TRUMP WATCH: 3.25.17 - Presidential Prophecy Briefing

Presidential Prophecy Briefing - Terry James - http://www.raptureready.com/category/nearing-midnight/

 

This president is doing his best to fulfill campaign promises. His "best" is something to behold. He is getting it done at breakneck speed and despite opposition-much of that opposition satanically inspired.

 

The hatred toward him and even his family is unlike anything witnessed in our nation's post-election history. Donald J. Trump forges ahead as if he doesn't notice the fierceness and threats of the haters screaming their vitriol from every quarter. At least the rage doesn't seem to bother him much.

 

He doesn't turn the other cheek, of course. His Tweets can be as devastating as slaps across the face.

 

For example, his Tweet that asked the question: Isn't it terrible the way Obama had my phones tapped in the Trump Tower?

 

He responds immediately in most cases to the written words of the hostile news media and spoken words of political antagonists. He is a New York City street fighter, and can obviously handle himself amongst the political and media street brawlers in spite of the fact that he is a political neophyte-but one that is quickly attaching himself to the learning curve.

 

Mr. Trump can be very kind, generous, and compassionate, as well as tough. We have seen these traits demonstrated on a number of occasions before and since he became president. He gets no notice of approval for this side of his personal deportment from any of his opposition of course. Neither does he seek it. He just...well...forges ahead and accomplishes what he has promised.

 

Although I've received criticism even from brothers and sisters in Christ who read this column for being "too caught up in worldly politics," I don't mind being perhaps overly transparent that I'm an ardent supporter of our new president. This doesn't mean I approve of some of his NYC street jargon or his every word uttered or action taken. But for the most part, I think he is a man of honor, determined to do exactly what he promised the voter who supported him. I have no doubt that he is God's chosen man for the job at this critical time in history.

 

The larger part of what makes this a critical time is Israel's position on the world stage. That stance is becoming more front and center -more focused- with every hour that passes. This, as we have said many times in these essays, is a prime indicator, if not the prime indicator of where this generation stands on God's prophetic timeline.

 

I believe this, in conjunction with the convergence of many prophetic indicators at this late hour constitutes the number one signal that the Rapture of the Church is very near.

 

After all that positive assessment of President Trump to this point, I must project an exhortation, almost an admonishment, in his direction. Rather, more to the point, I am issuing such to a select few people who orbit him, on a personal basis, I'm presuming.

 

I'll mention five men specifically. These, I believe, have a responsibility the Lord Himself appointed for influencing this president. Each, I know absolutely, has biblical knowledge of God's Word regarding the wind-up of human history. They must, if they have opportunity-and I have no doubt they do have opportunity-inform Mr. Trump, in detail, what Bible prophecy has to say about anyone dealing with Israel.

 

These men whom I believe have this responsibility are Franklin Graham, Dr. Robert Jeffress, Dr. David Jeremiah, and Mike Huckabee. One other might be Jerry Falwell, Jr. Each is thoroughly familiar with the futurist view of biblical prophecy. Each understands Israel's role in the final disposition of prophetic fulfillment.

 

I'm not certain about Huckabee as to how in-depth is his stance on prophetic details regarding Israel. Sadly, Southern Baptist seminaries are now egregiously weak in prophecy teaching. Huckabee, however, was inculcated as a budding Southern Baptist minister when that denomination was on the money in God's truth surrounding eschatology. Falwell surely must adhere to his late father's viewpoint in matters concerning Israel's future.

 

These people have apparently been embraced as evangelical leaders friendly to and accepted by the president. Thus, their responsibility to advise him is profound.

 

My reason for addressing the matter stems from President Trump's meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Trump's subsequent comments. The following news excerpt frames my concern.

 

US President Donald Trump is mulling the option to hold a peace conference in the Middle East in an effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, after speaking on Friday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas...

 

"The president emphasized his personal belief that peace is possible and that the time has come to make a deal," the White House said...

 

"The president noted that such a deal would not only give Israelis and Palestinians the peace and security they deserve, but that it would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world," the White House clarified. (Source: Trump Mulls Middle East Peace Conference, Annette News -Israel news by Orly Azoulay & Elior Levy, 3/12/17)

 

So, the question comes: What's wrong with the president of the United States trying to make peace?

 

Another question: Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will inherit the earth"?

 

The problem isn't the effort at peacemaking by Mr Trump or anyone else. The problem is that the attempt at making peace between Israel and her enemies always involves Israel having to give up its land for peace-something that God says will bring mankind to the battle of Armageddon.

 

For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. (Joel 3: 1-2)

 

God will not abide the dividing of His land-which the world, in effect, has already done. To further divide the land, after God has brought the Jews back from dispersion will, undoubtedly, be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

God's Word prophesies about peace deals that involves His chosen people and nation He forewarns His people, Israel:

 

Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves... And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. (Isaiah 28: 15, 18)

 

Antichrist will make that final peace deal with Israel (read Daniel 9: 26-27). The results, as you see from Isaiah's prophecy, will be catastrophic for Israel. Joel, in his prophecy, makes it clear that it will be equally disastrous for the whole world.

 

President Trump, like all presidents before him, receives daily briefings on the important matters he must consider. There is no matter more important than the way he deals with this nation so close to God's great heart.

 

The gentlemen I've mentioned have an awesome responsibility to give the president the most important briefing he will ever receive: forewarning from God's prophetic Word regarding Israel.

 

Trump's greatest deal - By Caroline B. Glick - http://jewishworldreview.com/0317/glick032317.php3#QRFeWPXxokzbp4Lc.99

 

What can be done about Iran? In Israel, a dispute is reportedly raging between the IDF and the Mossad about the greatest threat facing Israel. IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot thinks that Hezbollah is the greatest threat facing Israel. Mossad Director Yossi Cohen thinks Iran's nuclear program is the greatest danger facing the Jewish state.

 

While the media highlight the two men's disagreement, the underlying truth about their concerns has been ignored.

 

Hezbollah and Iran's nuclear program are two aspects of the same threat: the regime in Tehran.

 

Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the regime. If the regime disappeared, Hezbollah would fall apart. As for the nuclear installations, in the hands of less fanatical leaders, they would represent a far less acute danger to global security.

 

So if you undermine the Iranian regime, you defeat Hezbollah and defuse the nuclear threat.

 

If you fail to deal with the regime in Tehran, both threats will continue to grow no matter what you do, until they become all but insurmountable.

 

So what can be done about Tehran? With each passing day we discover new ways Iran endangers Israel and the rest of the region.

 

This week we learned Iran has built underground weapons factories in Lebanon. The facilities are reportedly capable of building missiles, drones, small arms and ammunition. Their underground location protects them from aerial bombardment.

 

Then there is Hezbollah's relationship to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

 

For more than a decade, the Americans have been selling themselves the implausible claim that the LAF is a responsible fighting force capable and willing to rein in Hezbollah. Never an easy claim - the LAF provided targeting information to Hezbollah missile crews attacking Israel in 2006 - after Hezbollah domesticated the Lebanese government in 2008, the claim became downright silly. And yet, over the past decade, the US has provided the LAF with weapons worth in excess of $1 billion. In 2016 alone the US gave the LAF jets, helicopters, armored personnel carriers and missiles worth more than $220 million.

 

In recent months, showing that Iran no longer feels the need to hide its control over Lebanon, the LAF has openly stated that it is working hand in glove with Hezbollah.

 

Last November, Hezbollah showcased US M113 armored personnel carriers with roof-mounted Russian anti-aircraft guns, at a military parade in Syria. The next month the Americans gave the LAF a Hellfire missile-equipped Cessna aircraft with day and night targeting systems.

 

Lebanon's President Michel Aoun is a Hezbollah ally. So is Defense Minister Yaacoub Sarraf and LAF commander Gen. Joseph Aoun.

 

Last month President Aoun told Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, that Hezbollah serves "a complementary role to the Lebanese army."

 

And yet the Americans insist that it continues to make sense - and to be lawful - to arm the LAF.

 

You can hardly blame them. Denial is an attractive option, given the alternatives.

 

For the past eight years, the Obama administration did everything in its power to empower Iran. To make Iran happy, Obama did nothing as hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed and millions more were forced to flee their homes by Iran and its puppet Bashar Assad.

 

Obama allowed Iran to take over the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military. He sat back as Iran's Houthi proxy overthrew the pro-US regime in Yemen.

 

And of course, the crowning achievement of Obama's foreign policy was his nuclear deal with the mullahs. Obama's deal gives Iran an open path to a nuclear arsenal in a bit more than a decade and enriches the regime beyond Ayatollah Khamenei's wildest dreams.

 

Obama empowered Iran at the expense of the US's Sunni allies and Israel, and indeed, at the expense of the US's own superpower status in the region, to enable the former president to withdraw the US from the Middle East.

 

Power of course, doesn't suffer a vacuum, and the one that Obama created was quickly filled.

 

For decades, Russia has been Iran's major arms supplier. It has assisted Iran with its nuclear program and with its ballistic missile program. Russia serves as Iran's loyal protector at the UN Security Council.

 

But for all the help it provided Tehran through the years, Moscow never presented itself as Iran's military defender.

 

That all changed in September 2015. Two months after Obama cut his nuclear deal with the ayatollahs, Russia deployed its forces to Syria on behalf of Iran and its Syrian and Lebanese proxies.

 

In so doing, Russia became the leading member and the protector of the Iranian axis.

 

Russia's deployment of forces had an immediate impact not only on the war in Syria, but on the regional power balance as a whole. With Russia serving as the air force for Iran and its Syrian and Hezbollah proxies, the Assad regime's chances of survival increased dramatically. So did Iran's prospects for regional hegemony.

 

For Obama, this situation was not without its advantages.

 

In his final year in office, Obama's greatest concern was ensuring that his nuclear deal with Iran would outlive his presidency. Russia's deployment in Syria as the protector of Iran and its proxies was a means of achieving this end.

 

Russia's alliance with Iran made attacking Iran's nuclear program or its Hezbollah proxy a much more dangerous prospect than it had been before.

 

After all, in 2006, Russia supported Iran and Hezbollah in their war against Israel. But Russia's support for Iran and its Lebanese legion didn't diminish Israel's operational freedom. Israel was able to wage war without any fear that its operations would place it in a direct confrontation with the Russian military.

 

This changed in September 2015.

 

The first person to grasp the strategic implications of the Russian move was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu recognized that with Russian forces on the ground in Syria, the only way for Israel to take even remedial measures to protect itself from Iran and its proxies was to drive a wedge between President Vladimir Putin and the ayatollahs wide enough to enable Israel to continue its raids against weapons convoys to Hezbollah and other targets without risking a confrontation with Russia. This is the reason that Netanyahu boarded a flight to Moscow to speak to Putin almost immediately after the Russian leader deployed his forces to Syria.

 

Israel's ability to continue to strike targets in Syria, whether along the border on the Golan Heights or deep within Syrian territory, is a function of Netanyahu's success in convincing Putin to limit his commitment to his Iranian allies.

 

Since President Donald Trump entered the White House, Iran has been his most urgent foreign policy challenge. Unlike Obama, Trump recognizes that Iran's nuclear program and its threats to US economic and strategic interests in the Persian Gulf and the Levant cannot be wished away.

 

And so he has decided to deal with Iran.

 

The question is, what is he supposed to do? Trump has three basic options.

 

He can cut a deal with Russia. He can act against Iran without cutting a deal with Russia. And he can do nothing, or anemically maintain Obama's pro-Iran policies.

 

The first option has the greatest potential strategic payoff. If Trump can convince Russia to ditch Iran, then he has a chance of dismantling the regime in Tehran and so defusing the Iranian nuclear program and destroying Hezbollah without having to fight a major war.

 

The payoff to Russia for agreeing to such a deal would be significant. But if Trump were to adopt this policy, the US has a lot of bargaining chips that it can use to convince Putin to walk away from the ayatollahs long enough for the US to defuse the threat they pose to its interests.

 

The problem with the Russia strategy is that since Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential race, the Democrats, their allied media outlets and powerful forces in the US intelligence community have been beset by a Russia hysteria unseen since the Red scares in the 1920s and 1950s.

 

The fact that Obama bent over backward to cater to Putin's interests for eight years has been pushed down the memory hole.

 

Also ignored is the fact that during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton approved deals with the Russians that were arguably antithetical to US interests while the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from Russian businessmen and companies closely allied with Putin.

 

Since November 8, the Democrats and their clapping seals in the media and allies in the US intelligence community have banged the war drums against Russia, accusing Trump and his advisers of serving as Russian patsies at best, and Russian agents at worst.

 

In this climate, it would be politically costly for Trump to implement a Russian-based strategy for dismantling the Iranian threat.

 

This brings us to the second option, which is to confront Iran and Russia. Under this option, US action against Iran could easily cause hostilities to break out between the US and Russia. It goes without saying that the political fallout from making a deal with Russia would be nothing compared to the political consequences if Trump were to take the US down a path that led to war with Russia.

 

Obviously, the economic and human costs of such a confrontation would be prohibitive regardless of the political consequences.

 

This leaves us with the final option of doing nothing, or anemically continuing to implement Obama's policies, as the Americans are doing today.

 

Although tempting, the hard truth is that this is the most dangerous policy of all.

 

You need only look to North Korea to understand why this is so.

 

Seemingly on a daily basis, Pyongyang threatens to nuke America. And the US has no good options for dealing with the threat.

 

Spying on a President by a "president" - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com

 

James Rosen of Fox News reports that Capitol Hill sources claim "

 

The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the [Sic] former administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources. The key to that conclusion is the unmasking of selected U.S. persons whose names appeared in the intelligence, the sources said, adding that the paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration." This information comes on the heels of a news conference by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, (R-CA), documenting the ex "president" spied on the President-Elect.

 

Nunes dropped a bombshell saying, "I recently confirmed on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about US persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting...I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked...None of the surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team." In other words, the ex "president" and his minions spied on President-elect Donald Trump and shared the information across many intelligence agencies. Now Fox News sources claim the ex-"president" intended to damage the incoming presidency.

 

This entire ruse that Russia somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to alter the election is ridiculous. Americans voted and the Russians did not hack voting machines to change election results. This ruse is being used to accrue very publicly reported investigation after investigation insinuating that Trump and Russia have some plan to undermine America. The real intent is for Trump opposition to incrementally reduce his credibility with the public and prevent him from governing as elected. If you look at who had pre-election deals with Russia, Hillary Clinton and the ex-"president" would be poster children. Hundreds of millions of dollars exchanged hands between Russia and the Clinton Foundation when Clinton was Secretary of State in the ex-"president's" administration, and these deals were supported by the ex-"president."

 

A short list while Clinton was Secretary of State: Nuclear grade uranium to Russia scoring $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton's $500,000 speech in Moscow, Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's $35 million energy deal with Russia, Clinton Foundation receipt of $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, head of Russia's uranium company, and the list goes on and on. The more the ex-"president" and his minions deny spying on the Trump transition team, the more we will find they spied. The more they push Russian ties with Trump, the more deals they did with Russia themselves. This is all an effort to foment rebellion and inability to govern. As said in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." This is some of the worst deception of this generation.

 

Gorsuch - Abortion, same sex marriage "settled law," sort of - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com

 

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was pretty coy during confirmation hearings when asked about same sex marriage and abortion. Senator Charles Grassely, (R-IA) asked if Roe was decided correctly? Gorsuch responded, "It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." He gave a similar response when Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) asked about same sex marriage, "Senator, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution." What does this tell us?

 

Gorsuch responded by stating a fact. Both these issues are settled law of the Supreme Court. But he didn't say if given the chance, he would vote to overturn them and send them back to the states. You see, neither of these issues is enumerated specifically by the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Many states, even California, overwhelmingly rejected legalizing homosexual marriage in referendums. The Supreme Court, led by leftist justices, overruled the states, even though there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution.

 

Many could correctly argue that the very keystone of our nation's formation protects the unborn. The Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." This is the social contract with all Americans. The Supreme Court in 1973 used the right to privacy to legalize killing babies in the womb. Again, another liberal court twisted the meaning of words and context away from their original intent to establish new law.

 

President Donald Trump said he would appoint Supreme Court Justices who were pro-life and, if possible, they would cause the court to reconsider Roe and allow the states to decide. He made similar comments about same-sex marriage. By limiting his answers to facts, Gorsuch signaled that he may be open to this possibility. As Christians, we do not have to participate in abortion or same-sex marriage even though it is the law. Likewise, we should not be forced to support it through our tax money. The Lord says in Deuteronomy 30:19, "...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live." And he says in Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination." Gorsuch's answers left room for hope of a return to God's settled law.

 

 Gorsuch and the Supreme Court hearings - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com

 

The circus begins as the Senate vets Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch. Certainly, the standards for Gorsuch will be much higher than it was for the two communist sympathizers Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who also are arguably the two most public supporters of the gay agenda in Supreme Court history. If you claim to be conservative, the criteria changes. I don't know much about Gorsuch, but I do know that what we will hear as a nation in the next few days will be mostly grandstanding by Senators, including off-the-wall accusations that grab headlines and fire up the already inflamed sensory of both liberals and conservatives alike. A little truth makes a better lie.

 

Already, Christians and their organizations have conducted email campaigns raising doubts about Gorsuch because of the churches he has attended. He reportedly was raised Roman Catholic and attends a very liberal Episcopalian congregation whose female pastor supports gay marriage. What can we really draw from that? Roman Catholic roots would tell us that on most issues he is conservative-religious freedom, right to life, privacy. Episcopalians are more liberal, perhaps splitting on right to life. Both churches are pretty liberal on issues of homosexuality. This is probably a picture of what we have with Gorsuch-conservative on protecting life and religious freedom; Liberal on homosexuality.

 

It would be nice, irrespective of Gorsuch's personal opinions, if he would interpret the Constitution the way that the Bible should be interpreted-from the meaning of the words and the context in which they are written. Gorsuch is supposed to replace Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the high court. Gorsuch is not Scalia. He is also not who would have been appointed if Donald Trump was not president. If the election had gone the other way, we may have the likes of a judge like Derrick Watson, the Hawaii District Court Judge who twists the meaning of words and appears to interpret the dictionary as a living document-just like he would the Constitution.

 

Trump may get an opportunity to appoint another two justices. His appointments could change the way law is interpreted for generations to come. It is important that whomever he chooses is able to read words for what they are and interpret the law in the context it was written, especially the Constitution. For far too long, both Republican and Democratic justices have strayed from the original context, making America more and more a social democracy than a Constitutional Republic. We need guardians of the Constitution on the Supreme Court, not esoteric-minded political hacks. Let's pray for Gorsuch to be such a guardian. May he be an Amos 5:24 judge who lets "judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." 

 

 When judges undermine the law - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com

 

A Harvard classmate of the ex "president" and nominated to the court by the ex "president," Hawaii US District Court Judge Derrick Watson was the one who ruled against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on terrorist sponsoring nations. The ex "president" reportedly made an unexpected trip to Honolulu two days before Watson ruled, causing widespread speculation of a backroom deal. Watson's ruling postulates that Hawaiian universities and tourism overrules security concerns. Pearl Harbor victims might have something to say about that. Watson also infers that Muslim clerics have the Constitutional right to bring anyone they want into the US, whether they have visas or not. But there is more.

 

Central to Watson's ruling was consideration to the plaintiff, who claimed, discrimination to his family in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right among other things, "to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin." The plaintiff is Dr. Ismail Elshikh, a local Hawaiian Imam whose mother is a Syrian national "without a visa, who last visited the family in Hawaii in 2005." She would be barred from entering the US unless granted a waiver. Further, Watson said the state of Hawaii's universities would "suffer monetary damages and intangible harms" and the state would lose revenue "due to a decline in tourism" because of the executive order.

 

Watson admitted that Trump's executive order contains no express reference to any religion, nor does it "contain any term or phrase that can be reasonably characterized as having a religious origin or connotation." But Watson says, "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed." The judge also cited instances when Candidate Trump said he would ban Muslims until they were fully vetted. So the judge included in his decision to issue a restraining order on the ban because Trump, before he was elected, referred to the action as a Muslim ban.

 

Watson contends by his statements that non-US citizens living abroad have US Constitutional rights. Overall, he ignored the law. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 specifically states in Section 212: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." The Lord said in Luke 16:10, "...he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." Judge Watson has undermined the law and the Constitution. He should be removed from his position.