Great Again

Great Again

iStock.com/trekandshoot

America is going to become great again, but not the way millions of Americans think.
From the February 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

I just promoted my new booklet Great Again on television for the first time. This booklet was published in the summer of 2016. President-elect Donald Trump published a book with the same title at about the same time! When my new booklet went to press, I knew nothing about Mr. Trump’s book. It was originally titled Crippled America. He changed the name to Great Again.

Is this scenario just coincidence? I don’t think so.

People need to compare the two books. Both are about America becoming great again. But they are polar opposites in how that will be achieved.

America is now faced with a choice. My booklet is based on Bible prophecy. It is the only message that can and will prevail—and you can prove it. God has set before us a choice between life and death (Deuteronomy 30:19). My booklet Daniel Unlocks Revelation proves that this scripture is prophecy for today.

A few writers and commentators are beginning to see something is dreadfully wrong with America.

In her last Wall Street Journal column before voters went to the polls in the 2016 presidential election, Peggy Noonan wrote, “A closing thought: God is in charge of history. He asks us to work, to try, to pour ourselves out to make things better. But He is an actor in history also. He chastises and rescues; He intervenes in ways seen and unseen. Or chooses not to. 2016 looks to me like a chastisement. He’s trying to get our attention. We have candidates we can’t be proud of. We must choose among the embarrassments. What might we be doing as a nation and a people that would have earned this moment?” (Nov. 3, 2016; emphasis mine throughout).

This writer works for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world.

Peggy Noonan does not believe Donald Trump will make America great again. She thinks he is some kind of strong correction from God!

She believes that God “chastises” for our sins.

We can all see that Mr. Trump has promised to deal with some serious problems in America. Millions of Americans are excited about that. And they have a right to be.

After the election, Ms. Noonan softened her view and expressed some optimism about a Trump presidency.

But she was correct before: Mr. Trump is going to turn Americans even more away from God. She was also right in saying that we have brought this chastisement upon ourselves—by looking to men instead of God and His Bible.

However, she did not explain how or why. My new booklet explains how God’s chastisement is going to play a major role in making America great again! In fact, America is soon to become greater than it ever has been in the past—by far!

Ms. Noonan also said that God istrying to get our attention.” The Bible relates how God has done that throughout history. But it takes more than just being chastised to get our attention. We must know that God teaches us why we are chastised—what kind of changes are required. And most important of all, we must see it’s coming from a loving God. He also warns us before He chastises, telling us how to avoid being chastised.

That is precisely what our new booklet—Great Again—explains. (Request a copy. All of our literature is free.)

God has led us to warn America, Britain and the Jewish nation for over 80 years. He has given us ample new revelation from the Bible that you can prove.

God is trying to get these nations’ attention through this new booklet and all of our messages. That is the only way God will keep us from being chastised as no other people on Earth ever have been.

Here is a short excerpt from our Great Again booklet:

America has been the world’s only superpower for decades now. After World War ii, it assumed the mantle of the greatest power on Earth from Great Britain. The time that these two nations have been preeminent in the world has been remarkably peaceful. As historian Andrew Roberts wrote, “War has been the almost constant lot of mankind since the days of Rome, yet the English-speaking peoples have presided over a longer period of peace between the Great Powers than at any time since the Dark Ages” (A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900). Winston Churchill said in 1938, “It is the English-speaking nations who, almost alone, keep alight the torch of freedom.”

In the second half of the 20th century, Britain fell from being a globe-girdling empire to being an isolated, middle-rate power. Now, America is following the same course. Darkness is descending on the long, historically extraordinary Anglo-American age.

History teaches that world orders don’t last. They come and they go.

Many people are celebrating America’s loss of power. But the world is about to find out what kind of nightmares occur when other, more violent nations fill the void that America is leaving behind. This planet is about to experience a short, shocking period of unimaginable brutality and barbarism.

In September 2006, President George W. Bush tried to get the world’s most powerful leaders to sign a document condemning Iran (and its puppet Syria) for causing the current Middle East conflict. The whole world knows that Iran is the primary sponsor of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. But Russia, China and other nations said there was no evidence to support such a view!

Russia and China are America’s enemies. Will we ever stop believing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words and judge him by his actions? Do we ever practice the biblical statement “by their fruits you shall know them”? If we don’t know our enemies by their deeds, our nation is in grave danger.

History also thunders that message.

Mr. Trump and the Russian Trap

The new American president has expressed a fondness for Vladimir Putin. Mr. Trump also believes he can work with him. Barack Obama had similar views, and he was humiliated and shown to be an extremely weak spectacle before the world for eight years.

Did Mr. Trump learn anything from that wretched history?

Putin is setting a deadly trap for President Trump, just as he did for Barack Obama.

Charles Krauthammer, one of America’s outstanding foreign-policy analysts, wrote on Dec. 1, 2016: “The autocracies are back and rising; democracy is on the defensive; the U.S. is in retreat. Look no further than Aleppo. A Western-backed resistance to a local tyrant—he backed by a resurgent Russia, an expanding Iran and an array of proxy Shiite militias—is on the brink of annihilation. Russia drops bombs; America issues statements [as groups of little children beg for their lives!].

“What better symbol for the end of that heady liberal-democratic historical moment. The West is turning inward and going home, leaving the field to the rising authoritarians—Russia, China and Iran. …

“As for China, the other great challenger to the post-Cold War order, the administration’s ‘pivot’ has turned into an abject failure. The Philippines openly defected to the Chinese side. Malaysia then followed. And the rest of our Asian allies are beginning to hedge their bets. …

“The West’s retreat began with Obama, who reacted to (perceived) post-9/11 overreach by abandoning Iraq, offering appeasement (‘reset’) to Russia, and accommodating Iran. In 2009, he refused even rhetorical support to the popular revolt against the rule of the ayatollahs.

Donald Trump wants to continue the pullback, though for entirely different reasons.”

Charles Krauthammer doesn’t think Mr. Trump is going to make America great again. He believes just the opposite.

My new booklet has chapters illustrating why Russia is so devious and dangerous. It has been planning America’s destruction for over 70 years. It is clearly documented history that is painful to read. That is especially true because our people are ignorant of that history.

Secretary of State—Putin’s Friend

Several U.S. senators are deeply concerned about Mr. Trump’s selection for secretary of state, Exxon Mobil ceo Rex Tillerson.

Here is a press release from Sen. Marco Rubio’s office regarding the choice: “While Rex Tillerson is a respected businessman, I have serious concerns about his nomination. The next secretary of state must be someone who views the world with moral clarity, is free of potential conflicts of interest, has a clear sense of America’s interests, and will be a forceful advocate for America’s foreign-policy goals to the president, within the administration, and on the world stage” (Dec. 13, 2016).

What are these foreign-policy goals going to be? Will America know who its real enemies are and take a strong stand against them?

The secretary of state will be giving the U.S. president direct information from other world leaders. Sen. Lindsey Graham believes that Trump and Tillerson are naive about Russia.

“Mr. Tillerson is a talented businessman with a great deal of international business experience,” Senator Graham said. “Based upon his extensive business dealings with the Putin government and his previous opposition of efforts to impose sanctions on the Russian government [which had been put in place because of its violent conquering of other countries], there are many questions which must be answered. I expect the U.S.-Russian relationship to be front and center in his confirmation process” (Politico, Dec. 13, 2016).

Sen. John McCain is also concerned, raising questions about Mr. Tillerson’s ties to Putin. “I have concerns about what kind of business we do with a butcher, a murderer and a thug, which is exactly what Vladimir Putin is,” he told National Public Radio (Dec. 13, 2016).

Senator McCain talked about Putin’s “outrageous” actions in Syria, supporting dictator Bashar Assad. “What’s really egregious is now the precision strikes that Russian aircraft are dropping—precision weapons on hospitals in Aleppo. [T]here is no depth that these people won’t plummet,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2011, Tillerson negotiated an energy partnership with President Putin that Putin said could be worth as much as $500 billion. Soon after, Tillerson received the Russian Order of Friendship, one of the highest awards Russia gives to foreign nationals.

Vladimir Putin is indeed a butcher. He is not only a murderer but a mass murderer! He is responsible for the deaths of many thousands in his own country, the former Soviet Union and Syria.

Putin has killed thousands of innocent women and children in Syria. He has also been a major player in creating millions of refugees from that area. He is totally unconcerned about the massive and intense suffering!

Have you noticed how China and Russia have extremely close ties with terrorist-sponsoring nations? Iran is the number one terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world by far! Russia is fighting beside Iran in the Middle East and helping it build a nuclear bomb.

Syria is considered the number two terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world. Russia is Syria’s greatest protector now.

How can we ever hope to be friends with Putin as he supports the worst terrorist sponsors in the world?

We have the illusion that negotiations can solve any problem. Negotiation will never solve our problems with Vladimir Putin!

America should not even be negotiating with Putin until he stops fighting alongside the world’s worst terrorists. These terrorists are dedicated most of all to destroying America, the Jewish state and anybody else who gets in their way.

The Bible states that we have lost our “natural affection” for human rights and true freedom. If we have any morality left, how can we cozy up to such murderous monsters?

The fact that we do, speaks volumes about America and its values!

God commissioned America, Britain and the Jewish state to be champions for freedom throughout the world. That is the Bible’s message. How many of America’s leaders ever bring God and His Bible message into the picture—as our forefathers did?

Therein lies our only hope.

As Peggy Noonan said, God chastises. That is a lesson taught throughout the Bible. So brace yourselves.

In spite of all this, our new booklet shows that there is an awe-inspiring end to all of these terrifying problems.

Focus on Important

Focus on Important

iStock.com/mustafagull

Don’t fritter your most valuable asset on nonsense.
From the February 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

What if you somehow learned that you would die in a week? If you were given just seven days to think back over your life, what would be your assessment? How satisfied would you be with what you have accomplished? What would you regret having left undone?

Are you spending your life on things that make a difference? Are the truly important matters getting enough of your attention? What draws you away from these things?

Moses was contemplating these types of questions when he wrote Psalm 90: “[W]e spend our years as a tale that is told. The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (verses 9-10).

Then he drew this poignant conclusion, beseeching God: “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (verse 12). Recognize the brevity of your life, and you gain sharp clarity of thinking.

Honestly evaluate how you are using your days, your hours, your minutes. Are you just marking time—or are you truly numbering your days so you can apply your heart to wisdom? Are you devoting enough energy to the significant things? Are you prodding yourself and aiming to truly use your life, fulfilling your God-given potential?

A successful life demands being purposeful and driven. Your time, which is your life, is your most valuable asset. You don’t even know how much or little you have, all you know for certain is that supply is limited.

The devil knows your time is limited. He has built modern society specifically to consume your attention with trivialities, to draw you away from what matters. If you just do what comes naturally and what is easiest, you will be swept up in a torrent of distraction taking you far from anywhere you want to be.

Don’t get trapped in trivial, quickly forgotten busyness. Establish your priorities and trudge toward them, step by step, against resistance, daily, hourly. Regularly evaluate your progress and make frequent course corrections to stay on track. Do not let your priorities fade and disappear, then replace them with new priorities that you also let fade and disappear. Once you establish your priorities, led by God, sprint, lumber, clamber, scrap, fight and crawl toward them until you have achieved them.

Look at your daily tasks and ask yourself tough questions about each one: Is this really important? How will this further a long-term goal? Will its impact last beyond this week or this month? Does this advance my real purpose in life? Is it diffusing my energy and preventing me from accomplishing what I need to? If so, can I delegate it or cut it?

With your goals and priorities firmly in mind, you can far more readily avoid getting caught up in unessential things, and you can intentionally do specific things each day to advance your goals. Devote as much time as possible to work of lasting value. Focus on what is truly important. Focus will determine your success in achieving it more than anything else. If you can’t focus on something, you won’t accomplish it. If you can, you will.

For fruit trees to reach maximum yield, they must be regularly pruned. Jesus Christ said growth in your life also requires continual pruning. “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He [the Father] takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit” (John 15:2; New King James Version).

Unwanted, unhelpful growth is natural. Extra obligations, diversions, projects and preoccupations bud and blossom all the time. That is why pruning is so critical, and why it must be continual. “Our life is frittered away by detail,” Henry David Thoreau wrote. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand.”

Stop and ask: What am I doing right now? Is it really what I need to be doing? Busyness is not the same as productivity. And productivity is not the same as fruitfulness. Look at the fruit. Is what you are doing producing results? Are they good results? Are they meaningful? Are they building your family? Are they helping others? Are they advancing God’s cause? Are you putting the resources He has entrusted to you to their best use? God wants to help you answer these questions.

You cannot afford to waste time. Prune whatever is stealing your minutes and not producing good fruit. To focus on the important things, the less you think about other things, the better. Set limits on what you consume and do. Eliminate the unessential. Cross off what’s not really important. Postpone things that don’t need to be done right away. Keep your focus locked on what is really important and prune everything else.

This is a continual process. Prune, then prune again, then again. Prune monthly, weekly, even daily.

This is how to maximize your time and energy. If you are doing something important, then you are moving in the right direction, even if slowly. As Earl Nightingale said, “Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway.”

Japan’s Abe Visits Pearl Harbor in Historic First

Japan’s Abe Visits Pearl Harbor in Historic First

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a historic visit to Pearl Harbor on December 27, where he expressed his “sincere and everlasting condolences” for the 2,403 Americans and the 64 Japanese killed during the Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese attack.

“We must never repeat the horrors of war again,” Abe said, “this is the solemn vow the people of Japan have taken.”

Prime Minister Abe was accompanied by United States President Barack Obama, in what will likely be Mr. Obama’s final visit with a foreign leader as president. Mr. Abe praised the U.S. for its postwar work to rehabilitate Japan, calling the resultant relationship between the two nations an “alliance of hope.”

Abe’s visit follows President Obama’s historic trip in May to Hiroshima, where the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb in 1945 in hopes of bringing an end to Japan’s military fanaticism.

While Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor is being widely celebrated as a victory for diplomacy and for the U.S.-Japan alliance, it is noteworthy that Mr. Abe’s statement was not an actual apology. Instead of saying, “I’m sorry that our government killed these people,” he basically said, “I’m sorry that these people—both the Americans and the Japanese—died.” His failure to ascribe the blame to Japan hollowed his statements.

Abe’s carefully chosen words allow him to demonstrate to the increasingly belligerent China that the U.S.-Japan alliance remains robust, while also allowing him to avoid upsetting hawkish factions of Japanese society who believe Japan has nothing to apologize for.

Among such factions is Hiromichi Moteki, the acting chairman for Japan’s Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact. Moteki said he was “relieved” that Abe did not apologize. “Why should Abe apologize? For the prime minister to apologize would be a distortion of history, because Japan’s view of history is still strongly influenced by the outcome of the Tokyo War Trials, that Japan was the aggressor and in the wrong.”

Moteki is among the conservative Japanese who insist that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a “sneak attack,” nor was it the beginning of the war between the U.S. and Japan, since it was preceded by America imposing economic sanctions on Imperial Japan. He also insists that China instigated the Sino-Japanese War, and denies both the Nanjing Massacre and the Japanese Imperial Army’s use of “comfort women” during the war.

Moteki and many other Japanese conservatives deny any Japanese wrongdoing in the lead up to and during World War ii. Abe’s reluctance to confront such dangerous historical revisionists exposes the worrying underpinnings of his leadership.

To understand more about the dangers of this leadership, read “Why the Trumpet Monitors Japan’s March Away From Pacifism Toward Militarism.”

Democracy Is Dying

Democracy Is Dying

Melissa Barreiro/Trumpet

What will take its place?
From the February 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

Across the world, democracy is dying. Self-government—once viewed as the ideal of freedom and the only way to fairly administer a country—to the younger generation has become “meh.”

In the United States, only 30 percent of those born in the 1980s say it is “essential” to live in a democracy, according to data from the World Values Survey (1995–2014). Only 19 percent of them say a military takeover, in the case of the government being incompetent or failing to do its job, is not legitimate in a democracy. Only one third of them say civil rights are “absolutely essential.” In 2015, one in six said they were fine with a military coup. (In 1995, that number was one in 16.) A 2011 survey found that nearly a quarter of young people thought democracy was a “bad” or “very bad” way to run the country.

“Three decades ago, most scholars simply assumed that the Soviet Union would remain stable,” wrote Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk—the academics who compiled these statistics—in the Journal of Democracy. “This assumption was suddenly proven false. Today, we have even greater confidence in the durability of the world’s affluent, consolidated democracies. But do we have good grounds for our democratic self-confidence?” (July 2016).

“What we find is deeply concerning,” they warned. “Citizens in a number of supposedly consolidated democracies in North America and Western Europe have not only grown more critical of their political leaders. Rather, they have also become more cynical about the value of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy, and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives. The crisis of democratic legitimacy extends across a much wider set of indicators than previously appreciated.”

Similar data shows the same trend forming in Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The death of democracy has already gone beyond the theoretical. It is affecting ballot boxes across the world. Everywhere you look, you clearly see early warning signs of the death of democracy. And biblical prophecy strongly indicates that this trend is going to accelerate.

Pirates

Since World War ii, the Western world has come to a consensus on what a democracy should look like: a system of government that has been termed liberal democracy. The West dreamed of spreading this enlightened ideal of representative self-government around the world, pushing back socialism, communism and/or dictatorships and tyrannies and giving everyone worldwide the freedom to govern themselves.

But not only has the West failed to export its prized product, it is rotting on its own shelves. Democracy in Britain, Europe, America and beyond is crumbling. This has been visible in decade-long trends and in recent elections. And it is more than a rejection of certain politicians or parties. It shows a world no longer happy with the way government works, even in free societies. It shows a world where voters are so dissatisfied with democracy that they are willing to conduct live experiments on themselves with alternative and even radical forms of government.

One alternative is the pirates. On Oct. 29, 2016, pirates came close to taking over Iceland. These were not literal pirates, but the Icelandic Pirate Party.

The pirate movement is one of the newest in politics. It morphed from a protest against restrictive online copyright enforcement to a political movement, promoting the right to privacy, government transparency and free speech.

The party was founded just four years ago, but in October it won 15 percent of the vote, making it the third most popular party in Iceland. That’s explosive growth.

Like almost everywhere else in the world, it’s easy to see why Icelandic voters have so forcefully rejected politics as usual. Earlier in 2016, the Panama papers revealed massive corruption at the top of Iceland’s government, leading to the resignation of the prime minister.

A key platform of the pirate parties in Iceland and across Europe—and the biggest way they reject “liberal democracy”—is their support for direct democracy. Just about all of the West’s liberal democracies are representative democracies. The people choose a representative; the representative is charged with lawmaking, judging or administering the way that he thinks best within the constitution; and if voters disagree, they vote him out at the end of his term—if not sooner.

But when elected representatives are as corrupt as the Panama papers, Wikileaks and other leaks reveal, it’s easy to see why voters want something different. Under direct democracy, citizens vote directly on the policies themselves, cutting out the middleman.

Beppe Grillo, the former comedian who is looking more and more like the future prime minister of Italy, leads a direct democracy group: the Five Star Movement. The Netherlands passed a law last year that allows petitions to trigger referenda on legislation.

Peasants

At the same time the pirates assaulted Iceland, a farmers’ party stormed to power in Lithuania in two rounds of elections, held on October 9 and 23. Before the election, the Peasant and Greens Union held just one seat in parliament. Now it is the largest party, with 54.

Once again there is a new party; once again people are fed up with politics as usual. But instead of giving the people more power, this coalition wants to give them less. One of the core policies of the Peasant and Greens Union is to create a technocratic government. Because elected politicians have made a big mess, it reasons, Lithuania needs to appoint experts to deal with it.

This too is an idea that has spread far and is gaining more popularity after America’s presidential election. “The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States may have signaled the death of the closest thing we have to a religion in politics,” wrote former British Conservative mp Matthew Parris. “On both sides of the Atlantic, democracy risks being knocked from the high altar as an unmitigated and unquestioned good” (Spectator, Nov. 9, 2016).

Jason Brennan, a political philosopher at Georgetown University, has just written a book called Against Democracy. He advocates instead for an epistocracy—meaning rule by the knowledgeable. “Trump’s victory is the victory of the uninformed,” he wrote in Foreign Policy. “But, to be fair, Clinton’s victory would also have been. Democracy is the rule of the people, but the people are in many ways unfit to rule” (Nov. 10, 2016).

Clearly, it’s not just young people souring on democracy. Many of the elites have too.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are really part of this same movement. The European Union has followed this approach for decades. In America, politicians from both sides of the aisle have allowed the number of unelected bureaucrats in America to grow to the point that over 2.5 million non-military personnel now work in the executive branch. They are appointed, not elected. Yet this sprawling mass of bureaucrats includes myriad agencies that have the power to pass laws, try cases and enforce punishments. They call these laws “regulations.” And the average citizen has little to no recourse against this bureaucratic state.

The more control these bureaucrats have, the less control the people have. The natural allies of bureaucrats, technocrats, epistocrats and their related synonyms are leftists, because they all want the same solution: big government.

‘Illiberal Democracy’

But not everyone is happy about big government. And the fight-back is leading to another movement: “illiberal democracy.” This was a term used by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to describe those who, like himself and Donald Trump, are democratic but reject many of the norms of the modern Western state. They do things that some consider beyond the pale, things that democratic leaders should never do, no matter how strong their mandate.

These “illiberal” democracies tend to be built around strongmen: leaders who are democratically elected but who greatly emphasize their personal power to solve their nation’s problems.

In many ways, this is the hardest trend to describe, because so much is distorted. The left has gained control of many of the levers of power in liberal democracy. It has used the bureaucracies, the judiciaries, the media, the schools and even central banks to move nations to the left. When leaders on the right want to change their country’s direction, they can only do so by “interfering” with the leftist policies of these bureaucracies, judiciaries, government-owned broadcasters, etc. When they do this, the left screams blue murder.

But all this crying wolf is dangerous. It makes it hard to see where leaders are just pushing back against leftist control, and where they are genuinely altering the government toward illiberalism or oppression. Hungary and Poland are two governments singled out as being “illiberal democracies.” Are they truly illiberal? There is certainly some concerning news. But with all the heated rhetoric, it’s hard to tell what is really going on. A person is not a Nazi because he criticizes the decision-making of a central bank or because he wants to see an out-of-control supreme court reined in. The left’s smears against Poland, Hungary and the Trump administration make it harder to detect if and when these governments do, in fact, take actions that are genuinely dangerous.

Escalation

These movements all feed off each other. The more the elites take power, the more people are determined to take it back, and vice versa.

Italy was forced into a technocratic government from 2011 to 2013. During that time, the direct democracy-supporting Five Star Movement exploded in popularity in a major reaction against technocracy. The first time the Dutch used their new powers of direct democracy, it was to strike down an EU treaty with Ukraine—a strike aimed at the technocrats in the EU. However, the technocrats quickly began working on a method they hope the Dutch government will use to ignore the vote.

Many in Britain hate the EU for its anti-democratic nature and elitism. And when Britain voted to leave in a rare instance reminiscent of direct democracy, this only proved to the elites that the people do not deserve and cannot handle the power to govern themselves.

Direct democracy and illiberal democracy have some common ground. One wants to give power directly to the people, whereas the other trusts a single individual to smash the status quo. But both are quickly opposed by the elites. The elites oppose the “illiberals” or “the people” grabbing power, so they seek to grab more power back—and must become more extreme in order to do so.

These countries are just examples from the most recent elections. They are not rare. A new political party winning support in a European nation has become so common that it barely makes the news. Greece, Lithuania, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, France, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden are all major examples of this trend. That represents a lot of people who are dangerously dissatisfied with the status quo of modern democracy.

It is important to recognize that one can make legitimately strong criticisms about all these alternatives. America’s founders rejected direct democracy for good reasons. Rule by elites concentrates power in the hands of the few; the best-laid plans of expert bureaucrats gang aft agley—go often askew. As F. A. Hayek put it, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Strongmen can, and often have, become strong dictators.

Still, none of these movements are Nazis. All are supported by well-meaning people, most of whom would protest any suggestion that they are anti-democratic. But their support all rises from some kind of sense that the system is broken, and that we need to make big changes to the way we’re doing things. They share many views of the 25 percent of young people who believe that democracy is “bad,” even if they might reject that conclusion. They are all symptoms of the deep dissatisfaction with the way Western government works, and the sense that democracy has let us down.

Once even a significant minority starts to lose hope in democracy, the trend is hard to stop. It creates its own vicious cycle. In the 1930s, upstart parties rose with similar speed to those that are rising today. Their rise meant the established parties no longer held enough votes to form governments, and the regular coalitions no longer worked. Democracies became even more dysfunctional, more people became convinced of the need for something else, and the spiral worsened.

Furthermore, the problems building in today’s world will only get worse. Europe’s economic crisis continues to rumble on with no sign of a solution. Parts of Europe are stagnating, with Great Depression levels of unemployment. Even Germany, Europe’s engine of growth, seems likely to encounter an economic crisis. America is swimming in debt and is poised for disaster.

If masses are rejecting the system now, how much worse will the situation get when millions more find themselves without work? When millions of families have real worries about whether they’ll be able to keep their home?

Returning to the academics we started with, Public Radio International reported on an interview with Yascha Mounk, writing, “Mounk believes at least part of the explanation for the disenchantment with democracy is economic. Most citizens of established liberal democracies have been contending with stagnant or falling incomes for the past 20 or 30 years. They may believe the system has failed them, while their children face an even more uncertain future” (Nov. 29, 2016).

An economic crash would make that future radically less certain. And the sense that the system has failed would explode into chaos or anarchy.

Why Governments Fail

The global dissatisfaction ties in with a great many forecasts that the Trumpet and the Plain Truth have made for decades: the breakdown of the political order in the United States; the rise of strongmen in Asia; Europe’s turn toward nationalism; the creation of a new, undemocratic European superstate.

Underlying all this is a simple cause: Man simply has no good way of ruling over man. He does not have the capacity. None of man’s governments has created or can create peace, stability and order. We are now seeing the latest round of men deciding that yesterday’s perfect ideal of a system has failed, and scurrying around to find tomorrow’s new ideal.

It is a failure not of politics but of human nature. No system eliminates greed and selfishness.

But that doesn’t mean that all systems of government are equally bad. Some do a much better job than others of restraining selfish human nature.

A simple understanding of history should warn of the dangers in rejecting liberal democracy and embracing alternatives. Looking at the broad sweep of history, most people in the West have never had it so good. The vast majority of mankind for the vast majority of history has lacked the freedoms that most of us take for granted.

As Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

America’s Founding Fathers knew some of the problems with human nature. They designed a system of government that would restrain it. Government in the rest of the English-speaking world and beyond grew out of a similar tradition. After World War ii, many of the rest of the world’s democracies were founded on similar principles.

All these alternatives to liberal democracy fail to protect from the dangers of human nature. Illiberal democracy concentrates power in one strongman and frees him of checks and balances. That’s great if that man has little of the selfish, greedy, corrupt human nature. And what if that power corrupts him? It always does. And what about his successor? Technocracy gives power to a few elites, again, with few checks or balances. They become a gang of heavyweights that is almost impossible to rein in—without resorting to a strongman. Yet these experts still have the same human nature that has given liberal democracy such a bad rap.

Direct democracy is the least tried of all the alternatives. Its experiment in ancient Greece was an absolute disaster. Direct democracy—mob rule—has proven dangerous and volatile. Regardless of how it would work in practice in a modern setting, it certainly would not solve the problems caused by human nature.

History and human nature, then, warn us to beware. Bible prophecy gives us an even more specific reason.

A Dangerous Ending

The Bible prophesied the rise to global power of Britain and America. God promised that these nations would become “the head, and not the tail”; that He would make them “above only, and thou shalt not be beneath” (Deuteronomy 28:13).

That is exactly what history has witnessed. The last two centuries have been Anglo-American centuries. The form of government championed by these nations—a form of government that has at its heart some important biblical principles—has spread throughout the Western world.

But the Bible also says that this time of Pax Britannica, followed by Pax Americana, would end—and that is happening now. The same God who put Britain and America on top is now reversing that. He prophesied that if Britain and America did not obey Him, then strangers would be the head, “and thou shalt be the tail” (verse 44).

This global falling out with the Anglo-American method of government is in tandem with the decline of Britain and America.

Now we are heading for an age of strongmen. All the major power blocs prophesied in the Bible are ruled by strong leaders. Russia will be led by a “Prince of Rosh,” Vladimir Putin. Europe will be led by a “king of fierce countenance,” who rules as part of an old-fashioned Holy Roman Empire church-state combine. Even America’s government is in dire trouble, and possibly deteriorating into the rule of a strongman.

The Bible describes these as “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24). It is a time of unrestrained human nature. Without the trappings of liberal democracies, the constitution or international norms, as Thucydides put it, “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

As these strongmen discard representative democracy, the Bible says they will bring the world to the brink of destruction.

But the good news is that man is close to finally learning the lesson God wants him to learn from history.

Right at the beginning of human history, man rejected God’s rule over him. Therefore God evicted him from the Garden of Eden, and told man, in effect, “Form your own concepts of what is god, your own religions, your own governments, your own lifestyles and forms of society and civilization” (Herbert W. Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages). Now, we are witnessing the final failures of these man-devised governments. Human experiments in government have ultimately failed, every single time. And today’s radical experiments on live patients in a world full of terror and weapons of mass destruction will culminate in the ultimate lesson: Human beings actually are incapable of governing themselves.

This final failure will force us to accept that fact. The rise of pirates, peasants and Donald Trump shows that we are desperate for alternatives. We are not yet desperate enough to consider the government of God as an alternative. But when this experiment finally ends, we will be.

A Successful Government

At that point, a new government will be established on Earth—under the perfect rule of the King of kings! Herbert W. Armstrong explained it in his booklet The Wonderful World Tomorrow—What It Will Be Like: “Now notice just how the new world government will function! It will not be so-called democracy. It will not be socialism. It will not be communism or fascism. It will not be human monarchy, oligarchy, or plutocracy. It will not be man’s government over man. Man has proven his utter incapability of ruling himself.

“It will be divine government—the government of God. It will not be government from the bottom up. The people will have no votes. It will not be government of or by the people—but it will be government for the people. It will be government from the top (God Almighty) down.

“There will be no election campaigns. No campaign fund-raising dinners. No dirty political campaigns, where each candidate attempts to put himself forward in the most favorable light, defaming, denouncing, discrediting his opponents. No time will be wasted in mudslinging campaigns in the lust for power.

“No human will be given any government office. All in government service will then be divine spirit beings, in the Kingdom of God—the God Family.

“All officials will be appointed—and by the divine Christ, who reads and knows men’s hearts, their inner character, and abilities or lack of ability. …

“In short, under the New Covenant which Christ is coming to usher in, what we shall see on Earth is happiness, peace, abundance and justice for all. Did you ever read just what this New Covenant will consist of? Did you suppose it will do away with God’s law? Exactly the opposite. ‘For this is the covenant [that Christ is coming to establish, you’ll read in Hebrews 8:10]; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts ….’

“When God’s laws are in our hearts—when we love God’s ways, and in our hearts want to live by them, human nature will be put under subjection—people will want to live the way that is the cause of peace, happiness, abundance, joyful well-being!”

A Headache for Pope Francis

A Headache for Pope Francis

Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images

The United States has chosen a president who opposes the Vatican’s political vision. How will the Roman Catholic Church respond?
From the February 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

Two days after Donald Trump was elected to be America’s 45th president, Roman Catholic Archbishop José Horacio Gómez delivered an emotional homily at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, California.

“In the past couple days since the election, we have children in our schools who are scared,” he said. “They think the government is going to come and deport their parents any day now. Right now, all across this city, and in cities all across this country, there are children who are going to bed scared. There are men and women who can’t sleep because they are trying to figure out what to do next. Trying to figure what to do when the government comes to take them away from their kids and their loved ones.”

This homily was a response to President-elect Trump’s pledge to reverse President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration and to resume enforcement of existing immigration laws passed by Congress.

Archbishop Gómez ignored the details of Mr. Trump’s deportation plan—such as his pledge to keep families intact—and insisted that the government was coming to take parents “away from their kids.” He concluded his homily with a pledge of unconditional support for illegal immigrants in the United States.

“Tonight, we promise our brothers and sisters who are undocumented: We will never leave you alone,” he stated. “In good times and in bad, we are with you. You are family. We are brothers and sisters.”

This pledge was well received by bishops across America, judging by the fact that they elected Archbishop Gómez to be vice president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops only five days later.

In an interview with Crux magazine, Gómez, a Mexican-born Hispanic, said his election was a statement about the status of the U.S. Hispanic ministry. “It’s more and more clear how important Hispanics are,” he said. “Already, something like 40 percent of all Catholics in the country are Hispanic, and they’re 50 percent of our youth” (Nov. 15, 2016).

The archbishop vowed to use his new position to advocate for the rights of illegal immigrants. His homilies are filled with rhetoric that sounds loving, but at the same time, he is encouraging even more Latin Americans to break U.S. law and illegally enter the country in hopes of receiving sanctuary in a Catholic cathedral.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops penned a letter to Mr. Trump, putting him on notice that the Catholic Church is committed to resettling immigrants throughout the nation. Gómez’s election is one sign that Catholic bishops are gearing up to fight the Trump administration and to sustain the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

Why does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration into the United States? And what will happen when the Vatican’s hierarchy clashes with the president? Remarkably, the Bible reveals the answers to these questions.

Hispanic Immigration

Archbishop Gómez and the members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are not the only Catholic leaders concerned about Donald Trump’s election.

The leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, tried to influence the results of the presidential election last February, when journalists asked his opinion of Trump’s proposals to halt illegal immigration. “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” the pope replied. “This is not in the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”

The pope may not have explicitly told Catholics which name to put on their ballot, but he said nothing about one candidate while rejecting the other as un-Christian. He also revealed his preferred policy for the American border: Keep it open.

Why is a pope who supposedly shies away from giving political advice so bold about America’s border policy?

After Mr. Trump’s election, the pope offered more commentary. “I don’t make judgments on people and on political men,” he told an Italian journalist in an interview published Nov. 11, 2016. “I only want to understand the sufferings that their way of proceeding causes the poor and excluded.”

In truth, Pope Francis isn’t averse to politics at all. The Vatican never has been. Meddling in national politics is considered a Catholic religious duty!

Vatican watcher Austen Ivereigh wrote in Crux magazine on November 15, “The Florida Strait and the U.S.-Mexican border are to Francis what the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall were to [Pope] John Paul ii.”

According to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, most Catholic officials residing with Francis behind the 39-footwall around the Vatican backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as a “lesser evil.” While these officials agreed that a Clinton presidency would have been a major setback for the Catholic position on abortion and homosexual “marriage,” they considered Trump “unelectable” due to his “aggressive chauvinism.”

These Catholic leaders viewed the Republican nominee as a “white” bulwark against a demographic invasion of Latin American immigrants, of which Pope Francis of Argentina is the supreme protector.

San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy stated that mass deportations of illegal immigrants could remove 10 percent of Catholic parishioners from U.S. churches. This figure is likely based on the hypothetical situation that every one of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country will be deported—instead of just the 2 to 3 million Mr. Trump has pledged to deport. But it shows how important the influx of Catholic migrants is to the future of the U.S. Catholic Church.

Why does the Catholic Church care so much about American border penetrability? Not so much because the migrants are poor, but because they are Catholic.

Pew research data shows that there are 67 million self-identified Catholics in the U.S., roughly 21 percent of the population. Many of those probably haven’t been to mass in a while. And for every new Catholic convert, six Catholics leave the church. About half of these former Catholics give up on religion altogether, while the other half join a Protestant denomination. The reason the Catholics aren’t plummeting as a percentage of the U.S. population is that foreign-born Catholics are replacing native-born Catholics.

Without illegal immigration, the Roman Catholic Church would be a shrinking, aging organization with diminishing influence in the United States. Immigrants moving into the country give Catholic leaders enormous influence they wouldn’t otherwise have.

According to a paper by the Vienna Institute of Demography, Catholicism would overtake Protestantism to become the largest religion in the United States by the middle of the century if immigration doubled. This explains why so many bishops are willing to support a political party that advocates the slaughter of unborn babies in an attempt to stop Donald Trump from tightening border control.

Americanist Church

Despite opposition from Pope Francis and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Donald Trump still managed to garner 52 percent of the Catholic vote. In particular, he gained the support of a majority of white Irish Catholics in the Midwest, even as he lost Hispanic Catholics in the Southwest. This ecclesiastical divide highlights a challenge for Pope Francis: He has a problem with native-born Midwestern American Catholics.

Many of Mr. Trump’s Catholic supporters voted for him because of his campaign promises to support religious freedom and appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. According to Corriere della Sera, however, many Vatican insiders view Trump’s victory as evidence that the U.S. has become “angry and radicalized.” They seem to agree with Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, Texas, who views the deportation policies of the Trump administration as “formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil—not unlike driving someone to an abortion clinic” (Crux, July 26, 2016).

The fact that so many American Catholics were willing to vote for Trump prompted Massimo Faggioli, a professor of religious studies at Villanova University, to write about the rise of the Americanist Catholic Church. “We are witnessing the return of what church history students will remember as ‘Americanism,’ when in 1899 Pope Leo xiii accused the U.S. church of being too adaptive of American political culture,” he wrote.

“The issue of the balance between a universal (Catholic) interpretation of Catholicism and its necessary local-national embodiment is a returning question that every Catholic in the world has to face, consciously or unconsciously. But in this historical moment, in light of the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, it seems to me that deep at the heart of the future of the church in the United States is the fundamental choice between being a Roman Catholic Church in America or being an Americanist Catholic Church” (La Croix International, Nov. 14, 2016; emphasis added).

After the rise of the countercultural movement in the 1960s, many socially conservative Catholics and Protestants put aside their differences to form a “moral majority” capable of striking a blow against the radical left. Now, after 50 years of cooperation, many socially conservative Catholics find they agree with Republicans on political issues more than with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

If this conservative Evangelical-Catholic coalition could manifest itself in the form of a living human being, that would be Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence. As a self-described “born again, evangelical Catholic,” he began blending his Catholicism with Evangelical Protestantism while still in college.

So, as Mr. Trump promises to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the nation, his vice-president is drawing native-born Catholics into a political coalition opposed to many tenets of the Vatican’s political vision.

All this poses an enormous headache for Pope Francis, who considers himself pastor of the universal church!

“Donald Trump is an alien, if not an enemy, for papal Rome,” wrote political columnist Massimo Franco in the Globalist. “His values and geopolitical vision are just the opposite of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s [Pope Francis’s]. In a way, he is considered a kind of anti-pope. What is worrying, in the Holy See’s vision, is that the new U.S. president might become a model of conservatism, perhaps even of a reactionary mood, within the Catholic world itself. He could exacerbate a growing difficulty of Francis’s church to be heard in Western public opinion” (Nov. 17, 2016).

Borderless Church

Among other disagreements between Donald Trump and Pope Francis are Trump’s dismissal of global warming as a Chinese conspiracy theory, his pledge to raise tariffs on imports, his condemnation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and his hostility to the Castro regime in Cuba. In the words of London-based Catholic journalist Austen Ivereigh, “Assuming he goes through with these pledges, Trump next year will slam a truck directly into Pope Francis’s geopolitical objectives in the Americas, and redefine the U.S. church’s public priorities for a generation” (Crux, Nov. 15, 2016).

To defend his “geopolitical objectives,” the pope elevated three U.S. archbishops to the office of cardinal on November 19. Many expected Archbishop Charles Chaput to be made a cardinal after he supported Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court ruled it was legal to do so. Yet Pope Francis sidelined Chaput in favor of three anti-Republican, pro-immigration prelates: Blase Cupich of Chicago, Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.

The most unexpected of these appointments was Archbishop Tobin. This man rose to national prominence due to his role in opposing Mike Pence on a measure to ban Syrian refugees from Indiana in 2015, when Pence was the governor of the state. Supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Tobin resettled a Syrian family in his diocese in direct defiance of Governor Pence’s directive to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attack.

“In one fell swoop, therefore, Francis has reshaped the character of the most senior level of the American hierarchy,” Vatican expert John Allen Jr. wrote about the announcement of these appointments in October. “The outlook, while certainly defending church teaching on matters such as abortion and euthanasia, is more inclined to see them as part of a spectrum that also includes immigration, the death penalty, the environment, concern for the poor, and so on” (ibid, Oct. 9, 2016).

Another way Pope Francis is looking to counter Trump’s agenda is by encouraging heightened collegial ties between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Latin American Episcopal Council.

Ties between these two councils have been steadily growing since the days of Pope John Paul ii, whose 1999 exhortation “Ecclesia in America” put a high priority on inter-American political integration. A recent meeting called by Pope Francis in Bogotá, Colombia, brought together 15 cardinals and 120 bishops to celebrate the pope’s Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy on the American Continent. The interesting thing about this synod was the unusually large delegation of North American cardinals and bishops who attended.

Vatican watchers are predicting that Francis may start inviting U.S. prelates to Latin American synods more often in a bid to fight the isolationism of a Trump administration by treating the Americas as a single entity, a seamless web.

The Vatican has been a tireless advocate of both European and Latin American political unity for centuries. The current pope’s feelings on national borders were revealed in his 2013 apostolic exhortation.

“Migrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a church without frontiers, a church which considers herself mother to all,” Francis wrote in Evangelii Gaudium (Joy of the Gospel). “For this reason, I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis.”

Economic Sanctions

In many ways, Donald Trump and Jorge Bergoglio are emerging as leaders of rival power blocs. Mr. Trump is positioning himself as the leader of a rebellion against transnational elites. Pope Francis is calling for a new global institution with the political authority to end both poverty and climate change.

“The 21st century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tend to prevail over the political,” the pope wrote in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si (Be Praised). “Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.”

As America and Britain begin to rebel against the notion of such a globalist political authority, transnational organizations like the European Union and the Union of South American Nations are looking to the Vatican for leadership. Will the day come when the Anglo-American people have economic sanctions levied against them because of their refusal to submit to the dictates of a Vatican-dominated power bloc?

The Bible actually has some strong things to say about a false church wielding great political and economic power in the time before Jesus Christ’s return. In Revelation 13, this church is depicted as looking like a lamb but speaking as a dragon. In Revelation 17 and 18, this church is labeled “Babylon the Great” and prophesied to rule a vast empire from a city with seven hills. In corresponding Old Testament prophecies in Isaiah 23 and Ezekiel 27, this empire is called Tyre, the most powerful trading center of the ancient Mediterranean world.

Based on these scriptures, educator Herbert W. Armstrong long predicted that the Roman Catholic Church would gain influence over a vast transcontinental alliance, including 10 European kings and a network of Latin American vassal states. With its left arm, this Vatican-dominated conglomerate will reach southward and eastward into the Middle East to conquer the Holy City, Jerusalem. Then with its right arm, this “Holy” Roman Empire will reach southward and westward across the Atlantic to take control of Latin America and to besiege the United States.

These prophecies may or may not be fulfilled during the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio, who has stated that he feels his pontificate may be brief. Nevertheless, this pope has been influential in reshaping the College of Cardinals into a governing body opposed to principles of national sovereignty and free-market capitalism.

While the majority of U.S. Catholics are more loyal to America than to Vatican City, the fact remains that God is allowing many nation-destroying curses to afflict the United States because its people have rebelled against His law.

Imperial Politics

Even many Catholics don’t grasp that Vatican City is more than the headquarters of a religion; it is a nation-state participating in political machinations involving empires.

As British political economist Rodney Atkinson wrote to the late Trumpet writer Ron Fraser in 2013, “Imperial politics rather than the religion of the Roman Catholic Church have been its critical characteristic.”

In 1898, Pope Leo xiii wrote an encyclical, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae (Witness to Our Goodwill), that declared “Americanism” to be heresy. In particular, he condemned American ideals of individualism and separation of church from state to be heretical fallacies.

While many think the Roman Catholic Church has abandoned these beliefs, the chairman of the Pope’s Council of Cardinal Advisers delivered a lecture in Washington, d.c., in 2014 reaffirming that American concepts of individualism and libertarianism are still completely incompatible with Catholic Social Doctrine. In his lecture titled “Erroneous Authority: The Catholic Case Against Libertarianism,” Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga declared that the “invisible hand” of the free market described by 18th-century economic philosopher Adam Smith was a cruel trick to exploit the poor. He brushed aside criticism of Pope Francis’s economic policies from “libertarian” Catholics as fallacies advanced by those who “do not read the social doctrine of the church.”

After Maradiaga’s lecture, an assistant professor of theology at St. John’s University spoke on how true Catholics don’t view themselves as individuals but as members of a community, just as they view God as a trinitarian being.

When such statements are analyzed alongside Bible prophecy, it becomes increasingly clear why these developments should deeply concern everyone in America—regardless of their religion. Most people are asleep to the danger, but a clash of civilizations is coming between Anglo-America and a Vatican-dominated empire. The policies being espoused by the Trump administration—and deeply American principles much, much older—are completely at odds with the globalist vision of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is important to recognize that Pope Francis and the College of Cardinals are actively working to establish a new system of world government. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t believe the Kingdom of God is a literal kingdom to be established on Earth by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming. The Catholic Church’s position is that the Kingdom of God is a modern-day church, ruled by the vicar of Christ.

Biblical prophecy describes a church existing in the end time that holds significant political influence with “the kings of the earth.” It will have particular power over a political-military union of nations described in symbolic terminology as a “beast” (Revelation 17). This description can only apply to one church in modern history—a church that meddles in the affairs of nations and considers itself mother to all—a church that has repeatedly aligned with a political empire in order to exercise its power.

Many prophecies reveal what this church will do in the time just ahead of us. In Isaiah 47, for example, God calls this church the “daughter of Babylon” and the “lady of kingdoms.” Verse 6 of this chapter prophesies that God will deliver His people—speaking of the modern-day nations descended from ancient Israel, more specifically the United States and Britain—over to this “lady of kingdoms” because of their many sins.

The current antagonism between the incoming Trump administration and the Vatican is a warning sign that America is soon to be attacked by a transnational alliance dominated by Germany and the Vatican.

These same prophecies reveal just how devastating this attack will be. In fact, Scripture reveals that because this “daughter of Babylon” shows no mercy to the people under her dominion, God says He will personally take vengeance on her, laying her in the dust.

Based on these scriptures, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote in the October 1951 Plain Truth: “For, believe it or not, the United States of Europe—a Winston Churchill dream, an idea sponsored, aided, abetted and financed by the United States, is the very idea the pope will seize on—all ready-made, wrapped and labeled ‘made in U.S.A.’—ready to hand over to him! And in promoting this utopian idea, gullible, trusting America and Britain are creating the Frankenstein that shall destroy them!”

God tells us how we can be protected from this unparalleled disaster. The book of Ezekiel was written specifically for this end time. (Request a free copy of our Ezekiel booklet.)

“Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live? Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:10-11).There is only one way that God will protect us. Our people must turn, turn, turn from our evil ways.

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. “Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” What a terrifying question!

Even if the nations of Israel reject God’s warning, He is still going to make them the chief nations of the wonderful World Tomorrow. That will happen after they have experienced the worst suffering ever.

It is a matter of life-and-death importance that everyone who hears this message sit up, pay attention and take note of the seriousness of the times.

Did David and Solomon Actually Exist?

Did David and Solomon Actually Exist?

Balage Balough/Archaeology Illustrated/Trumpet

If so, were they the glorious kings the Bible describes, or just small-time chieftains?
From the February 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

When the field of biblical archaeology began, its first practitioners believed that in order to understand the material remains of civilizations in the holy land, you needed to understand the Holy Bible. Yet in their excitement to support the biblical narrative, the founders of biblical archaeology often failed to fully vet the biblical and scientific evidence. They rushed to pronounce their discoveries to be biblically significant, and this led to many false conclusions and hasty identifications of sites.

In the following decades, repeated expeditions and improved methods showed that many of these archaeological sites are not the same as those found in the Bible narrative.

Many of the nascent archaeologists in Israel were upset when they learned of these early mistakes in the field of biblical archaeology. However, rather than questioning the interpretation of their teachers, the next generation of archaeologists questioned the validity of the Bible itself.

In cases where there was no known corroborating evidence for a particular period of biblical history, the Bible was no longer assumed to be accurate. Soon these arguments from silence (the idea that evidence does not exist because it hasn’t been found) gave way to scholars refuting the very existence of some biblical personalities.

The most notable of these were King David and King Solomon. Did these men exist? And if so, was their kingdom as great as the Bible claims?

Just a Petty Tribal Chieftain?

Although most traditional biblical archaeologists were not ready to dismiss David and Solomon entirely, some scholars in the mid-1980s to early 1990s did exactly that. However, this argument was challenged by the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele in 1993. Found in secondary use—having been later used in the construction of a wall—the Tel Dan Stele is a small engraving detailing the defeat of Israel at the hands of Syrians. Scholars were stunned when they noted that one of the lines of text read bytdwd, or “House of David.” This was the first extra-biblical reference to King David and the fact that he had a house: a family lineage descending from him.

Biblical minimalists at first tried to interpret the characters written on the Tel Dan Stele as saying something—anything—besides “House of David.” Eventually, they conceded that there was no other way to read the inscription. But they did not change their conclusion; they changed their attack. They acknowledged that David and Solomon did exist but said they were not as wealthy, powerful or significant as the Bible describes: They were probably small-time tribal elders who had a small settlement on the hill of Jerusalem.

To the old-school biblical archaeologists, this backlash was ludicrous. Although no finds could be conclusively attributed to the reign of David, a number of grand finds from Solomon’s time had been verified.

The key scripture in this regard is 1 Kings 9:15: “And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.” This verse details a vast building program undertaken by Solomon not just in Jerusalem but throughout the territory belonging to his kingdom. Gezer is in the southern region of Israel, overlooking what was once the lands of the Philistines. Megiddo is in the north-central region, 70 miles from Jerusalem and inland from the modern Israeli city of Haifa. Hazor lies north of the Sea of Galilee.

These three ancient cities are perhaps some of the most excavated sites in Israel. And what have archaeologists found there? Massive gatehouses, one at the ancient entrance to each city. Each is so similar to the others that this consistent design is known today as the “Israelite gate.” These gatehouses indicate a developed, wealthy, powerful society able to construct sophisticated fortification walls with large gates and impressive structures within them. What’s more, when archaeologists dated these gates by the pottery associated with their construction, they dated to the time of David and Solomon, the 10th century b.c. For decades, this was considered solid proof of Solomon’s large-scale building projects described in 1 Kings 9:15.

But the minimalists contested this seemingly insurmountable weight of evidence proving Solomon’s building program. Unable to deny the existence of the structures, they attacked the dating of those gates by disputing the age of the pottery.

Low Chronology

Digging during the 1990s at Megiddo—one of the cities described in Solomon’s building program—was Dr. Israel Finkelstein. He is most famous for a 2005 text, The Bible Unearthed. His main thesis in the book is unambiguous: “The world in which the Bible was created was not a mythic realm of great cities and saintly heroes, but a tiny, down-to-earth kingdom where people struggled for their future against the all-too-human fears of war, poverty, injustice, disease, famine and drought. The historical saga contained in the Bible—from Abraham’s encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses’s deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah—was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination” (emphasis added).

Finkelstein’s aim is clear: Convince the reader that biblical Israel, though real, was tiny instead of great, and that its history was mostly imaginary.

In the text and corresponding papers, Finkelstein introduced a new chronology of ancient Israel known as Low Chronology. Traditionally, archaeologists believed that the beginning of David’s reign marks the start of the archaeological period called Iron iia. This period covers a massive increase in building throughout Israel. Traditionally, this building program was associated with David and Solomon.

Low chronology is a hypothesis that shifts the start of Iron iia to after David and Solomon died. This chronology claims that monumental buildings, such as the Israelite gate, were not built by Solomon, but by later kings. Finkelstein said that David and Solomon rather belonged to the simpler, far less advanced civilization of Iron i, a period normally associated with the Judges—and with decentralized, weak, unimpressive Israelite trade, institutions, government and construction. That pushes forward the society that built those massive gatehouses out of the period of Solomon to a later king, when such construction would have been more common and less impressive.

Finkelstein’s key evidence is based on an analysis of Carbon-14 samples taken from within Iron iia strata. This evidence is suspect, given that the margin for error in carbon samples from that period is the same amount of time that Dr. Finkelstein wants to push the Iron iia chronology forward.

Discovering David

The same year that Finkelstein published his book, an excavation began in ancient Jerusalem, in the northern part of the City of David. There, archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar set out to excavate an area she believed could be the location of King David’s palace. Within days, her spades struck massive rocks that had been lying just under the surface. The huge rocks formed a 90-foot-long wall over 12 feet thick. Any structure, modern or ancient, with walls this thick is a truly massive building. From the pottery related to the structure, as well as from several carbon samples, Dr. Mazar was able to date the wall to somewhere between the 11th and 10th century. This is the exact period in which the Bible indicates David built his palace.

After finishing the excavation that year, Mazar declared the most logical conclusion was that this large structure was King David’s palace. The following excavation seasons, from 2006 to 2008, revealed even more walls from the same structure, with the strong eastern wall measuring 19 feet thick! What’s more, the 2008 excavation season revealed that this wall actually connected to the very top of the famed Stepped Stone Structure, a 65-foot-high retaining wall descending into the Kidron Valley. In effect, it showed that the huge retaining wall was built at the same time expressly to support the eastern wall of the structure above: the palace of King David.

Mazar estimates that only 20 percent of the palace remains have been excavated. But other than the sheer size of the structure, there are other indications that this structure was royal. Forty years before Mazar’s discovery, Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a formidable archaeologist in her own right, excavated in the valley just outside and below the palace walls. She discovered a massive capital—the descriptive support attached to the top of columns—known today as a Proto Aeolic capital. This architectural feature is characteristic of palaces at other Israelite sites such as Megiddo, Samaria and Ramat Rachel. Clearly, this capital (which is featured on the Israeli five-shekel coin today) must have fallen from somewhere important.

Mazar’s discovery was an archaeological broadside on Dr. Finkelstein’s effort to cut David and Solomon down to size. It was a daring claim for a meticulous and respected archaeologist like Mazar to make in the face of biblical minimalists. Led by Finkelstein, the minimalists scoured her published findings to try to discredit her methods or her reasoning in order to disprove her identification of the structure as King David’s palace.

Even tour guides from the City of David tourist center—which perches ironically atop steel supports fastened directly to the bedrock of the palace—thought the idea that they were standing in the area of King David’s palace was far-fetched. Many of them belittled the claim as they led their groups through the massive remains. Granted, 3,000 years of later occupation have made it difficult to make out all the palace walls, but some (like the 19-foot-wide eastern wall) are simply unmistakable.

However, over the course of time since Dr. Mazar’s original designation, even biblical minimalists are starting to acknowledge that although the walls are not inscribed with King David’s name, they are inarguably the foundations of a massive building constructed in the exact biblical location of King David’s palace, and within the (albeit contested) time frame supported by traditional archaeologists, Carbon-14 and the Bible.

Soon after Mazar made her discovery, the another important find from the same period was announced. Known as Khirbet Qeiyafa, this site was located on the border of Israelite territory against Philistine land. Based on findings at the site, excavator Yossi Garfinkel wrote, “The argument that Judah was an agrarian society until the end of the 10th century bce and that David and Solomon could not have ruled over a centralized, institutionalized kingdom before then has now been blown to smithereens by our excavation.” Excavations revealed a heavily fortified site. A series of carbon samples were taken from within early Iron iia strata. These samples date at the latest to 969 b.c., a date associated by all archaeologists to the time around King David’s death.

The dating of the site to David’s time is so rock-solid that biblical minimalists have had to concede the point. But many then began to claim it was not an Israelite fortress, but rather a Philistine one. And yet, the architecture, pottery styles, inscriptions and lack of pig bones (pork is an unclean meat to the Jews) all indicate that Khirbet Qeiyafa belonged not to David’s archenemy, but to David himself.

Need More Proof? Just Wait

Even with these and other discoveries testifying to the existence of both David and Solomon, the battle for historical truth still rages in academic circles in Israel. The biblical minimalists’ story keeps changing as they try to match the real world with their main claim that remains consistent: Biblical Israel isn’t what the Bible says it was.

Debate and difference of opinion is important for any scientific assertion—but not as important as intellectual honesty.

And intellectual honesty, or the lack thereof, has real consequences. The very heated and public debate about David and Solomon has tainted the public’s receptivity to past and future discoveries that have biblical significance. Because critics have impugned the biblical account, many assume that the Bible’s descriptions have been scientifically disproved, when in reality they have merely been academically contested.

Over the past 30 years, scholars have tried to undermine the Bible as a historically accurate document. Many have been motivated by a mixture of facts and agenda. These scholars have taught the next generation of Israeli archaeologists and historians a baseless sense of skepticism about the Bible’s historical records. That bias is as equally unfair as—and less well-founded than—the bias that led early biblical archaeologists to their original misidentifications. This contrary bias has led biblical minimalists to misidentifications of their own.

Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. addresses this growing bias against the historicity of the Bible in his foreword to The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (2013): “The case for the reliability of the persons and events of the Bible becomes more needed and more necessary each day as the newer generation’s anti-biblical thesis takes a greater hold on the hearts and minds of its members.”

An intellectually honest archaeologist will examine the stones, pottery shards and other evidences of habitation for what they are. And if they match an ancient text—even if that text is the Bible—then that text is right.

We live in a time when technological advancement in the field of archaeology has led to an explosion of discoveries that are proving the Bible to be an accurate historical text. More and more excavation and scholarship is taking place. More and more evidence is being unearthed. Artifacts that match the biblical record are emerging faster than ever. Biblical minimalists and maximalists and everyone in between still argue back and forth, but the more evidence that emerges, the more interesting the debate becomes.

Dr. Mazar is a good example of the latter group: She is a credentialed scientist, serious-minded and thorough. Controversial as her conclusions are, her overall methodology is undisputed. Less knowledgeable or less scrupulous critics accuse Dr. Mazar of being a religious fundamentalist with an obvious bias to “prove the Bible true.” Those who know her know that she is not religious at all but respects the Bible as a historical document. To her, the Bible details the events of her forefathers, chronicling the history of her Israelite ancestors. And for that, she holds it dear.

Also, the Bible shows her where to dig.

Continuing in this foreword by Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr: “Meanwhile, the evidence for the truthfulness and historicity of the Bible continues to mount up as never before. Just when skepticism seems to be making the most noise, we are being flooded with an overwhelming amount of real, hard evidences that demand a verdict opposite to what skeptics, revisionists, minimalists and deconstructionists are clamoring for in their current worldviews and life views. Never has any previous generation seen the amount and significance of evidences that are now available to us today.”

For many, skepticism surrounding the Bible will remain, regardless of how many artifacts are discovered. Many continue to use arguments from silence to discredit biblical history as fable. But it was similar arguments of silence that led people to believe David and Solomon never existed. Now we know that they did. And that they built a kingdom of biblical proportions.