Signs of the Times: December 5, 2013 - THURSDAY - Tevet 2, 5774 (Prophecy News Service) Vol. I No.2

Last Generation Network News Prophecy Edition 

Vol. I No.2

December 5, 2013 - THURSDAY - Tevet 2, 5774






Rapture Ready

05 Dec 13

'Spooky action' builds a wormhole between 'entangled' quantum particles
Physicists at the University of Washington and Stony Brook University in New York believe the phenomenon might be intrinsically linked with wormholes, hypothetical features of space-time that in popular science fiction can provide a much-faster-than-light shortcut from one part of the universe to another.  

Famed Investor’s Dire Warning: ‘This Is Going to End Badly… Be Prepared, Be Worried, and Be Careful’
Rogers, in his inimitable way, sums up the state [of] euphoria that many markets find themselves in thus, “we are all floating around on a sea of artificial liquidity right now. This is not going to last.” “The next correction when it comes, because the debt is so very high — you know, 2008 was worse than 2002 because the debt was so much higher. You wait until 2015 or 2016 when the next crisis hits… debt has gone through the roof, the next one’s gonna be really bad”.  

2013 marks record year for the number of volcanoes erupting across the planet
The average number of volcanic eruptions per year should be about 50 to 60; as of December 5, 2013, we already at 83. Volcanic eruptions are one way the planet dissipates a dangerous build-up of heat, magma, and pressurized gases.  

China’s century: ‘More and more economies will want to trade in yuan’
China’s economy will soon be the world’s dominating economy and it’s natural that other economies would want to trade in yuan, not in US dollars, Daniel Wagner, CEO at Country Risk Solutions, told RT.  

In Jerusalem, Kerry offers reassurances on Iran deal
Top US diplomat says it won’t be hard to verify Tehran’s compliance; echoes Netanyahu in saying Israel must be able ‘defend itself, by itself’  

Britain holds first face-to-face talks with Islamists fighting Assad
Britain and its western allies have held their first face-to-face talks with Islamist factions fighting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, including militant groups demanding a hardline Sharia state, as the secular forces they previously backed lose ground. The meeting was held in the Turkish capital, Ankara, officials said...  

Ice Storm to Threaten Widespread Power Outages Centered on Arkansas
A swath of ice and a wintry mix later this week threatens to slow travel and cut power from parts of Texas to Kentucky. As dangerous cold sweeps southward and eastward over the Plains and Midwest in the wake of a North Central states snowstorm, it will set up a weather pattern favoring a narrow zone of freezing rain, sleet and some snow late this week.  

Lethal storm brings flood fears and travel disruption
A lorry driver has died after his vehicle was blown on top of two cars in West Lothian by high winds which have swept across Scotland. Transport Scotland has told people to avoid travelling on the roads and Network Rail has shut down all train services. The rest of the UK is braced as the storm, with 100mph winds, moves south.  

The Golden Ratio – a sacred number that links the past to the present
Some of the greatest mathematical minds of all ages, from Pythagoras and Euclid in ancient Greece, through the medieval Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa and the Renaissance astronomer Johannes Kepler, to present-day scientific figures such as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, have spent endless hours over this simple ratio and its properties. But the fascination with the Golden Ratio is not confined just to mathematicians. Biologists, artists, musicians, historians, architects, psychologists, and even mystics have pondered and debated the basis of its ubiquity and appeal. - See more at:  

Obama calls for action on 'profoundly unequal' economy
President Barack Obama has called for action to remedy what he described as profound income inequality and a lack of social mobility in the US. He called for a rise in the minimum wage and for stronger collective bargaining laws, among other measures. He also said his embattled healthcare overhaul would ease one part of American families' financial struggle.  

Turkey starts visa-free talks with EU
Turkey is starting visa liberalisation talks with the EU, a first step in a process that could last years. "This is a historic day for the Turkish people and the EU," Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a joint press conference with two EU commissioners in Brussels.  

Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity
The DNA, which dates back some 400,000 years, may belong to an unknown human ancestor, say scientists. These new findings could shed light on a mysterious extinct branch of humanity known as Denisovans, who were close relatives of Neanderthals, scientists added.  

American Studies Association leaders endorse boycott of Israeli universities
The American Studies Association leadership endorsed a boycott of Israeli universities, but also sought the approval of the body’s 5,000 members. The decision posted Wednesday follows a contentious debate at the group’s annual meeting last month and 10 days of deliberations that were supposed to last a morning. The boycott resolution was approved unanimously by the 20-member national council.  

Researchers create malware that communicates via silent sound, no network needed
As outlined in the Journal of Communications (PDF) and first spotted by ArsTechnica, the proof-of-concept malware prototype from Michael Hanspach and Michael Goetz can transmit information between computers using high-frequency sound waves inaudible to the human ear. The duo successfully sent passwords and more between non-networked Lenovo T400 laptops via the notebooks’ built-in microphones and speakers.  

Mankind to machine: 14 computing devices you'll be wearing in the future
he past decade or so, humans have become increasingly transfixed by the notion of wearing our technology in some way, shape, or form. From earpieces to headphones, glasses and implants, ZDNet runs through some of the wearable technologies that we will all be wearing in tomorrow's world.  





Yesterday's Prophecies - Today's Headlines



Twas the Night Before the Last Christmas
Twas the Night Before 
the Last Christmas



Pre-Millennium - Pre-Tribulation - PrePARED

*If you missed an issue or did not receive your daily copy - All Newsletters are archived at:

 (Featured Article at Bottom)





  • Mideast Analyst: Six Reasons to Worry About the Iranian Nuclear Deal  
  • Iran, North Korea Working on ICBM 'for Nukes' 
  • Israel's New Strategic Position 
  • Watchmen Warning: Out of Control 
  • Is America's Funeral Looming?  
  • The Implosion of America: Explosions Number Three and Four  
  • Daily JotSelf-Indulgence vs Christ Centered 
  • Daily Devotion: Here for You
  • Featured ArticleDispensational Truth: Part I 



I ask that you would prayerfully consider partnering with us to get the Word out and keep the world informed. Please consider becoming one of the 40 new monthly subscribers that can give at least $25 dollars a month or more and or helping us to end the year in the black and on a solid foundation. I will let everyone know daily in the newsletter as to the progress we make until we get all 40 new monthly subscribers and all our end of the year obligations are met. A longtime supporter of Prophecy Update reminded me a few days ago how easy it is to sign up to become a monthly supporter and how when it is automatically deducted from his account he hardly misses it.


Remember, your gift, no matter how small, does make a difference! You will be helping to touch lives, around the world, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thanks to the internet your generosity carries a global impact!


Our Goal = 40 -- New Monthly Supporters So Far = 5



To make a donation or become a monthly supporter, please use one of the following links: 





You can also write to us at:


Prophecy Update P.O. Box 40516 Bakersfield, CA 93384-0516


Or call in your donation to: 1-661-742-5793


Thanks for your time and consideration and for letting me rant a little, be blessed!





Mideast Analyst: Six Reasons to worry about the Iranian Nuclear Deal - Joel C. Rosenberg -



I commend to your attention a column today by Jeffrey Goldberg, a widely respected Mideast analyst. While I don't always agree with him on policy matters, his six concerns about the Iran deal are right on point.Excerpts:


1). The deal isn't done. Remember the photos from Geneva of smiling foreign ministers slapping backs and hugging in celebration of their epic achievement? Well, nothing was actually signed. The deal is not, as of this moment, even operational.


U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked a question last week about when the deal might actually take effect. "The next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement. So that would involve the P5+1 - a commission of the P5+1 experts working with the Iranians and the IAEA," she said, referring to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Obviously, once that's - those technical discussions are worked through, I guess the clock would start."


Focus on those last words for a second: "I guess the clock would start." Do words like those make you worried, or is it just me? What this means is that Iran, at this moment, is still not compelled to freeze any of its nuclear program in place. I'm not sure why American negotiators would leave Geneva without having a fully implemented agreement. I understand that the technical hurdles to implementation are daunting. But equally daunting is the realization that the Iranians are going about their business as if they've promised nothing.


2.) Momentum for sanctions is waning. It's true that the economic relief the Iranians will receive in this deal is modest, but it is also true that many nations, many companies and the Iranians themselves are seeing this agreement as the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime. Iran is already making a push to recapture its dominant role in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. U.S. officials believe they can hold the line on sanctions, but it is reasonable to assume that they will come under increasing pressure from countries such as South Korea, Japan, India and China, which could very easily convince themselves that Iran is preparing to act in a more responsible manner (after all, it replaced its snarling, Holocaust-denying president with a smiling, savvy president) and should be reopened for business.


3.) The (still unenforced) document agreed upon in Geneva promises Iran an eventual exit from nuclear monitoring. The final (theoretical) deal, the document states, will "have a specified long-term duration to be agreed upon," after which the Iranian nuclear program "will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state" that is part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. From what I'm told, the U.S. hopes this eventual agreement, should it come to pass, would last 15 years; the Iranians hope to escape this burden in five. After the agreement loses its legal force, Iran could run however many centrifuges it chooses to run. This is not a comforting idea.


4.) The biggest concession to the Iranians might have already been made. Although it is the West's position that it has not granted Iran the so-called right to enrich, the text of the interim agreement states that the permanent deal will "involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters." Essentially, Barack Obama's administration has already conceded, before the main round of negotiations, that Iran is going to end up with the right to enrich. Realists would argue that Iran will end up with that "right" no matter what, but it seems premature to cede the point now.


5.) The Geneva agreement only makes the most elliptical references to two indispensable components of any nuclear-weapons program. The entire agreement is focused on the fuel cycle, but there is no promise by Iran in this interim deal to abstain from pursuing work on ballistic missiles or on weaponization. A nuclear weapons program has three main components: the fuel, the warhead and the delivery system. Iran is free, in the coming six-month period of the interim deal, to do whatever it pleases on missiles and warhead development.


6.) The Iranians are so close to reaching the nuclear threshold anyway - defined here as the ability to make a dash to a bomb within one or two months from the moment the supreme leader decides he wants one - that freezing in place much of the nuclear program seems increasingly futile. When asked this week by al-Jazeera about the impact of sanctions, the very smart Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said, "When sanctions started Iran had less than 200 centrifuges. Today Iran has 19,000 centrifuges so the net product of the sanctions has been about 18,800 centrifuges that has been added to the Iran's stock of centrifuges, so sanctions have utterly failed."


Goldberg notes that "one of Israel's most prominent experts on the Iranian nuclear program, a former military intelligence chief named Amos Yadlin, said this week that 'Iran is on the verge of producing a bomb. It's sad, but it's a fact.' Yadlin suggested that no one, and no agreement, can stop Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold. I fear he is right."


Iran, North Korea Working on ICBM 'for Nukes' - By Gil Ronen -



Sen. Cruz: Relaxing sanctions encourages Iran to pursue nukes and the means to deliver them to Israel, Europe and the US.


Iranian collaboration with North Korea on a new rocket booster for long-range missiles undermines the recent deal with Tehran on its nuclear program, key Senate and House Republicans said on Tuesday, according to the Washington Free Beacon.


"While the president was undertaking his secret negotiations-which Congress wasn't informed of-he had to know Iran and North Korea were testing new engines for ballistic missiles to target the United States," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.) chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces.


"Every day the president's deal looks worse and worse," Rogers said in response to a report Tuesday revealing that Iran is covertly working with North Korea on a new 80-ton rocket booster that can be used in both nations' long-range missile programs.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) also criticized the P5+1 countries' Iran nuclear deal for not addressing the threat of Iran's ICBM program.


"The Iranian regime is clearly demonstrating through word and deed that they have no intention of moderating the behavior that earned them one of the harshest international programs of economic sanctions on record," Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon. "Relaxing the sanctions now only encourages them to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons-and the means to deliver them to Israel, Europe and even the United States.  I hope President Obama and Secretary [of State John] Kerry will reconsider this dangerous policy and add the immediate cessation of their ICBM program to the list of prerequisites placed on Iran before any additional negotiations take place."


Claude Chafin, a spokesman for House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, also voiced concern over reports of Iran-North Korea missile cooperation.


"Without a comprehensive deal to limit the Iranian ballistic missile program, and eliminate their ability to enrich uranium, the pieces are falling into place for both the Iranians and the North Koreans to threaten the United States with nuclear-tipped ICBMs," Chafin said in an email to the Washington Free Beacon.


Chafin said the cooperation increases the threat to the United States because both Pyongyang and Tehran share missile technology. "It is reasonable to assume that North Korean missile capabilities are peer to Iranian missile capabilities," he said.


U.S. officials said the new booster could be used on both a space launcher and a long-range missile. Iran and North Korea are believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to be using their space programs to mask long-range missile development.


Officials said the covert missile cooperation indicates the Iranians are continuing to build long-range strategic missiles that can be used to deliver nuclear warheads at the same time they are negotiating limits on illicit uranium enrichment. Intelligence assessments have said that both countries could test a missile capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear warhead within the next two years.



Israel's New Strategic Position - By George Friedman of Stratfor -



Israel has expressed serious concerns over the preliminary U.S.-Iranian agreement, which in theory will lift sanctions levied against Tehran and end its nuclear program. That was to be expected. Less obvious is why the Israeli government is concerned and how it will change Israel's strategic position.


 Israel's current strategic position is excellent. After two years of stress, its peace treaty with Egypt remains in place. Syria is in a state of civil war that remains insoluble. Some sort of terrorist threat might originate there, but no strategic threat is possible. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does not seem inclined to wage another war with Israel, and while the group's missile capacity has grown, Israel appears able to contain the threat they pose without creating a strategic threat to Israeli national interests. The Jordanian regime, which is aligned with Israel, probably will withstand the pressure put on it by its political opponents.


 In other words, the situation that has existed since the Camp David Accords were signed remains in place. Israel's frontiers are secure from conventional military attack. In addition, the Palestinians are divided among themselves, and while ineffective, intermittent rocket attacks from Gaza are likely, there is no Intifada underway in the West Bank.


 Therefore, Israel faces no existential threats, save one: the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and a delivery system and use it to destroy Israel before it or the United States can prevent it from doing so. Clearly, a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would be catastrophic for Israel. Its ability to tolerate that threat, regardless of how improbable it may be, is a pressing concern for Israel.


 In this context, Iran's nuclear program supersedes all of Israel's other security priorities. Israeli officials believe their allies, particularly those in the United States, should share this view. As a strategic principle, this is understandable. But it is unclear how Israel intends to apply it. It is also unclear how its application will affect relations with the United States, without which it cannot cope with the Iranian threat.


 Israel understands that however satisfactory its current circumstances are, those circumstances are mercurial and to some extent unpredictable. Israel may not rely heavily on the United States under these circumstances, but these circumstances may not be permanent. There are plenty of scenarios in which Israel would not be able to manage security threats without American assistance. Thus, Israel has an overriding interest in maintaining its relationship with the United States and in ensuring Iran never becomes a nuclear state. So any sense that the United States is moving away from its commitment to Israel, or that it is moving in a direction where it might permit an Iranian nuclear weapon, is a crisis. Israel's response to the Iran talks -- profound unhappiness without outright condemnation -- has to be understood in this context, and the assumptions behind it have to be examined.




 Iran does not appear to have a deliverable nuclear weapon at this point. Refining uranium is a necessary but completely insufficient step in developing a weapon. A nuclear weapon is much more than uranium. It is a set of complex technologies, not the least of which are advanced electrical systems and sensors that, given the amount of time the Iranians have needed just to develop not-quite-enough enriched uranium, seems beyond them. Iran simply does not have sufficient fuel to produce a device.


 Nor it does not have a demonstrated ability to turn that device into a functioning weapon. A weapon needs to be engineered to extreme tolerances, become rugged enough to function on delivery and be compact enough to be delivered. To be delivered, its must be mounted on a very reliable missile or aircraft. Iran has neither reliable missiles nor aircraft with the necessary range to attack Israel. The idea that the Iranians will use the next six months for a secret rush to complete the weapon simply isn't the way it works.


 Before there is a weapon there must be a test. Nations do not even think of deploying nuclear weapons without extensive underground tests -- not to see if they have uranium but to test that the more complex systems work. That is why they can't secretly develop a weapon: They themselves won't know they have a workable weapon without a test. In all likelihood, the first test would fail, as such things do. Attempting their first test in an operational attack would result not only in failure but also in retaliation.


 Of course, there are other strategies for delivering a weapon if it were built. One is the use of a ship to deliver it to the Israeli coast. Though this is possible, the Israelis operate an extremely efficient maritime interdiction system, and the United States monitors Iranian ports. The probability is low that a ship would go unnoticed. Having a nuclear weapon captured or detonated elsewhere would infuriate everyone in the eastern Mediterranean, invite an Israeli counterstrike and waste a weapon


 Otherwise, Iran theoretically could drive a nuclear weapon into Israel by road. But these weapons are not small. There is such a thing as a suitcase bomb, but that is a misleading name; it is substantially larger than a suitcase, and it is also the most difficult sort of device to build. Because of its size, it is not particularly rugged. You don't just toss it into the trunk, drive 1,500 miles across customs checkpoints and set it off. There are many ways you can be captured -- particularly crossing into Israel -- and many ways to break the bomb, which require heavy maintenance. Lastly, even assuming Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, its use against Israel would kill as many Muslims -- among them Shia -- as Israelis, an action tantamount to geopolitical suicide for Tehran.




 One of the reasons Israel has not attempted an airstrike, and one of the reasons the United States has refused to consider it, is that Iran's prospects for developing a nuclear weapon are still remote. Another reason is difficulty. Israel's air force is too far removed and too small to carry out simultaneous strikes on multiple facilities. If the Israelis forward-deployed to other countries, the Iranians would spot them. The Israelis can't be certain which sites are real and which are decoys. The Iranians have had years to harden their facilities, so normal ordnance likely would be inadequate. Even more serious is the fact that battle damage assessment -- judging whether the site has been destroyed -- would be prohibitively difficult.


 For these reasons, the attack could not simply be carried out from the air. It would require special operations forces on the ground to try to determine the effects. That could result in casualties and prisoners, if it could be done at all. And at that the Israelis can only be certain that they have destroyed all the sites they knew about, not the ones that their intelligence didn't know about. Some will dismiss this as overestimating Iranian capabilities. This frequently comes from those most afraid that Tehran can build a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. If it could do the latter, it could harden sites and throw off intelligence gathering. The United States would be able to mount a much more robust attack than the Israelis, but it is unclear whether it would be robust enough. And in any case, all the other problems -- the reliability of intelligence, determining whether the site were destroyed -- would still apply.


But ultimately, the real reason Israel has not attacked Iran's nuclear sites is that the Iranians are so far from having a weapon. If they were closer, the Israelis would have attacked regardless of the difficulty. The Americans, on the other hand, saw an opportunity in the fact that there are no weapons yet and that the sanctions were hurting the Iranians. Knowing that they were not in a hurry to complete and knowing that they were hurting economically, the Iranians likewise saw an opportunity to better their position.


 From the American point of view, the nuclear program was not the most pressing issue, even though Washington knew it had to be stopped. What the Americans wanted was an understanding with the Iranians, whereby their role in the region would be balanced against those of other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, the Arabian emirates and to some extent Israel. As I've argued, the United States is still interested in what happens in the region, but it does not want to continue to use force there. Washington wants to have multiple relations with regional actors, not just Israel and Saudi Arabia.


 Israel's response to the U.S.-Iran talks should be understood in this way. The Israelis tempered their response initially because they knew the status of Iran's nuclear program. Even though a weapon is still a grave concern, it is a much longer-term problem than the Israelis admit publicly. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried hard to convince the United States otherwise, the United States isn't biting.) Since an attack has every chance of failing, the Israelis recognize that these negotiations are the most likely way to eliminate the weapons, and that if the negotiations fail, no one will be in a more dangerous position for trying. Six months won't make a difference.


 The Israelis could not simply applaud the process because there is, in fact, a strategic threat to Israel embedded in the talks. Israel has a strategic dependency on the United States. Israel has never been comfortable with Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia, but there was nothing the Israelis could do about it, so they accommodated it. But they understand that the outcome of these talks, if successful, means more than the exchange of a nuclear program for eased sanctions; it means the beginning of a strategic alignment with Iran.


In fact, the United States was aligned with Iran until 1979. As Richard Nixon's China initiative shows, ideology can relent to geopolitical reality. On the simplest level, Iran needs investment, and American companies want to invest. On the more complex level, Iran needs to be certain that Iraq is friendly to its interests and that neither Russia nor Turkey can threaten it in the long run. Only the United States can ensure that. For their part, the Americans want a stronger Iran to contain Saudi support for Sunni insurgents, compel Turkey to shape its policy more narrowly, and remind Russia that the Caucasus, and particularly Azerbaijan, have no threat from the south and can concentrate on the north. The United States is trying to create a multipolar region to facilitate a balance-of-power strategy in place of American power.




 I began by pointing out how secure Israel is currently. Looking down the road 10 years, Israel cannot assume that this strategic configuration will remain in place. Egypt's future is uncertain. The emergence of a hostile Egyptian government is not inconceivable. Syria, like Lebanon, appears to be fragmented. What will come of this is unclear. And whether in 10 years the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will remain Hashemite or become a Palestinian state is worthy of contemplation. None have military power now, but then Egypt went from disaster in 1967 to a very capable force in 1973. They had a Soviet patron. They might have another patron in 10 years.


 Right now, Israel does not need the United States, nor American aid, which means much less to them now than it did in 1973. They need it as a symbol of American commitment and will continue to need it. But the real Israeli fear is that the United States is moving away from direct intervention to a more subtle form of manipulation. That represents a threat to Israel if Israel ever needs direct intervention rather than manipulation. But more immediately, it threatens Israel because the more relationships the United States has in the region, the less significant Israel is to Washington's strategy. If the United States maintains this relationship with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others, Israel becomes not the anchor of U.S. policy but one of many considerations. This is Israel's real fear in these negotiations.


 In the end, Israel is a small and weak power. Its power has been magnified by the weakness of its neighbors. That weakness is not permanent, and the American relationship has changed in many ways since 1948. Another shift seems to be underway. The Israelis used to be able to depend on massive wellsprings of support in the U.S. public and Congress. In recent years, this support has become less passionate, though it has not dried up completely. What Israel has lost is twofold. First, it has lost control of America's regional strategy. Second, it has lost control of America's political process. Netanyahu hates the U.S.-Iran talks not because of nuclear weapons but because of the strategic shift of the United States. But his response must remain measured because Israel has less influence in the United States than it once did.






Search This Blog