The Kingbreaker

The Kingbreaker

Odd Andersen/AFP/Getty Images

The Roman Catholic Church shows just how much power it really has.
From the May 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

The Vatican has brought down the government of Italy.

In medieval Europe, it was well-known that the head of state was under the pope. Under the feudal system that reigned throughout the continent, all the lords were responsible to the king, and the king to God. Of course, the king had to go to God through the one called the “vicar of Christ”: the pope.

But this system of papal control ended hundreds of years ago. Or did it?

How Prodi Got Pushed Out

On January 24, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi was forced to resign after he lost a vote of confidence in the Senate. The government fell, and legislative elections were scheduled for mid-April.

The fiasco started when Clemente Mastella, the Catholic leader of Italy’s Udeur Christian Democrat Party, resigned as justice minister January 17 after being implicated in a cash-for-favors scandal. The Udeur Christian Democrat Party was a member of Prodi’s coalition. It is a small party, having only three seats in the Senate—but when the ruling coalition has a majority of just two, the small parties make all the difference.

Initially Mastella said his party would continue to support the coalition government. Over the next weekend, he changed his mind. Prodi lost his majority in the Senate and was forced out of office. Why?

According to the Italian newspaper La Stampa, the Vatican changed Mastella’s mind for him. “Prodi’s government dared to challenge the ecclesiastical hierarchy for the second time and this time it has had its hands burned,” it wrote. The paper was referring to the incident last year where the Vatican almost caused the collapse of the Italian government over Prodi’s support of a same-sex unions bill (see our May 2007 issue). After some Catholics in the ruling coalition opposed the legislation, it was dropped, Prodi won a confidence motion, and the crisis dissipated.

Mastella is merely a “loudspeaker” for the Vatican, according to Franco Giordano, a Communist member of parliament. The Guardian reported that he is “one of the Vatican’s most prominent political ‘trusties.’” He was in contact with the Catholic Church in the days leading up to his withdrawal of support for the Italian government. Several newspapers reported that Catholic Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco was among the first people Mastella informed about his decision to rebel against Prodi.

In short, before talking to the Vatican, Mastella supported Prodi. Afterward, he didn’t.

Though the Vatican officially denies involvement in Prodi’s downfall, Catholic leaders do not shy away from taking credit for it. “What has happened is a result of a lack of dialogue with Catholics, which has penalized Catholic values in particular. Without this dialogue, the country cannot go forward,” said Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins.

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, archbishop of Genoa and president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, made several anti-Prodi comments the same day Mastella announced his decision. “The country is in pieces,” he said. “There is lazy administration and a shirking of responsibility.”

The next day, an interview with Bagnasco was published in the papal newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. “Catholics must bring the contribution of spiritual and ethical values into the public square,” said Bagnasco. “The presence (in the public square) must be assumed by Catholics with greater persuasiveness and a greater capacity to respectfully explain our convictions, knowing that they come both from the gospel and from a common understanding of the value of life. …

“There is no real politics without high moral and spiritual values. Politics, in fact, has justice as its goal, and justice is a moral virtue. It therefore requires from all those involved in politics a high sense of the human person, the right to life and the family.”

In essence, what the cardinal was saying is that Catholics need to get more involved in politics, especially when it comes to protecting the family. In February last year, the Vatican forced Prodi to toe its line on same-sex unions. Now, it seems, it’s had enough of him entirely.

The Anti-Abortion Campaign

That just leaves the question of motive. What triggered the Vatican to remove Prodi now?

Prodi has always been unpopular with the Catholic Church with his anti-family stance on many issues. This may have simply been an opportune time to oust the prime minister and bring in a government more agreeable to the Vatican, nothing more.

However, the church may have had more on its mind than merely intervening to stop something it didn’t want. It may have intervened to push forward its own anti-abortion agenda.

Most members of Prodi’s cabinet would oppose a new campaign, supported by the Vatican, to increase Italy’s restrictions on abortion. Polls, however, have indicated that former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi would defeat Prodi in an election. Berlusconi leads Forza Italia, a Christian Democratic party. Historically, especially in the early post-war period, several of Italy’s Christian Democratic parties have been the unofficial parties of the Vatican.

Berlusconi has made abortion a key issue in his election campaign. On February 11, he called for a United Nations moratorium on pregnancy terminations, similar to its nonbinding resolution on the death penalty. “I think that recognizing the right to life from conception to natural death is a principle that the UN could make its own, just as it did with the moratorium on the death penalty,” said Berlusconi. The phrase “right to life from conception to natural death” is exactly the same terminology the Vatican uses when discussing abortion.

According to his spokesperson on family issues, Sen. Maria Burani Procaccini, if Berlusconi’s center-right coalition wins the election, he will present a new bill on abortion. “The new law will allow abortion only in really justified cases and within the time-frame already envisaged,” said Procaccini.

It is possible that Berlusconi agreed to toughen the laws on abortion if the Vatican would clear his path to power. If Berlusconi does win the election, and follows through with these promises, the Vatican will have successfully changed Italian law in its favor.

Truly, abortion is a travesty. The fact that Italy’s law would forbid it is good. But what makes this sequence of events so remarkable, particularly when viewed in light of history, is how successful the Vatican is becoming in forcing its will upon the political landscape.

Political Agenda

All over the world, particularly in Europe, the Catholic Church is becoming increasingly active in politics. In the tight run-up to Spain’s March general elections, for example, the Vatican sought to undermine the Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero. In December, Catholic bishops organized a rally that brought nearly 2 million pro-family demonstrators to Madrid. Catholic leaders’ criticism of Zapatero’s policies soon turned the rally into an anti-government demonstration. In January, the Spanish Bishops Conference released a paper effectively directing Spaniards to vote against the government and in favor of the conservative People’s Party. Zapatero has clashed with the church on abortion, same-sex unions, and religious instruction in schools. The Catholic Church badly wanted to oust him. This time, it failed. Spain is 94 percent Catholic. The fact that the Vatican failed to sway a large percentage of Catholic voters is certain to spur its efforts to take more firm control of the hearts and minds of believers.

Watch for the Vatican to become far more aggressive in its political agenda. As the Trumpet wrote the last time the Vatican attacked Prodi, “Ever since becoming pope, Benedict has used politics as one of his tools to instill Christianity back into the heart of Europe. Just a couple of months into his reign, for example, the Vatican called for a boycott of a referendum to change Italy’s strict fertility laws. The boycott was successful in voiding the referendum. Most recently, Benedict xvi told politicians in a papal document released March 13 [2007] they must not vote for laws that go against the Catholic Church’s position. Catholic legislators must strenuously defend the church’s ‘non-negotiable values,’ the pope stated. He said Catholic politicians must not vote for bills endorsing such issues as abortion and homosexual marriage, and also ‘called for Sunday to remain a day of rest’ (ansa, March 13). It is lawmakers’ social responsibility to give ‘public testimony to their faith,’ the pope stated” (May 2007).

This is about more than just blocking laws that promote immorality. The Catholic Church is seeking to unite Europe under the power of religion—the Catholic religion, and Catholic laws. It may appear to some that the Catholic Church’s activities are a good thing for all Italian and even all European Christians. Do not be fooled.

No longer does the Vatican have the overt power to make and unmake kings, to alter laws and dictate policy. The church lost almost all of its old feudal powers during the Reformation. It has wanted them back ever since. Soon the Vatican’s efforts will not be limited to a pro-family agenda. Watch for it to apply political pressure in other areas. Soon it will attempt to impose its beliefs in areas such as Sunday worship on the whole European continent.

The pope has demonstrated his political clout in Italy. Watch for it to extend across Europe.

The Audacity of Hate

The Audacity of Hate


Blaming whites for black problems offers little hope for a better tomorrow.
From the May 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

He has a right to express his views,” Al Sharpton said last year in response to a racially charged remark by radio shock jock Don Imus. “This is ridiculous,” he said of the public outcry over the remark. “I think Don Imus has been totally distorted.”

Actually, that wasn’t Sharpton’s response. In truth, Sharpton was one who successfully lobbied for Imus to be fired for his racial slur. The quotes above were made by Sharpton in March in defense of Barack Obama’s spiritual adviser for 20 years—the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Sharpton maintains that the media’s treatment of Wright’s bigoted diatribes was “grossly unfair.”

On March 18, Barack Obama, who also lobbied for Imus’s firing, attempted to distance himself from his spiritual mentor. But he too maintains, albeit with more tact and eloquence than Sharpton, that Dr. Wright has been misunderstood and unfairly characterized. He said the fact that so many people are “surprised” by Jeremiah Wright’s anger reveals how segregated whites and blacks are during the church hour on Sunday mornings. “[T]he anger is real—it is powerful,” he said. “And to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races” (emphasis mine).

That anger, of course, is rooted in slavery—the cause of many disparities and inequalities within the African-American community, Obama said. In other words, the legacy of slavery justifies Wright’s racist rants.

But as Orlando Patterson noted in his 1982 book Slavery and Social Death, “Slavery has existed from the dawn of human history right down to the 20th century, in the most primitive of human societies and in the most civilized. There is no region on Earth that has not at some time harbored the institutions.”

The roots of slavery run deep. And the fruits of it to this day go far beyond any lingering discriminatory injustices—whether real or perceived—in American society. In his 1999 book Disposable People, Kevin Bales estimated the world’s slave population to be 27 million. As E. Benjamin Skinner points out in his new release, A Crime So Monstrous, there are more slaves in the world today than at any point in human history. In the first chapter of his book, Skinner described in shockingly vivid detail how easy and inexpensive it was for him, working as an undercover investigative reporter, to purchase a teenaged sex slave in Haiti.

From New York, Skinner explained, it’s about a three-hour flight to Port-au-Prince. The unemployment rate in Haiti runs at around 70 percent. About the only industry that’s booming is the slave trade. In 1998, approximately one in ten Haitian children—some 300,000—had been sold into slavery. A few years ago, that figure had ballooned to 400,000. “These are the children who won’t look you in the eyes,” Skinner notes.

These are also children who have infinitely more reasons to be angry than Jeremiah Wright, who is living a life of wealth and privilege in an upper-middle-class suburb of Chicago.

Slavery—never mind what the most vocal leaders in the black community say—is not distinctly American, or even Western. What is distinctly Western, as Dinesh D’Souza pointed out in The End of Racism, is the abolition of slavery. “The American founders articulated principles of equality and consent which formed the basis for emancipation and the civil rights movement,” D’Souza wrote. Of course, abolition came with a heavy price. Over 500,000 whites were killed during the Civil War—about one for every six blacks who were emancipated. “In all the literature condemning Western slavery,” D’Souza wrote, “few scholars have asked why a practice sanctioned by virtually all people for thousands of years should be questioned, and eventually halted, by only one. …

“[F]or Lincoln as for [Frederick] Douglass, the greatest white and black statesmen of the time, the triumph of the union and the emancipation of the slaves represented not the victory of might over right, but the reverse; justice had won over that of expediency and the principles of the American founding had at long last prevailed.”

As endemic as slave trading still is in our modern world, imagine how much worse it would be in America had the South won. This point was not lost on leading voices of black America soon after emancipation. Booker T. Washington, who began his life as a slave, later became one of the most prominent black educators of his day. He said at the beginning of the 20th century, “Think about it: We went into slavery pagans; we came out Christians. We went into slavery pieces of property; we came out American citizens. We went into slavery with chains clanking about our wrists; we came out with the American ballot in our hands. … Notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, we are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”

It’s hard to imagine any American leaders today—white or black—expressing that kind of gratitude for the many blessings God has bestowed on the United States of America. We have taken these superabundant blessings for granted in a way that Booker T. Washington and Abraham Lincoln never would have. The average American has never visited war-torn, disease-infested, poverty-stricken, slave-trading regions in Southeast Asia, Central and South America or black Africa. Most Americans have never observed firsthand the filth and squalor that most people in this world live in—even in places like Haiti, a short plane flight away.

In Third World Haiti, the average family barely survives on a few dollars per month. By Haitian standards, even the poorest Americans live like kings.

Yet, without question, the blessings that black and white Americans have come to take for granted are now rapidly beginning to disappear. And social hardships have been especially brutal within the black community—where nearly three fourths of all children are born out of wedlock and the unemployment rate is almost double that of the rest of the nation.

And for these people, the message coming from leaders in the community like Jeremiah Wright is undeniably clear: Blame the white man. In 2006, Dr. Wright summed up our nation’s core values this way: “We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority, and believe it more than we believe in God.”

In truth, the belief that the United States is a racist nation is more fundamental to the church’s body of beliefs than God Himself.

Divided We Fall

Frederick Douglass, many years before Abraham Lincoln emancipated blacks, acknowledged, “It is evident that white and black must fall or flourish together.” Douglass understood, like Lincoln, that for the nation to survive, it had to be unified. A house divided against itself cannot stand, Jesus said (Matthew 12:25). Douglass, though he had criticized the Constitution early on, said later in life, “Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered.”

Far from upholding the Constitution today, many leaders in the black community see America’s foundational law as fundamentally racist. And instead of urging Americans to unite as one so that we might “flourish together,” many black leaders are actively inciting hatred and division.

When asked for his reaction to Wright’s incendiary remarks, black activist Jesse Jackson said he was “not going to address any of that now.” He had no comment. Al Sharpton believes Wright has been treated unfairly and that his reputation has been “totally distorted.” And Barack Obama, while he condemns the “controversial” statements of Wright, still considers him part of his own family. “He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children,” Obama said. “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” Obama’s wife, as was widely reported, said it wasn’t until her husband’s presidential campaign that she finally became proud to be an American.

Every once in a while, a voice of hope will emerge from the black community, like when Bill Cosby urged his fellow blacks in 2004 to stop blaming the “white man” for their problems and to look at themselves. But those voices are quickly silenced by the cacophony of race merchants and their many accomplices in academia and the liberal media.

Their audacious message of hate may empower and enrich the black leadership, but it does little in the way of helping the black community—and it further divides our nation.

Meanwhile, beyond our borders, the hateful animosity aimed at Americans of every color has never been so intense. Enemies who despise us are circling like vultures, observing our internal strife while planning for our demise. They are intent on taking our peoples captive as real slaves!

Does it seem far-fetched? Do we think that such a colossal collapse could never happen to such a great power as the United States? Do we somehow reason that the great God who gaveus such unprecedented power and wealth is not able to take it all away?

Blaming other races or genders or political groups for our ever-intensifying evils and curses will not solve any of our many problems. “The future of great nations rests on the promises the Eternal Creator made to Abraham,” Herbert W. Armstrong wrote in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. “The only hope of life after death for anyone—regardless of race, color or creed—is dependent on the spiritual phase of these promises to Abraham—the promise of grace through the ‘one seed’—Christ the Messiah!”

Exploiting NATO

From the April 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

The reunification of Germany in 1990 opened the way for an aggressive expansion of the European Union. Since then the EU has effectively used nato to further its own ends. The Balkan wars are a classic example. Afghanistan is shaping up to be another.

Though Germany declined involvement in the risky Iraq war, it has committed non-combat troops to Afghanistan. Recently the German government approved the deployment of a small additional force with a potential combat role in Afghanistan. True to past form, however, Germany is publicly resisting pressure from the United States to commit even more troops to that conflict. But this is just a ploy. Germany is playing for much higher stakes than Afghanistan. observes, “As the German defense minister, Franz Josef Jung, announced, the German ‘Quick Reaction Force,’ scheduled for deployment, could well take part in combat missions in the south of the country. But the condition is the explicit [approval] from Berlin [not nato, nor the U.S., nor the EU]. This exposes the German/U.S.-American contention, concerning the deployment in the south, to be nothing more than a power struggle, in which Berlin seeks to strengthen her influence over the way the war is being waged. Up to now this has been decided principally by the U.S. military” (February 8, emphasis mine).

The nato conference to be held in Bucharest, Romania, in early April may shape up to be one of the most crucial since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany, the most powerful nation in Europe, holds most of the aces regarding nato’s future. It may choose one of two courses of action. It can threaten a rift in nato between the EU and the U.S.—at a time when the West perceives security risks from both Islamic terror and a resurgent Russia. This ploy may persuade the U.S. to cave in and grant Berlin a greater say in strategy in Afghanistan in exchange for a stronger troop commitment from Germany and its fellow EU nations.

On the other hand, Germany has, by virtue of Berlin’s influence on Brussels, the power to really create an unmendable rift in nato between pro- and anti-U.S. European Union member nations. This rift could reach the point where nato loses relevance in military affairs, opening the way for the rise of the much-anticipated combined EU military force to replace it, with Germany at the helm.

Angela Merkel’s Historic Holocaust Speech (But Does the Pope Agree?)

Angela Merkel’s Historic Holocaust Speech (But Does the Pope Agree?)

Sebastian Scheiner-Pool/Getty Images

From the May 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

Throughout its history, the Holy Roman Empire has been dominated mainly by Germany and the Vatican. Its most popular political leader was Charlemagne, who was crowned emperor in a.d. 800. Today, some European leaders believe it will take another Charlemagne for the European Union to finally take off as a world power.

Europe is moving very fast toward crowning this new Charlemagne—yet this trend is not getting the headlines it deserves.

Angela Merkel’s Brave Speech

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Knesset address on March 18 was, I believe, the most significant speech made by any German leader since World War ii. In speaking about the German atrocities committed against the Jews during the war, she made a statement that some people have been waiting to hear for over 60 years. In an apology to her Israeli audience, Merkel said, “The mass murder of 6 million Jews, carried out in the name of Germany, has brought indescribable suffering to the Jewish people, Europe and the entire world.” She said Germans were “filled with shame” over the Nazi Holocaust.

While in Israel, Merkel also visited Yad Vashem—Israel’s Holocaust museum. As it happens, I visited the same museum a month earlier. It was a stirring, emotionally draining experience.

The day after the German chancellor’s speech in the Knesset, Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote a column for the Jerusalem Post titled, “What Angela Merkel Couldn’t Say Out Loud.” He wrote, “Few in Israel realize that a majority of Germans probably disagree with several key statements she made here about her country’s past—including the mention of shame and guilt …” (emphasis mine throughout).

He brings up a good point. It’s one thing for Merkel to repent on behalf of the German people for their sins during World War ii, but are the German people truly sorry?

It was courageous for Angela Merkel to even make such a statement—even more so when it disagrees with most of her own people! The apology could greatly damage her political career. But isn’t that a hallmark of great leadership—leading your people the right way regardless of the political consequences?

This speech will have a negative impact on her political career and signals a dangerous turning point in the history of Germany.

And you need to understand why!

Considering Germany’s Nazi past, Angela Merkel’s speech should have grabbed world headlines! I personally have never heard such a repentant statement from a powerful world leader in my life!

Some historians fear that Germany could start another world war. Chancellor Merkel knows that and is working feverishly to avoid such an unparalleled calamity.

Shamefully, her history-making speech hardly made a ripple in world news.

The Vatican’s Stance

Angela Merkel’s speech was full of statements we might expect from a religious leader. Why, then, has the German Pope Benedict refused to issue a similar apology? If you have been following the pope’s speeches and interviews, you will know that his best-known comments are those that have criticized other groups—especially religions.

In September 2006, the pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who said that anything new Mohammed had contributed was evil and inhumane. He said the Islamic movement had converted people to its faith by the sword. Both comments triggered an outcry of protest from the world of Islam.

The pope has also been openly critical of Protestants, wondering how they could even have the title of “church” attributed to them.

He has removed restrictions on the use of an old form of the Latin mass that includes a call for the Jews to be converted to Catholicism. In February, he revised the “Good Friday Prayer for the Jews” to read: “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.” These alterations have angered many Jews.

Notice what Jason Burke wrote in the Observer last year: “The pope … sparked bewilderment when he made no mention of anti-Semitism, or the fact that the Nazis killed millions of people because they were Jewish, in a speech last year at Auschwitz. He also failed to acknowledge that there might be some degree of collective responsibility of the German people” (July 8, 2007).

It’s astounding to me that a German pope—speaking at Auschwitz, of all places—could not come up with something similar to the comments made by Angela Merkel. I believe he steered clear of the subject because, like many Germans, Pope Benedict xvi disagrees with many of the key statements Merkel made—including the mention of shame and guilt.

Gerstenfeld continued in his Jerusalem Post column, “In contemporary Germany there are significant expressions of anti-Semitism and racism. … At the same time, there are efforts in Germany to rewrite the past. Books by historian Jörg Friedrich, who compares the Allied actions to his nation’s atrocities during the war, are bestsellers.”

That message—that the Allies were just as guilty as Germany was—is popular among Germans! Gerstenfeld continued, “They promote Holocaust equivalence by using Nazi semantics to describe the Allied bombings of Germany during World War ii.”

Rewriting history in order to glorify, or at least excuse, Nazi atrocities is obscene and deadly dangerous reasoning!

Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of Britain, once said that the problem with Europe today is that it has been anchored to Germany, instead of the other way around. Germany is already leading the European superpower economically. Soon the Germans will lead them militarily. So we can surely see how the German people think is supremely critical!

Remember, Germany has started two world wars—60 million people were killed!

Now we have a famous historian, Jörg Friedrich, helping to revive the same Nazi spirit of World War ii. He says America and Britain were just as evil as the Germans were in World War ii—as we defended ourselves from Nazi extermination!

The Nazi spirit is very much alive in Germany. It’s time we woke up. Our leaders are asleep and virtually unaware of the deadliest danger in this world!

How concerned should we be about what’s going on in Europe? As I said, I think Angela Merkel’s address in the Knesset was a moment of greatness for her. But her view will not prevail in Europe. I know that because of Bible prophecy. (To understand more, request your free copy of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire.) God says a much different view will prevail.

It will culminate in Europe’s new Charlemagne.

The Pope’s Standoff With Islam

Another recent development in the Vatican highlights the escalating tension between Catholicism and Islam. At his Easter vigil service on March 22, Pope Benedict baptized Magdi Allam, a former Muslim. Allam is a deputy editor of one of Italy’s most powerful newspapers, and he’s also a bestselling author.

Stratfor wrote this about the much-publicized baptism: “Allam is an Egyptian-born convert from Islam to Christianity, and is a prominent outspoken critic of radical Islamism” (March 24). The timing of the baptism was especially significant, as Stratfor went on to point out: “Only days before, on March 19, an Internet posting of an audio message purporting to be from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden accused the pope specifically of fomenting a ‘new crusade’ against Islam.”

In fact, a new crusade will happen.

Stratfor wrote, “The papacy is a unique geopolitical entity. It was once literally a kingmaker, crowning the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire.” And it’s going to crown another one, who will be the last one.

Soon after that, Jesus Christ will return and establish God’s government over all the Earth. God will save mankind from itself, but He will do it His way and according to His timetable. Today, your Bible says, the whole world is deceived (Revelation 12:9). But when Christ returns, He will remove that veil of deception and lead the world in the right way to live.

Before that, however, God prophesies in Daniel 11:40 of a great end-time clash between the king of the north (the EU dominated by Germany and the Vatican) and the king of the south (radical Islam). Even now, we are seeing this spectacular clash in its preliminary stages. (For more on this, request our free booklet The King of the South.) Prophecy is being fulfilled. You can know where all of these events are leading!

Stratfor continued, “In attempting to galvanize and energize 1 billion Catholics, Benedict might also further alienate 1 billion Muslims.” A superpower is rising in Europe. It will soon impact this world and shed blood as no church-state combine ever has. “[I]t could very well move the Vatican onto center stage in radical Islamism’s conflict with the West. And that can have profound geopolitical implications” (ibid.). Yes, indeed!

Now to prophecy. Revelation 17:10 says, “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.” The “one is” emerged during World War ii as the Hitler-led Axis power. God says one more resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire is coming.

It will be led by the new Charlemagne.

After that, the Messiah will return! Jesus Christ has to return. He said in Matthew 24 that if He didn’t, there would be no flesh saved alive! He must return to save us from ourselves! In this evil world, we love to exterminate people, it seems. God will put a stop to that forever.

The events we see today in Europe are tied directly to the return of Jesus Christ. This new Charlemagne will come on the scene and this will ultimately lead to the most wonderful, exciting, thrilling event that has ever happened on Earth!

The Obama-Wright Tragedy: It’s Much Bigger Than Race

The Obama-Wright Tragedy: It’s Much Bigger Than Race

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

From the May 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

I think most people who listen to Barack Obama believe he is sincere. But even sincere people can make serious mistakes.

Barack was deserted by his father at the age of 2, when the family lived in Hawaii. It was 1963 when Barack’s father left his wife and son to attend Harvard. His education was more important to him than his family. It should not have been.

It was a sad turn in Barack’s young life. Barack’s mother soon remarried. She and her son followed her husband, Lolo Soetoro, to Indonesia. But the second marriage also failed. Barack’s mom “always felt that marriage as an institution was not particularly essential or important,” according to her close friend Nina Nayar.

Marriage and family were “not particularly essential or important” to either of Barack’s biological parents—or to his stepfather. That is the curse of all curses in this world! How much must we suffer before we understand and correct the problem?

“By 1974, Ms. Soetoro was back in Honolulu, a graduate student and raising Barack and Maya, nine years younger,” Janny Scott wrote in the New York Times. “Barack was on scholarship at a prestigious prep school, Punahou. When Ms. Soetoro decided to return to Indonesia three years later for her field work, Barack chose not to go” (March 14).

Barack’s mom, an anthropologist, decided that she had to return to Indonesia as a part of her work. Barack chose to stay with his white grandparents in Hawaii during his four years of high school. His mom chose her work over him. So in essence, he was deserted again. Any child would be scarred by such parental treatment.

Barack chose to stay in the United States, the most blessed country on Earth. Barack and his wife have received outstanding educational opportunities in the U.S. and prospered extremely well. You have to admire their ambition.

But why would they be “like family” to such a “hate America” pastor as Jeremiah Wright?

Mr. Obama never had a strong father figure to look up to for any length of time. And his mother had a distorted view of marital and family love. So it was natural for him to seek out a strong father figure in Pastor Wright—whom he has said was “like family.”

Here is what Glenn Beck said on his cnn broadcast, March 19: “In the talking points page of the Trinity Church’s website, Reverend Wright, in his own words, states that the foundation of his beliefs are in systemized black liberation theology and praises James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology. This is what James Cone, the man who Obama’s senior spiritual adviser looks up to and whose ideas he preaches, states as black liberation theology. Listen carefully and please follow along.

“Quote, ‘Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressers here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.’”

This is one of the most anti-God, anti-Bible statements I have ever read! The God of the Bible is not about loving black people and hating white people. Christ died for the sins of all humanity. Any Christian should know that. And all humanity is going to be a part of God’s Family, in God’s time frame. Of course, those people who reject that Family will be excluded forever.

The foundational crisis in America and Britain today is broken families. Family is the institution most under attack. That is because the biblical gospel, or good news, is about the coming Family of God. The human family is the most sacred institution there is to prepare us for that almost unfathomable honor. (Request our free book The Missing Dimension in Sex. It’s a book every person on Earth should read.)

Here is what we need to be deeply concerned about. Roughly 70 percent of blacks are born out of wedlock. (That is true of about 48 percent of Hispanics and 25 percent of whites.) These are tragic fruits. Broken families produce more broken families. Usually these parents were deserted as babies by at least one of their own parents.

Who is going to educate those young people? And what will that education be like? It is a ticking time bomb about ready to explode—especially in American race relations!

Barack Obama has shown us that precious young people can be educated by the wrong people—they often are. What these young people need are strong families with a deep love for all humanity.

Everything in the Bible revolves around God’s loving Family. That is what the God Family is all about. Over a hundred prophecies in your Bible say we are going to see that God Family ruling in less than a generation. But who believes God in this evil generation? He is our only hope. And His Family is more real than all the racial hatred you see in this world.

There is no question that America committed a great sin against the black race by breaking up the black family. But at least America also abolished slavery and has shown some repentance. What other nation has ever even come close to doing that?

Much of God’s love is expressed in forgiveness. That is at the heart of the biblical message. If we’re not going to obey the Bible, we should at least stop pretending like we’re Christians. Remember, a Christian is one who follows Christ.

But this whole world is deceived (Revelation 12:9). A great fallen angel is the god of this world—that means this world worships him (2 Corinthians 4:4). We still have a lot to learn today, and sadly it will be through some horrendous suffering.

To paraphrase a biblical expression, we have sown the wind and we’re going to reap the whirlwind!

Nightmare in the Dakotas

Nightmare in the Dakotas


A look at a nation so familiar with danger, it can’t even see it.
From the May 2008 Trumpet Print Edition

Have you heard of the Republic of Lakota? According to a group of Sioux Indians, it is a sovereign nation—within the territorial United States, including parts of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska. They have appealed to foreign nations to recognize their independence from the U.S. So far, they’re out of luck.

Most of us haven’t even heard of the Lakota nation. If we had to quantify our level of concern that we’ll ever see the Republic of Lakota on a future National Geographic map, it would probably fall somewhere between “insignificant” and “punch line.”

But let’s think about this. After all, last September, the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous people that some believe bolsters the Lakotas’ legal case. For that matter, Kosovo, a chunk of Serbia, declared independence in February—and it managed to get several nations, including the U.S., to accept the idea.

So let’s just briefly imagine a similar scenario playing out in America. It’s a stretch, but stay with me. There’s a point to this.

Imagine the UN passing several declarations establishing the Lakotas’ historical and legal claim to their own nation. Indians nationwide immigrate there to take it over demographically. Many whites move out, and soon the Lakota nation becomes something of a de facto state of its own.

Under heavy international pressure, the U.S. government decides that, in the interest of keeping peace, it is best to relinquish control of the area. It encourages whites to leave—and finally undertakes to forcibly remove those who insist on staying.

Most Americans are upset by this turn of events, but then the situation turns seriously dangerous. Reports of terrorists smuggling weapons into the Lakota nation are confirmed when rockets begin to descend on U.S. cities—Omaha, then Sioux Falls, then Denver. The government responds with a degree of force—and is roundly condemned by other nations for doing so—but the rockets keep coming.

Imagine further if immigrants, both legal and illegal, begin to demand that the U.S. give up an enormous chunk of the Southwest—the entirety of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas—to form a new independent nation. We’ll call it Mexifornia, to use Victor Davis Hanson’s term. Imagine non-whites, most of whom don’t speak English, becoming the heavy majority. They form their own schools, and the curriculum includes virulent anti-white propaganda. A small but growing percentage of the immigrants begin to grow violent, staging increasingly brutal riots in U.S. cities bordering the Mexifornia region.

Imagine, over time, civil unrest and terrorist attacks becoming somewhat common all across America. Tussles in the streets—a bombing on a subway, in a deli, at a dance club. Local police forces are overwhelmed. A general, growing sense of dread and hopelessness spreads.

In order to address the growing security threat, the U.S. decides to reinstitute the draft, obligating everyone 17 years old and up—both men and women—to serve. The military swells to almost 10 times its present size: 8 million active troops and 19 million reservists—27 million total. Imagine going to town and regularly seeing U.S. soldiers openly carrying automatic rifles. Imagine seeing a private security guard outside nearly every restaurant. Imagine security checkpoints everywhere—when you’re parking at a school, when you’re entering a hospital, when you’re going to church.

And still, imagine the news continuing to report ongoing rocket attacks on U.S. cities. Virtually everyone in the country has been personally affected: a family member or acquaintance has experienced a missile attack or personally participated in a military strike against the secessionists.

Imagine if every time Washington takes action to protect Americans by retaliating against the terrorist perpetrators, it is accused by the UN and the international press of escalating the violence and destroying any chance of peace.

Imagine, then, the Mexican president saying he intends to wipe the U.S. off the map. Meanwhile he is robustly pursuing a nuclear program—a program that could easily produce nuclear weapons that would enable him to fulfill his pledge.

And so on. You get the picture.

This scenario is improbable to the point of being ridiculous. Except that, as you’ve surely realized by now, we’re not really talking about the Republic of Lakota, or the United States.

We’re talking about the Jewish state of Israel.

In that nation, something very close to what we’ve just imagined is reality.

Israel is, in many ways, the UN’s top enemy, the subject of almost continuous reprimand and censure. International pressure on Israel to turn the other cheek to terrorist violence and to relinquish territory it won in fundamentally defensive wars against Arab aggression is immense. Not long after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, the terrorist group Hamas took over and has since launched thousands of rocket attacks at Israeli civilian population centers. The loss of the West Bank to Israel would be comparable to the loss of our fictional, five-state Mexifornia to the U.S.—yet it too is on the table for discussion.

Our scenario above didn’t even address the fact that Israel faces the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah on its border with Lebanon, Syria on its northern border, and an increasingly radical Egypt on its southern border—in addition to Iran itself, whose president has vowed to wipe it off the map, not far to its east.

The Jewish state is on a permanent war footing, with a mandatory draft and an enormous military (proportionally speaking, just as I described above in U.S. terms). The rifle-toting soldiers are everywhere, as are the security guards by the restaurants.

To Israelis, most of these things are practically invisible. For this American writer, however, walking the streets of Jerusalem for a week revealed a myriad of signs of the edginess—and in some cases, the weariness—of a people under attack. The nation’s parting sentiments were the layers of security I had to pass through just to get on the plane home: I counted nine of them, including a detailed 28-minute interrogation.

The perils Israel faces are very real and very serious. If comparable crises prevailed in the United States, the effect on the nation would be devastating.

For the Jewish state, however, war has been a way of life since it was born nearly 60 years ago. The Jews don’t fear confrontation. In many ways they seem to embrace it.

Their familiarity with danger, however, has a major downside.

The Jews have survived so many life-threatening situations—and not just in the wars Israel has endured as a state, but throughout the history of this oft-maligned and downtrodden people—that there seems to be a sense of inevitability about their surviving whatever the future may bring as well.

Yes, there is the war-weariness, infamously articulated by Ehud Olmert in his “We are tired of fighting, we are tired of winning” comment. But coupled with that is the assumption that even if the Jews give away land, cave in to international pressure, negotiate with terrorists, botch a war, carve off chunks of their capital city, wildly alter their strategy against the enemy from week to week or even day to day—somehow they will still come out okay in the end.

And when evidence to the contrary mounts, that just means they need to think harder. Surely the solution is within reach.

Many of Israel’s best thinkers are at work on the problem, and proposed solutions are proliferating. Annex the West Bank to Jordan. Encourage Jewish emigration. Improve Israel’s international PR. Quadruple the size of Jerusalem. Build an airport and a highway loop to attract businessmen. Drive electric cars to reduce dependency on Muslim oil exporters. Promote women’s rights in Muslim countries. Throw the prime minister in jail. Do this or do that, and we’ll be fine.

At a February conference in Jerusalem pondering these possibilities, Shlomo Amar, the chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, made a telling comment. He asked, “Where is the joy in Jerusalem the City of God?” Today, truly, it is a city existing under a black pall of crises, a city of friction, of anger, of fear.

It is a marked contrast to the prophecy in the book of Zechariah—perhaps Rabbi Amar was alluding to it—of a time when Jerusalem will be a picture of joy, its streets full of boys and girls playing, with old men and women looking on contentedly.

Jerusalem, the rabbi said, “is the core, the spring, the fountain of our lives. From there we derive our strength.” He then spoke of the Jews having been driven out of Jerusalem and scattered among the nations for millennia. But, he said, “Two thousand years of exile and murder could not erase Jerusalem from the hearts of the Jews. Jerusalem has never ceased to be the first thing in our prayers, our expectations, our hopes. It was always our highest wish.”

Such steadfastness is a wonderful quality. But that is not the most important point to draw from the history of which Rabbi Amar spoke.

That history begs some penetrating questions. Why were the Jews exiled? Why were they driven out, never to return until 1948? Why did God allow the very City of God to be trampled and the Jews to be decimated and scattered? It wasn’t because of a lack of ingenuity. And it is utterly naive to think that such a disaster couldn’t happen again.

The signs are everywhere that it will, and soon.