In North Korea Crisis, Russia and China Hold the Cards

TOPSHOT - Members of the UN Security Council vote at a UN Security Council meeting over North Korea’s new sanctions on September 11, 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York. / AFP PHOTO / KENA BETANCUR

In North Korea Crisis, Russia and China Hold the Cards

These two nations are the reason why North Korea is able to operate so freely and dangerously.

After the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously on September 11 to increase sanctions on North Korea, the United States tried to portray it as a victory for the American-led efforts to neutralize the North Korean threat. But the UN’s move actually showcases the influence of Russia and China and shows that these two nations hold the cards on North Korea.

Initially, the Trump administration had proposed a UN resolution that included a total ban on exporting oil to the North. It called for a freeze on the assets of the North Korean government and its leader, Kim Jong-un, a total ban on importing the nation’s textiles, and an injunction on hiring and paying North Korean slave workers who labor in other nations to earn cash for the regime. It also included a global travel ban on Kim Jong-un.

Such a sanctions package—if adhered to—would have had a deep impact on the North’s economy and could have applied sufficient pressure to change the status quo.

But that was not the resolution that the UN ended up approving.

Russia and China are both permanent members of the Security Council and, as such, have the power to veto any resolution. Both were opposed to the idea of a total oil embargo on North Korea and made clear that they would not approve the U.S.’s original draft resolution.

On the day the U.S. proposed the original resolution, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “We should not give in to emotions and push Pyongyang into a corner.”

The U.S. knows that it is not even worth bringing a resolution to the table if it is something that Russia or China will be certain to veto. So the American leadership set to work watering down the resolution to a degree that would make it acceptable to Moscow and Beijing.

The result was Resolution 2375. Russia and China allowed this resolution to pass because it does not “push Pyongyang into a corner.” Rather than banning oil exports to North Korea, it only caps them at current levels. The punitive measures against Kim Jong-un were also cut.

This resolution is unlikely to make much of an impact on Pyongyang.

“If there’s a total embargo, that would be a good step,” South Korean lawmaker Lee Soo-hyuck said on September 11. “But setting a cap on crude oil exports to North Korea is meaningless.”

“[T]he resolution basically bans or caps what China and Moscow permitted to be banned or capped,” Steve Mollman wrote for Quartz. “Beijing has long argued that, despite pressure from [U.S. President Donald] Trump to do more, it can’t control the actions of North Korea. While that is clearly true, China also, along with Russia, holds more cards than it would care to admit.”

On September 2, during statements delivered at Armstrong Auditorium, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry said it is Russia and China that the world should be concerned about, and that it is those two nations who allow North Korea to behave as it does.

In the days that followed Mr. Flurry’s statements, North Korea detonated its first hydrogen bomb, the U.S. came up with a draft resolution to try to rein in the North, and then Russia and China “shadow vetoed” that resolution—replacing it with one that is “meaningless.”

These events prove Mr. Flurry’s analysis to have been entirely accurate. The accuracy comes from the fact that his analysis is based on the sure word of Bible prophecy.

On September 13, Mr. Flurry wrote:

The Bible’s prophecies show that, in a sense, the North Korea crisis is a massive distraction from the real threat posed by China and Russia. These powerful Asian nations are the only reason North Korea is able to operate so freely. And Bible prophecy shows that they pose a threat many times greater than the one from North Korea! Nevertheless, nuclear technology from North Korea could still play a major role in events during the time ahead ….

The prophecies that Mr. Flurry is referring to can be found in Ezekiel 38 and 39, Daniel 11, Revelation 9:16 and 16:12, and in other passages throughout the Bible. They show that Russia will lead an astoundingly powerful military bloc in the end time, with China in a position of secondary leadership. These passages show that Asian states such as North Korea will be assimilated into that Russian-led bloc and lend their military power to it, but they will not be major players.

In his booklet The Prophesied ‘Prince of Russia,’ Mr. Flurry assembles these scriptures to explain that Russia—and one specific Russian leader—will be at the helm of this mighty end-time Asian military force. Please order a free copy today.

190822-Obama Trump-GettyImages-622150150.jpg

The Obama Dossier

The dubious intelligence report that fueled the Trump-Russia hoax.

Read More

Most Americans Know Absolutely Nothing About the U.S. Constitution

Most Americans Know Absolutely Nothing About the U.S. Constitution

Listen to the Sept. 18, 2017, episode of the Trumpet Daily Radio Show.

Sunday was Constitution Day in the United States. While many Americans are celebrating that document, a staggering amount of Americans don’t know a single thing about it. Abraham Lincoln said that the Declaration of Independence defines the purpose of the American republic and that the Constitution reveals its method of operation. Americans’ ignorance of the nation’s founding documents is a monumental crisis that receives little attention. On today’s Trumpet Daily Radio Show, we discuss why forgetting history is a more deadly crisis than almost any other crisis America faces.

190821-Matteo Salvini-GettyImages-1162878028.jpg

Il Capitano Matteo Salvini: Italy’s Crisis or Opportunity?

Italy’s crisis may contribute to Europe’s prophesied transformation and the rise of yet another strong Catholic leader.

Read More

Europe’s Shady Migrant Deal With Libya

Migrants and refugees on a rubber boat off the coast of Libya.

Europe’s Shady Migrant Deal With Libya

Bribing the gatekeeper has worked before, but this latest Libyan incarnation has dangerous implications.

JERUSALEM - At the height of the migrant crisis in 2015, over 100,000 people per month traveled through Turkey en route to Europe. In order to quell the stream of mostly young African and Middle Eastern men, European nations experimented with numerous ideas. From increased border checks to the construction of border fences to bolstering the border police, each of Europe’s solutions were largely ineffectual.

It was only when German Chancellor Angela Merkel approached Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with a proposition that the solution to the crisis presented itself. As the gatekeeper to Europe, if Turkey could be convinced to keep the migrants within its territory, the problem would be largely solved.

And so Angela Merkel, with the backing of the other European nations, did what she had to—with somewhere between €3 billion and €6 billion (us$3.6 billion and $7.2 billion) she incentivized Erdoğan to stop the migrants. While there were other parts to the deal, it was clearly money that motivated Erdoğan. The Turkish strongman agreed, and effectively closed the tap on the migrants into Europe. And so, since March 2016, when the deal was implemented, there has been a 97 percent reduction in the migrant flow from Turkey to Greece.

But this wasn’t the first case of “bribe the gatekeeper” in order to stop migrants coming into Europe. A similar event took place eight years earlier.

In August 2008, with Europe experiencing a surge of migrants coming across the Mediterranean from Libya, then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed a “friendship agreement” with none other than longtime Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi. The deal was simple: Under the guise of compensation for Italy’s colonial crimes against Libya, Berlusconi pledged to pay $5 billion to Qadhafi if he was able to stem the flow of illegal migrants. As with Erdoğan after him, Qadhafi held his end of the bargain and successfully reduced migrant flows from 40,000 in 2008 to 5,000 two years later.

Fast forward to 2016 and 2017, and the migrant flows from Libya returned with increasing numbers. From January 2016 through July 2016, some 78,000 migrants arrived in Italy, most of which left from Libya. The same period in 2017 saw that number increase to 86,000.

But then something drastic happened at the end of July this year, because August saw an 87 percent drop in new arrivals into Italy.

What happened?

As Al-Monitor reported on September 12, monitors and researchers were baffled by the drop in numbers in August. What could account for the huge drop in numbers?

Was the EU mission in the Mediterranean charged with stopping the migrants finally becoming successful? Hardly.

Or was it a drastic change in the weather patterns that kept the migrants on shore? Not so much.

It turns out that Italy has been working behind the scenes for a couple of months on behalf of the European Union to financially induce Libya to keep the migrants—another attempt at bribe the gatekeeper.

However, this incarnation is different from what took place with Erdoğan and Qadhafi.

The difference is that Libya today doesn’t have one strongman for Europe to bribe. Instead, given Libya’s fractious state without a central authority, Italy has been forced to pay off a whole host of mini-dictators and militias, all of the gatekeepers, to different degrees, of the migrant routes from southern Libya to the northern coast.

The point man on this strategy is Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti. He told the Guardian on September 7, “The crucial point for me had been to go to Libya to find a solution. In Turkey, with its migrant crisis, there was a strong leader with which to work—perhaps too strong. In Libya, it was the opposite.”

Minniti has personally traveled to Libya throughout the last couple of months to individually deal with groups holding power in key cities along the migrant routes. While most of this money is handed out to the internationally backed Government of National Accord (GNA), some are flowing directly from the EU to Italy and into the hands of local leaders.

“We discussed a pact,” Minniti told the Guardian. “It was quite simple: Engage yourself against the trafficking of human beings and we will help you build an alternative economy.”

Put another way, this means Italy has begun to pay off the very groups responsible for smuggling people through Libya and onto boats in the first place.

This, it turns out, is the way Europe has chosen to deal with the Libyan migrant crisis and was the cause of August’s drastic reduction of migrants making it to Italy.

To be fair, Europe has tried to reduce the flow of migrants in a myriad of ways from Libya before this shady deal—especially through Operation Sophia. The original intent of the mission was to stop the flow of migrants by disrupting the business model of the people smugglers, by picking up and capturing the smugglers as well as destroying their boats. This could only take place outside Libya’s territorial waters. This was successful until the smugglers used cheaper, unseaworthy vessels that couldn’t make it into international waters. In order to save the migrants from drowning, numerous nongovernmental organizations sailed into Libyan territorial waters, picked up the migrants—sometimes in cahoots with the smugglers themselves, and then sent them to Europe for processing. This only made it easier for the smugglers to get them to Europe and harder for the European government to stop the trafficking.

And so Europe has now resorted to completely changing the business model of the smugglers—in some cases, just by directly paying them off to stop their trade.

While this policy seems to be working, there are worrying signs that the strategy will destabilize Libya further.

For two years, Europe has tried desperately to unite Libya under one government, which it could then work with to stop the migrants from heading north. Its efforts culminated in the establishment of the United Nations-backed gna, led by Fayez al-Sarraj two years ago. However, Sarraj still lacks the political or military power within Libya to bring the nation together. Clearly, handing out cash to individual tribal and militia leaders will only increase intertribal fighting.

Furthermore, this policy will increase the number of migrants who will be stranded inside Libya. As Guma al-Gamaty, head of the Libyan Taghyeer Party, wrote this week, “This strategy would practically transform Libya into a buffer zone ‘protecting’ Europe from sub-Saharan migrants. … The permanent resettlement of millions of sub-Saharan migrants in Libya would cause dramatic demographic changes in the country and eventually lead to major social and economic upheaval.”

There is also the question of the treatment of migrants by the outsourced nongovernmental groups that have been known for their horrific treatment of migrants in the past. “The list of violations and abuses faced by migrants in Libya is as long as it is horrific,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said last December.

However, all those important points aside, there is another fundamental danger in this European policy that the Trumpet is watching closely: By directly infusing Libyan militias and tribal leaders with European cash, Libya’s sovereignty can be increasingly undermined by Europe.

Where the local tribal leaders used to gain income from the smugglers, now their business model will be conditional upon the continued flow of European cash—and, in a sense, will become beholden to European wishes.

Already, there is a lack of trust in Libya toward the gna for giving away its sovereignty. In early August, Serraj invited Italian warships into Libyan territorial waters without consulting others in Libya. This resulted in widespread criticism in Libya, with his critics saying the move was a “violation of Libyan sovereignty.” It’s likely that this current move to pay off local leaders with European money will be viewed by many Libyans in the same way.

Whether or not this policy works at stemming the migrants, it is this point of this loss of Libyan sovereignty to Europe that has resonating historic associations as well as powerful prophetic implications (both of these are discussed in Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry’s article “Mediterranean Battle Escalating Into World War III!”).

Since 2011, Mr. Flurry has pointed to Libya as a flashpoint between radical Islam led by Iran and Christian Europe. This is based on the prophecy in Daniel 11:40-43, which clearly states that Europe, faced with a growing Islamic push northward, will respond with a takeover of Libya (his free booklet The King of the South explains this).

While the Iranian influence in Libya is hard to discern right now, Europe is clearly getting more involved. It’s likely that the ever increasing destabilization in Libya that has resulted in its current migrant policy could actually mobilize an Islamic counteroffensive. Already, there are several powerful Islamic leaders inside Libya who view Europe’s actions as imperialistic.

Continue to watch Libya as Europe will become more involved in Libyan affairs. In lieu of a dictator to deal with directly, Europe will have to increase its presence in an increasingly destabilized and sectarian Libya. Biblical prophecy reveals that there will be increasing pushback from many Libyans over such a policy. For more about Europe’s long-standing strategy in Libya, please read “Mediterranean Battle Escalating Into World War III!

190821-Matteo Salvini-GettyImages-1162878028.jpg

Il Capitano Matteo Salvini: Italy’s Crisis or Opportunity?

Italy’s crisis may contribute to Europe’s prophesied transformation and the rise of yet another strong Catholic leader.

Read More

Separate Clothing for Boys and Girls? Get It While You Can

Separate Clothing for Boys and Girls? Get It While You Can

Forget taking your child to the clothing aisle of his or her gender. Depending on where you shop, you may not be able to find it.

If you are a Brit walking into your local John Lewis department store, you may notice that something has changed. You may have trouble navigating your way around the children’s clothing aisles: That would be because there are no longer sections for boys and girls.

Not only are the separate sections done away with, but so are the individual labels on the clothing. The children’s clothing section is now a conglomeration of non-specific clothing, intended to encourage children to branch outside of gender “boxes” and try out clothing pertaining to that of what was once known as the opposite sex.

Your boy wants the latest JL Plisse slip dress? No problem—no “confining” label—no need to wander to a girl’s section. Or perhaps he’d still like to retain the dinosaur print style, but to have it in dress form? That’s part of the new “unisex” range. Your daughter wants JL’s three-piece suit, or fancies a set of jocks? No worries—no rules—no labels—no judging.

The store website still displays gender-specific clothing, but that practice is under review and likely to be changed.

An exchange over John Lewis’s controversial move was recently hosted on Good Morning Britain:

John Lewis isn’t the only store going in this direction for children’s clothing. Target has just launched a new gender-neutral line, which will be featured in many stores between the girls’ and boys’ sections. The move comes in conjunction with Target’s decision to start installing gender-neutral bathrooms.

And the changes in children’s clothing are now making their way into schools. Dozens of headlines have been made in England lately, especially regarding a developing story in which a Church of England school allowed its boys to start wearing dresses if they so chose. The news revolved around a couple that removed their two children from the school after a transgender classmate was given permission to wear a dress.

Of course, the gender-bending is not limited to children. Many companies are designing and producing genderless adult clothing, even pushing the idea that separate men’s and women’s clothing should not even exist. Case in point: Selfridges’ Oxford Street store replaced its men’s and women’s sections with three entire floors of “agender” products. Selfridges, like John Lewis, is a well-known and even prestigious brand.

Of course, by now this should not be surprising. These stores are only now finally catching up with the kinds of items that have been paraded around catwalks for years. For example, here’s fashion designer J. W. Anderson’s reportedly “standout” take on men’s fall fashion for 2013:

This year’s London Fashion Week Men’s spring collection was along similar lines—a rank and file of gaunt males, most of them pasty white and long-haired, variously arrayed in dresses, tube tops, and high heels. As the Guardian’s head of fashion Imogen Fox wrote in the 2015 season: “This is perhaps the main point of the 2015 take on unisex—that menswear is becoming more feminine and not the other way around.” Her articleDude Looks Likes a Lady: The Unisex Trend Blurring Gender Boundaries” asks optimistically if the runway shows, which were “all about feminization,” would finally go mainstream. It seems that, gradually at first and now with more and more momentum, they are.

And, at least in the more traditional stores, they are starting with the children.

What was just yesterday a drive to make the minuscule segment of the population that is transgender feel accepted is quickly becoming a mainstream effort to teach our children that there are no differences between males and females. And that, should they so desire, they may change sex or identify as no sex. That by the age of 2 they can make a decision about being transgender.

Children are deeply impressionable. Naturally, this kind of instruction has caused a massive uptick in children seeking medical advice for their gender. The UK’s Gender Identity Development Service (a clinic specifically for young people) has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009.

This education has left several young people traumatized. Stories have been emerging over the last several months of American kindergarten students, who had transgender books read to them in class, coming home confused and in tears for fear of turning into a different gender. Those young kids who accidentally refer to their transitioning classmates by the “wrong pronoun” risk the trip of shame to the principal’s office. Check out one of these incidents:

This all represents an extremely potent step in a lightning-fast, radical social transformation.

The people behind these moves want us to raise up a new generation to believe they can be any sex they want, whenever they want. They want parents to accept that if children decide (perhaps by the age of 2) that they are not the right gender, they can start wearing clothing of the opposite sex—which quickly begins to have far more radical ramifications: taking pre-puberty hormone blockers; later getting nipped, tucked and inserted with various plastic appendages. Many of these young people will surely decide to be no gender at all and may go down the track of removing nipples and genitals altogether to become purely “sexless.”

That’s not choice. That’s abuse.

Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of the American College of Pediatricians, (bravely) pointed out in her article “I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-scale Child Abuse,it is child abuse to be pumping our children with hormone adjusters and various other largely untested medical procedures. And it’s child abuse to be brainwashing our children from toddler age that their gender is simply fluid. Gender is developed and hardwired in the womb. To pretend otherwise, and teach otherwise, is a dangerous lie.

A recent article on the UK Mirror lambasted those who take issue against “boys wearing dresses.” The author stated, criticizing the religious, “The Bible does not discuss … cross-dressing.” Actually, it does. Deuteronomy 22:5 unequivocally states: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

There are plenty of scriptures that confirm that this law still applies (for example, Matthew 5:17-19; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; and 1 Corinthians 6:9). But perhaps a more compelling argument is just to watch what is happening in Western society because we have cast this law aside. The dangers are quickly becoming clear. What started small just a short time ago has overnight become a movement threatening to utterly overhaul Western culture.

Read Trumpet contributor Dennis Leap’s latest article, “Encouraging Gender Fluidity Is Child Abuse.” And if you’re in for more of a detailed read, take a look at our booklet Redefining Family, by Joel Hilliker. He writes:

Why male and female? Have you ever thought about that? … Homosexuality advocates assume that gender is mere decoration—maybe an evolutionary quirk, or even a mistake on God’s part. At best, they trivialize and neutralize sex distinctions.

What if that assumption is wrong?

Is it possible that sex is neither an accident of evolution, nor an arbitrary ornament on creation, but a conscious, deliberate choice and intentional design fashioned by a super-intelligent Creator who used superior reasoning and logic?

God created two genders for a supreme purpose. Attempts to blur and destroy this will always end badly.

There are many other groups out there that see the danger behind this trend, though that number is shrinking. But how many know why God created two genders—what His purpose is for marriage and family? This subject has a built-in vision more wonderful than most understand—one absolutely central to God’s purpose for man.

This is why John Lewis’s move is so dangerous. It is destroying the family, the foundation of society. It closes people’s eyes to their supreme reason for being.

For a complete study on the vital importance of this subject, read our free booklet Redefining Family.

190821-Matteo Salvini-GettyImages-1162878028.jpg

Il Capitano Matteo Salvini: Italy’s Crisis or Opportunity?

Italy’s crisis may contribute to Europe’s prophesied transformation and the rise of yet another strong Catholic leader.

Read More

Three Things the Trumpet Is Watching in the German Elections

Germany’s election is entering the home stretch.

The German elections are just around the corner. It could prove to be a major milestone, not just for Germany but for all of Europe.

But how can you make sense of the closing moments of this campaign, and what should you be looking for in the actual results of the election?

Here are three of the main things we’re watching at

1. Watch the impact of the Alternative für Deutschland.

This party will almost certainly enter parliament for the first time, giving it a much louder voice. But support for the AfD goes well beyond those who vote for it. Many more agree with a lot of what the party says, but are put off by the stigma surrounding it. The AfD’s success could help push German politics further to the right.

2. Watch what the new government sounds like.

Angela Merkel is projected to remain Germany’s chancellor after the vote. If she does, what will her government look and sound like? Will she shift to the right in the AfD? Or will she ignore it—storing up much larger problems later?

3. Watch Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.

Talk of Guttenberg joining the next cabinet is rife. Watch how successful he is.

And keep watching this election. The Bible is full of specific prophecies about modern Germany—prophecies we’ve been proclaiming for decades. They foretell a major political change in Germany and, in so many ways, you can see that we are already on the cusp of that upheaval. The stage is set and these elections could play a huge role in how these prophecies unfold.

For a deeper understanding of what is going on in Germany, read our free booklet A Strong German Leader Is Imminent.

Hong Kong—the End of Freedom Begins

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

Read More

Week in Review: Russian War Games, Calls for U.S. of Europe, Italy’s Deal With Libya, U.S. Wildfires, and Much More

Paratroopers demonstrate their skills in the town of Brest.

Week in Review: Russian War Games, Calls for U.S. of Europe, Italy’s Deal With Libya, U.S. Wildfires, and Much More

Show Notes

  • Russia has started its biggest military exercises since the end of the Cold War this week in Belarus. It’s another aggressive move that has Europeans nervous and wondering if all those troops will go home once the war games end.
  • The president of the European Commission this week laid out his vision of Europe’s future, and despite Britain choosing to leave the unification project, Eurocrats are still going full steam ahead.
  • The flow of migrants from Libya into Italy slowed dramatically last month—and it turns out it was because of a shady deal Europeans made with some unsavory groups within Libya.
  • We’ll also talk about terrorism in London—the environmental disasters in the United States you didn’t hear about because of hurricanes Harvey and Irma—the real meaning behind sanctions against North Korea—how Hezbollah’s budget has quadrupled since the nuclear deal with Iran went into effect—and how opioid addiction has quadrupled just since 2000.