Argentina Says Public Transport Must State: ‘The Falklands Are Argentine’


Argentina Says Public Transport Must State: ‘The Falklands Are Argentine’

All Argentine public transportation must display signs stating “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” (“the Falkland Islands are Argentine”), according to a law passed November 20. The Argentine senator behind the initiative, Teresina Luna, said it would reflect “our undeniable sovereignty” over the islands.

This new law is “directed not only at the foreigner who comes here as a tourist or visits our country, but also at the citizens in general and will serve to reinforce our history, our culture, and our identity,” Luna said. All public vehicles of rail, water, road and air must display the newly approved sign.

This sign initiative is an attempt to feed public opinion in Argentina that Britain illegally controls the Falkland Islands. It shows the Argentine government’s open contempt for Britain and even for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom Foreign Office said the move was “regrettable but not surprising.”

In October, the British Royal Navy conducted live ammunition training off the Falkland Islands. hms Iron Duke fired 136 rounds in the training maneuver in what a British Ministry of Defense spokesperson said “was part of a routine training schedule planned long in advance.” Argentina’s Foreign Ministry described the exercise as “further provocation on the part of the United Kingdom government in an attempt to demonstrate the British warship’s firepower. The Argentine Republic rejects, in the strongest possible terms, the execution of naval and military exercises in an Argentine territory that is illegally occupied by the UK. This act constitutes an unjustified show of force.”

In a 2013 referendum, Falkland islanders voted almost unanimously to remain under British control. Of the 1,516 voters, only three opposed. The Falklands have been a British overseas territory since 1833. In 1982, Argentina attempted a forceful takeover of the Islands, but Britain’s “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher, unwilling to lose the important South Atlantic sea gate, repelled and drove out the Argentines.

The new law requiring “Falklands are Argentine” signs is just the latest in a string of political maneuvers by Argentina to force Britain to give up the islands. Regular Trumpet readers know the prophecies showing that Britain will eventually lose this strategic sea gate. For further understanding, read “Changing the Guard” and “Britain’s Last Strands of Empire.

Hong Kong—the End of Freedom Begins

China’s tightening grip should concern ‘anyone in any country.’

Read More

Military Encounters Between Russia and the West on the Rise


Military Encounters Between Russia and the West on the Rise

Military encounters between Russia and the West have increased dramatically in recent months, according to a report released in early November. The report released by European Leadership Network (eln) documents 40 of Russia’s instigated incidents over the last eight months, and says military tension between nato and Russia has not been higher since the Cold War ended.

“These events add up to a highly disturbing picture of violations of national airspace, emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided midair collisions, close encounters at sea, simulated attack runs and other dangerous actions happening on a regular basis over a very wide geographical area,” the report’s executive summary states.

The world has been fixated on the Ukrainian crisis, but this report shows that Russian aggression extends far beyond the borders of Ukraine.

At an event to mark the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev said, “The world is on the brink of a new cold war. Some are even saying that it’s already begun.”

So far this year, nato nations have conducted more than 100 intercepts of Russian aircraft—three times more than 2013. Most of these intercepts have occurred in the Baltic Sea region, but some have been oceans away from Russia.

So far this year, NATO nations have conducted more than 100 intercepts of Russian aircraft—three times more than 2013.
In September, for example, Russian bombers practiced cruise missile strikes on the U.S. from the Labrador Sea near Canada. While the aircraft didn’t enter Canadian airspace, the report said it “was still a provocative move in light of the nato summit ongoing at the time.” Cruise missiles launched from that location would have New York, Washington and Chicago within their range.

According to the eln, this is “the first time since the end of the Cold War that Russia has been rather openly treating nato and its partners as potential opponents, training accordingly and testing our defenses.”

Russia is expanding its show of military might past the European continent. Russia announced it will be sending long-range bombers to patrol North American waters including the Gulf of Mexico. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said, “In the current situation, we need to secure our military presence in the western part of the Atlantic, eastern part of the Pacific oceans and the waters of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.”

In another display of military power, President Putin sent four navy vessels toward Australia in time for the commencement of the G-20 meeting. They anchored just outside Australian waters, but not before Australian Navy frigates were sent to monitor them. “Russia is being much more assertive now than it has been for a very long time,” Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said at a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

While some say President Putin leaving the G-20 summit was a sign of weakness, recent events prove the opposite. President Putin is displaying his military power to the world. Read editor in chief Gerald’s Flurry’s article “Vladimir Putin Is the Prophesied Prince of Russia” to understand where Putin’s aggression is leading.

Hong Kong—the End of Freedom Begins

China’s tightening grip should concern ‘anyone in any country.’

Read More

No Indictment—and Toxic Racial Thinking in Ferguson


No Indictment—and Toxic Racial Thinking in Ferguson

As Ferguson police work to prevent protests from becoming violent, think about what this reveals about the state of America’s race relations.

It was announced Monday night that a grand jury determined not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting Michael Brown last August. The jury found that Wilson shot Brown in the line of duty under credible threat against his own life. Immediately, protests began in cities across the nation.

In Ferguson, Missouri, where the event occurred, the protests quickly descended into violence. More than 25 structures and 10 cars were set on fire. Officers reported facing heavy automatic gunfire, and protesters throwing molotov cocktails. One reporter was attacked by someone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, another was hit in the head with a rock during a live broadcast, and another was chased off air by gunfire. Vandalism and looting were rampant, with even the store that Michael Brown had robbed before he was killed being looted. The Federal Aviation Administration began diverting some St. Louis-bound flights to other airports due to the reports of gunshots. At least 61 people were arrested on charges ranging from trespassing to burglary to receiving stolen property. Police also deployed tear gas on at least one location to contain rioting.

Consider why this mayhem is happening. Think about the incredibly toxic ideas that are turning this into such a volatile moment.

There are Americans who believe the reason this white policeman killed this young black man is pure racial animus. They are sure that at the time of the killing, the black man was raising his hands in surrender, posing no threat; the policeman shot him in cold blood out of murderous hatred for blacks.

They further believe that there exists a pattern of such attacks—that blacks face regular if not continual harassment from authorities and citizens across the country—that young black men must fear, even for their lives, from whites (or even, in the case of George Zimmerman, “white Hispanics”) who are looking for any pretext to go after them.

They further believe that the grand jury’s acquittal is based on racial hostility alone. Their mistrust of and cynicism about the justice system is so deep that they are certain the jury did not rule based on facts and evidence, but in spite of facts and evidence. They know that the only reason Wilson was found innocent is the system’s inherently racist nature.

These views are held by a lot of Americans. This type of thinking is producing a lot of anger and hostility. In a statement shortly after the grand jury announcement was made, President Barack Obama said, “[T]here are Americans who are deeply upset, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction.”

Among those who believe all of that, there are some who are are so sure of these convictions, so certain of the system’s innate anti-black bigotry, that they are ready to rise up in violent protest. Not directly, specifically against police officers or government officials that they have proven to be racist, but against authority in general—and even against society in general. They believe the injustice they have been dealt is so egregious that they are justified at lashing out at virtually anything—smashing shop windows, looting stores, creating general mayhem.

Surely the number of Americans who follow such “reasoning,” as it were, are very few. But they are numerous enough to arrest the attention of media and law enforcement, and countless others of us who are apprehensive about what they are about to do. And truth be told, this is not unwarranted apprehension; it has been built over time in recent years, incident by indiscriminately violent incident.

Further, that group of toxic, non-thinking Americans, however small, is legitimized, unapologetically, by many quite-mainstream political, academic and media voices. These supposedly enlightened thinkers insist that violent racial protests and outbursts are, if not justifiable, certainly understandable, given the oppression that blacks face within American society.

We must acknowledge that America has come to recognize and accept an extraordinary level of wholly irrational, dangerously noxious racial animosity as simply a part of life in this country.

This is not a situation that will blow over when the Ferguson protests die out. According to biblical prophecy, it is building to a nation-destroying crisis point.

To learn about that future, read Gerald Flurry’s recent article on the subject, “Where America’s Race Riots Are Leading.”

20190722_Deepika Phone-8506810_B.jpg

Your Most Important Relationship

Learn what the Bible reveals about who and what God is!

Read More

Lone-Wolf Attacks in Israel?

Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images

Lone-Wolf Attacks in Israel?

The latest spike in violence in Israel has garnered a new name from the left-wing media: “lone-wolf” attacks. Further peddling the agenda of the biased media, this term is deceitful at best, murderous at worst.

Here is a quick update of attacks this month in Israel:

  • An Israel Defense Force (idf) soldier was stabbed in Tel Aviv.
  • Hours later, a woman was stabbed to death and two others were wounded in the same attack.
  • A woman and child were killed in a hit-and-run.
  • Three idf soldiers were seriously injured by another hit-and-run.
  • Most recently, five Jews were killed by shooting or being hacked to death in a synagogue.
  • All these attacks were perpetrated by Palestinians. All happened during November.

    Yet the news media was quick to label the latest murders as a “lone-wolf” attack. Such has been the predictable terminology with each event, despite the obvious similarities in both perpetrators and their means of killing.

    Using the term “lone wolf” creates a scapegoat out of the murderers, alleviating blame from the shoulders of those it should rightly be placed upon: the Palestinian leadership.

    Consider the flaw in the term “lone wolf.” Taken from nature, a lone wolf is one driven from the pack. Typically, younger wolves are driven out by the breeding pair, forced to go it alone until they are accepted into a pack. This is the problem: The “lone wolves” that carried out the attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv this month are not alone.

    As a matter of fact, they have the full support of the wolf pack!

    Take the latest incident. What did Hamas do when the murders took place? It cheered and handed out candy in the streets! Does that sound like these murderers were shunned or driven from the pack? One Hamas spokesman responded to the attack by saying it was “heroic” and that “we have the full right to revenge for the blood of our martyrs in all possible means.” Notice the term “we.” This isn’t some one-off occasion by a single person.

    “We” is plural. “We” refers to a group. Hamas ties itself to the attacks at the very least by condoning and inciting violence against Israel—not to mention participating in any way it can.

    That said, it may well be that the two individuals involved didn’t plan their attacks in conjunction with Hamas. This, however, doesn’t deny that this attack is just one of a series of attacks by different wolves.

    Let’s go back to the original lone wolf. In the wild, a lone wolf doesn’t hunt big game. It can’t bring down an elk by itself. A pack, however, is a different story. This is what we are seeing in Jerusalem. It may be that individual wolves are attacking, but they are by no means alone. And they are all after the same prey: Israel.

    The affiliations these murderers have to radical Muslim groups such as Hamas—coupled with the collective, ultimate goal of destroying Israel—moves these attacks out of the “lone wolf” status.

    While Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas can claim he doesn’t support the bloodshed we saw on Tuesday, his own advisers say otherwise. In a statement on Palestinian Media Watch, Abbas’s adviser, Mahmoud al Habbash, said, “We are behind them. The leadership is with them …. [W]e are with them in every movement, in every action and every deed.” Doesn’t that sound to you like the howl of a pack, not a lone wolf?

    The term “lone wolf” has been peddled constantly by the news media in the latest violence in Israel. It works to avoid the subject of Palestinian extremists within the very organizations the United States and other Western nations are attempting to work with. The U.S., in particular, has been pushing for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. To acknowledge that the latest attacks are anything but “lone-wolf” attacks would be to admit that the PA and similar groups are not interested in peaceful negotiations—just the destruction of Israel.

    If you want to know more about the wolf pack attacks on Israel, read our article “A Third Intifada in Jerusalem—Happening Now?


    Why America Needs to Beware Modern Assyria

    Just as it did anciently, Germany will soon shock America and the world.

    Read More

    Rock, Paper, Cleavers: The Game Israel Can’t Win

    Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images

    Rock, Paper, Cleavers: The Game Israel Can’t Win

    Can Israel hope to stem the rising tide of violence in Jerusalem?

    Jerusalem bore witness to yet another bloody terrorist attack on Jews by local Arabs. Tuesday’s attack left five dead and many more wondering how to stem the increasing number of seemingly random attacks.

    Since the second intifada ended in 2005, Israel has effectively prevented further mass casualties from bombings. However, the installation of checkpoints and massive walls have not stopped the Arab populace from finding new ways to take Israeli lives.

    Recent events highlight Israel’s inability to stem the tide of attacks on its citizens and rid the nation of Muslim extremists.


    Palestinians have recently been using hit-and-run tactics to instill terror: Vehicles are now weapons. Thirteen people were injured and two killed on November 5 when a van plowed into a group at a train station. The same day, a Palestinian ran down three Israeli soldiers with a car. These attacks came two weeks after a woman and baby were killed in a similar car attack by a Palestinian terrorist.

    In an effort to curb the attacks, concrete barriers have been placed around train stations and hitchhiking points. Such obstacles are designed to impede the terrorists, but they cannot stop them. Realistically, you cannot defend every pedestrian on every street corner with concrete blocks.

    This fact hints at the broader scope of the problem. Just what is Israel attempting to defend against? It isn’t a “lone wolf” or a hapless driver. These are coordinated attacks carried out by Palestinians born, raised and incited to violence in the house next door. In these kinds of attacks, preventative measures like road blocks or walls simply cannot protect everyone. Can Israel ban Palestinians from driving?


    So preventative measures can only deter, not stop. What about a diplomatic solution? Can the Palestinian Authority be reasoned with? Well, the fact that the PA recently formed a unity government with Hamas should be indication enough. When Hamas heard the news of last week’s synagogue attack, it celebrated in the streets, cheering and handing out candy.

    Rather than a means of quelling violence, Hamas and the PA actively incite it. Hamas, in particular, denies Israel’s right to exist, and calls for armed resistance against the nation. The PA chooses to tone down its words, but not much. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas called for a “day of rage” in Jerusalem, and called on Palestinians to defend al-Aqsa Mosque after a police raid on the site.

    The raid, of course, turned up hordes of stones and Molotov cocktails for future clashes.

    Reasoning with terrorists will get Israel nowhere. The Palestinian leadership may condemn the occasional attack, but its history of incitement proves that negotiations won’t stop them.


    Armed with axes, cleavers and guns, two Palestinians butchered five Jews in a Jerusalem synagogue before being killed in a shootout with police. The weapons of choice highlight the same problem the concrete roadblocks do: Israel cannot defend against it. Restricting guns is obvious, but banning axes and knives? Just as a car, in and of itself, doesn’t kill, an ax remains a tool and not a weapon when in the right hands.

    But Israel is under attack from within. While the country may do its best to defend its citizens, opportunities to attack and cause terror are virtually endless. A hate-filled Palestinian who walks the same streets as a Jew has the means to carry out a terrorist attack—just not one with explosives or high-powered weapons. Instead, Palestinians are fighting with stones, Molotov cocktails, knives, cars and handguns. To stem these attacks, Israel would need to address the greater Palestinian population living in Israeli society—another impossible task.

    In the game of rock, paper cleaver, can Israel hope for a good outcome? Is there a future that doesn’t involve a life of fear in Jerusalem?

    There certainly is. Jerusalem has been in turmoil and conflict for centuries, but a time is coming when Jerusalem won’t be thought of as a city of violence, but as the center of world peace. It can be hard to see when you look at the grisly news in the papers today, but why not look to your Bible and the prophecy therein. There you can see that, while dark days remain ahead, Jerusalem’s ultimate future is one that will inspire hope throughout the universe!

    If you would like somewhere to start in your study of Jerusalem’s future, read our free booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.


    Fueling an Empire

    Massive trade deals with South America and Africa give Europe the resources it needs.

    Read More

    The Day of the Lord Hastens Greatly

    The book of Revelation describes in detail a time just ahead of us: ‘the day of the Lord.’