramount leader" in Chinese parlance – poses a stark challenge for which the US, Britain and other beleaguered western powers seem ill-prepared. As president, potentially until 2024, Putin has one overriding objective: the creation of a third, post-tsarist, post-Soviet Russian empire.

Putin famously described the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "evil empire" of Ronald Reagan's imagining, as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". His aim, once this weekend's heavily managed parliamentary elections and next March's presidential coronation are out the way, is to put this disaster to rights. Reinstalled as president, and with his political potboy, Dmitry Medvedev, pushed aside, Putin will again exercise unchallengeable control over Russia's external affairs.

Never much interested in domestic policy, Putin's only political trick is a hyper-nationalism that pits a proudly embattled Russia against a hostile, US-led, world conspiracy. But the trick works. Despite mounting criticism during the Duma campaign, both supporters and opponents acknowledge his perceived achievement in restoring Russia's standing in the world following Boris Yeltsin's chaotic 1990s decade.

Accepting the presidential nomination of his United Russia party last month in an otherwise tedious speech, Putin said: "When I hear people shout out 'Russia', I think the entire audience should do that." The response, according to witnesses, was a deafening chant of 'Ro-see-ya! Ro-see-ya!" while Putin pounded his fist on the podium.

Elements of Putin's strategy to make Russia great again are slowly coming into focus. Much of the plan is defined by Russia's opposition to the US, the traditional foe. Thus the Kremlin announced last week that it would renounce the strategic arms reduction treaty (known as New Start) agreed with Washington two years ago if the US did not abandon its European missile defence plans.

This announcement, coupled with the unveiling of a new Russian missile base in Kaliningrad on Nato's doorstep, has striking implications. New Start was the centrepiece of Barack Obama's 2009 "reset" of bilateral relations. The reset is viewed by the White House as a major foreign achievement (and 2012 re-election asset) for a president who has but few to his name.

Missile defence ostensibly aimed at deterring Iran is seen as another success. With the US preoccupied by wars in the Middle East and South Asia and fixated by the Arab spring, a quiet Russian "front" has been deemed essential by Washington. Putin appears set to change all that.

On his eastern flank, meanwhile, Putin is busy reviving the idea of a remodelled union embracing the former Soviet republics of central Asia, an arrangement that prospectively boosts Russian political and military influence. "Russia will begin this new iteration of a Russian empire by creating a union with former Soviet states based on Moscow's current associations, such as the customs union and the collective security treaty organisation. This will allow the 'EuU' [a Eurasia union] to strategically encompass both the economic and security spheres … Putin is creating a union in which Moscow would influence foreign policy and security but would not be responsible for most of the inner workings of each country," said Lauren Goodrich in a Stratfor paper.

Putin's third empire project also includes, crucially, a tightening of Moscow's politicised grip on Europe's strategic energy supplies.

Following last month's Gazprom deal with Belarus, industry analysts suggest up to 50% of Europe's natural gas could be controlled by Russia by 2030. This is hugely significant: Putin's new Russian empire can only be financed by continuing, high-priced energy export revenues. In effect, Europe could be paying for its own future domination.

The empire-fights-back scenario has numerous other aspects. Recent remarks by Medvedev about the lack of wisdom, in the context of the 2008 Georgia conflict, of unchecked Nato enlargement vividly illustrated Russia's visceral opposition to any interference in what used to be called its "near abroad" – and Putin's desire to roll back the western encroachments of the past 20 years. Russia's determination to defend wider spheres of traditional influence in the non-aligned and developing world can be seen in its obdurate refusal to penalise Syria, in the face of almost universal outrage over the crackdown there; and in its de facto defence of Iran's nuclear programme. Putin, meanwhile, continues to prioritise Russian military modernisation.

Western countries inclined to take issue with this external empire-building, or with Russia's lamentable internal democracy and human rights deficit, have been told to save their breath. "All our foreign partners need to understand this: Russia is a democratic country, it's a reliable and predictable partner with which they can and must reach agreement, but on which they cannot impose anything from the outside," Putin told the United Russia convention. Attempts to influence the election process or the reform agenda were "a wasted effort, like throwing money to the winds".

As Putin – former secret policeman, physical fitness fanatic and hyper-nationalist – prepares to resume Russia's presidency, his third empire ambitions become ever clearer. March's election will be no contest. Only when it is over will the real fight begin.

What makes Iranians hate Britain

Dec 1, 2011

English author and journalist Robert Fisk

The United Kingdom has a history of adopting hostile measures against Iran, which is why the Iranian nation hates the British monarchy, an English journalist says.

"It's a weird irony that Iranians know the history of Anglo-Persian relations better than the Brits," Robert Fisk wrote in an editorial in the UK daily, the Independent, on Wednesday.

The English writer and journalist opened the article by evoking an anecdote where an Iranian post-revolution official reminds a Reuters' reporter that "the founder of the world's greatest news agency (Baron von Reuter) had built Persia's railways at an immense profit."

Fisk went on to trace the UK's pernicious acts against the Iranians all the way back to 1941, when "Britain staged a joint invasion of Iran with Soviet forces."

Just over a decade later, the British "helped the Americans overthrow the democratically elected [then Iranian Prime Minister] Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 after he nationalized Britain's oil possessions in the country," he added.

"This was not a myth but a real, down-to-earth conspiracy. The CIA called it Operation Ajax; the Brits wisely kept their ambitions in check by calling it Operation Boot," the journalist noted.

Fisk further said that the UK is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds or "perhaps thousands" of Iranians when its "ruthless" MI6 agent in Tehran Colonel Monty Woodhouse brought weapons into Iran and he eagerly supported the CIA's project to fund the overthrow of Mossadegh.

Thus, through helping Shah to re-impose his rule, London was also to blame for the torture of the opponents of the regime by Shah's faithful secret SAVAK police, the editorial added.

Fisk then asked in a thinly veiled ironic tone, "How dare the Iranians remember all this?"

He goes on to add that the documents seized after the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 "proved to the Iranians not only Washington's attempts to subvert the new order of [late founder of the Islamic Revolution] Ayatollah [Seyyed Ruhollah] Khomeini but the continued partnership of the

American and British intelligence services."



The turmoil has fuelled speculation that the end of the euro in its current form may finally be in s

December 1,2011

By Macer Hall, Political Editor

ALARM at the economic turmoil in Europe intensified last night after the Government admitted preparations for the chaotic collapse of the euro were being "stepped up".

Downing Street is understood to be embroiled in intensive "contingency planning" for Greece and possibly Italy, Spain and Portugal quitting the eurozone.

British banks have been urged by the City's watchdog to brace themselves for the collapse of the single currency.

Free Report: The Secret Truth About Lloyds TSB and Barclays

The Financial Services Authority warned that the unravelling of the 17-nation eurozone could wreak havoc on the UK banking system.

City sources said Hector Sants, chief executive of the FSA, made the plea at a crisis meeting with senior bosses from high street banks.

And, in a sign of growing panic, a senior French politician warned the crisis could trigger "the return to violent conflict" in Europe.

Alain Juppe, France's foreign minister, added: "It could be the explosion of the European Union itself."

The turmoil has fuelled speculation that the end of the euro in its current form may finally be in sight.

The alarm followed the soaring cost of borrowing in Italy and other debt-hit Southern eurozone nations as well as growing fears for the French banking system.

Following the FSA warning, the Prime Minister's spokesman said: "We have been stepping up our contingency planning but I don't want to get into detail on that."

He said the Government, the Bank of England and the FSA were working together "ensuring they have the capacity to take action" in the event of Greece or other countries quitting the euro.

Last week Andrew Bailey, a senior executive at the FSA, said: "We must not ignore the prospect of the disorderly departure of some countries from the eurozone."

But the decision of Mr Sants to intervene by ordering Britain's high street giants to increase their preparations for a euro exit was seen as a significant escalation of the crisis.

Tory MP Douglas Carswell said a break-up of the euro would be "bumpy" in the short term but "good for Britain and good for Europe" in the long run. "It is good that the establishment in Whitehall finally seems to be preparing itself for the inevitable," he added.

Nigel Farage, UK Independence Party leader, said: "Summit after summit produces no credible solution to the eurozone debt crisis, just a papering over the cracks. The euro-vanity project is in its dying days and everything must be done to ensure British banks do not go down with the sinking ship."

He added: "Mr Sants is becoming quite the voice of honesty - recently he admitted the FSA was essentially a branch office of the new European Banking Regulatory Authorities. Now he is admitting that the euro is likely to break up."


US Poverty


Open publication - Free publishing


Until next week...

Almondtree Productions

Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.”
(Psalms 25:5)