I subscribe to National Geographic Magazine. The reason I read National Geographic is because about 3 times a year they do an in-depth article on Europe, the Middle East or Asia. I do not subscribe to the magazine to see a confused boy (who thinks he is a girl) put on the cover. I am furious with the publisher of the magazine because of their blatant, sinful agenda! I do not condemn the nine-year-old boy on the cover who lacks parental leadership—and where is the father who should have been there to help his son out of this confusion? The obsession of many in our nation with a decadent, politically correct agenda is shameful. Here are more foolish specimens:
● Sex change operations are now called, “gender reassignment surgery”.
● Atheists are now to be called “brights”.
● Abortion advocates are called “pro-choice”.
● An increasing numbers of people refer to pedophiles as “minor attracted persons or (MAPs)”
● “Non-binary” describes people who see themselves as a gender other than traditionally male or female. A gender fluid person may at any time identify as male or female. An agender, a person who identifies as not having a gender. Homosexuals are “gays”.
● “Illegal aliens” became “illegal immigrants,” then “undocumented immigrants,” then “undocumented workers,”
● Calling someone your “Partner,” is a common expression meaning you are not married to the person, but supposedly defines a partnership relationship as equal; it doesn’t mark gender and doesn’t imply possession—How foolish! We are becoming a nation of “partners”—partnership is now replacing the commitment of Marriage.
● At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “micro-aggressions,” or small social slights that might cause “searing” trauma. According to a “Bias-Free Language Guide” used by the University of New Hampshire, the word “American” is “problematic” and therefore should not be used. “North Americans often use ‘American’ which usually, depending on the contexts, fails to recognize South America,” the guide explains.
● Current University of California President Janet Napolitano recently issued a list of micro-aggressions that all faculty should avoid using if they want to keep their jobs. This list of taboo micro-aggressions included many common questions and phrases seemingly devoid of any ill intent. One of the banned, supposedly offensive phrases is “America is a land of opportunity.” According to Napolitano and her politically correct cohorts, such a phrase is a form of coded, covert racism that creates a toxic campus culture.
● Morally Liberal, Economic Socialists, and Communists are now to be identified as a “Progressives”.
● According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a “disproportionate” impact on minorities.
● Throughout several US councils and organizations, any terms using the word ‘man’ as a prefix or suffix have been ruled as not being politically correct. ‘Manhole’ is now referred to as a ‘utility’ or ‘maintenance’ hole.
● Ghetto is now to be called “Economically disadvantaged area”.
● Gangs became “youth groups”.
God will soon punish us for our corruption: Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil—Isaiah 5:20. Misrepresenting something bad as something that is “good”—Rewording that hides evil or the embracing of “confusion” mocks our Holy Creator.—
The “far right” in Europe will continue to surge in popularity going into 2017. Dutch populist candidate (PVV leader) Geert Wilders — who’s currently leading in the polls and is the main favorite to win the Dutch elections in March of 2017 — has quickly criticized Europe’s leaders for their bumbling when it comes to dealing with terrorist events such as we saw in Germany earlier this month. Speaking to PJ Media, Wilders says:
“This is Europe today. Weak leaders, open borders and Muslim terrorists who freely travel all over our continent wherever they want and kill whenever they see fit. Our governments are asleep, our secret services have no clue at all and our people are killed and in serious danger.”
Anis Amri, the Tunisian terrorist responsible for the attack on a Christmas market in Berlin, fled from Germany to the Netherlands after his vicious crime. In the Netherlands, he took a bus to the French city of Lyon and then took a train to the French Alpine town of Chambery. Finally, he headed to Milan, Italy, where he was shot by the Italian police. People are shocked that this terrorist could travel through 3 countries without being detected.
Wilders: “We need to close our borders, get rid of our weak leaders by elections, deIslamize our societies in order to safeguard our liberty and protect our people. We are facing an existential problem here; war has been declared on us and we have to start fighting back.”
There is a crisis of confidence in the European Union’s old political parties. The immigration crisis and open borders that they embraced have enraged citizens throughout Europe. Wilders is proposing the following:
•Under PVV proposals mosques, Islamic schools and asylum centers will be closed
•the borders will be shut down with a blanket ban on migrants from Islamic countries
•women will be forbidden from wearing a headscarf in public
•and the Koran will be banned.
Wilders is dead serious about implementing these proposals if elected in March. But to do so he will need more political support from other party members. The country’s system of proportional representation means that he would need to form a coalition government, and the other parties have vowed they will not rule with him. A big political fight is unfolding in the Netherlands.
Regardless the outcome of the March election, watching what happens in the Netherland’s upcoming elections is one of our most important priorities during 2017. We are told in the book of Daniel, that God often removes and sets up leaders according to His purpose and insights: Daniel 2:21– He controls the course of world events; he removes kings and sets up other kings…We watch Europe with intense interest!-Steven LeBlanc
Syria’s civil war has created the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Over half the country’s pre-war population — more than 12 million people — have been killed or forced to flee their homes. According to the United Nations, life expectancy has dropped 14 years, to 56 from 70, since the war began, with an even greater plunge for Syrian men. the U.N. places the war’s economic cost at $255 billion, the nation in effect is bankrupt. Yet the war is not over, the nightmare continues.
But we have to ask the question, Why is Russia involved in Syria? Assad was Russia’s old ally. But that does’t mean much to Putin, he has no real interest in saving Assad. Russia does get port facilities in Latakia and an air base, but that is not why Russia is interested in Syria.
First of all, Putin understands that there has been a shift in U.S. strategy. He knows there will be no significant military response against Syria or Russia under President Obama. The greatest military response under President Obama was in Libya, which the president regrets deeply, calling it his worst mistake. So Putin saw the opportunity to show strength in Syria.
But the chief reason Russia is involved in Syria is leverage. Putin wants to use his authority in Syria to leverage his bargaining ability with America and Germany when it comes to Ukraine. And why is Putin so concerned about Ukraine?
Ukraine is of supreme importance to Russia, Syria is not that important. But Russia can use its influence in Syria to deal with America and Europe when it comes to the conflict over Ukraine. For Russia it is about protecting its western flank. Russia had survived for centuries because of strategic depth in terms of land. Historically, control over the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Belarus, and especially Ukraine had been essential for Russia’s survival. Without this buffer zone, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Adolf Hitler would have conquered Russia.
The last outcome Russia wants to see is having Ukraine move into the European Union orbit.
Nor does Russia want to see Ukraine flirting with the United States. Russia is threatened by any American presence in Ukraine. Russia views U.S. actions in Ukraine as an attempt to paralyze or destroy Russia. The U.S. and German fear is that with Ukraine under Russia’s control, Russia would be able to slowly enlarge its influence among former satellites, and from there, into the center of Europe.
As of today there is an unofficial truce in Ukraine. The Kiev government remains in place, Russia still holds Crimea, and fighting in the eastern part of Ukraine is not out of control. What 2017 brings will be compelling to see. We now have a new American President. His policy toward Syria, Ukraine and Russia is unknown. For now Europe remains restless—And the tensions between Russia and the 44 million Ukrainians simmers.
Will the new President move cautiously when it comes to the Middle East and Ukraine? I am reminded of the proverb found in Proverbs 26:17: “He that passes by, and meddles with a quarrel not belonging to him, is like one that takes a dog by the ears”. That advice applies to leaders of nations as well.
As for Russia in the future, Syria will be the least of its worries. The Bible tells us that eventually (Daniel 11:44), “news from the east” will greatly trouble the king of the North (European dictator). Prophecy indicates that Russia, China and other nations from the East will turn to confront Europe militarily. These millions of troops will then be united in their hatred of the returning Jesus Christ. They will march against Him and be destroyed at Jerusalem in a great war (Zechariah 14:1-4; Revelation 19:17-21). Russia’s enemy is not the United States, its future enemy will be a European confederation that will dominate much of the world. We are not there yet, but it will happen, and it will most likely take place in your lifetime. —Steven LeBlanc
Retired US Marine Corps four-star Gen. James Mattis.
Niall Ferguson (British historian) speculates that the post of Secretary of Defense carries more weight than the position of Secretary of State. He may be right. Below are extracts from his compelling article that appeared in the Sunday Times out of London on December 4th:
‘The press takes Trump literally, but not seriously. Voters take him seriously, but not literally.” This, by Salena Zito, was the smartest thing written about the 2016 election and deserves a place in every dictionary of quotations.
Now let me give you some advice about General James Mattis, who has been named Donald Trump’s secretary of defence. Take him both literally and seriously. Mattis is a dictionary of quotes in his own right. I like the way he meets and greets. “Do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.” –With Mattis, however, you get much more than just words. You get deeds. As the commander of the 1st Marine Division in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Mattis earned a daunting reputation as a master of kinetic warfare. During the push to Baghdad, he relieved a colonel of his command for not advancing fast enough. In 2007 he wrote, with General David Petraeus, the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the template for the successful “surge” in Iraq. So fond of combat was Mattis that the marines’ affectionate nickname for him was “Mad Dog”.
Secretary of state is the toughest call and Trump is right to weigh his options. The former presidential candidate Mitt Romney bad-mouthed him during the campaign and is on the record as a Russia-basher — hardly the ideal candidate when the No 1 item on Trump’s foreign policy agenda is to do a “great deal” with President Vladimir Putin. As a strategist, Petraeus is up there with Mattis, but it may be too soon after his rap for unauthorised disclosure of classified documents, and another general might give the administration the look of a junta. The former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani is a Trump loyalist who badly wants the job, but Senator Bob Corker looks the safer bet.
Yet Mattis at defence could prove to be the most important appointment of all. True, the secretary of state usually gets more headlines. But, as Donald Rumsfeld proved (for better and for worse) under George W Bush, the man who runs the Pentagon has more resources by far at his disposal and can easily turn that military muscle into political power. It is in Trump’s interests to make Mattis his right-hand man. Here’s why.
As president, Trump has the enticing opportunity to fix America’s broken foreign policy. His deal with Putin could end the war in Syria and resolve the not-so-frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine. A comparable deal with China could address the economic grievances of Middle America while creating a new basis for peaceful coexistence with the Middle Kingdom, addressing key flashpoints in the Asia-Pacific region such as North Korea, the South China Sea — and Taiwan.
The Trump presidency can also change the game in the Middle East by abandoning the Obama administration’s ill-conceived tilt towards Iran. And it can jolt continental Europeans out of their complacency, so that Nato ceases to be an alliance paid for by Americans and taken for granted by Germans.
However, to achieve all this will require more than Kissingerian diplomatic skill; it will also need the credible threat of force — for without that, America’s enemies and allies alike will take advantage of the businessman Trump just as they took advantage of the law professor Obama. This is where Jim Mattis comes in.
First, Mattis has unrivalled credibility. It is not only marines who love the man. Even Michèle Flournoy, who would have had his job if Hillary Clinton had won, speaks of him with reverence.
Second, Mattis is a hawk on Iran. Indeed, some say it was his readiness to contemplate military action against Iran that led to his being sacked from US Central Command by President Obama. He is unrepentant. In a lecture in April he called the Tehran regime “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East”.
Nevertheless, he argued against ripping up Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Mattis will advise Trump to keep the agreement, but to punish any future Iranian breaches of it with military retaliation. He will also propose tougher action against Iranian regional proxies, notably Hezbollah.
Third, unlike Trump, Mattis has no illusions about Putin. He has spoken out against the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, and has implicitly criticised the Obama administration for not being tough enough.
Finally, Mattis has a playbook for the Chinese, too. In his testimony before the Senate armed services committee in 2015, he stated that “efforts in the Pacific to keep positive relations with China” must be “paralleled by a policy to build the counterbalance if China continues to expand its bullying role in the South China Sea and elsewhere”.
Theodore Roosevelt’s mantra was to “speak softly and carry a big stick”. Under Obama, the US has lectured loudly and carried a limp twig. All that is about to change. Unlike Trump, Mattis speaks softly. And that big stick he carries is sharp, too. Take him literally. Take him very, very seriously.
Will the President listen to wise counsel from Mr. Mattis; that is yet to be seen. Clearly the post is of Secretary of Defense is not a small token responsibility: “Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war”—Proverbs 20:18.