PROPHECY UPDATE
PROPHECY RELATED NEWS AND COMMENTARY
Thursday, July 23, 2026
Israel is preparing for the possibility of a significant escalation
The applause for Burnham scrapping Starmer’s digital ID arrived before anyone checked what survived it
Andy Burnham Scrapped Digital ID. His Internet Plans Say Otherwise
By Cam Wakefield, as published by Reclaim the Net on 20 July 2026
The new UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is in Downing Street, and he has spent twenty years telling you exactly what he wants to do to the internet. He won the Makerfield by-election on 18 June 2026. He then collected the backing of roughly 349 Labour MPs, more than 85 per cent of the parliamentary party. By the time he walked through the black door, the job had been settled for weeks.
His first big announcement was the one privacy campaigners had been hoping for. Starmer’s digital ID scheme for all adults is dead, scrapped before Burnham had finished unpacking, the money moved to the cost of living. The applause came quickly. Perhaps it should not have.
This is a read on a government barely a day old. On speech and privacy, the early signals point one way, and it is not the way that loosens the state’s grip. He is not about to tear up the settlement he inherits from Keir Starmer. The open question is how much further he carries it.
Two decades of hindsight, and the case is still clear to him. What that case rests on is a claim about the relationship between a person and the state, and it is the same claim underneath every age check and identity gate now being built. The Identity Cards Act reached the statute book on 30 March 2006 and was repealed on 21 January 2011.
Then came 2008, and Culture Secretary Burnham produced a plan that looks like a blueprint for everything running today. The organising idea was that online content should meet the same regulatory standards as television. He wanted taste and decency rules applied to the web, cinema-style age certificates and warning signs on anything featuring sex, violence or strong language, alerts bolted onto viral content, and ISP-level “child-safe” packages.
The Act remains one of the most expansive surveillance laws in any democracy, and it exists because the opposition of the day decided its objections had been satisfied. That is the pattern worth holding onto. Burnham objects to how a power is packaged, wins changes to the packaging, and votes the power into the statute book. Ten years later, the objections are a footnote and the Act is still there.
Expect the Online Safety Act to survive Burnham intact, because the pressure on him runs toward strengthening it. A coalition of charities, campaign groups and academics wrote to him before he reached No 10, asking him to toughen the law.
Their specific wish is to drag it past illegal content and into “legal but harmful” territory, the exact area the Act was careful to leave alone. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee wants the same, arguing the Act is too weak on “misinformation” and that platforms should answer for how they amplify lawful content people dislike. 2024’s Southport unrest is the case they keep reaching for.
That “legal but harmful” line is where the state stops chasing crime and starts refereeing opinion. The government gets to write the definition of harmful, and then the government gets to enforce it.
A change of direction was always likelier on digital ID than on the Online Safety Act, and today proved the point.
The enforcement machine that has already pushed platforms into restricting British users has been inherited whole and will probably be widened, while ministers keep insisting that none of this touches free speech.
That Day Shall Not Come Except
I wondered why so many pastors did not preach about prophecy since so much of the Bible is prophetic in nature. One pastor told me he doesn’t preach on prophecy because there are so many theories and viewpoints that it is best to just ignore it. Bad advice! Especially since that it is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing to those who read and absorb it.
With Dr. Reagan as my mentor, I immersed myself in the study of prophecy. In 2017, I wrote the commentary entitled “Finally Home” covering every verse in the book of Revelation with the express purpose of making it clearly understandable for the average lay person. By using Dr. Reagan’s literal approach and oft quoted guideline, “When the plain sense makes sense, don’t look for any other sense or you will wind up with nonsense,” it clears up most of the conflicts and confusion in the book of Revelation.
There are many scholarly books which clearly prove that the Church (composed of true believers) will be raptured prior to the Tribulation period. One of the best of such books is “The Rapture” written by Dr. Tim LaHaye. The timing of the Rapture was on the minds of the early believers in Thessalonica. No doubt, they dwelt on this because of the terrorism, abuses, and executions they were enduring by the Romans.
Some of their believing brethren were proclaiming that the Tribulation was already upon them, and they had been left behind at the Rapture.
Paul wanted to assure them that the awful Tribulation had not occurred since the Rapture had not yet happened. Consequently, he wrote the letter, 2 Thessalonians, to set their minds at ease.
In chapter 2 of 2 Thessalonians, beginning with verse 1, Paul says, “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus, and by our gathering together unto Him [a clear picture of the Rapture], that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ [a reference to the Tribulation period] is at hand.”
Scripture continues, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT [capitalization provided by author] there is a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition [i.e., the Antichrist] who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he [the Antichrist] as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
So, I want to ask you about this first event. Can this be a definite event for which we should look for? I think not. There has been a falling away or apostasy in every generation. But here, God is trying to give them a definite event that will come about so that they can clearly be assured that the Tribulation has not come and that they have not been left behind at the Rapture.
So, this first event requires more digging. It uses the Greek word “apostasia” in which the original scriptures were written, and most translators translate this term as “a falling away” meaning a falling away from the Christian faith.
In English and in almost every other language, there is a first and a secondary meaning of a particular word. For instance, in English, the primary word for “hide” is that you might hide from someone. The secondary meaning for the word “hide” could be referring to the skin or hide of an animal.
Also, consider the word “pen.” It might be referring to a writing instrument, or it could be referring to an enclosure in which to keep an animal. It all depends on the context.
The secondary meaning of “apostasia” is “departure.” Now consider this. In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he explained fully to them about the Rapture of the believers. He even detailed the fact the dead in Christ would be resurrected first and then the believers living at that time would be resurrected after that.
So, when Paul mentioned the departure, in their minds they knew exactly what he was talking about—the departure would mean leaving this earth to meet the Lord in the air. In other words, The Rapture that he had previously written to them about!
Clearly, Paul is telling them that they are not in the seven-year Tribulation period because two things must happen first: the departure of Christians at the Rapture and the Antichrist must be identified.
So, Paul makes it very clear that the Rapture must precede the Tribulation period. And as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 4:18: “Comfort one another with these words.”
Things To Come?
They are not preparing to feed the world. They are preparing to ration it.
The conspiratorial framework is not necessary to explain what is happening, but it is sufficient. When one examines the concentration of agricultural land ownership—3% of the world’s farms controlling 65% of productive soil, according to the Land Matrix Global Observatory—the pattern becomes unmistakable. When one maps the acquisition patterns of private equity firms since 2020—purchasing water rights in the Colorado River basin, farmland in Ukraine’s black earth region, grain storage facilities in the Australian wheat belt—the contours of a strategy emerge that transcends mere profit-seeking. These are not investments in food production. These are investments in food scarcity. The value of grain appreciates most dramatically not when harvests are abundant, but when they fail. And harvests, in an era of weaponized weather and supply chain sabotage, can be made to fail with surgical precision.
Exclusive-Iran strikes on CIA facilities prompt questions about possible Russian role
These people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters, said U.S. intelligence officials have not yet reached firm conclusions about the possible Russian involvement in the attacks on CIA facilities. But they cited the strikes' effectiveness and apparent precision, as well as Russia's broader technical support for Iran, as possible evidence.
Reuters and other media have reported — and U.S. officials have acknowledged — that Russia has provided targeting and other support for Iran in its strikes on U.S. targets in the Gulf region generally, but the intelligence community's investigation of possible Russian involvement in supporting the CIA facility attacks has not been previously disclosed.
At least two CIA sites were struck in March, Reuters and other outlets have reported. One of the facilities was the CIA station in Saudi Arabia, which is located in the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, and a separate site was located in eastern Iraq. Some of the sources said additional CIA sites had been hit, but they did not disclose details.
One internal memo from a Western intelligence agency, described by an official in the region with access to the document, concluded Russia has likely played a role in targeting regional CIA facilities. The official discussed the memo on condition that its precise authorship not be disclosed.
Two Western officials in the Gulf who were briefed on intelligence reports said analysts thought the Saudi attack involved a pair of Russian-enhanced versions of Iran's Shahed drones. One of the aircraft blew a hole through a vulnerable part of the embassy's exterior and the second flew through the opening and detonated, they said. No deaths or injuries were reported.
While Russian assistance for Iran is longstanding, given the countries' close ties, specific targeting of sensitive CIA sites would indicate Moscow is willing to go further in disrupting U.S. operations as Washington struggles to bring the Iran war to an end.
Concerns that Russia could be providing targeting data to Iran intensified this weekend after strikes on a U.S. air base in Jordan, where Iran struck army barracks with ballistic missiles, killing two soldiers.