Although there is abundant information contained within the prophetic scriptures regarding the antichrist and his future reign, there is a nice, concise summary in Revelation 13 which is worth reading again:
"The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation."
This passage represents the most extreme form of "globalism", and it can't just happen overnight. This represents the cumulation of years of careful planning and the laying of the necessary groundwork that the antichrist will be able to seize and control. This effort has been ongoing for years. Unfortunately, those who pointed this out over the years were labeled as "conspiracy" theorists (a convenient way to shut down the whole "freedom of speech" thing and a convenient way to hide the truth), and quickly dismissed. However, the quick and easy dismissal of this information has come to an abrupt halt recently as the globalist effort is too obvious to ignore. This article from the Daily Bell underscores these points:
[This article is worth reading in full. Below are some of the most germane comments]
An article in was recently brought to our attention...it is basically an admission of the entire globalist enterprise over the past half-century or so. It clearly admits what we all know – that top Western elites have been in an open conspiracy to merge the world, at least the Western world, under one legislative, economic and military regime.
[This article goes far beyond the title, and delves deeply into potential scenarios that exist for Israel and the attacks that we know they will face. Additionally, one main point is abundantly clear: Only God can (and will) protect Israel from this massive attack which will occur.]
In a piercing, informative and opinionated article based on data, Dr. Nathan Faber criticized the Israeli missile-defense concept (the "tiered defense") this week. The conclusion ofDr. Faber's article, published in the Magen Laoref ("Homefront Shield") foundation's website, is that if Israel finds itself in an all-out war on several fronts facing enemies that are showering it with hundreds of missiles a day (perhaps over a thousand), this concept could crumble due financial, operational and technological reasons.
The tiered-defense concept is based on different types of defense missiles to intercept the different variations of enemy projectiles in a number of ranges and altitudes ("interception tiers"). According to Dr. Faber's article, the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic-missile system (that is still under development) is designed to intercept Iranian Shihab missiles (that have a range of 1,300 km.), at an altitude of 250-300 km., hundreds of kilometers away from Israel's borders (over Jordan). In the future, Arrow 3 missiles will also have to intercept Sejil missiles, that have a range of over 2,000 km.
In his article, based on unclassified sources, Faber calculated that in its next war, Israel could be threatened by some 800 ballistic missiles in Iran's possession, some 400 Syrian Scud missiles that are left in President Bashar Assad's possession (some of these missiles were used in the Syrian civil war), some 500-1,000 tactical missiles (Fateh and Fajr) that Hamas and Hezbollah possess, and more than 100 thousand artillery rockets that Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah possess.
In Dr. Faber's assessment, about a third of the missiles and rockets launched towards Israel will be intercepted by the Air Force, a third will not launch due to malfunction, and a third will be on its way to hit its target. According to Dr. Faber, this data is established among IDF experts and in the intelligence community.
Regarding Shihab and Scud missiles, Faber says "we are talking about an arsenal of 1,000-1,300 ballistic missiles of all types. Not all of them will be launched and not all of them will hit their target. A reasonable assessment is that Israel's security forces will have to take care of at least a third of them, meaning about 400 missiles."
On tactical missiles Faber writes: "Since these are very precise missiles, the great majority of them will hit their target, meaning the tiered-defense system will have to intercept the great majority of these missiles."
Regarding artillery rockets, the assessment is that just Hezbollah has 50-70 thousand rockets. When you add that to the Syrian rocket arsenal and Hamas's rockets, the number doubles. From that it appears the Iron Dome will have to deal with about 30 thousand rockets.
"How many interceptor rockets are needed to handle this massive threat?" Feber wonders. "To handle the ballistic threat, two interceptors are required to shoot down every ballistic missile. In addition to that, during a full military confrontation, Israel's security forces would undoubtedly make many mistakes, which means wasting interceptors. Therefore, for 400 ballistic missiles, Israel will need 800-1,000 interceptors.
Against artillery rockets Israel will need 60 thousand Iron Dome missiles, each costing $100,000, which means a total of $6 billion. This cost does not include deploying additional batteries (a few additional hundreds of thousands of dollars)."
In the operational category, Faber claims that "today, Israel is not protected from ballistic missiles and this protection's efficiency in the future is also in doubt."
Regarding Iron Dome, his assessment is that it has a 66% success rate, and perhaps even less, and not 85% as its developers Refael and Israel's security forces claim.
"The classic claim of the Iron Dome's supporters is: 'so what? 66% is better than zero. Any successful interception is pure gain because it saves human lives.' Really? Well, here's another point to think about: the Iron Dome does not save lives. What saves lives are the shelters and safe rooms that citizens escape to whenever there's a rocket attack."
[So what else is new? This whole ridiculous notion of "global warming" which defies all logic, all data and all facts is part of the globalist scheme to control business and impose draconian taxes. It has nothing to do with "global warming" - obviously]
There’s an old saying that when presenting a legal case, if the facts are on your side, “pound the facts,” but if the facts are against you, “pound the table.” The report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on September 27th is an obvious example of pounding the table.
The facts, which the IPCC’s report admits to, albeit with obvious reluctance and a good deal of obfuscation, that humanity’s impact on global climate is too small to justify concern and is certainly no reason for the costly programs governments are imposing. Yet the IPCC persists in asserting the opposite. They state that they are more convinced than ever that global warming is caused mainly by our greenhouse gas emissions and that the world face catastrophe if we don’t radically change our ways. Even though the IPCC’s past forecasts have been spectacularly wrong
They haven’t. The IPCC’s theatrics are clearly an attempt to misdirect public, media, and government attention away from the scientific fact that climate change is overwhelmingly due to natural forces. People are emitting more carbon dioxide (CO2) than ever, from power plants,
, and industrial activity, but has not warmed for at least the past 15 years.
, and industrial activity, but has not warmed for at least the past 15 years.
None of the models the IPCC references predicted this. The world was warmer in the 13th century than now, yet CO2 then were far lower than today. Global ice cover—a big concern of alarmists predicting rapid sea rise—hasn’t changed significantly since satellite began in 1979, and Antarctic ice, which is eight times greater than Arctic ice, is not receding. Sea level rise has remained at roughly the same gradual rate for the past few centuries, and is now only 1/10th that of 8,000 years ago when large quantities of ice were melting. Extreme weather across the world has generally declined. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the U.S. is on pace for the fewest number of tornadoes in recorded history, while tropical cyclone activity (hurricanes in the North Atlantic) is near a thirty-year low.
Regardless, nobody, including the IPCC, knows what an ideal climate would be, or even whether there is such a thing. Attempting to stop climate change makes about as much sense as trying to halt the earth’s rotation: we can’t do it, and there’s no good reason to try.
Given the IPCC’s history of repeated and frequent mistakes, it’s perfectly clear that they are a political organization, not a scientific one. Its primary purpose is to provide pseudo-scientific cover for a UN-led transfer of resources from people in wealthy countries to those in poor nations, while keeping poor nations from ever becoming rich. The IPCC should be disbanded and non-governmental scientists encouraged to publicize their conclusions without censor or intimidation from the UN, academia and other alarmists.
That’s not likely to happen soon, however. Too many people are profiting from global warming alarmism, as governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year attempting to overcome nature. Compliant scientists gain access to vast amounts of funding if they characterize Western nations as the cause of every bad weather event. Instead of admitting that they made one of the biggest mistakes in history, governments to prop up the IPCC and pretend it’s findings are meaningful.
Global or public apathy will eventually dry up IPCC funding and the organization will finally disband. For that to happen any time soon, however, will require that taxpayers in the nations that actually pay for the UN demand the end of the IPCC. And while they’re at it, voters would do well to call for an end to all the other costly, unnecessary government boondoggles adopted in the name of global warming, such as expensive and environmentally harmful renewable power mandates.
Toward that end, the public and the press clearly need a reliable source of climate science information, one not controlled by the UN or any government. Fortunately, there is one—the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Several days before the IPCC report was released, the NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists. The scientists firmly conclude nature, not man, controls the climate. It’s available at http://climatechangereconsidered.org/.
With the release of the CCR-II report, we can only hope that the pounding you’ll soon be hearing are the nails going into the IPCC’s coffin.