Prophetic Fulfillments of 2011 – World War III

Since we now live in the “end of the age”, most world events are affecting, in one way or another, the fulfillment of prophecies given to us for the times immediately preceding the Second Coming of Jesus to earth. Consequently, it would take a very thick book to provide a comprehensive explanation of how the events of 2011 contributed to the ongoing fulfillment of the biblical prophecies.


By Irvin Baxter

 Prophetic Fulfillments of 2011

In order to provide an abbreviated overview of the prophetic fulfillments of 2011, we will discuss five specific prophecies and how the events of 2011 contributed toward their ultimate fulfillments. The five prophecies we will focus on are:





  1. World War III
  2. The coming Middle East Peace Agreement
  3. The emerging world government
  4. 666–The Mark of the Beast
  5. Prominence of homosexuality just before the Second Coming


World War III

The prophecy of Revelation 9:13-15 foretells a war that will begin from the Euphrates River area and will result in the death of one-third of mankind.


Four nations make up the Euphrates River Basin. The Euphrates begins in Turkey, travels through Syria, flows the entire length of Iraq, and then empties into the Persian Gulf just next to the border of Iran. This entire area has been a hotbed of conflict throughout 2011. The big question is: “Did the events of 2011 set the stage for history’s greatest war—the war that will kill over 2 billion human beings?”


Will the Iranian crisis trigger World War III?

For some time, it has been widely believed that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Israel and the United States have both stated that Iran will not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons under any condition.


Because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Israel will be wiped off the map, Israel sees the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran as an existential threat to the State of Israel. Israel’s leaders have repeatedly stated that Israel will use military force to stop Iran from going nuclear if diplomacy fails.


Iran, on the other hand, has said that a military attack on the nuclear production facilities of Iran would ignite World War III. The Iranians have threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz thus shutting off access to nearly forty percent of the world’s oil that is transported by sea. This would cause oil prices to jump through the sky, undoubtedly forcing the US to open the Straits by force.


Pressure over Iran’s nuclear program has been building for years, and it is presently the issue most likely to ignite the war prophesied in Revelation 9:13-15 that will kill one-third of the human race.


Iran has contended steadfastly that its nuclear program is only designed to provide electricity for domestic use. This claim has always rung somewhat hollow since Iran possesses the world’s second largest oil reserves. With oil so plentiful, why would Iran launch a very expensive nuclear program to merely produce electricity?


The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran stop its nuclear program and has implemented four levels of economic sanctions against Iran in an effort to force compliance. However, the sanctions have been largely ineffective.


IAEA says Iran is building nuclear weapons

On November 8, 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a new report after inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report stated evidence had been uncovered that led the IAEA to believe that Iran was attempting to produce nuclear weapons.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have contended for a long time that Iran’s support of global terrorism makes Iran the world’s number one threat to peace. They indicate that Israel’s vaunted secret service has provided evidence that Iran could produce several nuclear weapons within a few months.


President Obama and Defense Secretary Panetta have been reluctant to believe that Iran is really developing nuclear weaponry. They have continued to hope that diplomacy and sanctions could solve the Iranian problem without resorting to armed conflict. However, the new IAEA report seems to have affected their thinking.


On December 16, 2011, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met privately with President Obama at the Gaylord Hotel in Maryland. Barak presented Israel’s evidence that Iran was rapidly closing in on the possession of a nuclear weapon. Since that meeting, the message from the White House has taken a decided turn. It appears the US government has accepted the Israeli assessment of Iran’s nuclear bomb time table and now endorses the conviction that, unless Iran retreats from its decision to build a nuclear bomb and steps back from the process it has set in motion immediately, the only option remaining will be a military strike to disable its nuclear program.


Are Israel and US preparing for war with Iran right now?

On September 29, 2011, it was announced that the US had shipped 55 bunker buster bombs to Israel. These bombs can penetrate 100 feet into the ground before exploding and can blast through 20 feet of concrete before detonation. It appears that the only use Israel would have for these new weapons would be an attack against Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.


On November 10, 2011, the London Daily Mail stated that British government ministers had been told to expect Israeli military action against Iran as early as late December or “very early in the New Year.”


Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told CNN on November 20, 2011, that Iran is less than a year away from being unstoppable in its goal to be nuclear.


Asked by the Jerusalem Post to respond to the comments made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, former US Secretary of Defense William Perry said, “I agree with Barak’s assessment.”


On December 20, 2011, just four days after the private meeting between President Obama and Israeli Secretary of Defense Ehud Barak, US Secretary of Defense Panetta made statements indicating a radical change in US administration policy. In a CBS interview he said, “Despite the efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, they have reached a point where they can assemble a bomb in a year or potentially less.” He then added, “That’s a red line for us and that’s a red line, obviously for the Israelis. If we have to do it, we will deal with it.”


At about the same time that Obama and Barak were meeting on December 16, the Turkish military council met urgently to review preparations for war hostilities on two fronts—Syria and Iran.
Both meetings, according to Washington sources, addressed the reality of Iran having a nuclear bomb within months.


On December 22, American sources explained the dramatic reversal of the Obama administration’s wait-and-see attitude on attacking Iran. The change was explained by Defense Secretary Panetta and Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. They stated that Iran had crossed the red line President Obama had set for the United States to take action. That red line was when Tehran began using the technologies and fissile materials it had amassed for assembling a bomb or missile warheads. According to military and intelligence sources, they found evidence that Iran has, in fact, begun putting together components of a nuclear weapon.


It is now apparent that President Obama and Defense Secretary Barak reached agreement at their December 16 meeting in Maryland on the US-Israeli response to the conclusion that Iran is now building a nuclear weapon.


Following the Maryland encounter, a procession of prominent US officials began visiting Israel to tighten coordination between the US and Israel on their next moves.


Tuesday, Dec. 20, saw the arrival of Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s right-hand, together with Robert Einhorn, a State Department special adviser on nonproliferation. The two came to tie up the diplomatic ends of the decisions reached by President Obama and Defense Minister Barak at their meeting in Washington.


Lt. Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the US’s Third Air Force based in Germany, also visited Israel. He came to organize the biggest joint military exercise ever held by the US and Israel, as part of the shared response to Iran’s steps.


The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany—with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East.


The US will also bring its THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and ship-based Aegis ballistic missile defense systems to Israel to simulate the interception of missile salvos against Israel. The American systems will work in conjunction with Israel’s missile defense systems—the Arrow, Patriot and Iron Dome. Furthermore, thousands of US soldiers will be deployed on Israeli soil.


The US, Israel, NATO, Turkey and Iran are all making preparations for war. Will this war actually happen? It appears highly likely at this time. Will it be the war prophesied in Revelation 9:13-16 that will kill one-third of mankind? Again, it appears quite likely since Iran and Turkey are part of the Euphrates River Basin and since the US presently has 230,000 troops stationed in the area.


If the Israeli-US-Iranian conflict does trigger the Euphrates River War (World War III), the events of 2011 will have certainly set the stage for one of the greatest prophetic fulfillments of all time.


NOTE: For a complete explanation of the World War III prophecy, obtain the DVD, World War III. 


The Coming Middle East Peace Agreement

The Bible prophesies a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians supported by the international community. This agreement will create a Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders with possible land swaps. This area includes the biblical land of Judea. Many of the 300,000 Jews presently living in the Judean area will be allowed to remain on their properties as citizens of the new Palestinian state, if they so choose.


The agreement will place the Temple Mount under a sharing arrangement between Jews and Muslims, allowing the building of Israel’s Third Temple—without disturbing the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This sharing arrangement will be supervised by an international agency, possibly the United Nations. The prophecy does not say whether Jerusalem will be re-divided under the agreement, and it does not say whether the Palestinian capital will be in Jerusalem.


The prophecies also tell us that the signing of the Palestinian-Israeli agreement will mark the beginning of a seven-year period that will conclude with the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus to earth.


According to the scriptures, the Jewish temple will be built during the first three and one-half years after the peace agreement is signed. When the temple is finished, Jews will begin to offer daily animal sacrifices in the temple, just as they did during the First and Second Temple eras. This will create a global outcry by animal rights activists, causing the man who will head the world community by that time to order the stopping of the sacrifices. It is at this time that the world leader will claim to be the Messiah or even God Himself. In the Bible this event is called the Abomination of Desolation. The prophecies also say that the man who stops the sacrifices and asserts his control over the Temple Mount will be the Antichrist.


Jesus prophesied that, when the Abomination of Desolation occurs, a terrible assault will be unleashed by the Palestinians against those Jews remaining in Judea. The Jews will be forced to flee for their lives or be slaughtered. This event will launch the time called The Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation will continue for the next three and one-half years culminating at the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus.


For a complete explanation of the prophecy, see the DVD, Israel—God’s Prophetic Time Clock.


What occurred in 2011 that moved the Middle East closer to the prophesied agreement?

In 2009, the Palestinians set the goal of an independent Palestinian state by September of 2011. President Obama then endorsed this goal during his UN speech in September of 2010. Israel attempted to facilitate this goal by freezing settlement-building activity for ten months from November, 2009 to September, 2010. This was done to give President Obama time to restart talks between Palestinians and Israelis. However, the Palestinians refused to return to the peace table in spite of the building freeze.


Two weeks before the freeze was scheduled to expire, Palestinian President Abbas went through the motions of resuming the peace negotiations. This move was designed to put pressure on Israel to extend the building freeze so that the Palestinians would continue the negotiations. However, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, seeing the maneuver for what it was, refused to extend the freeze. The Palestinians used this as an excuse to leave the peace table, declaring that they would ask the United Nations during the 2011 UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders.


This move to bypass negotiations and to ask the UN to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood sent shockwaves through the United States and Israel. Both understood that the Palestinians enjoyed the support of a strong majority at the world body and that the UN General Assembly was sure to vote in favor of the Palestinians.


Since the Obama administration had openly condemned building in the West Bank settlements and in East Jerusalem, many feared that President Obama would not use the US veto power to stop the recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN. If the UN recognized Palestinian statehood within 1967 borders, Israel would immediately be officially recognized as an occupying power and would be forced to withdraw to 1967 borders or become exposed to the possibility of international sanctions and to criminal charges before the International Criminal Court.


Even though President Obama spoke against the Palestinian course of action, he did not immediately commit to using the US veto power to stop it. He appeared to be willing to use the threat of not using the veto to force Israel into making concessions in the peace process that Israel did not want to make. Among those concessions were returning to the indefensible borders of 1967 and surrendering part of Jerusalem to serve as a Palestinian capital.


Netanyahu’s speech before the US Congress

Realizing that President Obama was attempting to force Israel to make compromises that the majority of Americans and the majority in the US Congress did not favor, an invitation was arranged from House Speaker John Boehner for Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011.


President Obama realized the impact a speech before Congress could have and decided to pre-empt it with a major speech of his own concerning the Middle East. On May 19, 2011, appearing at the State Department, the President called for the renewal of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians “based on pre-1967 borders with land swaps.” This was the position of the Palestinians and now President Obama was making it the policy of the United States.


Obama and Netanyahu met together the next morning after the president’s speech. The meeting was scheduled for fifty minutes, but ended up lasting for two hours. The presence of considerable tension between the two leaders was obvious.


In the press conference that followed, Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to go public with his disagreement with President Obama’s assertion that peace talks should be based on the 1967 borders. Netanyahu said, “While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines because these lines are indefensible.” The Israeli Prime Minister explained, “These were not the boundaries of peace. They were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive. So we can’t go back to those indefensible lines, and we’re going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan River.”


When Netanyahu appeared before the joint session of Congress the following Tuesday, he presented an eloquent speech to the lawmakers explaining why the 1967 borders were not defensible and why Jerusalem should remain undivided. His 45-minute speech was interrupted by 29 standing ovations.


When President Obama saw the strength of support enjoyed by Israel from Democrats and Republicans alike, he immediately moved to soften his insistence on talks being based on 1967 borders. On September 8, 2011, Wendy Sherman of the US State Department announced that the US would use its veto power to block admission of the Palestinians to the United Nations. President Obama urged PA President Abbas to drop the Palestinian application for UN membership and to return to direct negotiations with Israel.


Abbas responded by saying that the Palestinians would only return to the peace table if Israel stopped all building in the settlements including in East Jerusalem. He was actually demanding that Israel capitulate without any negotiation on the two major issues of the peace negotiations—the position of final borders and the status of East Jerusalem. Of course, this was a non-starter.


So the dye was cast. The Palestinians would apply for UN membership at the United Nations, forcing the US to either use its veto or allow admission of Palestine to the UN. If the US used its veto, Abbas believed it would drive the US and Israel into isolation on the global stage since the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations felt that Israel should return to 1967 borders. If the US decided to not use its veto, then the Palestinians would have their state, and, if Israel refused to withdraw from the West Bank, it would officially become an occupying force and would be in direct rebellion against the United Nations.


However, Abbas miscalculated the level of influence that the United States still enjoyed in the world. President Obama did not want to use the US veto because he believes so strongly in global governance and a multilateral approach to solving the problems of the world. So he began to lobby the other members of the UN Security Council to prevent the PA from receiving the required nine votes needed to approve the Palestinian application for membership in the UN.


By the time the United Nations convened in September, it was obvious that the Palestinians could only muster eight votes on the Security Council. Thus the Palestinian application for UN membership was doomed to failure, and the US was not forced to use its veto.


Palestinian terms of application were prophetic

Mahmoud Abbas made his speech at the UN on September 23, 2011, and presented the Palestinian application for United Nations membership to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The application asked for recognition of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.


Amazingly, these two conditions of the Palestinian application were specifically prophesied by Jesus 2,000 years ago. In His most famous Olivet Discourse prophecy spoken in Matthew 24, Jesus foretold two events that would take place three and one-half years before His Second Coming.


In verse 15, Jesus spoke about the Abomination of Desolation, which would occur “in the holy place.” The holy place is on the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians are claiming for the capital of their proposed Palestinian state. The Abomination of Desolation is when the Antichrist will stand on the Temple Mount claiming to be God. This event is described in detail in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.


In verse 16 of Matthew 24, Jesus prophesied to the Jews that will be in Judea at the time of the Abomination of Desolation. He warned that, when they saw the Abomination of Desolation occur on the Temple Mount, they should immediately flee from the area of Judea because then would be a time of great tribulation for them. Jesus undoubtedly foresaw Jews living in Judea under Palestinian control exactly as Abbas was requesting the UN to mandate. He also foresaw that something about the Abomination of Desolation would inflame the Palestinians, causing them to attack the Jews living in their Palestinian state.


Final 7 years to begin in December 2012?

On September 23, 2011, the same day Palestinians made their application for membership at the UN, the international Quartet presented a new peace initiative to Palestinians and Israelis. The initiative called for a resumption of peace talks between the two parties without pre-conditions. It stated the talks should begin by October 26, 2011.


The Quartet also established a very clear timeline for the final peace agreement to be achieved. The initiative called for final borders and security arrangements to be agreed upon by January 26, 2012. This would solve the settlement problem that has been such a volatile issue for many years. The initiative then called for the resolving of all other outstanding issues by December of 2012.


If a total and comprehensive peace would be achieved by December of 2012, then the prophecies say that the final seven years to Armageddon and the Second Coming would begin at that time.


When we see all the events concerning Palestinian statehood, the Temple Mount and Judea that took place in 2011, we understand that many developments occurred, moving us ever closer to the prophesied launch of the final seven years to Armageddon.


Other 2011 news headlines having prophetic implications concerning Israel

The prophecy: Jews will be slaughtered in Judea

“Jewish Authority” Will Stay in Land Given Away by the State

By Elad Benari & Yoni Kempinski

Israel National News 9/9/11


The prophecy: Animal sacrifices will be resumed in Israel

“Rabbis endorse educational initiative on Pessah sacrifice”

By Jonah Mandel

Jerusalem Post 4/07/11


The prophecy: Peace agreement will be signed between Israel and Palestinians

“Netanyahu: I’m the one who will establish peace between 2 states”

By Jerusalem Post Staff



The prophecy: Armageddon will be fought over ownership of Jerusalem

Gingrich: I’d Move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

By Elad Benari

Israel National News 12/8/11


World Government

The Bible prophesies that a world government will gain control of the earth just before the Second Coming of Jesus and the Battle of Armageddon. Daniel 7:23 says, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.”


Revelation 13:7 speaks about the leader of the endtime world government, the Antichrist: “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”


The formation of the League of Nations was the first attempt at forming a world government. Of course, it ended in failure. After World War II the United Nations was born, marking the first big step toward actually establishing an organization designed for global governance. Since that time we have witnessed the establishment of many organizations that will participate with the UN in the world government of the endtime. These include: The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, the World Court and, more recently, the International Criminal Court.


Advocates of world government strengthen and add to these tentacles of global governance at every available opportunity. They openly talk about globalization. Tony Blair said that globalization began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Former President George H.W. Bush announced the emergence of a New World Order just twenty days after the fall of the Berlin Wall.


What is globalization?

Globalization is the process of moving the world from the nation-state structure that has governed mankind for approximately the last 200 years to a system of world government with a single authority. In his July 20, 1992, Time magazine article, “The Birth of the Global Nation”, Strobe Talbott said that in the 21st century, national sovereignty as we have known it will cease to exist. He said we would all answer to a single global authority.


What is driving globalization?

Many global planners have bought into the theory that the nation-state is the root cause for most wars. They contend that, if there were no nations, most conflicts would be eliminated. The argument goes that if there were only one global nation, there would be only one government and one army. If there were only one army, it would not go to war against itself, and therefore, wars would cease. They also say that, because of modern travel and instant communication, such a system of global governance is now possible, if not inevitable.


One other major factor driving the world toward the prophesied one-world government is the belief that the United Nations is now sufficiently developed and accepted to actually assume authority over the nations.


The flaw in the theory of globalization

Most human beings yearn for a world without war. Consequently, any idea that holds forth hope for lasting peace on earth is very attractive to us.


However, before we risk everything on this grandiose plan of world government, we need to ask one uncomfortable question. Once this world government is fully established, what would happen if an Adolf Hitler managed to gain control of it? Having dismantled all the armies that oppose the will of this world government, we would have destroyed the checks and balances that saved the world from enslavement to Nazism in World War II.


Once control of the world fell into the hands of an all-powerful leader, we would be plunged into the greatest era of tyranny the world has ever known.


Many would claim that such a development would never happen. However, this scenario is exactly what the Bible prophesies is going to happen in the near future. Except, the world leader will not be Adolf Hitler. It will be the Antichrist.


Steps taken toward world government in 2011

Many Americans were disturbed when President Obama disdained requesting permission from the US Congress before deploying US forces to Libya. Even more alarming was that he went to great lengths to obtain permission from the UN Security Council for the action against Muammar Qaddafi. It was obvious that, in Obama’s mind, we are already participating in a multilateral system of global governance that supersedes national sovereignty.


During 2011, the action of international forces in Libya illustrated more clearly than ever before the erosion of national sovereignty and the advance of global governance.


There were three elements used to overthrow Qaddafi and to install a new government in Libya: Responsibility to Protect, the International Criminal Court, and NATO serving as the military arm of global governance.


Responsibility to Protect

When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the UN Constitution authorized the UN to arbitrate between sovereign states. Interference in the internal affairs of nations was strictly forbidden. In order to become the world government the globalists envisioned, the prohibition against violation of national sovereignty had to be overcome somehow.

The opportunity to empower the UN to invade sovereign states presented itself at the 2005 UN World Summit. Under the premise of protecting people against abusive governments, the nations issued the outcome document of the 2005 Summit. It empowered the UN to use all necessary means to protect people against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. This new power, which effectively destroyed national sovereignty, was called the Responsibility to Protect.

It was under R2P that the United Nations passed Resolution 1973 on March 17, 2011. This resolution mandated the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The very broad application of Resolution 1973 resulted in more than just a no-fly zone. Pro-Qaddafi forces were bombed, and Qaddafi’s personal compound was bombed in an effort to assassinate him. All financial assets of the Libyan government and the Qaddafi family were frozen and then ultimately turned over to the rebels fighting against pro-Qaddafi troops. Finally, NATO ground troops were photographed fighting alongside the rebel forces against the pro-government forces.


The 2011 UN action in Libya became the most blatant demonstration yet of how Responsibility to Protect is being used to end the sovereignty of nations.


Mark P. Lagon, adjunct senior fellow in human rights at the Council on Foreign Relations and international relations chair for Georgetown University’s master of science in foreign service program, offers his assessment of R2P. The Responsibility to Protect principle is based on the premise that a government’s sovereignty is really a privilege as much as a right.


There it is in a nutshell. National sovereignty is now a privilege to be exercised until the world government decides you have violated certain principles. And who decides when a nation or leader is in violation? The world government system, of course. Where can a nation go to appeal the decisions of the global government? There is no appeal. The decisions of the world government are final.


NATO – A global army for global governance

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established after World War II to stop the advance of Communism throughout Europe. The military alliance of the communist bloc, the Warsaw Pact, and NATO stood toe-to-toe all during the Cold War. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev said, “We are depriving you of an enemy.” He dismantled the Warsaw Pact and soon presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Many thought that NATO would soon follow suit, but it didn’t.


For many years, NATO was a military giant without a mission. Yes, Europe felt more secure with NATO there, but Europe truthfully was no longer threatened by its neighbors.


It wasn’t until 1999 that NATO began to discover its new calling. The dream of a United States of Europe was being impeded by Yugoslavia and its leader, Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic knew that integration into the European Union would spell the end of Yugoslavian sovereignty, so he simply said no to EU overtures.


US President Bill Clinton used the excuse of the civil war that was occurring inside Yugoslavia to justify military action against Milosevic, accusing him of crimes against humanity. Clinton first went to the United Nations, but Russia and China used their veto power at the UN Security Council to block the resolution that would have authorized force against Yugoslavia. Furthermore, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the UN Charter did not allow interference by the UN in a nation’s internal affairs.


Not to be deterred, Clinton lobbied the nations of NATO to authorize action against Yugoslavia. Using the incredible influence of the United States at NATO, Clinton received the approval that he sought. NATO became the de facto army for executing the policies of the emerging one-world government. Soon, Yugoslavia was a member of the European Union, Clinton received the $1 million Charlemagne Prize for contributing to European unification, and Milosevic was on trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity.


The 2011 action against Libya was the true coming-out party for NATO as the army of the world government. All pretense was set aside. The UN Security Council passed the resolution against Libya, and NATO supplied the military force to make it happen. NATO is now the military arm of the emerging world government.


The International Criminal Court

For many years, the World Federalist Association had lobbied for a world court that could try individuals, including heads-of-state, for genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. During his 1997 speech at the opening of the 52nd UN General Assembly, President Clinton endorsed the establishment of just such a court.


On July 17, 1998, the International Criminal Court became reality. Proponents of the Court understood that, if heads-of-state could be placed on trial for violations of international law, they would be very careful to act in conformity to the ever-increasing body of international treaties that constituted international law. If world government was to succeed, it had to be able to enforce its will on the nations and leaders of the world.


The ICC slowly took shape after being approved in 1998. Several cases were prosecuted by the new court as it sought to gain acceptance in the world community. One hindering factor was that President George W. Bush had withdrawn the signature of the United States from the ICC. He understood the tremendous encroachment of the new court upon the sovereignty of the US. However, when the civil war in Sudan escalated, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice encouraged the ICC to prosecute Sudan President Omar al-Bashir for crimes against humanity. In March of 2009, the ICC issued its very first warrant for the arrest of a sitting head-of-state.


In the spring of 2011, when Muammar Qaddafi’s regime was threatened by the rebels that rose up against him, Qaddafi responded with force in an effort to put down the uprising. The UN Security Council urged the International Criminal Court to prosecute Qaddafi. On June 27, 2011, the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest and trial of Qaddafi on charges of murder. This was the second arrest warrant issued by the ICC against a sitting head-of-state.


UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reflected at the ICC review conference in Kampala, Uganda concerning the ICC, “Now we have the ICC, permanent, increasingly powerful, casting a long shadow…” That long shadow was now causing all heads-of-state to look increasingly over their shoulders before making each decision. Each leader had to make sure his or her decisions were in compliance with the long arm of international law.


Vatican calls for “central world bank” with universal jurisdiction

On October 24, 2011, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace issued the “Note on the reform of the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority.”


When the Vatican call for a central world bank hit the news, voices began to deny that such a call was made. Below are the exact quotes from the document. Judge for yourself.


“In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks.”


Later in the document:


“These measures ought to be conceived of as some of the first steps in view of a public authority with universal jurisdiction; as a first stage in a longer effort by the global community to steer its institutions towards achieving the common good.”




The Vatican Today 10/24/11


666–The Mark of the Beast

The prophecy of Revelation 13:15-18 clearly states that, under the endtime world government, every person will be required to have a mark or number in order to buy or sell.


In the name of fighting terrorism, most nations are in the process of adopting a national ID system. When fully implemented, each citizen will supply the government with proof of citizenship. This information will then be implemented into a national database, and an identification card will be issued, which is machine-readable. This ID card will then be required to open a bank account, fly on an airplane, receive government benefits, or to hold a job. Once the government can deny the ability of a person to get a job, then they obviously control the ability of that person to buy and sell—just like the prophecy foretells.


How close are we to such a system?

Most nations already have a national ID system. In some nations participation is mandatory, and in others it is voluntary. Even in those nations where it is voluntary, so many institutions require ID that it soon becomes virtually mandatory.


Ugandans to receive mandatory ID

On April 28, 2011, the government of Uganda announced that all Ugandans would be required to get a national identity card. Any citizen of Uganda who does not register for the National Identity card risks facing legal action, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The unregistered citizen will also not have access to the government services including education, health and employment opportunities and cannot stand for political office.


Heathrow Airport installs face recognition

Face recognition technology has been chosen as the biometric that will be used to establish a global ID system. On July 22, 2011, Heathrow, the UK’s largest airport, announced it would install facial recognition scanners by September for international and domestic passengers to prevent illegal immigration in the country.


A computer under your skin?

Steve Connor, Science Editor for The Independent, on August 12, 2011, wrote an article, “How computers will soon get under our skin.” He said that it might soon be possible to wear your computer or mobile phone under your sleeve, with the invention of an ultra-thin and flexible electronic circuit that can be stuck to the skin like a temporary tattoo.


This report is quite alarming when we realize that the 2,000-year-old prophecy of Revelation 13:16-17 states, “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Could this be the technology that will be used to implement the mark of the beast?


Scared Mexicans get implanted GPS chips

The Washington Post reported on August 21, 2011, that scared Mexicans are trying under-the-skin tracking devices to provide security from the rash of kidnappings being experienced throughout the country. Xega is the Mexican company that markets the radio-frequency identification chip (RFID). The device is essentially a small antenna in a tiny glass tube. The chip, inserted into the fatty tissue of the arm between the shoulder and elbow, is less than half an inch long and about as wide as a strand of boiled spaghetti.


The chip relays a signal to an external Global Positioning System unit the size of a cell phone. But if the owner is stripped of the GPS device in the event of an abduction, Xega can still track down its clients by sending radio signals to the implant. Many global planners envision the day when human beings will be able to track everyone and everything… everywhere. Talk about a “Brave New World”!


India builds world’s largest biometric ID database

Facial recognition systems using high definition cameras to identify people in controlled settings such as a border post, or informal situations such as a crowd on a railway station platform, are underpinning a universal citizen ID system being rolled out across India’s 1.2 billion population.


The Unique Identification Authority of India’s (UIDAI) Aadhaar program will create the world’s largest database of individuals at an estimated cost of up to $4.4 billion. It will use multiple types of biometric data including retina scans, fingerprints and multiple facial images. The official rollout date for the system was January 1, 2012.


Greece going cashless

In an effort to prevent untraceable cash transactions designed to avoid taxation, Greece passed a law that all cash financial transactions exceeding 1,500 euros are illegal as of January 1, 2011.


World Bank provides financing for Bangladesh national ID

It was reported on July 21, 2011, that the World Bank provided $195 million to Bangladesh for the establishment of a secure national ID system. Why is the World Bank financing such projects? Could it be that giving every person on earth a number is part of the vision of the World Bank for the emerging world government?


Britain ‘to be cashless society by 2016’

November 25, 2011 – A new report suggests that Britain will be largely a cashless society by the year 2016, with contactless smart card technology widespread in shops and other locations. The document, compiled by Forrester, states that children born today will be the first cashless generation, open to paying for goods and services with a mobile wallet as a matter of course.
It was compiled by speaking to senior executives from UK companies, with nine out of ten saying they think a “digital switchover” will take place in four years’ time.


What about the United States?

The establishment of national ID systems by most nations is far advanced. One nation that has encountered great difficulty in instituting a national ID system is the United States. In spite of repeated efforts to implement a national ID, the people of the United States have steadfastly refused for the last 230 years. Americans understand that the purpose of the national ID is control. They also understand that control and freedom are opposite terms.


On May 11, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Real ID Act. Its purpose was to turn the driver’s licenses of all Americans into a national ID card. Even those who didn’t drive were required to acquire the Real ID in order to fly on an airplane, enter a federal building, access federal services, or open a bank account. The government attempted to fool the American people into acceptance of the Real ID by saying that it was not a national ID card. However, the people quickly figured it out. Was it an ID card? Well, yes. Was it passed by a national law? Well, yes. Then it’s a national ID!


Privacy advocates quickly lined up against a national ID card and the database that would hold records on every American. The American Civil Liberties Union was in the forefront of the fight against Real ID.


States’ rights advocates protested that the federal government was taking over each states’ bureau of motor vehicles, while requiring the states to pay the bill for this unfunded mandate.


Religious organizations and churches came out fighting. This effort to number every person and to determine what they can do and where they can go by this number was so close to the mark of the beast described in the Bible that people wanted no part of it. It was apparent that the Real ID would ultimately be required to hold a job, thus controlling a person’s ability to buy or sell.


The states began to pass legislation against the implementation of Real ID. Soon 25 states had passed laws or resolutions against the Real ID.


The original deadline for implementing Real ID was May 11, 2008. However, the states refused to cooperate. The deadline was then pushed back to December 31, 2009. The states were told their citizens wouldn’t be allowed to get on an airplane if they didn’t cooperate. Still the states said “no.” The deadline had to be pushed back again—this time to May 11, 2011.


May 11, 2011 came and went, and a majority of the states were still not Real ID compliant. The deadline was moved for the third time to January 13, 2013. It appears the government believes that, if it keeps the pressure on, the states will eventually knuckle under.


The resistance to Real ID has been so great that some people think Real ID will never be implemented. They believe it’s dead in the water. Consequently, several alternative plans for the controlling and tracking of all Americans have been proposed.


One program is called E-Verify. In the US it is illegal to “knowingly” employ unauthorized workers. E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.


Laws are now being proposed to force all businesses to use E-Verify to check the eligibility of every employee to work. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is a strong advocate of making the use of E-Verify mandatory.


This entire immigration problem has been produced by the government refusing to protect our borders. Congress has appropriated money to build a fence along our Mexican border, but the administration has refused to build it.


In the end, E-Verify would produce the very same result as the Real ID. The government would control the ability of each person to make a living. The criteria for working might be a legal birth certificate today. Tomorrow we might be required to pledge allegiance to the New World Order or to a global belief system of some sort. Before you say it couldn’t happen, you better check with those who lived under Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. You might also want to check the Bible that prophesies this is exactly what is going to happen.


2011: Sodomy Good – Bible Bad

President Obama had promised to be the best friend the gay community ever had in the Whitehouse. During 2011, he delivered on his promise—in spades!


The year of 2011 was the year that the Bible was thrown under the bus like no other time. Sodomy was exalted as pure and holy, while the Bible and its teachings were painted as unloving and homophobic. The onslaught of governmental action against traditional values and the glorification of anti-biblical perversion just came in wave after wave.


What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?

Old Testament: Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”


New Testament: Romans 1:26-28, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”


As in the days of Lot…

Lot lived in the city of Sodom until God destroyed it for the sin of homosexuality. The prophecy of Luke 17:28-30 states: “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot…Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” We certainly witnessed the fulfillment of this prophecy in 2011!


Following is a small sample of news events recording the incredible assault against biblical morality that occurred throughout 2011.


Justice Department will no longer defend DOMA in legal challenges

CNN 2/23/11


Washington – President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.


Obama makes history with social secretary pick

By Nia-Malika Henderson and Perry Bacon Jr.


The Washington Post 2/25/11


The White House made history in two ways Friday, when it announced Jeremy Bernard as its new social secretary—the first man and the first openly gay person to fill that role.


“Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People’s House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways…” President Obama said.


Military indoctrinated on gays kissing,behavior

By Rowan Scarborough


The Washington Times 3/23/11


Four branches of the military have begun sending training material to 2.2 million active and reserve troops as a prelude to opening the ranks to gays, with instructions on, for example, what to do if an officer sees two male Marines kissing in a shopping mall.


Obama administration calls on United Nations to support gay rights

By Julie Mianecki, Washington Bureau


Los Angeles Times 3/23/11


Reporting from Washington ­– The Obama administration Tuesday called on the U.N. Human Rights Council to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world.


The statement was the most recent in a series of moves by the Obama administration to show support for gay rights, including holding that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional and moving to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays in the military.


California governor signs landmark law to teach gay history

USA TODAY 7/14/11


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill making California the first state in the nation to add lessons about gays and lesbians to social studies classes in public schools.


The new law, SB48, requires the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities, as soon as the 2013-2014 school year.


Randy Thomasson, president of, a conservative family group, said under the new law parents will have no choice but to take their children out of public school and homeschool them to avoid what he said was “immoral indoctrination.”


“Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the overwhelming majority of California fathers and mothers who don’t want their children to be sexually brainwashed at school,” Thomasson declared.


Senator Feinstein announces plan to repeal federal marriage statute

By Eric Marrapodi


CNN 7/19/11


Washington (CNN) – Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, announced Tuesday a bill to repeal the federal law that defines marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and that allows states to reject legal same sex marriages from other states.


Feinstein cynically and deceptively called the bill the “Respect for Marriage Act.”


Obama endorses Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act

Los Angeles Times 7/19/11


Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday announced a bill that would end the federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Later the White House said it backed the California lawmaker’s Respect for Marriage Act.


Florida teacher suspended for anti-gay marriage posts on personal Facebook page

By Todd Starnes 8/19/11


A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.


Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools, said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.


Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”


But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.


Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.


With Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ An Era Ends

By Liz Halloran


NPR 9/20/11


The law that for almost 18 years has banned openly gay Americans from serving in the armed forces will be officially repealed Tuesday, nine months after Congress voted to end the Clinton-era edict.


President Obama signed the repeal into law last December, but its provisions required time for the Pentagon to prepare for the policy change, and for top military officials to “certify” the law’s end.


Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed off on the change in July, and set Tuesday as the end of the law that has long been known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” or DADT.


Dem Slams Republicans for Tripling Budget forDefense of Gay Marriage Ban 10/5/11


A top Democratic opponent of the Defense of Marriage Act slammed House Republicans after they reportedly tripled the budget for legal defense of the law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.


Republicans have stepped up to fight for the law after the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend it in court, deeming it unconstitutional. Republicans reportedly have raised the salary cap for the lawyer defending it from $500,000 to $1.5 million.


The law dates back to the Clinton administration. At the time, Congress passed it by overwhelming margins.


Republicans say the Obama administration is the one that should be paying for the defense.


US Presbyterian Church Ordains Openly Gay Minister

CBS Minnesota 10/8/11


MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has officially ordained a 56-year-old Wisconsin man as its first openly gay minister.


Scott Anderson of Madison was ordained Saturday at Covenant Presbyterian Church during a ceremony attended by hundreds of supporters.


Last year, the Presbyterian national assembly agreed to remove a ban on homosexuals serving as ministers, clearing the way for his ordination.


Supporter Nancy Enderle says the ordination was an “uplifting, joyful gathering.”


According to the Bible, God would see it as an abomination.


Lesbian Couple Crowned Homecoming King and Queen

By Olivia Katrandjian


ABC NEWS 10/30/11


Two California high school students became one of the first lesbian couples crowned homecoming king and queen in the nation this weekend.


Rebeca Arellano, a senior at Patrick Henry High School, was made the school’s first female homecoming king when her name was announced Friday at a pep rally.


Arellano’s girlfriend, Haileigh Adams, who also attends Patrick Henry High School, was made homecoming queen at Saturday night’s dance.


Senate Panel OKs Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

USA TODAY 11/10/11


WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to repeal a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but the legislation lacks vote for passage in either House.


The vote was 10-8, with all committee Democrats favoring appeal and all Republicans opposed. The only immediate effect is political: Democrats can show part of their liberal base of backers that they strongly support equality in federal benefits for gay couples.


The repeal bill would need 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, and sponsors acknowledged the votes aren’t there. The measure would have no chance in the House, controlled by conservative Republicans.


California parents can kiss rights goodbye

By Becky Yeh


OneNewsNow California 11/22/11


Come January, a leading California pro-family group says parents in The Golden State will discover “how intrusive” a new anti-family law will be on their parental rights.


S.B. 48, which was recently signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), will take effect January 1, 2012 and mandate positive teachings of lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, and transgender contributions to children of all ages.


Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), says all curricula will be affected by the law.


“The school district up there has already printed materials on how they’re going to teach young elementary kids that there’s more to being just male [or] female—you can be one or the other, you can be both, [or] you can be neither,” he reports.


The TVC legislative analyst adds that the law will present alternate lifestyles to children in a positive light, which will open a Pandora’s box of further pro-“gay” indoctrination.


Lesbian couple get first kiss at Navy homecoming

By Corinne Reilly


The Virginian-Pilot 12/21/11


VIRGINIA BEACH – It’s a time-honored tradition at Navy homecomings—one lucky sailor is chosen to be first off the ship for the long-awaited kiss with a loved one.


Today, for the first time, the happily reunited couple was gay.


The sailor chosen by raffle to be the first off the ship and thus the recipient of the traditional kiss was Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta.


Her girlfriend of two years, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, was waiting when she crossed the brow.


They kissed. The crowd cheered. And with that, another vestige of the policy that forced gays to serve in secrecy vanished.


Whether considering World War III, the coming Middle East Peace Agreement, the emergence of world government, the world’s preparations for a global ID system or the breathtaking advance of sodomy, it is undeniable that the fulfillment of all these prophecies has been proceeding at full speed. All of these fulfillments remind us that we live in the “end of the age” and that the Second Coming of Jesus is just ahead.

5 replies

Comments are closed.