Trump’s deal will allow US control over parts of Greenland

Trump’s deal will allow US control over parts of Greenland – Telegraph

RT

The US will control parts of Greenland by designating them as sovereign military base areas, The Telegraph reported on Wednesday evening, citing a draft agreement between President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The deal, reached on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is seen by European officials as a way to circumvent Trump’s threats to annex the entire Arctic island from Denmark. Both Trump and Rutte said the details have yet to be finalized.

The draft framework would allow Washington to build bases on Greenland that would be considered US territory in the Arctic region, The Telegraph said. The arrangement would reportedly be similar to the treaty that authorizes Britain to maintain two “sovereign base areas” in Cyprus. The US currently operates an airbase on Greenland’s northwestern coast under a 1951 agreement.

The deal will also reportedly allow the US to mine rare-earth minerals in parts of Greenland without having to seek permits.

According to Axios, the proposal includes language on expanding the US Golden Dome missile defense system into Greenland.

WEF, Davos And Global Visions

Davos And A Global Vision

PNW STAFF

The World Economic Forum's 56th Annual Meeting has kicked off with what Swiss daily Blick described as a "record storm" of arrivals. More than 3,000 participants from 130 countries -- including roughly 65 heads of state, hundreds of CEOs, central bankers, global NGO leaders, tech titans, and media executives -- descended on the small Alpine town of Davos beginning January 19. Switzerland has reportedly never handled a week of diplomatic jets, private charters, and high-level security coordination on this scale before.

That alone tells us something important: Davos still matters.

For nearly five decades, the World Economic Forum has positioned itself not merely as a conference, but as a convener of global power -- a place where economic policy, environmental priorities, technological frameworks, and political narratives are aligned behind closed doors. Deals aren't officially signed there, but directions are set. Language is agreed upon. Consensus among elites is formed. And when consensus is formed at Davos, it often finds its way into legislation, corporate policy, international treaties, and cultural norms within months or years.

That influence is precisely why Davos has become a source of deep concern -- and outright fear -- among many conservatives and Christians in the United States.

At the heart of the unease surrounding the World Economic Forum is its openly stated ambition: global coordination, global standards, and global governance mechanisms that transcend national borders. 

The WEF regularly speaks of a "shared global future," "stakeholder capitalism," and "systems-level transformation." To its supporters, this language signals cooperation. To its critics, it signals consolidation of power.

Americans, particularly conservatives, have long favored national sovereignty, constitutional limits, and decentralized authority. The idea that unelected global bodies -- populated by corporate executives, foreign leaders, and ideological activists -- might influence domestic policy is anathema to that tradition. Christians, in particular, bristle at the idea that moral, economic, and even biological frameworks could be dictated by global consensus rather than biblical conviction or democratic accountability.

Davos does not answer to voters. It does not campaign. It does not face term limits. Yet its fingerprints appear on climate mandates, ESG scoring systems, digital identity frameworks, and public-private partnerships that increasingly shape everyday life.

Beyond health and climate, the WEF has been accused of pushing toward other forms of global control: digital currencies controlled by central banks, digital ID systems tied to financial and social access, artificial intelligence governance frameworks, and coordinated censorship policies under the guise of combating "misinformation."

Each of these may be defensible in isolation. Taken together, they paint a picture of a world where access to money, movement, speech, and employment could one day hinge on compliance with global standards set far from the communities they affect.

For Christians who read Scripture seriously, this convergence is unsettling.

More....

The Architecture Of Obsession: How Media Coverage Warps Israel's Reality

The Architecture Of Obsession: How Media Coverage Warps Israel's Reality

ADAM ELIYAHU BERKOWITZ/ISRAEL 365 NEWS

When Samuel Hyde set out to explain why Israel dominates global media coverage, he knew the debate would begin where it always does--with arguments over words. Critics and defenders alike fixate on whether journalists write "settlement" or "neighborhood," whether the barrier is labeled a "security fence" or "apartheid wall."

These semantic battles feel forensic, as if the correct noun might finally settle the great drama of the Middle East. But Hyde, a South African-Israeli writer and fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, identifies these disputes as exactly what they are: a distraction. Words matter, he writes, but they keep us arguing on the surface while deeper, more corrupting structures remain untouched and unseen.

In a Jerusalem Post editorial and on his Substack, Hyde exposes two distortions so massive they become strangely invisible. The first is the sheer scale of attention--not criticism, but attention--directed at Israel. The second is the systematic reduction of regional warfare into a localized Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Together, these forces explain why Israel occupies such an outsized and morally charged place in Western media's imagination, and why that coverage has become both obsessive and fundamentally dishonest.

How does disproportionate media coverage transform Israel from a country into a symbol--and what reality gets erased in that transformation?

Hyde begins with numbers that expose an obsession defying rational explanation. In the first nine months following October 7, 2023, The New York Times published 6,656 articles about the Gaza war. Compare that to 80 articles covering the American-led battle to free Mosul, Iraq, over nine months in 2016-2017. The Tigray War in Ethiopia killed 600,000 people in a year and warranted 198 articles. Syria's civil war generated 5,434 articles during its first 13 years combined. One AI analysis found that between 50,000 and 70,000 articles about Gaza appeared worldwide in nine months, compared to 1,000 about Mosul in the same timeframe.

The imbalance becomes even more grotesque when examined at individual news organizations. 

Former Associated Press reporter Matti Friedman revealed that AP employed more full-time journalists covering Israel than it assigned to China, India, and Russia combined. Israel received more dedicated staff than all of sub-Saharan Africa--an entire continent encompassing dozens of countries, hundreds of millions of people, multiple wars, famines, mass displacement, and genocidal violence. As Hyde writes, "You cannot plausibly cover Israel more than an entire continent without warping the reader's sense of reality."

This is not journalism as rational analysis. Even if news were merely meant to cover suffering, power, and danger on Earth, this allocation of resources would be indefensible. The pattern reveals something else entirely: a systemic fascination bordering on obsession with covering Israel as though it were the gravitational center of world affairs.

Hyde identifies the consequence of this saturation: "This saturation coverage creates the illusion of centrality." Audiences learn that whatever they see most frequently must be the most important event in the world. Israel transforms from one nation among many into "a kind of moral index of the age--a stage upon which the world's conscience is imagined to be tested and revealed." Meanwhile, catastrophes of far greater scale and brutality flicker briefly across screens before disappearing into silence.

The second distortion operates at the conceptual level. Media coverage routinely frames Israel's wars as "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," as though the entire story were a localized struggle between two neighboring peoples--one strong and one weak, one powerful and one victimized. Hyde calls this framing "tidy, emotionally resonant, and yet profoundly misleading."

The reality is stark: "Most of Israel's wars have not been fought against Palestinians but against Egyptians and Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese, Iraqis and, increasingly, Iranians." Israel's most significant enemy today is the Islamic regime in Iran--a non-Arab, non-Palestinian regional power pursuing nuclear and strategic ambitions. During the recent war, rockets fired at Israel came from Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran itself.

MORE....

Why Everyone Suddenly Cares About Greenland

Why Everyone Suddenly Cares About Greenland

g.calder

Greenland’s importance has not changed, even if the recent spotlight makes it feel that way. The island sits astride the shortest route between North America and Eurasia. That means that any long-range missile, bomber, or hypersonic system launched between the US and Russia would need to pass near or directly over Greenland. From Washington’s point of view, it’s a strategic necessity rather than a diplomatic provocation, and the island plays a key role in the defence of North America. 

The US has therefore always maintained a permanent military presence there since the Cold War. The Pituffik base (previously known as Thule) is equipped with space-surveillance equipment, missile-detection radars, and early-warning systems. These capabilities are not symbolic – they are foundational to nuclear deterrence, missile defence, and space situational awareness. 

Greenland is also part of the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, a North Atlantic corridor that’s long been used to track Russian submarine movements from the Arctic into the Atlantic. During the Cold War, this chokepoint was critical for tracking Soviet naval assets – and it’s becoming so again. 

Russia has been investing heavily in modernising its Arctic bases and fleet of submarines. China – despite not being an Arctic state – has declared itself a “near-Arctic power”, increasing its polar presence and research. From Washington’s perspective, allowing either power to establish meaningful infrastructure or influence on the island would be strategically unacceptable. 

As such, the US interest in Greenland is framed as a necessity. Controlling observation points, airfields, ports, and undersea awareness in the High North is about preventing rivals from gaining leverage. 

Security today is inseparable from industrial power. Greenland holds significant, undeveloped reserves of uranium, rare earth elements, and other critical minerals essential for electronics, aerospace, weapons systems, batteries, and advanced manufacturing. 

China currently dominates many of these supply chains, which is widely recognised in the West as a huge strategic disadvantage. Diversifying material sources is now a national security objective rather than an economic preference. Greenland offers a Western-aligned alternative to Chinese supply chains – one that’s geographically closer, politically linked to NATO, and comparatively stable. 

The US is therefore not focusing on short-term extraction, but rather on long-term positioning. The goal is to secure Western access to key materials instead of relying on rival powers. Strategic and financial tools are already in place to support mining and infrastructure development on the island, and the US wants to make sure these resources contribute to Western supply chains. 

For the European Union, Greenland represents missed opportunities and slow decision making. Despite frequent talk about “strategic autonomy”, the EU has struggled to translate its ambitions into action. Environmental restrictions, political caution, and regulatory delays have severely limited European engagement in security, mining, and infrastructure projects on the island.  

Europe, therefore, is set to watch from the sidelines while the US secures long-term access to Greenland’s resources. In typical fashion, the EU has responded with procedures and debate instead of concrete commitments. These political constraints mean many of the resources that Europe says it needs for its own industrial and technological goals are now edging closer to US control.  

Meanwhile, Denmark – who was formally responsible for Greenland’s defence – has effectively deferred to US leadership in the Arctic, and other European states have only offered statements of concern in response.  

Final Thought

Greenland’s rise in global importance is the predictable outcome of geography meeting scarcity, technology meeting power, and a world reorganising around security of supply and access. Greenland always mattered. But the scramble for influence is accelerating, and new opportunities reveal themselves in the melting ice of the Arctic. 

A Response To Those Churches Condemning Christian Zionism

A Response To Those Churches Condemning Christian Zionism

PASTOR DOUG REED

Few words in the modern Christian vocabulary are as misunderstood or as emotionally charged as Zionism. In recent months, the tension has intensified. A joint statement by the Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchs of Jerusalem recently labeled Christian  Zionism a "damaging ideology," reinforcing the perception that Zionism is inherently political, extremist, or morally suspect. 

But that framing fundamentally misunderstands what many Christians actually mean when they say they are Christian Zionists. 

Christian Zionism, at its core, is not a political movement, a voting bloc, or a demand for blind loyalty to a modern nation-state. It is a theological conviction rooted in Scripture, flowing from covenant theology, confidence in God's Word, loyalty to a Jewish Messiah,  and the teaching of the New Testament itself. 

Before criticizing Christian Zionism, we must first define it accurately.

What Is Zionism Biblically Speaking? 

At its simplest level, Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have the right to live in their ancestral homeland because God made promises and prophecies in Scripture that  He intends to fulfill. Christian Zionism affirms those promises not because of modern politics, but because of biblical revelation. 

Zionism does not require believing that the modern State of Israel is morally perfect,  divinely infallible, or above critique. It does not require supporting every policy of a prime minister or government any more than loving America requires endorsing every decision of Washington. Zionism, biblically understood, is about God's faithfulness to  His word.

The foundation of Christian Zionism is not dispensational charts or modern geopolitics but rather the book of Genesis. 

God promised Abraham land, descendants, and blessing: 

"To your offspring I give this land... for an everlasting possession." (Genesis 12; 15; 17) 

This promise is repeated, expanded, and reaffirmed throughout the Torah and the  Prophets. Crucially, it is described as everlasting. At no point does Scripture say the  promise is revoked, spiritualized away, or transferred to another people. 

The New Testament does not cancel this promise. Paul explicitly teaches that the  covenants belong to Israel (Romans 9:4) and that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable 

(Romans 11:29). The Church is grafted into Israel's covenantal story, not substituted in her place. 

To deny Israel's connection to the land is not a neutral theological position. It requires reinterpreting or dismissing hundreds of biblical texts. 

More....