Macron Declares He Will Govern Like A Roman God

Now before anyone accuses me of playing “Pin the tail on the Antichrist” let me just say that I do believe that students of Bible Prophecy cannot help but take a hard look at the youngest leader of France since Napoleon Bonaparte.

Reuters reports him as saying he desires to reign as a “Jupiterian” president – “a remote, dignified figure, like the Roman god of gods, who weighs his rare pronouncements carefully.”  Lofty words for the new president of France, wouldn’t you say? Either we are looking at another Narcissist, or perhaps someone far more evil.

From breitbart.com

Emmanuel Bonaparte: Macron Declares He Will Govern Like a Roman God

French president Emmanuel Macron has declared he will govern France like Jupiter, the Roman king of the gods, shortly officials told the media his thought process was “too the newly elected president of France – wouldn’t you say? complex” for journalists to understand.

Summoning over 900 politicians from both houses of the French parliament to a rare Congress at the palace of Louis XIV – the ‘Sun King’ – in Versailles.

Such assemblies are usually reserved for times of national crisis, but the former banker used his to threaten to overrule lawmakers with a referendum if they try to frustrate the “reforms” he wishes to impose on the legislature.

 Reuters reports him as saying he desires to reign as a “Jupiterian” president – “a remote, dignified figure, like the Roman god of gods, who weighs his rare pronouncements carefully”.

This bizarre statement of intent comes just days after Macron scrapped the president’s tradition Bastille Day press conference, with an Elysée Palace official claiming the president’s thoughts are “too complex” for journalists.

The 39-year-old’s “complex thought process lends itself badly to the game of question-and-answer with journalists”, the spokesman explained – prompting much mockery in the French press.

It has been speculated that Macron is keen to cultivate an aloof, almost imperial aura after being derided as a placeman for the unpopular socialist François Hollande, in whose government he served as economy minister, or as a poodle for Angela Markel, the German chancellor widely regarded as the European Union’s driving force.

“You are the heir of François Hollande,” scoffed nationalist rival Marine Le Pen during their head-to-head election debate. “We now call you Baby Hollande; Hollande Junior!”

She added that, whatever the outcome of the election, “France will be led by a woman: either me or Mrs. Merkel.”

Much of the commentary on Macron’s alleged natural submissiveness hints at his relationship with his wife – twenty-five years his senior – with Italy’s larger-than-life former president Silvio Berlusconi teasing that he is “a nice lad with a good-looking mum”.

Efforts by the EU loyalist to strengthen his public standing by picking fights with the governments of Central Europe, who have been resolutely defiant in the face of attempts by Brussels to impose compulsory migrant quotas on them, have been less than successful.

Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán gently dismissed him as “a new boy” who had yet to find his feet.

“Macron’s entrance wasn’t too encouraging, as he thought the best way to show friendship was to immediately kick Central European countries. This isn’t how we do things around here, but he’ll soon get to know his way around,” he added.

Posing as the EU’s champion against President Donald Trump has also backfired, with a pointed, public snub of the U.S. leader in favour of Angela Merkel and other Europeans at a G20 summit ending in embarrassment when the 70-year-old manhandled him with a powerful handshake.

Macron was clearly rattled by the exchange, granting a brief interview with journalists in order to emphasise that another handshake with President Trump – in which the Frenchman clung on for dear life – was a “moment of truth” in which he supposedly demonstrated that he “would not make small concessions, not even symbolic ones”. – source

From Orientalreview.org   This is a compelling article which someone is trying desperately to remove from the internet.  I had a friend finally get this as a pdf for this article.  Every time I attempted to access the piece on orientalreview.org, it brought me to a dead end and would not allow me to finish the article.   Here is the text of the pdf:

Is the Geriatric Republic About to Marry Macron?

Something that was originally conceived as a grandiose pageant of political marketing will come to a conclusion next Sunday in France. A young man with an evident Oedipus complex who has never held a single elected office and who was almost unknown just three years ago is now preparing to fill the seat once occupied by Georges Clémenceau and Charles de Gaulle in the Élysée Palace.

Although it went unnoticed by the public, his campaign actually began back in June 2014. That was when Jacques Aliyah the recognized “éminence grise” of the Fifth Republic, first introduced his young protégé, at a Bilderberg Club meeting in Copenhagen. Back then, the latter was serving as the deputy secretary general to the president of France. But given President Hollande’s dismal approval ratings at the time, he was advised to distance himself from his boss, which he did, resigning 10 days after returning from Denmark.

By that August, owing to a government crisis, Macron ended up as the economy minister for a period of 24 months, during which he was best remembered for having underpriced the powerhouse of the French high-tech industry, Alstom, when it was sold to General Electric, as well as for a string of scandals over the misappropriation of government funds and for forcing through an odious law written at Aliyahi’s behest called “Equality of Economic Opportunities” (an innocent-enough sounding name for what was actually a crackdown on clan to emerge over the course of the almost six decades of the Fifth Republic’s existence.

Their first “project” in a top government position was the French prime minister – and later president – Georges Pompidou, who began working for the Rothschilds in 1954. Interestingly, Pompidou was no expert in banking or finance, but this did not stop Guy de Rothschild (1909-2007) from appointing this man to head the Messieurs de Rothschild Frères bank despite his professional background as a high-school literature teacher. In the dramatic month of May 1968, Pompidou was directed by his bosses to issue a challenge to the founder of the Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle, in order to win his own entrance into the Élysée Palace the following year. In 1973 Pompidou passed a law that some spiteful tongues dubbed “la loi Pompidou-Giscard- Rothschild,” under which private bankers gained de facto control over the French financial system.

Ironically, it was while Pompidou was in office that the famous writer and rebel Jean-Paul Sartre founded his celebrated leftist newspaper Libération in 1973, so that the French would finally have a periodical that spurned both big banks and advertising. But just over 40 years later, the banker Édouard de Rothschild became the biggest shareholder in the troubled Libéra4on, adding that newspaper to his media empire. As a result, just a glance at this single web page is enough to gain an appreciation for the magnitude of the “Macron-mania” that has been raining down upon the heads of the dispirited French in recent months from the pages of the Rothschild-controlled media.

Naturally Macron is a champion of pop-futurism. He is going to turn the French into the ideal nomads, à la Aliyah – a precariat class that has acquired a few skills and some passable English, but lacks a steady job, a reliable profession, a real salary, and a future. He spins fairy tales for French young people about the “creative class” – the dream of a degenerate civilization – but he fails to mention that the society of the future will have no use for all the slackers who vote for him. He is guided by the neoliberal premise that the main task of a declining state is to give its citizens the chance to ceaselessly change and adapt to the infamous global market, instead of doing anything at all to protect jobs, decent pensions, and the national interests. Therefore, the May 7 victory of yet another mousy little man that is being strenuously programmed by the media may well be the last in the history of the Fifth Republic – and it is certainly no harbinger of the Sixth. France is poised to step into the grave that has already been dug for her.-source

 

Macron became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque at the age of 30.  Mentored by the Rothschild family – this man certainly has no issues with self esteem.  As a matter of fact, if a new “Left Behind” movie was to come out, Emmanuel Macron could step into the role as Antichrist and pull it off quite brilliantly.

His first name “Emmanuel”  means “God with us.”  With the convergence of events within the last year lining up neatly with Bible prophecy; the entrance of this man onto the world stage is a bit too coincidental for me.

But, we will wait and see….

We are looking for Jesus Christ – our Blessed Hope. Those left behind will experience the wrath of God during the unspeakable horror of the Great Tribulation.

Shalom b’Yeshua,

MARANATHA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transgender Agenda Causing Widespread Child Abuse

About a year ago, I wrote an article about a top psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins, who declared that transgenderism is a mental disorder.  His paper was so compelling that Johns Hopkins ceased offering sex reassignment operations.

Here is the link to that article:

Transgenderism a “Mental Disorder” Says A Top Psychiatrist From Hopkins

Now, according to a pediatrician, the transgender agenda has led to massive and widespread child abuse.

From charismanews.com

Pediatrician: Transgender Agenda Has Led to Widespread Child Abuse

Transgender politics has taken Americans by surprise and caught some lawmakers off guard.

Just a few short years ago, not many could have imagined a high-profile showdown over transgender men and women’s access to single-sex bathrooms in North Carolina.

But transgender ideology is not just infecting our laws. It is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us—children—and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community.

As explained in my 2016 peer reviewed article, “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,” professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

I speak as someone intimately familiar with the pediatric and behavioral health communities and their practices. I am a mother of four who served 17 years as a board-certified general pediatrician with a focus in child behavioral health prior to leaving clinical practice in 2012.

For the last 12 years, I have been a board member and researcher for the American College of Pediatricians, and for the last three years, I have served as its president.

I also sat on the board of directors for the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010 to 2015. This organization of physicians and mental health professionals defends the right of patients to receive psychotherapy for sexual identity conflicts that is in line with their deeply held values based upon science and medical ethics.

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.

Here’s a look at some of the changes.

The New Normal

Pediatric gender clinics are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed gender dysphoria in 2013.

In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high and the benefits too unclear.

Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are safe.

Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence.

They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children.

The transition-affirming view holds that children who “consistently and persistently insist” that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender.

The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional, is conveniently ignored.

The transition-affirming protocol tells parents to treat their children as the gender they desire and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if they are gender dysphoric.

If, by age 16, the children still insist that they are trapped in the wrong body, they are placed on cross-sex hormones, and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

So-called “bottom surgeries,” or genital reassignment surgeries, are not recommended before age 18, though some surgeons have recently argued against this restriction.

The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education and our legal system and is now recommended by most national medical organizations.

There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association and the LGBT affirming Youth Gender Professionals.

The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story.

Here are some of those basic facts.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born trapped in the body of the wrong sex.

Some brain studies have suggested that some are born with a transgendered brain. But these studies are seriously flawed and prove no such thing.

Virtually everything about human beings is influenced by our DNA, but very few traits are hardwired from birth. All human behavior is a composite of varying degrees for nature and nurture.

Researchers routinely conduct twin studies to discern which factors, biological or non-biological, contribute more to the expression of a particular trait. The best designed twin studies are those with the greatest number of subjects.

Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time.

Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time.

But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. Diamond’s study reported 20 percent identifying as transgender, but his actual data demonstrates a 28 percent figure, as I note here in footnote 19.

That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside non-biological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime.

The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of non-shared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology.

Studies like this one prove that the belief in innate gender identity—the idea that feminized or masculinized brains can be trapped in the wrong body from before birth—is a myth that has no basis in science.

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that, prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty.

But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender—and their persistence over time—has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000- percent increase in referrals since 2009.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

Puberty blockers have been studied and found safe for the treatment of a medical disorder in children called precocious puberty caused by the abnormal and unhealthy early secretion of a child’s pubertal hormones.

However, as a groundbreaking paper in The New Atlantis points out, we cannot infer from these studies whether or not these blockers are safe in physiologically normal children with gender dysphoria.

The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.

With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern.

For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

Most, if not all children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones, estrogen for biological boys and testosterone for biological girls. The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones.

This suggests that the medical protocol itself may itself lead children to identify as transgender.

There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

From studies of adults, we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes and cancers.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.

Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent.

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

Advocates of the transition-affirming protocol allege that suicide is the direct and inevitable consequence of withholding social affirmation and biological alterations from a gender-dysphoric child. In other words, those who do not endorse the transition-affirming protocol are essentially condemning gender-dysphoric children to suicide.

Yet as noted earlier, prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth ended up happy with their biological sex after simply passing through puberty.

In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative.

Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who commit suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries—have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria.

Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse

The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their non-dysphoric peers.

These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled and un-consented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.

Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts and untold psychological damage.

These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies.

It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children and unite to take action. – source

Brethren, if your children or grandchildren are in public schools, please speak with them about the lies that are being taught.  These kids need to know that the educators are not teaching them truth.  They need to know what God says about these aberrant and sinful views.

You’re the only ones who can reach these children with the truth from God’s Word!

MARANATHA