Soros: Trump is a "Would Be Dictator" Who Threatens the New World Order
 Billionaire globalist pens panicked rant
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Billionaire globalist George
Soros has penned a panicked rant in which he decries President-elect
Donald Trump as a “would be dictator” who threatens the future of the
new world order.
In an article for Project Syndicate,
Soros begins by mentioning how he lived under both Nazi and then Soviet
rule in Hungary before asserting that “various forms of closed
societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the
This claim is confounded by the facts, which show that, “The share of the world population living in democracies (has) increased continuously.”
writes that in voting for Trump, Americans “elected a con artist and
would-be dictator as its president,” and that his defeat of Hillary
Clinton means America will be “unable to protect and promote democracy
in the rest of the world” (because that policy worked so well in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria and Libya).
Soros also slams Trump’s new cabinet as containing nothing other than “incompetent extremists” and “retired generals.”
how he supports the European Union because it is a successful attempt
at “social engineering,” Soros laments the fact that the body has become
“increasingly dysfunctional” and its disintegration has been
accelerated, “first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the
US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin,
of constitutional reforms.”
Soros also bemoans Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged undue influence during the presidential election.
first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he
exploited social media companies’ business model to spread
misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing
democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected,” writes Soros.
says Putin “felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine,
and elsewhere,” without mentioning that Soros himself played a key role
in bankrolling these contrived uprisings, as well as the color
revolution being fomented against Trump.
irony of an ultra-rich elitist who has bankrolled the overthrow of
innumerable governments insisting he cares about “democracy” and the
will of the people is particularly rich.
whole tone of the piece is clearly fraught with concern that the
populist movement sweeping the west poses a direct threat to the
plutocratic new world order that Soros has spent his entire life helping
to build.
He concludes by warning
that “the EU is on the verge of breakdown” due to stagnant economic
growth and the out of control refugee crisis (that Soros himself again
helped create in the first place as a way to obtain political power).

Soros Calls For Armageddon To Stop Trump

Obama/Soros Launch Plan To Destroy Israel

Soros Is A Giant Pentagram

Soros Panics


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 The new masters of Germany are impatient with those who do not recognize
 their preeminence. But a few more lessons about how it’s “racist” to 
resist, and all will no doubt be well.

“Rampaging Syrian migrants KICK BABY on bus, then attack paramedics trying to treat child,” by Rehema Figueiredo, Express, December 28, 2016 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

MIGRANTS kicked a one-year-old baby on a bus then attacked paramedics with BELTS as they tried to treat the infant.
The shocking attack happened at approximately 9pm on Sunday night in Augsburg, one of Germany’s oldest cities.
Residents were being evacuated following the discovery of a bomb from
the Second World War and some had boarded a replacement night bus when a
fight broke out.
Several Syrian migrants erupted with anger because of a pram taking up space on the bus.
Migrants hurled abuse at other passengers before a fight broke out,
with four of the Syrian men using the handles on the bus to hoist
themselves up and attack women and old people to try and drag them into
the fighting, according to an eyewitness.
The migrants paid no attention to anyone in their way, at one point kicking a one-year-old in the face.
Paramedics were called and arrived on the scene to help the injured
but the men began attacking them with belts – not letting up until the
police were called….



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

An eight-year-old girl in Secaucus, N.J., says Boy Scout officials
should treat her as a transgender boy, and let her join a boys’ Cub
Scout pack.

The child, who is a biological girl but has been living as a
“transgender boy” for more than a year, was asked to leave the pack
following reported protests from parents.

Kristie Maldonado said her child, Joe, had been a member of Cub Scout
Pack 87 for about a month, when a Boy Scout official notified her that
the girl could not remain in the boys’ Cub Scout group. “Not one of the
kids said, ‘You don’t belong here,’” the mother said of the boys in the pack, according to NorthJersey.com.

“I’m a girl. I just don’t want to be a girl,” the girl told NorthJersey.com. “My identity is a boy.”

Gay political groups say the federal government should force Americans and their many civic society groups — including kids in K-12 schools’ biology classrooms and bathrooms — to accept the groups’ ideological claim
that each person’s changeable “gender identity” should determine that
person’s legal sex. In contrast, Americans prefer to rely on science and
biology when gauging the sex of people who are seeking entry into
single-sex sports leagues, bathrooms, showers, social groups and other
civic institutions.

Transgender behavior is rare. A recent study of the 2010 census
showed that only one-in-2,400 Americans adults had changed their name
from one sex to the other.

According to the news report:

The Scouts declined to say whether they have a written
transgender policy. Effie Delimarkos, the communications director for
the Boy Scouts of America, said in a statement that the organization’s
Cub Scouts programs are for boys age 7 to 10 and that “the
classification on the participant’s birth certificate” would be used to
“confirm legal status.”
She did not provide additional details and did
not specify whether the Boy Scouts have ever examined gender statuses on
birth certificates.

“No youth may be removed from any of our programs on the basis of
his or her sexual orientation. Gender identity isn’t related to sexual

Effie Delimarkos, communications director, Boy Scouts of America

The controversy over a transgender child comes following the recent uproar over the Boy Scouts’ decision to end its bans against gay Scouts and Scout leaders.

In May of 2015, the Boy Scouts caved to pressure from corporate
donors, the media, and government officials to accept gay Scouts, even
though the organization is private and voluntary.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense and then-Boy Scouts of America president Robert Gates warned a
national annual gathering of Boy Scout attendees that failing to accept
gay Scout leaders would open the organization up to legal challenges
and a decline in membership.

“We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it would be,” said Gates, reported the Washington Post. “The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained.”

The Boy Scouts, however, had only addressed gay Scouts, and not children confused about their gender.

In July, Delimarkos told
the Associated Press that transgender children would be permitted to
participate in co-ed Boy Scouts programs, but not in Cub Scouts and Boy
Scouts programs for boys only.

But the pro-gay pressure groups are beginning to pressure the scouting movement.

“The Boy Scouts as a national organization have a decision to make,”
said Justin Wilson, executive director of Scouts for Equality. “Are they
going to exclude a transgender boy for the first time, or welcome
transgender boys?”

Wilson added that the use of birth certificates to determine gender
would be “a new, unfair arbitrary standard” for membership in the Boy

The mother said she thought her daughter was a tomboy because she
enjoyed tree-climbing and other typically male activities. She said that
when the girl was five years old, the child began to read about
transgenderism. Last year, the mother allowed the girl to live as a boy,
and now says the girl is “much happier.”

The American College of Pediatricians states
that gender ideology is harmful to children and that transgendered
children are psychologically confused and at risk for mental health
disorders. The College says:

No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a
biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or
female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective
biological one…

A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at
best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological
boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl
believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that
lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These
children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly
listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental
disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V)…

“According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and
88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex
after naturally passing through puberty,” the College asserts.
“Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and
surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is
child abuse.”

Similarly, Youth Trans Critical Professionals, a group of self-described “left-leaning, open-minded, and pro-gay rights” professionals, say
it is risky to affirm young people who claim to be transgender and
provide them with hormonal and surgical treatments to change their

“Our concern is with medical transition for children and youth,”
states the group. “We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal
treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent
significant risks for young people.”

“Policies that encourage — either directly or indirectly — such
medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the
risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion,” says the
organization, which is composed of psychologists, social workers,
doctors, and other professionals.

The professionals express “alarm” that, because of the current
trendiness of being transgendered, many young people have decided they
are a member of the opposite sex simply as a result of “binges” on
social media sites. They describe a process of transgender activists
recruiting these young people for their “cult.”

“There is evidence that vulnerable young people are being actively
recruited and coached on such sites to believe that they are trans,” the
professionals say.

Despite such potential mental health problems associated with gender
confusion, children who claim to be the opposite sex are no longer
legally permitted to see a therapist to get stabilizing “conversion
therapy” in some states. Youth Trans Critical Professionals sees such
state prohibitions as dangerous since they may block the process of
critical thinking and evaluation of the young person regarding the
reasons why he or she desires to become a transgender member of the
opposite sex.

“While the sentiment behind this legislation is laudable, in some
cases, it is being interpreted to mean that therapists cannot explore
gender identity with a youth who is professing to be trans,” argue the
professionals. “This would mean we can’t ask why; we can’t explore
underlying mental health issues; we can’t consider the symbolic nature
of the gender dysphoria; and we can’t look at possible confounding
issues such as social media use or social contagion.”


 Facebook’s Snopes Fact-checkers: A Prostitute, a Dominatrix, an Accused Embezzler
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

CLAIM: “Facebook ‘fact checker’ who will arbitrate
on ‘fake news’ is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes
— and its staff includes an escort-porn star and ‘Vice Vixen dome.’”


Although the above is the form used to introduce topics at
“fact-checking” website Snopes.com, don’t hold your breath waiting for
this particular claim to appear there anytime soon. This isn’t because
the quoted sentence, a Daily Mail headline, is true or untrue.
It’s because it’s all too revealing about Snopes’ CEO — in a “the
emperor has no clothes” kind of way.

The claim of embezzlement was made by Snopes founder Barbara
Mikkelson against co-founder and ex-husband David Mikkelson; the pair
are locked in a bitter legal dispute in which they accuse each other of
financial impropriety.

This he-said/she-said story takes on importance because of what
Facebook recently said: that Snopes will be one of the fact-checking
outlets it will use to determine if news is “fake” and should,
therefore, be discredited and sent to Internet Siberia. Other Facebook
fact-checkers are media organs such as ABC, the Associated Press, and
Politifact — left-leaning entities all.

Not surprisingly, the Snopes fact-checking couple can’t agree on the facts surrounding their own decoupling. As the Daily Mail reports:

Legal filings seen by DailyMail.com
detail a lengthy financial and corporate dispute which stretches long
after their divorce, and which one lawyer describes as ‘contentious’ in
court documents.
In the filings, Barbara, 57, has accused
her former husband, 56, of ‘raiding the corporate business Bardav bank
account for his personal use and attorney fees’ without consulting her.
She also claimed he embezzled $98,000
from the company over the course of four years ‘which he expended upon
himself and the prostitutes he hired’.
… In court records, Barbara alleged
that her ex-husband removed thousands from their business accounts
between April and June of 2016 to pay for trips for him and his
She claimed he spent nearly $10,000 on a
24-day ‘personal vacation’ in India this year and expensed his
girlfriend’s plane ticket to Buenos Aires.
‘He’s been depleting the corporate
account by spending monies from it on his personal expenses,’ said
Barbara in a filing last June.

Of course, David disputes the above. He says the India trip was
business-related — he was getting a sense of the culture because he’s
considering establishing a fact-checking website on the subcontinent —
and that he went to Buenos Aires for a fact-checking conference. The Mail doesn’t indicate that he disputed the allegations about company funds used for prostitutes.

What is not in dispute is that Snopes smacks of a den of iniquity.
Having divorced Barbara last year, David married 47-year-old Elyssa
Young, a longtime escort and porn actress whose working name is “Erin
O’Bryn.” Note, David had previously hired Young to be an “administrative
assistant” at Snopes.

Young has an “escort”-oriented Twitter page and website, which the Mail
states appear to still be active, and has described herself as “a
mature and experienced courtesan [what the less sophisticated call a
‘hooker’], idealist, activist & dreamer.”

The fees she dreams of, and presumably received, are $1,200 for four
hours and $5,000 for a full 24. For that you can have “‘an elite and
discreet companion’ who ‘understands that while pleasure and passion may
be explored in the bedroom, it is hardly the only place,’” wrote Young.

It’s not known if David Mikkelson advertises for hires in a red-light
district, but Young is perhaps not the strangest Snopes fact maven. As Breitbart informs,
“Writing under the pseudonym Vice Vixen, Snopes fact-checker Kim
LaCapria regularly wrote about sex and fetish gear on her own blog,
which was described as a lifestyle blog ‘with a specific focus on
naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and general hedonism and bonne
vivante-ery.’ LaCapria’s blog often featured reviews of sex toys…. On
another blog, LaCapria once described what she did on her day
off, writing that she ‘played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to
Snopes.’ She then added, ‘That’s what I did on my day ‘on,’ too.’”

In other words, she admitted she has done her Snopes work while stoned.

LaCapria also revealed that she has strong dominatrix instincts and,
more bizarrely still, said she was “addicted to smutty HP [Harry Potter]
fanfic,” according to the Mail.

Why does this Enquirer-worthy story matter? Well, would you
buy a used “fact” from these people? “The eye altering alters all,”
observed poet William Blake. People enthusiastically indulging vice and
unapologetically proclaiming it are called vice-ridden, and it’s risky
to assume that amidst a pattern of vice a person would exhibit the
virtue of honesty. Moreover, this quality and another virtue, diligence,
are prerequisites for competence. Just ask yourself if you would retain
the services of an auto mechanic, a baby-sitter, or a brain surgeon you
knew had a LaCapria-like altered eye. Would you want to elect a
politician who did?

Losing sight of the virtue/vice character yardstick creates an
altered eye resulting in altered judgment. Just consider the Duke
University rape frame-up case
in 2006. Media and social activists formed a life-rending lynch mob
against three white Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of
rape by black stripper Crystal Mangum (now incarcerated for murder in an
unrelated incident). As New York Times public editor Dan Okrent
put it, alluding to the prejudices coloring judgment, “It was white over
black, it was male over female, it was rich over poor, educated over

In fact, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was so corrupt
in his prosecutorial efforts of the Duke trio that he was forced to
resign and was disbarred. Yet common sense should have informed that
strippers aren’t exactly reliable sources. Mind you, I’m not saying a
rush to judgment should blithely dismiss such a person’s claims — only
that a bigotry-born rush to misjudgment caused them to be blithely
labeled gospel.

As for Young and LaCapria, a discerning eye can easily judge their
politics. Young ran for “U.S. congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in
2004, during which she handed out ‘Re-Defeat Bush’ cards and condoms
stamped with the slogan ‘Don’t get sc[****]d again’,” reports the Mail. And the Daily Caller informs
that LaCapria “describes herself as a liberal and has called
Republicans ‘regressive’ and afraid of ‘female agency’”; she also
labeled the Tea Party “teahadists.”

Unsurprisingly, this is a bias that fancies fallacies and falsehoods fact. Here are a few examples, according to the Caller:

• “TheDC exposed a Snopes lie about the lack of American flags at the
Democratic convention, trying to pass off a picture from day two of the
convention as though it were from day one.”

• “[A] Snopes attempt at discrediting a news story from The Daily
Caller News Foundation earlier this month was riddled with factual
errors and omissions.”

• “Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as ‘rumors.’”

Of course, LaCapria did state that a “special focus” of her blog was
“sin.” So maybe it’s no surprise that this would include the sin of
lying — and that it wouldn’t be confined to only her more perverted



 Calif. Governor Jerry Brown Vows to Resist Trump Climate Policies
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, who has a record as a
strong environmentalist and who has attended the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Paris and the Climate Summit of the Americas in
Toronto, has said that he will take California in a different direction
if the incoming Trump administration relaxes environmental regulations
or measures to fight against so-called “climate change.”

Brown gave an interview to the New York Times, which
reported that he pledged to bypass Washington and work directly with
other nations and states to defend and strengthen California’s
environmental policies, which are already the most aggressive in the
nation. Following the line prevailing among those who insist that carbon
emissions contribute to climate change and global warming, Brown
maintains that strict regulations are necessary to prevent such
environmental calamities — a theory that has been disputed by many

“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the
cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in
Washington,” said Brown in the Times interview. “I wouldn’t
underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme
climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”

“Climate denial” is a term coined by supporters of the theory that
climate change and so-called global warming are anthropogenic (caused by
human activity) to dismiss those — including many respected
environmental scientists — who have offered evidence to the contrary.

During the interview, Brown described Trump’s election as a setback
for the climate movement, but predicted that it would be a temporary

“In a paradoxical way, it could speed up the efforts of leaders in
the world to take climate change seriously,” he said. “The shock of
official congressional and presidential denial will reverberate through
the world.”

Brown is not the first governor of California to buy into the global
warming theory and to impose strict regulations on the state’s
industrial segment. His predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed
Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005 that set so-called greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reduction targets for California as follows: by 2010,
reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to
1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990

Brown followed up by signing Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015,
adding the intermediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030.

Even the Times, which might be expected to be supportive of
Brown’s liberal agenda, pointed out the pitfalls of the path the Golden
State has taken, observing:

The environmental effort poses decided
risks for this state. For one thing, Mr. Trump and Republicans have the
power to undercut California’s climate policies. The Trump
administration could reduce funds for the state’s vast research
community — including two national laboratories — which has contributed a
great deal to climate science and energy innovation, or effectively
nullify state regulations on clean air emissions and automobile fuel
“They could basically stop enforcement of
the Clean Air Act and CO2 emissions,” said Hal Harvey, president of
Energy Innovation, a policy research group in San Francisco. “That would
affect California because it would constrain markets. It would make
them fight political and legal battles rather than scientific and
technological ones.”

The Times also quoted a statement from Rob Lapsley, the
president of the California Business Roundtable, who warned that
California’s aggressive regulatory agenda would make it difficult for
the state to attract companies that might prefer to locate to states
that are more business friendly. Said Lapsley:

If the other states pursue
no-climate-change policies, and we continue to go it on our own with our
climate change policies, then we would be at a competitive disadvantage
for either relocating companies or growing companies here, particularly
manufacturing factories.

Considering the dire economic consequences of imposing strict carbon
emissions regulations on industry, it would seem prudent before putting
them into effect to first weigh both their environmental and economic
consequences to determine if they are necessary, or even desirable. As The New American’s
writers have pointed out in numerous articles over the past several
years, there is no unanimous consensus on climate change and global
warming among the scientific community. Those articles have quoted many
respected scientists offering evidence that not only are periods of
global warming more likely to be the result of natural cyclical changes
than human (anthropogenic) activity, but that the warming process has
reversed itself and our Earth may actually have entered a cooling

As we noted in a recent article, climate blogger Tony Heller reported
on November 13 that over the last eight months, global temperatures
over land have cooled a record 1.2°C. Heller’s findings were charted on a graph posted on the website realclimatescience.com. Heller was one of the speakers at the ninth International Conference on Climate Change held on July 9, 2014 in Las Vegas, delivering a talk titled “The Emperor’s New Climate.”

While this latest report may come as a surprise to many people, longtime readers of The New American will not be among them. In an article published by this magazine in 2013, foreign correspondent Alex Newman observed:

So-called global-warming alarmists are in
a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually
appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in
Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at
record lows, and more.

While we could cite dozens of articles debunking both the theory that
carbon emissions generated by humans are causing global warming, and
the propaganda asserting that there is a consensus among scientists
supporting that theory, space allows only one more reference. That is an
article posted today titled: “Biggest Fake News Story: Global Warming and Phony Consensus.” The report cites a recent article in The Atlantic
asking: “Are Climate Scientists Ready for Trump?” The article’s writer,
Robinson Meyer, posed several questions, including, “How should climate
scientists react to a president-elect who calls global warming a
‘hoax’? How much should they prepare for his administration? And should
they prepare for the worst?”

In The Atlantic article, Meyer notes that on the first day
of the recent American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San
Francisco, the thousands of assembled scientists heard from Harvard
historian Naomi Oreskes, the politically motivated ideologue who is most
responsible for perpetrating the “scientific consensus” fraud regarding
anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, or AGW.

The New American’s Alex Newman pointed out that this
magazine has repeatedly reported on the fraudulent methodology used by
Oreskes and Australian global warming activist John Cook to arrive at
their unsubstantiated claims of near-unanimous consensus for their
global warming theory. The article notes that  Prof. Richard S. J. Tol and Dr. Benny Peiser are
but two of the experts who have exposed Oreskes and Cook, showing that
only one percent of climate research papers — not 97 percent — support
the “consensus” view claimed by the AGW alarmists. (See herehere, and here.)

The article continues:

However, no amount of debunking, and no
amount of evidence, will change the “crisis” mindset that grips many of
the media commentators. CNN’s Chris Cuomo is a prime example of the
arrogance of ignorance among the committed AGW media meisters. In a combative “interview”
on December 12, CNN’s Chris Cuomo went after Trump adviser Anthony
Scaramucci, repeatedly citing the false claim that the science is
settled and that “science” has declared we must accept vast new global
governance and controls to avert planetary catastrophe.

Since the AGW is a major source of global warming disinformation,
Newman offers this advice to the incoming Trump administration: “The new
administration must move quickly and decisively to dismantle and defund
the huge federally-funded AGW lobby and withdraw all U.S. support for
the UN’s destructive Paris Agreement, which President Obama has illegally tried to bind the United States to through executive agreement.”

Related articles:

Biggest Fake News Story: Global Warming and Phony Consensus

Former Climate Chairman Calls Out Inaccuracies of Data and Models

Education Author Exposes Environmentalist Movement’s Agenda

Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory

Climate Scare Over: Top Experts Expose Scam at Freedom Confab

Media Blasted for “Fake News” on Trump’s Climate Stance

With Obama Out, Communist China Takes Lead on UN “Climate” Scam

Skeptic to UN Climate Conference: Global Warming Is Bunk

Greenies, Lefties Protest Dakota Access Pipeline With Violence

Climate-change Report: Record Global COOLING Over Last Eight Months

Earth Is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say

Establishment Boasts Its Paris Climate Agreement Now a Done Deal

Multiple Studies Refute Claims of Rising Seas Due to Global Warming

Documentary “Climate Hustle” Exposes Global-warming Con Job

Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again — and Again, and Again



 Congress Planning to Defund UN as Critics Seek Full Withdrawal
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

U.S. lawmakers and pro-Israel activists are calling for an end to American taxpayer funding of the United Nations after a controversial UN Security Council vote declared some Israeli settlements to be illegal.
Congress is already planning to cut the UN’s funding in response to the
UN scheme. The growing outrage also came from President-elect Donald
Trump, who vowed that the UN situation would change once he is in the
Oval Office. But other critics of the UN said defunding the “dictators
club” would not be enough, and that it was past time for the U.S.
government and other civilized member states to ditch the scandal-plagued global body altogether.

The most recent wave of outrage surrounding the UN came in response to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, a deeply controversial measure
adopted on December 23 with 14 votes in favor and the Obama
administration abstaining. Among other controversies, the measure
purports to declare the Jewish presence in parts of Jerusalem and an
area known to Jews as Judea and Samaria (“West Bank” to Arabs) to be a
“flagrant violation” of what the UN likes to call “international law.”
Basically, the UN and more than a few of its autocratic member regimes
do not think Jews should be allowed to live in East Jerusalem and other

Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the
UN and its “shameful” resolution, vowing to ignore it and curtail
relations with the governments and regimes responsible for the scheme.
“Israel rejects the anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations,”
Netanyahu’s office said in a statement ridiculing the UN. “Israel looks
forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends
in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful
effects of this absurd resolution.” 
Trump, a longtime critic of the UN and globalism in general, was
among those to speak out, albeit more mildly than on the campaign trail.
“The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a
club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!,”
said Trump on social media after having previously noted that the UN was
not a friend of Israel, freedom, or the United States. Unfortunately,
as explained by its own founders, the UN was always designed to be
progressively strengthened. And it already does much more damage than it
would if it were merely a place for people to talk and have a good time
at taxpayer expense. Trump sent out another statement blasting Obama
and the UN, urging Israel to “stay strong” because “January 20th is fast

But the world may not have to wait until Trump is sworn in for
concrete action. Leading Democrats and Republicans alike have fervently
denounced the UN and slammed the Obama administration for failing to
exercise the U.S. government’s veto to stop the scheme. Even
ultra-far-left U.S. lawmakers slammed the UN scheme, with Congressman
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) blasting it as “a one-sided, biased resolution.”
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), another pro-UN
globalist who also happens to be pro-Israel, blasted the UN as a
“fervently anti-Israel body” that has been that way since it declared
Zionism to be racism. Other Democrats also rushed to put out statements
condemning the UN resolution.

Republicans — even of the globalist and neocon variety — were also
furious at the UN vote. Perhaps most vocal was conservative Senator Ted
Cruz (R-Texas), who is leading the charge to cut all U.S. funding to the
UN. “The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was
apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final
assault on Israel,” he was quoted as saying, reminding Obama that
Congress reconvenes soon and that under the U.S. Constitution, Congress
controls the money. On social media, he said: “No US $ for UN until
reversed.” Other GOP lawmakers agreed.

Even neocon globalist and reliable establishment figure Senator
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who chairs the Senate appropriations
subcommittee for the State Department and foreign operations, vowed to
push for Congress to stop funding the UN. “The UN has made it impossible
for us to continue with business as usual,” Graham said. “Almost every
Republican will feel like this is a betrayal of Israel and the only
response that we have is the power of purse.”

“This is a road we haven’t gone down before,” Graham was quoted as
saying in media reports, adding that the UN was increasingly being
viewed as anti-Semitic. “If you can’t show the American people that
international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to
be a break. And I am going to lead that break.” A number of other GOP
senators have already pledged their support, and media reports suggested
that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would also be on

Senate aides quoted in a number of media reports said a variety of
options were under consideration. Among them: defunding the UN,
defunding certain UN programs and policies, withdrawing from UN agencies
such as the communist-controlled UNESCO,
and even passing legislation to protect any Jews targeted by the UN who
may also be American citizens. Also being considered is cutting off
funds for the U.S. taxpayer-funded Palestinian Authority, and even the
possibility of expelling its diplomats in the United States.

While the situation is likely to get more dramatic after Trump is
sworn in, congressional officials speaking to reporters off the record
said action could begin as soon as next week when lawmakers reconvene.
“We will make a very strong attempt to do something immediately,” one
senior GOP senate aide told the pro-Obama, pro-Clinton, pro-UN Washington Post. “It is a real moment to re-examine the relationship with the United Nations and what it really does.”

Even Israel’s most vehement American critics have realized that the
UN’s behavior is bizarre — the UN and its various agencies have
condemned Israel more often than all other governments on earth,
combined. The U.S. government, of course, pays more for the UN than 185
other member governments and dictators — combined. And yet the UN, when
it is not demonizing Israel, spends much of its time haranguing
Americans and others to surrender their God-given rights under various

From free speech and religious freedom to gun rights and due process, the UN has become increasingly bold and vicious when it comes to attacking the unalienable rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It is also increasingly threatening U.S. independence and self-government as it seeks to empower itself as what UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the “Parliament of Humanity.”

For those reasons and others, The John Birch Society, a
constitutionalist group with chapters in all 50 states, has long worked
to not just defund the UN, but to get the U.S. government out of the UN
and the UN off U.S. soil. “For over 56 years, The John Birch Society has
been warning and educating the American people of the danger called the
United Nations,” JBS CEO Art Thompson said, a reference to the
56-year-old “Get US Out of the United Nations
campaign. “The recent brouhaha is only the tip of the iceberg relative
to the harm that the UN has done since its very founding by those who
wish to destroy the independence of the United States — indeed all
nations — on the road to a one world government led by megalomaniacs.”

Other prominent commentators also referenced the JBS campaign amid
the recent furor over the Israeli settlements resolution. Conservative
commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan picked up on
comments by senators Schumer and Graham blasting and threatening the UN
to illustrate the escalating fury over the global outfit. “If the folks
over at the John Birch Society still have some of those bumper stickers —
Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S.! — they
might FedEx a batch over to Schumer and Graham,” Buchanan quipped in his latest column. “May have some converts here.”

More than a few other prominent conservative commentators said plans
to defund the UN did not go far enough. David Greenfield at FrontPage
Magazine went through a litany of UN crimes, abuses, and horrors before
saying that “we and every sane country” should have defunded the UN
decades ago. “If you give money to the U.N., it will end up anywhere and
everywhere except where it’s supposed to go,” he continued. “But
defunding the U.N. isn’t enough. There is no reason for us to remain
there at all.”

He said the U.S. government should “defund and withdraw” from the
scandal-plagued outfit. “The billions we waste on the U.N. will go
toward taking care of our people,” he added. “And once we are free of
the U.N., we will actually be able to promote real human rights instead
of pandering to the dictators and Islamists of the United Nations.”

Former Senator and GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum,
meanwhile, said the growing crisis in relations between the UN and the
U.S. government was the perfect opportunity for those seeking to abolish
the UN altogether. “This has opened up the opportunity for those of us
who are very anti-U.N., who think that it has passed its prime, it’s not
serving any really good purpose, it’s not helping legitimate
governments around the world and it’s outlived its usefulness,” he was
quoted as saying. “To the extent we can deconstruct it, the better.”

Santorum also suggested Trump’s focus could now move from NATO, a UN
subsidiary, to the UN itself. “The focus will come off NATO and will
move squarely onto the U.N.,” Santorum explained to a pro-UN
propagandist at the anti-Trump Washington Post, which claimed the U.S. was better off with a functioning UN in a propaganda piece about the upcoming “war” between Trump and the UN.
“It’s going to be a very raucous time. Barack Obama, with this move,
did more damage to the United Nations than he did to Israel.”

Conservative media outlet WND is circulating a petition slamming the UN and calling for a U.S. withdrawal.
“It is outrageous an organization hosted on American soil, protected by
American arms, funded by American tax dollars and built upon a global
order sustained by the United States seemingly spends all its time
attacking America and its ally Israel,” reads the petition, signed by
thousands of people so far since it was published on December 27. “The
United States should stand with its allies and in defense of its own
principles rather than continuing to pay the bills of an organization
which has all but openly declared itself an enemy both of our Republic
and the besieged Jewish State.”

Writing in PJ Media, Roger Simon, co-founder of the conservative
outlet, also said it was time to take on the UN. Ridiculing the UN as a
“moribund center of international corruption and megaphone for tin-pot
dictators,” Simon suggested that Trump could find savings to rebuild the
military and U.S. infrastructure by ending funding of the “clowns” at
the UN. “Although, in this case, it would be useful to negotiate the
entire institution out of existence, or at least impoverish it to the
degree it will have to decamp from Manhattan and leave that pricey
Turtle Bay real estate for better purposes,” he said, adding that there
is apparently lots of empty space in Yemen.

“I wouldn’t doubt you would have all your deplorables solidly behind
you in this negotiation/defunding and a lot more of the country as well,
once they get full knowledge of exactly how much we’re actually paying
for this insanity,” Simon continued. “As with most things, they haven’t
been told by our media, who have no interest in informing the public on
anything that might disrupt their narrative.” But the truth is getting
out anyway, and the American people overwhelmingly think the UN is doing
a bad job.

Even some neocons and establishment loyalists called for taking
serious action against the rogue international body. Columnist and
establishment talking head Charles Krauthammer, for example, a member of
the globalist Council on Foreign Relations that has been instrumental
in surrendering U.S. sovereignty for generations, suggested on Fox News’
“Special Report” that Trump should turn UN headquarters in New York
City into condos.

“We’re paying an organization that spends half its time — more than
half its time and energy and resources and bureaucracy trying to attack
the only Jewish state on the planet, a tiny little spec, while genocide,
mayhem, murder, terrorism is going on all over the world,” declared
Krauthammer, a neocon. “It’s an obsession that to an outside a observer
appears to be insane. And the rest of the time is spent undermining the
United States and democracy [sic] and our allies around the world. It is
an organization that exacerbates tensions, it does not assuage them….
It turned out to be a disaster.”

While stopping short of calling for an American exit (Amexit) from
the UN, Krauthammer did suggest getting the UN out of the United States.
“Any move to minimize our support for it, any move to get it out of the
U.S. — imagine if [UN] headquarters were in Zimbabwe. The amount of
weight and coverage it would get would be zero. I think that’s good real
estate in downtown New York City, and Trump ought to find a way to put
his name on it and turn it into condos.” Considering the UN’s three
tributes to mass-murdering Cuban dictator Fidel Castro so far in the
weeks after his death, Havana might make a good spot for UN headquarters
as well.

With the UN, there is much more at stake than Israeli settlements. And there are plenty of reasons to support a U.S. government withdrawal, or an “Amexit,” from the UN beyond the recent resolution. Legislation to secure an Amexit, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act,
has been introduced in practically every Congress for decades. With
lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and large swaths of the American
public in outrage mode over the latest anti-Israel vote, the time has
never been better to Get US Out of the United Nations. Concerned
Americans should contact their elected representatives to make their
feelings known.

Related articles:

UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements Prompts Mixed Reactions

Barack Backhands Bibi

UN Seeks to Prosecute Israelis for “War Crimes” in Global Court

Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN

#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!

U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence

New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist

UN “Human Rights” Body, Run by Dictators, Ridiculed in Congress

UN “Human Rights” Boss Equates Trump, Farage With ISIS

United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.

UN Schools Caught Teaching Arab Children to Wage Jihad on Jews

Deputy Knesset Speaker Feiglin on Iran, Arab Spring, U.S. Aid, and More



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand,” tweeted
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in reaction to President Barack Obama
designating two national monuments Wednesday at sites in Nevada and in
Lee’s home state of Utah.

Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, stated that the action will not allow any new
mining or oil and gas development within the monument boundaries.

The Bears Ears National Monument in Utah designation adds even more
land to the control of the federal government, covering 1.35 million
acres in the Four Corners region. While Lee and many other residents of
the states affected by Obama’s latest executive order reacted angrily,
conservationists were ecstatic.

The proposed monument is located in between existing national parks
and the Navajo Indian Reservation. Navajo Nation President Russell
Begaye called it an exciting day for members of his tribe. “We have
always looked to Bears Ears as a place of refuge, as a place where we
can gather herbs and medicinal plants, and a place of prayer and
sacredness,” he said. “The rocks, the winds, the land — they are living,
breathing things that deserve timely and lasting protection.”

Today, the federal government owns two-third of the land in Utah. In
the case of Bears Ears, the federal government will “co-manage” the land
not with the state of Utah, but rather with five tribes: the Hopi, the
Navajo Nation, the Uintah-Ouray Utes, the Ute Mountain Ute, and the
Pueblo of Zuni.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called the action by Obama “an
astonishing and egregious abuse of executive power,” which indicated to
him that “far-left special interest groups matter more to him than the
people who have lived on and cared for Utah’s lands for generations.”
Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) also expressed his disapproval of
Obama’s actions: “The midnight move is a slap in the face to the people
of Utah, attempting to silence the voices of those who will bear the
heavy burden it imposes. It does not have the support of the governor, a
single member of the state’s congressional delegation, nor any local
elected officials or state legislators who represent the area.”

Such disrespect for the wishes of the population and its elected
officials of the area affected is yet another indication of the low
regard in which the Obama administration holds the principle of
federalism. Utah’s Attorney General Sean Reyes has promised to sue over
the action.

In Nevada, the Gold Butte National Monument has been a site of
controversy for more than 15 years. Environmentalists have worked
feverishly to stop the expansion of Las Vegas in order to protect
various indigenous species such as the desert tortoise. Local cattle
rancher Cliven Bundy made national news when he refused to recognize the
authority of the federal government over the land, eventually engaging
in an armed standoff with officials of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) in 2014.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and U.S. Senator Dean Heller, both
Republicans, contend that it is Congress that should make land
designations, not the president.
But Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the
retiring Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate, actually pushed for the
designation for the remote area northeast of Lake Mead, claiming it’s “a
wonderful capstone to [my] career of fighting to protect Nevada’s
pristine landscapes.”

Obama said his action will “protect some of our country’s most
important cultural treasures, including abundant rock art,
archaeological sites, and lands considered sacred by Native American
tribes. Today’s actions will help protect this cultural legacy and will
ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and appreciate these
scenic and historic landscapes.”

He defended the legality of his designation of 1.35 million acres as
now off-limits to new energy development and recreation by citing the
1906 Antiquities Act, a law passed during the Progressive Era in which
Congress gave up power to the president to designate national monuments
on his own, without approval from Congress. The Antiquities Act was
passed at the urging of progressive Republican President Theodore
Roosevelt, a strong believer not only in government taking over private
land “to conserve it,” but also in increasing the power of the
president. He argued that a president should be able to do anything that
he is not forbidden to do under the Constitution, and is therefore
generally regarded as the one most responsible for changing the office
of president into what is now called “the Imperial Presidency.”

Interestingly, Homer Cummings, the U.S. attorney general for
President Franklin Roosevelt, issued an opinion in 1938 that while
presidents could remove land from private use under the 1906 law, they
could not reverse such executive actions. Republicans in Congress,
incensed at Obama’s repeated use of executive orders to circumvent the
will of Congress, are threatening to change the law in January.

While Franklin Roosevelt used the law to limit use of land in the
West the most during his 12 years in office, Obama has taken the most
land: 554,590,000 acres. this latest action is the 29th time Obama has
used the power to create national monuments.

Only William Howard Taft has reduced the amount of land taken by the
federal government (only 500 acres). Only four presidents did not use
the power at all — Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and
George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford added a mere 90 acres.

It appears that Obama is doing his best to take as many actions as he
can to advance his progressive viewpoint in the little time he has left
in office. For example, he has blocked additional mining outside of
Yellowstone National Park, and has stopped new oil drilling in the
Arctic Ocean. Donald Trump is slated to take the oath of office as the
45th president on January 20, 2017, and environmentalists have expressed
deep concern that he will attempt to alter Obama’s land “protections.”

This is an opportunity for the Republicans, who now control both
houses of Congress, and the White House to rein in both the excessive
power of the Imperial Presidency, and the policy of the federal
government controlling more and more land in the western states. Whether
they will actually do so remains to be seen.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Ron Edwards

December 30, 2016
Declaration of Independence was written to proclaim to the world the many
reasons for seeking freedom from tyranny from England. The Declaration
enumerates a detailed list of legal offenses that Great Britain had left
unresolved, the awakening Founders saw them as more than isolated wrongs.
Rather they saw them as a part of a predetermined plan to take away their
religious liberties and reestablish the Church of England to rule over
their hearts and souls, thus enslaving the colonies.
In that
light one understands the amazing power of Patrick Henry’s volcanic
words. Faced with such prospects, the Declaration stated that the American
colonists were set to defend: the laws of nature and nature’s God”
words that define the principles upon which the Founders stood. The laws
of nature were understood to mean the will of God for man as revealed
to man’s reason. However, because man is fallen and his reason does
not always comprehend this law, God gave his law in the Bible to make
it totally clear.
it was the CHURCHES that became the primary vehicle to stir the embers
of Liberty, telling colonists that the English government was usurping
their God given rights, and the King and Parliament were abusing the laws
of God. Thus, the Founding Fathers were convinced that it was their sacred
duty to start a revolution to uphold the laws of God. The Founding Fathers
were convinced that it was their sacred duty to begin a revolution to
uphold the law of God against the unjust and aggressive laws of men. The
battle for political liberty was an unalienable right, according to God’s
natural law.
As it
is noted in the American Patriot’s Bible New England ministers,
in particular were decisive in rallying the popular moral support for
war against England. They pressed their congregations to overthrow King
George because they believed that rebellion to tyrants was obedience to
God. From numerous pulpits ministers recruited troops and strengthened
them in battle with patriotic sermons. While the church leaders were well
schooled in the fact that the Bible placed great emphasis on due submission
to civil authorities (Romans 13), they noted there are also many passages
that approve resistance to ungodly authority.
example, when the apostles were commanded by the Sanhedrin to cease preaching
that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, Peter boldly asserted, “We
ought to obey God rather than men” (acts 5:29). To further explain,
the early apostles were not about to allow the right to freely spread
the gospel to be taken away. Therefor it is no coincidence that one of
the watchwords of the American Revolution was “No King but King
most of the patriots, their faith gave them the courage to stand on God’s
word and risk their lives and properties to break the tyranny of an unjust
human authority. It was many northern ministers and their engaged congregations
that would later fight and pray against the scourge of slavery. When one
researches the history of Christian involvement in our republic from it’s
infancy it is easy to comprehend that Christians were aware of the issues
of the day and cared about where and how they lived.
In more
recent years, beginning after World War Two ministers began to preach
against being involved in the issues of the day regarding our republic.
The one major exception was during the civil rights era during the 1960s.
But unfortunately, for the most part the church proudly gave up her seat
of moral authority in society. One can blame the many years of indoctrination
against the necessity of Christian involvement and providential guidance. 
many mainline denominations are run by individuals who don’t even
believe in the deity of Christ and have been watering down the teachings
of God’s instructions. As a result of tossing God’s principles
out of society and lessening the standard of education overall, our republic’s
quality of life and stature in the world has been in steep decline.
good news is as I have predicted for years on my syndicated radio commentary
“The Edwards Notebook” that a large remnant of Christians
would awaken from their moral and spiritual stupor and pray to God and
seek His forgiveness for negligence and not caring about the condition
of our nation. That movement of prayer grew to many hundreds of thousands,
maybe millions. But now Christians are starting to take their rightful
place in society as participants, rather than just wimpy onlookers from
the sidelines.

of pointing fingers and proclaiming how dirty politics is we should be
the best we can be, get involved and help drain the swamp. But without
Providential guidance and actions in society, the progressives will reach
their goal of seeing America become one nation gone under.


Don’t believe in Jesus’ virgin birth? 
Not a problem, says Andy Stanley
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Andy Stanley
Political Insider
AJC blog about Atlanta politics, Georgia politics, Georgia and metro Atlanta election campaigns. Because all politics is local.
December 27, 2016
| Filed in: Southern Baptists

December has apparently proven to be an interesting
month for the Rev. Andy Stanley, son of a former president of the
Southern Baptist Convention and lead pastor of North Point Community
Church in Alpharetta — one of the largest congregations in the country.
Though it is only now breaking in to the open, the Baptist world has been rocked by a Dec. 4 sermon in
which the son of famed TV evangelist Charles Stanley discounted the
importance of believing in the virgin birth of Jesus. His entry point:
“A lot of people just don’t believe it. And I understand that.
Maybe the thought is, ‘Hey, maybe they had to come up with some myth
about Jesus to give him street cred, you know, later on.’ Maybe that’s
where that came from.

“It’s interesting, because Matthew gives us a version of the
birth of Christ, Luke does, but Mark and John – they don’t even mention
it. A lot has been made of that….

“You’ve heard me say some version of this a million times, so
this will be old if you’ve been around for a while. But see, if somebody
can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I’m not
all that concerned about how they got into the world.”

Many Baptists were aghast at what they saw as an unexpected new front opening up in the war on Christmas. From Baptist Global News:
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
in Louisville, Ky., took exception to Stanley’s view in a Dec. 16
podcast describing the Bible stories about Christ’s incarnation as “the
central truth claim of Christmas.”

“Just in recent days, one Christian leader was quoted as saying
that if Jesus predicted his death and then was raised from the dead, it
doesn’t matter how he came into the world,” Mohler said. “But the Bible
insists it really does matter and the answer given from Scripture very
clear in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Luke is that Jesus
was born to a virgin.”

We’ll let the religion desk of the Washington Post weigh in as well:
This is not the first time Stanley…has had to defend remarks from
his sermons. Earlier this year, after critics accused him of
downplaying the authority of scripture, the nondenominational pastor
attributed the issue to his nontraditional preaching style.

“The real story is the handful of Southern Baptist professors and
writers (not so much preachers) who seem to have nothing else to do but
listen to bits and pieces of my messages,” he said in his statement to
The Post. “Anyone who listens to all three [sermons in the series] will
know that I stand firmly within the orthodox Christian tradition
regarding the incarnation of Jesus — including the birth narratives as
presented [in] Matthew and Luke.”

Stanley also said he believes people can become Christians without knowing the narratives around Jesus’ birth.

 (Friday Church News Notes, December 30, 2016, www.wayoflife.org, 
[email protected], 866-295-4143) - 
The following is from Matt Costella,
 Fundamental Evangelistic Association, Dec. 23, 2016: 
Andy Stanley, pastor of North Pointe Ministries in the Atlanta area, is no 
stranger to controversy. Stanley has made numerous statements just this 
past year that have generated controversy and resulted in backlash from 
conservative evangelicals. But Stanley’s December 3, 2016, sermon may be
 the most controversial yet. In his sermon, Stanley minimized the 
importance—if not the reality—of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. ‘A 
lot of people don’t believe it, and I understand that,’ Stanley said. He
 added, ‘Maybe the thought is they had to come up with some kind of myth
 about the birth of Jesus to give him street cred later on. Maybe that’s
 where that came from’ (Baptist News Global,
 ‘Virgin Birth Debate Interrupts Regular ‘War on Christmas’ Program,’ 
12-21-16). Stanley then noted that it is interesting that only 2 of the 4
 gospels mention the virgin birth, and said ‘Christianity doesn’t hinge 
on the truth or even the stories around the birth of Jesus … It really 
hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.’ Earlier this year, Stanley 
minimized the importance of the role Scripture plays in the life of the 
believer, and minimizing the importance of the virgin birth of Christ is
 simply the next step in this downward trajectory. The virgin birth of 
Christ is vitally important, for without the virgin birth, mankind would
 not have a Savior (the God-man) and no resurrection could have 
occurred! Despite what Stanley says, Christianity does
 hinge on the truth surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ. Stanley’s 
statements are dangerous and his conclusions are completely 
unbiblical. Discerning believers must beware of those who minimize vital
 doctrinal truths in an attempt to relate to those who reject such 
truths in the first place.”

Andy Stanley: Virgin Birth and Bible are Not Important


 “So this tells me that the US president
brought suffering on 800,000 Jews because he has a personal vendetta against
a Prime Minister. Wow.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Cathy Sherman

December 30, 2016
A day
before Chanukah, a Friday right before Shabbat started, the UN Security
Council voted unanimously to pass Resolution 2334, which forbids Israel
from “settlement activity” in Judea and Samaria (the West
Bank to those who reject history). They not only included new settlements
on land no one has used in centuries, but places in which Jews have had
a presence for thousands of years – East Jerusalem and the Western
Wall of the Temple Mount. Basically they called “outlaws”
all the 800,000 or so Jewish inhabitants of this disputed territory.
US was complicit as the White House said “Netanyahu brought the
US abstention on himself”. So this tells me that the US president
brought suffering on 800,000 Jews because he has a personal vendetta against
a Prime Minister. Wow.
What a foreign policy that is. Your legacy, Obama,
is a judgment that will bring dishonor on your head. What leader of the
free world espouses a foreign policy of personal vendetta except for the
Islamic terror state leaders?
essay isn’t about the history of the disputed land, as volumes have
already been written on this. Some history does, however, need to be summarized
to provide context for the conflict. But basically, the land was part
of Israel historically and Biblically. It includes the part of Jerusalem
in which the Temple sat for centuries. Though the Jewish nation was scattered
for 2000 years, there were always some Jews remaining in the areas of
Judea and Samaria and the Old City of Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter.
It was controlled mainly by the Ottomans and the British for centuries,
though neither did much with this land overlooking the Jordan Valley.
When Israel was made a state in 1948, Judea and Samaria became part of
the state of Jordan, the part of Palestine which was supposed to be for
the Arab refugees of Israel.
It didn’t
work that way, of course. Muslims and Arabs are not known for keeping
their word. They value taquiyya – lying – as a way to obtain their
wants, in addition to terror and murder. For nineteen years, though Jordan
“occupied” Judea and Samaria, they did little with the land.
Then in 1967, when they held the “West Bank” in their control,
several Arab nations attacked Israel. Miraculously, Israel won and not
only protected small Israel, but advanced to the Jordan River and took
possession of Judea and Samaria.
when one state wins territory in a war, to end the fighting, a peace treaty
is signed, awarding the land won to the winner. For some reason, Israel
agreed to stop fighting even without such a treaty. Jordan and Israel
did later sign a peace agreement, but the land Israel now occupied was
left for some later negotiation.
the Arab refugees, who were given Jordan for their state, when Palestine
was split in 1948. Rather than do so, as the Jordanian king, being an
Alawhite, didn’t want more of the refugees, the Arabs created the
“Palestinians”. Even though Jews were also Palestinians, that
inconvenient fact is not relevant to the Arab narrative, which suddenly
became the need for the Arab Palestinians to have their own state. These
were Arabs who moved to the area largely to work for the new state of
Israel, since so many jobs were opened as the Jews needed help building
infrastructure. Many of them were not the refugees who had lived in Israel
and fled during the War of Independence in 1948. Despite the fact that
there is no historical basis for a “Palestinian” state in
Israel, many of the Arabs living in the area were incited to terrorize
Israelis until land could be taken from Israel for their state.
it soon became clear – from their own words – that the Arab nations were
supporting these “Palestinians” because the Arabs had failed
in every war they waged against Israel. Their new weapon was the terrorism
of the incited Arabs who were brainwashed to believe that Judea and Samaria
were their lands. The goal has always been – as was the goal pre-1967
– to wipe out all of the Jews in the Middle East. Muslims can’t
have a total caliphate in the Middle East with a nation of upstart Jews
thriving in it. And this is the cogent, all-important basis behind all
of the Arab-Israel conflict.
So that
brings us to December 23, 2016, when the UN Security Council finally voted
to outlaw the settlements which were built on land Israel had been controlling
for 50 years. This ruling made outlaws of the hundreds of thousands of
Jews living in this land. These Jews came to this area because they wanted
to live on the land where King David walked, where their ancestors had
lived, where the Tabernacle – and later the Temple – had been located.
This was the land in which the sons of Jacob, David and others pastured
their flocks. It is the land of Jewish heritage.
So I
ask the UN and US – why do you wish to destroy Israel? Anyone who has
lived in Israel knows we cannot survive living among warring Arabs without
the protection provided by the highlands of Judea and Samaria. We cannot
long survive without our control of the Temple Mount, the holiest site
of our history and faith – our very heart and soul.
years the UN policy and rulings stated that no one could dictate to the
Jews and Arabs how the solution would be worked out to the conflict, but
that Jews and Arabs would have to work out a “final status agreement”.
Now the UN, for the umpteenth time, has violated its own previous rulings
and policy. It has imposed Muslim desires upon Israel for no good reason,
other than to rid Judea and Samaria of Jews and hand over the Judenrein-to-be
area to the favored Muslims.
UN Security
Council members and the UN-supporting world which remains silent: for
what sins do you persecute us Jews?

Is it for the sin of the provision of the Bible and the world’s
first monotheistic faith?
Is it for the provision of the foundation for
the Christian faith?
Is it for the provision of thousands of medical
cures and treatments
Is it for Israel’s
aid to countless nations
such as Haiti following the cataclysmic
events which brought suffering to each one’s citizens?
Is it for our countless scientific
and technological
developments which have brought better living
to many areas of the world?
Is it jealousy that we continue to prosper
throughout centuries
of attempted annihilation
Is it our huge impact on the entertainment
Is it our long list of Nobel
in Literature, Chemistry, Medicine, Physics and Economics?
Is it that we have the highest percent per
capita of University Degrees?
Is it because we have the highest percent per
capita of museums, zoos, orchestras, and home computers?
Is it because we’re the only country
in the world with more trees at the beginning of the 21st century than
at the start of the 20th?
Is it for Israel’s high number of contributions
to the advancement of agriculture?
Is it for Israel’s high number of incredible environmental
in the world?

Or perhaps, do you persecute us because we represent God’s will
on earth when living in the land where He chose to put His Name? Are
you really trying to stamp out God and His revelations to humans? After
all, if you can eliminate the people whom God promised to save, you
could make Him out to be a liar.
Is that
your ultimate desire and goal? Because you might as well give up now,
as you will only bring down trouble on your heads, and always fail.
for which of these things, or other more heinous crimes, do you persecute
the Jews of Israel?


 News Image

January 15th: 70 Nations Will Gather In Paris To Discuss The Future Of Israel 

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/january-15th-70-nations-will-gather-paris-discuss-future-israel/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On January 15th, representatives from 70 different countries will
gather in Paris, France for an unprecedented global conference.  The
stated goal of this conference is to promote a “two-state solution” as
the way that lasting peace will be brought to the Middle East.  
Israel, there is a tremendous amount of concern that whatever is agreed
upon at this conference will immediately be used as the basis for a UN
Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of
Israel and create a Palestinian state.  
things would have to move very rapidly in order for that to happen,
because Barack Obama’s time in the White House comes to an end on
January 20th, and Donald Trump has already made it exceedingly clear
that he would never support such a resolution.
UN Security Council resolution that was passed on Friday was one of the
most significant events that we have witnessed in decades.  Resolution
2334 made all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem
illegal, it set the 1967 ceasefire lines as the border between the
Israelis and the Palestinians, and it granted every single inch of East
Jerusalem to the Palestinians.  
But it stopped short of giving official UN Security Council
recognition to a Palestinian state, and that is why this conference on
January 15th is so important.
The Israeli
government is reportedly fearful that any guidelines agreed in Paris
would be turned into another UN resolution before Trump’s inauguration.
spokesman for Netanyahu claimed to have “ironclad evidence” that the
Obama administration had plotted behind the scenes to promote the UN
resolution. Israel has said it will present evidence against the Obama
administration to the incoming Trump team.
what an Egyptian newspaper is claiming is true, then there may very well
be an international conspiracy at work against Israel.  According to a
transcript published by the Al-Youm Al-Sabea newspaper, John Kerry and
U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice met with Palestinian officials
in early December and presented Kerry’s plan to them at that time…
a meeting in early December with top Palestinian negotiator Saeb
Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Palestinians that the
US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security
council, Israel’s Channel 1 TV said, quoting the Egyptian Al-Youm
Al-Sabea newspaper.

Also present
at the meeting were US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Majed
Faraj, director of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence

Kerry is quoted as
saying that he could present his ideas for a final status solution if
the Palestinians pledge they will support the proposed framework. The US
officials advised the Palestinians to travel to Riyadh to present the
plan to Saudi leaders.
The Obama
administration is denying all of this of course.  But if it is true,
then the betrayal of Israel by Obama is much deeper than any of us
With less than a month to go in his
presidency, Barack Obama has decided to launch an all-out attack on
Israel.  Once Resolution 2334 passed and the uproar against it was
limited, that emboldened the Obama administration to go for broke.
it looks like they actually could try to get a Palestinian state
created before he leaves office on January 20th, and if that happens it
will be absolutely catastrophic for America.  
see, the truth is that we have been warned for many years that our land
will be divided after the land of Israel is officially divided into two
states.  Many of us have been watching for the creation of a
Palestinian state for a very long time, and now we may be right on the
verge of it happening.

When Donald Trump takes office he would not be able to reverse the
creation of a Palestinian state, but one thing that he could do would be
to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
If that happens, the Palestinians are promising to throw a massive temper tantrum…
asked how the Palestinians would react if Trump carried out his promise
to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Erekat reportedly said the
Palestine Liberation Organization would rescind its recognition of
Israel and ask Arab states to expel their US envoys.

made precisely that threat in a December 19 conference call organized
by the Wilson Center policy forum. He said he would immediately resign
as the chief Palestinian negotiator, and that “the PLO will revoke its
recognition of Israel” as well as all previously signed agreements with
Furthermore, said Erekat, all
American embassies in the Arab world would be forced to close — not
necessarily because Arab leaderships would want to close them, but
because the infuriated public in the Arab world would not “allow” for
the embassies to continue to operate.
Ultimately, everything that is happening now is setting the stage for the biggest war in the Middle East that we have ever seen.
So instead of this “peace process” being the solution, it is actually going to cause the Middle East to explode in violence.

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/12/obama-administration-lied-exposed-as-architect-of-anti-israel-un-action

EXCERPT:  “On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel
for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama
administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and
Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to
ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security


(Friday Church News Notes, December 30, 2016, www.wayoflife.org,
[email protected]wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – 

In what has been called Obama’s
parting shot at Israel, the White House allowed a UN Security Council
resolution to pass last Friday that refers to the West Bank and eastern
Jerusalem as “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and demands a
halt to Israel’s construction in those places. The Temple Mount,
including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount plaza, are located in
eastern Jerusalem. “In actuality, the Palestinians never had a state in
either the West Bank or eastern Jerusalem and they are not legally
recognized as the undisputed authority in those areas. Jordan occupied
and annexed the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem from 1948 until Israel
captured the lands in a defensive war in 1967 after Arab countries used
the territories to launch attacks against the Jewish state. In 1988
Jordan officially renounced its claims to the West Bank and eastern
Jerusalem. … The Committee for Accuracy for Middle East Reporting in
America (CAMERA) pointed out [that] international law does not make
Israeli settlements illegal: ‘Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Conventions, which is relied upon by those who claim the settlements are
illegal, does not apply in the case of the West Bank. This is because
the West Bank was never under self-rule by a nation that was a party to
the Convention, and therefore there is no “partial or total occupation
of the territory of a High Contracting Party,” as Article 2 of the
Convention specifies. Moreover, even if it did apply, by its plain
terms, it applies only to forcible transfers and not to voluntary
movement. Therefore, it can’t prohibit Jews from choosing to move to
areas of great historical and religious significance to them’” (
Dec. 23, 2016). “And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was
separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place
where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For
all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed
for ever” (Genesis 13:14-15). “Neither, because they are the seed of
are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Romans 9:7).


Published on Dec 30, 2016

establishment continues to push the false narrative that Russia is
running our elections and the hearts and minds of Americans despite no
proof and being completely repudiated by the entire planet.

Obama Tosses Out 35 Russian Diplomats as PNG, Closes Two Compounds | Sheeple Media Read the Script 

 Published on Dec 29, 2016

United States expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian
compounds in New York and Maryland in response to a campaign of
harassment against American diplomats in Moscow, a senior U.S. official
said on Thursday. The move against the diplomats from the Russian
embassy in Washington and consulate in San Francisco is part of a series
of actions announced on Thursday to punish Russia for a campaign of
intimidation of American diplomats in Moscow and interference in the
U.S. election. The Obama administration was also announcing on Thursday a
series of retaliatory measures against Russia for hacking into U.S.
political institutions and individuals and leaking information to help
President-elect Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, two U.S.
officials said. Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, has called for
better relations with Russia. It was not clear if he will be able to
immediately overturn the measures announced on Thursday.
The Russian
diplomats would have 72 hours to leave the United States, the official
said. Access to the two compounds, which are used by Russian officials
for intelligence gathering, will be denied to all Russian officials as
of noon on Friday, the senior U.S. official added.



Gohmert Weighs in on Obama Admin Evicting 35 Russian Diplomats; Calls it a “Middle School Slap Back”

Liberals Panic, Call For Nuclear War With Russia 

 Published on Dec 29, 2016

The left is losing their minds as Donald Trump gets closer and closer to being sworn in as President of the United States.