Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog
A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks the story that President Donald Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Infowars
Reporter Joe Biggs went to the Texas Capitol Muslim Day where muslims
talk legislative issues and prayed at First United Methodist church in downtown
liberal Austin. A few of the muslims believed that The U.S. Constitution
is just like Sharia Law and that’s where things get interesting!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
USA – Congressmen Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Ralph
Abraham (R-LA) — and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the Senate — have
introduced resolutions to overturn Barack Obama’s Social Security Gun
Ban.
As a senior citizen myself … and as one who owns several
firearms that I want to pass on as an inheritance to my children one day
… this legislation is very important to me.
But first, a little background.
That
gesture consisted of a rule which would troll the Social Security rolls
and identify recipients whose checks were processed by a guardian.
Once these people were identified, their names would be inputted into the NICS system, and their guns would be taken away.
Ralph Abraham (R-LA)Kentucky
Republican Thomas Massie — who is chairman of the House Second
Amendment Task Force — minced no words in describing Obama’s rule. This
week, Rep. Massie told GOA that:
If you want to see how ruinous
this policy will be to seniors, look at the over one hundred thousand
veterans who have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights under a
similar procedure through the Department of Veterans Affairs. This
ruling is yet another attempt to hurt gun owners and bypass due process.
Our seniors deserve better than that.
In places like New York and
California, with their gun confiscation programs, SWAT teams could be
sent to the homes of Social Security recipients who were identified
under the Obama rule.
Our experience is that most gun owners don’t have $10-20,000 lying around to hire a lawyer and appeal the ruling.
This
process was promulgated pursuant to the “NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007” — which is also known as the “Veterans Disarmament Act”.
Gun
Owners of America opposed that bill because, as we predicted, it would
legitimize gun bans against veterans, and would soon be applied to
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients as well.
But
the passage of the Johnson/Abraham resolution in the House (H.J.Res.
40) — and of the Grassley resolution in the Senate (S.J.Res 14) — will
obliterate that anti-gun rule from the law.
And, because it is
being passed under a special procedure (called the Congressional Review
Act), they will be considered under special parliamentary rules and
cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
Thus, they will need only a majority vote in the Senate and the House, and President Donald Trump is sure to sign.
So
please urge your Representative, Rep. Christopher Smith (R), to
cosponsor H.J.Res. 40. And urge your two Senators to cosponsor Sen.
Grassley’s identical effort, S.J.Res. 14.
It will send a strong message if we can get a large number of cosponsors on this resolution.
Sincerely,
Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus
About Gun Owners of America (GOA)
Gun
Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in
1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.
GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no compromise
gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.
Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut suggested he
would like the United States to move towards a system of “absolutely no
screening” for immigrants, while imposing additional gun control
measures.
During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Senator Murphy suggested
having “a discussion about a pathway in which there is absolutely no
screening” for immigrants entering the United States, citing VISA waiver
agreements between the United States and Europe to demonstrate the
ability of people to enter the U.S. “without almost any security vet.”
“So,
I would go towards a sort of European bent in looking at screening,” he
added. “And then maybe let’s just make sure that if folks get to this
country, and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism, that
they shouldn’t be able to get an assault weapon.”
“That’s a huge liability in our law today.”
Senator Murphy has made no secret of his support for more restrictive gun control measures, leading
a 15-hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate to protest a lack of
new gun control measures following the Pulse Nightclub shooting in
Orlando, Florida.
In the immediate aftermath of the Quebec City mosque shooting, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman joined CNN’s Chris Cuomo to argue in favor of banning those on the terror watch list from being able to purchase a firearm.
“You know what would actually make me feel more secure as an American
is if someone who is on our own terror watch list in America–so much so
that they cannot board an airplane in this country without being
checked–couldn’t buy an “assault weapon.” … That would actually make me
feel better,” he said.
Both Friedman and Murphy ignore the Obama administration’s expansion
of the terror watch list program, authorizing a process that requires
neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an
American or foreigner as a terrorist.
“Instead of a watchlist
limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast
system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a
person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” said Hina Shamsi,
head of the ACLU’s National Security Project.
“On that dangerous
theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected
terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves
innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.”
Even the liberal Huffington Post argued
the vague language and lack of concrete evidence required for an
individual to be placed on the terror watch list could allow innocent
people to find themselves on the list.
“While some individuals are
surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky
language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught
up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions
on travel and other forms of monitoring,” Nick Wing wrote for the Huffington Post in 2014.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Connecticut – Your recent call for increased infringements on the rights of Americans (more gun control) coupled with decreased vetting of foreign entities has now reached ‘the Lunatic Fringe’.
Our
organization (Connecticut Citizens Defense League) has no opinion on
immigration as a sole subject, but when you conjoin calls for gun
control along with mass immigration of foreigners, it is obvious what
you are attempting to do.
You are now prioritizing non-citizens
over legitimate citizens of the United States by calling for gun control
to accommodate those non-citizens.
Let’s face it
Senator Murphy, the bottom line is that you very simply do not trust
your fellow Americans with firearms. The fact that you cling to this
position is clearly evidenced by your ceaseless calls for gun control.
What
is particularly troubling is the fact that you are doing so while
admitting that some immigrants from certain regions of the world may be
so dangerous that we need to ban legal firearms to reduce the ‘risks’ of
these people being here.
It is sheer lunacy that you would risk the lives of your fellow citizens in such a manner if given the opportunity.
Your
way would make all of us less safe if you eliminate the means for us to
protect our lives and our families. Therefore, you and your beliefs are
more dangerous to this nation than any immigrant from anywhere in the
world ever could be.
Scott Wilson President CCDL, Inc.
About the CCDL:
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League was formed in February 2009 by a
small group of concerned citizens as a non-partisan organization to
advocate for second amendment rights in the state of Connecticut. Since
their founding, the group has grown to more than 14,000 members. Thanks
to this large supportive base across the state the CCDL has become a
fixture of the capitol, and well recognized by committees that oversee
firearms related bills.
CCDL is also actively involved at the
state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. As the go-to organization in
the state they are consulted with regularly by lawmakers who have
questions and concerns about pending legislation or existing laws. For
more information regarding CCDL, please visit www.ccdl.us
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Sadiq Khan said: “I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is
shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the
red carpet for President Trump.”
Let’s put this in perspective. Britain has a steadily lengthening
record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed
Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so
hard line that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. Sadiq Khan didn’t say anything.
The UK Home Office recently admitted
Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has
said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things.
One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest.
Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth –
tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination
of the above.” Sadiq Khan didn’t say a word.
May’s government also recently admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sadiq Khan didn’t protest.
Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. Sadiq Khan didn’t raise a fuss.
But the U.S. trying to defend itself from jihad terrorists? That’s over the line for Sadiq Khan!
“Sadiq Khan demands Donald Trump’s state visit is cancelled,” by Mikey Smith, Mirror, January 29, 2017:
London Mayor Sadiq Khan – the first Muslim mayor of a
major western city – has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK
is cancelled.He told Sky News: “I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is
shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the
red carpet for President Trump.“I don’t think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn’t be clearer.”
He said the ban “flies in the face of the values” the US was built on.
He added: “I’m pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and
the Government do not agree with President Trump’s policy, which will
affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including
Londoners born in countries affected by the ban.Theresa May is under increasing pressure to send a clear and firm message to Trump that Britain condemns the ban.
A quarter of a million people have signed a Government petition calling for the visit to be cancelled.
And the Prime Minister was yesterday criticised for not condemning
the new rules but a spokesman later said she “does not agree” with the
so called Muslim ban.But when asked if the invitation for Trump to visit would be
withdrawn, Number 10 said: “We extended the invitation and it was
accepted.”…
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Donald Trump has replaced the former director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement with Thomas D. Homan, who will serve
as acting director until a permanent candidate can be appointed.
Homan
is a veteran of law enforcement with over 33 years experience, and 30
years involvement in immigration capacities, most recently as executive
associate director of enforcement and removal operations – a position he
has held since 2013.
He succeeds Daniel Ragsdale, a holdover from the Obama administration.
Ragsdale’s dismissal comes under the radar, as the focus is on the
firing of insubordinate acting attorney general, Sally Yates, who
ordered attorneys at the Department of Justice to not defend President
Trump’s ban on refugees entering the United States.
The Washington Post profiled Homan in 2016 in a piece that began, “Thomas Homan deports people. And he’s really good at it.”
“Homan
is the Washington bureaucrat in charge of rounding up, detaining and
kicking illegal immigrants out of the country. As Americans fight over
whether the next president should build a wall on the Mexico border to
keep migrants out or protect millions of them from deportation, Homan is
actually hunting undocumented immigrants down right now, setting
strategy for 8,000 officers on the front lines.”
General John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, released the following statement on Homan’s appointment –
Today, the president appointed Mr. Thomas D. Homan acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Since
2013, Mr. Homan has served as the executive associate director of ICE
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). In this capacity, he led ICE’s
efforts to identify, arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens,
including those who present a danger to national security or are a risk
to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally
or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our
border control efforts.
Mr. Homan is a 33-year veteran of
law enforcement and has nearly 30 years of immigration enforcement
experience. He has served as a police officer in New York; a U.S. Border
Patrol agent; a special agent with the former U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service; as well as supervisory special agent and deputy
assistant director for investigations at ICE. In 1999, Mr. Homan became
the assistant district director for investigations (ADDI) in San
Antonio, Texas, and three years later transferred to the ADDI position
in Dallas, Texas.
Upon the creation of ICE, Mr. Homan was
named as the assistant agent in charge in Dallas. In March 2009, Mr.
Homan accepted the position of assistant director for enforcement within
ERO at ICE headquarters and was subsequently promoted to deputy
executive associate director of ERO.
Mr. Homan holds a
bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and received the Presidential Rank
Award in 2015 for his exemplary leadership and extensive
accomplishments in the area of immigration enforcement.
I
am confident that he will continue to serve as a strong, effective
leader for the men and women of ICE. I look forward to working alongside
him to ensure that we enforce our immigration laws in the interior of
the United States consistent with the national interest.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
NEW YORK – Eric Schmidt, the founder of the multinational
conglomerate Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, is making a
run to become a Trump insider, intending hopefully to reverse the
political damage done by the strong support he and Google gave to the
Obama administration for eight years and to Hillary Clinton in her 2016
presidential campaign.
On Dec. 14, 2016, Schmidt was included in a group of prominent tech industry executives that met with then President-elect Donald Trump in a much-publicized meeting.
Then on Jan. 17, 2017, Politico reported
that Schmidt was sited at an unannounced visit to Trump Tower, where he
lunched privately with Jared Kushner, Trump’s real estate magnate
son-in-law married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka in 2009, who has emerged
to be named a Senior Advisor to his father-in-law in the White House.
Schmidt’s charm offensive
Trump’s long-time
advisor Roger Stone expressed to INFOWARS.com concerns shared by many
close to the Trump administration that Schmidt is angling to create a
personal relationship with Trump so as to continue the business
advantages Google enjoyed when Barack Obama was president.
“Google’s
Eric Schmidt was among Hillary’s biggest donors and closest advisors,”
Stone told INFOWARS.com in an exclusive interview. “Schmidt enjoyed a
revolving-door relationship with the Obama administration that secured
for Google key role in writing regulations to Google’s advantage.”
Stone pointed out that Schmidt “bet on the wrong horse – big time” in supporting Hillary.
“Now, Schmidt is engaged in massive damage control, thinking he charm his way into Trump’s inner circle,” Stone continued.
“The
problem is that Schmidt and Google have a history of supporting
Democratic candidates and leftist causes,” he stressed. “The American
public has no idea how extensively Schmidt has used his influence with
Hillary and with Obama to wind Google tentacles into the heart and inner
workings of a federal bureaucracy staffed from the top-down by
left-leaning Hillary lovers.”
Stone emphasized those in key
positions in the Trump administration must be on the alert to a “Google
charm offensive” launched by Schmidt to cozy up to Trump in an effort to
re-establish with Trump some of the influence Google enjoyed with the
Democrats.
Google strategy to worm into Trump
“Google
was definitely trying to advance its policy agenda by cozying up to
Trump,” Daniel Stevens, the acting executive director of the
Washington-based non-profit 501(c)(3) watchdog Campaign for
Accountability told Infowars. “It’s what Google did with Hillary. As
Hillary’s campaign was kicking-off, Google cozied up to the Clinton
campaign. Eric Schmidt sent off emails offering advice to Hillary’s top
campaign managers, in an effort to make himself indispensable to the
campaign.”
Stevens noted Eric Schmidt even created an under-the-radar startup technology company for Hillary’s Campaign, The Groundwork,
headquartered in Brooklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from Hillary’s campaign
office. The Groundwork became a major vendor Hillary’s campaign,
implementing a policy designed to emulate Barack Obama’s highly
successful micro-targeting of voters in 2012, in a plan to feed this
data to activists working in the field through the Obama campaign’s
activist arm, Organizing for America.
As noted by Quartz.com in an article published Oct. 9, 2015,
Hillary’s decision to hire former Google executive Stephanie Hannon as
her 2016 presidential campaign’s chief technology officer, as well as
hiring “a host of ex-Googlers” as high-ranking technical staff at the
Obama White House evidenced the “shrinking distance between Google and
the Democratic Party.”
“It now appears that Schmidt is trying to
reach out to the Trump White House in a similar way,” Stevens
continued. “It’s in Google’s interest to cozy up to Trump now that he
is president and that is what Schmidt is trying to do.”
That Google has already made inroads into the Trump camp was clear to the Campaign for Accountability in
that Joshua Wright, who co-wrote a Google-funded paper while on the
faculty of George Mason University and works at Google’s main antitrust
law firm, has been advising the Trump transition team on competition
issues, while Alex Pollock, of the Google-funded R Street Institute, has
also been named to oversee the transition at the FTC.
At the same time, it is not clear the Trump administration fully appreciates the extent to which Eric Schmidt and Google top executives have supported and advanced Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s far-left policy agenda. Leaked emails released by Wikileaks revealed that John Podesta,
Hillary’s 2016 campaign chairman, had warned Neera Tanden, the
President of the Center for American Progress, “I hope Hillary truly
understands how batshit crazy David Brock is.”
Radical Democratic Party political operative David Brock is the chief architect behind promoting the leftist “Fake News” campaign.
Brock’s advice was key to promoting Google to take steps to prohibit
some 340 “fake news” sites in November and December alone from using
Google ads for monetization. Last week Google confirmed that since
November, some 550 sites have been reviewed, resulting in permanent bans
for nearly 200 and temporary bans for another 140, as reported by Variety on Jan. 25, 2017.
Google refuses to disclose the identity of the websites Google has targeted to block as “fake news.”
Trump
supporters should remain legitimately concerned that by buying into
Brock’s campaign against “fake news,” the ultimate goal of the far-left
is to ban sites like Infowars.com for exposing the far left agenda, wile
protecting mainstream media news organizations and websites like CNN,
despite proof CNN has reported anti-Trump stories proven to be false or
otherwise untruthful.
Trump has repeatedly attacked CNN as “not a legitimate news agency”
because of the extent to which CNN has engaged in one-sided, distorted
and intentionally misleading anti-trump “fake news” slanted to benefit
far-left candidates like Hillary Clinton, while striving to protect the
legacy of the Obama administration from criticism.
Google’s revolving door
“When
President Obama announced his support last week for a Federal
Communications Commission plan to open the market for cable set-top
boxes — a big win for consumers, but also for Google— the cable and
telecommunications giants who used to have a near-stranglehold on tech
policy were furious,” wrote David Dayen in the Intercept
on April 22, 2016, evidencing Schmidt’s ability to get Obama
administration regulations written to benefit Google. “AT&T chief
lobbyist Jim Cicconi lashed out at what he called White House
intervention on behalf of ‘the Google proposal.’”
According to a report published by Campaign for Accountability on April 26, 2016, White House logs show Google had “unrivaled access” to the Obama administration
with Google representatives attending 427 meetings in the White House
from the time Obama took office, on Jan. 20, 2009, and October 2015 – a
meeting every 5.8 days – more than once a week – averaging one meeting
every 4.1 working days.
The Campaign for Accountability study further established a
“revolving door” with Google hiring an Obama administration government
official or a Google employee becoming an Obama administration employee.
“The dataset highlights the astonishing level of traffic between the
two in both directions: 251 people either moved from Google into
government or vice-versa, since Obama took office,” the Center for
Accountability noted.
“Over the course of just 15 years, Google
has grown into arguably the most powerful company on the globe by
becoming its biggest data-mining operation,” said Anne Weismann the
executive director for the Campaign for Accountability Executive when
the report on Google was released last year. “Google knows more about us
than we know about ourselves, but we know surprisingly little about
Google and how it actually operates.”
“The company’s business
practices and political influence, as well as how it uses our private
information, are disturbingly opaque.”
Among those benefiting from Google’s “revolving door” relationship with the Obama administration is Megan Smith, the former Google vice president of business development who served as the United States’ Chief Technology Officer in the Obama White House.
Another
is Johanna Shelton, Google’s director of public policy and top
lobbyist, Johanna Shelton, According to Watchdog.org, Johanna Shelton, visited White House officials 128 times,
including 4 times with President Obama himself, between the time Obama
took office in 2009 and October 2015, compared to lobbyists for other
companies in the telecommunications and cable industry that visited the
White House a combined 124 times in the same time span. The Daily Mail
concluded that Shelton visited the Obama White House more than 18 of the
top 50 lobbyist spenders combined.
Eric Schmidt’s personal
familiarity with Obama stretches back at least to Nov. 14, 2007, when
then Sen. Barack Obama, a 2008 presidential hopeful, visited Google’s
headquarters in Mountain View, California, to meet with Schmidt and take
questions from Google employees, as part of the “Candidates at Google” series.
In his 2008 presentation at Google, Obama expressed his support for
net neutrality, a Google-sought policy decision that the Federal
Communications Commission finalized as “Net Neutrality Regulations” on April 13, 2015.
On June 23, 2011, ConsumerWatchdog.org wrote the White House legal counsel,
advising of the group’s concern about the Obama administration’s
“inappropriate relationship with Google while the company is under
criminal investigating,” insisting that Schmidt as Google’s executive
chairman, and Marissa Meyer, a Google vice president had been invited
unadvisedly to be guests at a then recent White House state dinner
honoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“Allowing such
executives to hobnob at a gala White House event inevitably sends a
message that the Administration supports them and undercuts the ability
of federal investigators to proceed with their case in a fair and
unbiased way,” ConsumerWatchdog.org president Jamie Court wrote in the
letter.
In an article published June 24, 2011, Politico documented the precise nature of the legal conflicts of interest involved in Schmidt and Meyer attending the White House state dinner.
“Google
is reportedly the subject of an antitrust investigation by the FTC, and
Justice is reviewing its $400 million purchase of online advertising
firm Admeld,” Politico noted. “In addition, Justice, the FDA and the
Rhode Island U.S. attorney are reportedly looking into allegations that
Google profited from selling online ads to illegal online pharmacies.”
Politico
stressed that despite these on-going investigations, “Google’s
Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and Vice President Marissa Mayer were
guests at last month’s State Dinner to honor German Chancellor Angela
Merkel.”
All investigations ended without Google facing anti-trust charges or criminal prosecutions:
Schmidt’s role as Hillary’s “head outside advisor”
In an email dated April 2, 2014, released by Wikileaks,
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta
wrote Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook about a meeting he had just
completed with Google’s Eric Schmidt.
“I met with Eric Schmidt
tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent,
etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t
pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be
head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others
out,” Podesta wrote. “Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC
tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the
afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to
meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on the phone in the a.m.”
In another Wikileaks document, an attachment to a memo Mook wrote to Podesta
and Clinton aid and legal adviser Cheryl Mills, dated Oct. 26, 2014,
Mook detailed the extensive work “Eric Schmidt’s group” was undertaking
with the campaign.
As noted by the Daily Caller, the attachment
was a memo originally sent to Hillary by Teddy Goff, the former digital
director for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign who had
transitioned to Hillary’s 2016 campaign, in October 2014, six months
before Hillary announced her run to the White House.
In the memo,
Goff stressed the importance of Schmidt in constructing the back-end
infrastructure of the Clinton campaign website. She wrote the
following:
“We have selected a team of developers, unaffiliated
with Eric [Schmidt], to build the front-end of your website — a
relatively simple process that does not need to have begun yet. These
are former employees of mine in whom I have the highest confidence. They
are apprised of what Eric is building but not dependent on it, having
identified commercially available products for all mission-critical
functions in the event Eric’s group is delayed or otherwise derailed.”
Goff
continued, noting she had “instructed Eric’s team” to build the
“back-end of the website, the ability to accept donations (along with
associated features, most importantly the ability to store credit card
information), and the ability to acquire email addresses.” She noted
these were “core functionalities” that had contributed to Obama’s 2012
electoral success. This appears to be the genesis of the thinking that
led Schmidt to create The Groundwork to create Hillary’s 2016 campaign
technological infrastructure.
According to leaked documents released by Guccifer 2.0, Eric Schmidt, valued by Forbes as having a net worth of $11.8 billion, has personally donated $118,866.34 to the Clinton Foundation.
There
is no doubt that Schmidt used that wealth to bet heavily that Hillary
Clinton would be president in 2017. According to OpenSecrets.org, Alphabet Inc. employees contributed $1.5 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, making Google the second largest source of campaign contributions that Clinton received.
The
Campaign for Accountability’s “Google Transparency Project” found “at
least 57 people were affiliated with both Clinton—in her presidential
campaign, in her State Department, at her family foundation—and with Google or related entities.
In addition, 10 people who worked under Clinton at the State Department
later joined the New America Foundation, a Google-friendly think tank
where Google’s Eric Schmidt served as chairman and was one of its top
donors.”
The “Google Transparency Project” report made clear
Google executives and employees “bet heavily on a Clinton victory,
hoping to extend the company’s influence on the Obama White House.” The
report continued to note that Google executives and employees “lost
that bet, and are left scrambling to find an entrée into the Trump
Administration.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castañeda has called on
Mexico to punish President Trump for his actions on deporting illegal
immigrants and building a border wall by allowing criminal cartels to
run drugs into the United States.
@TheLastRefuge2 Jorge Castañeda Gutman suggests flooding the U.S. with drugs produced in Mexico and South America. pic.twitter.com/xbHZEzX4BY— TransitionTracker (@DaveNYviii) January 29, 2017
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Do you like freedom and liberty?”
Asking this question of some of their fellow students landed three college kids in jail.
Here’s the story.
Back in September, members of the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL)
were handing out pocket copies of the Constitution to their fellow
students at Kellogg Community College (KCC) in Michigan trying to build
up the club’s membership.
Later, campus police approached the kids, questioned them about their
activities, handcuffed them for “trespassing” and locked them up in the
county jail for seven hours!
On January 18, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit
on behalf of the three YAL members who were arrested and jailed by the
college’s law enforcement.
Here’s ADF’s account of the events that occurred that day and how the
kids ended up in jail for passing out copies of the Constitution:
That’s when the students were arrested and taken to jail.
Adding insult to ignorance, when asked what harm the three YAL
members were causing to their fellow students, a college administrator
identified as Drew Hutchinson, explained that students from “rural farm
areas … might not feel like they have the choice to ignore the
question.”
In other words, according to the administration of Kellogg Community
College, people who live on a farm are too backward to realize that when
someone asks them a question, they are free to answer the question or
ignore it.
Seriously.
Additionally, the YAL members who were arrested report that Hutchinson
told them that the question they were asking (“Do you like freedom and
liberty?”) was too “provocative.”
Hutchinson also allegedly told them that the rural kids “are growing
up on a farm, or they don’t have Wi-Fi, they don’t have internet, you
know it’s a very different situation, they were brought up in a very
different manner.”
Without Wi-Fi, farm kids are just “brought up” not knowing what to do
if someone offers them a pocket Constitution or asks them a question.
Now, in fairness to KCC, the school does have a Solicitation Policy that was in place prior to YAL’s activities.
The Solicitation Policy
reads: “Soliciting activities on campus are permitted only when the
activities support the mission of Kellogg Community College (KCC) or the
mission of a recognized college entity or activity. Non-College
organizations may conduct solicitation activities on campus only when
lawfully sponsored by a recognized College entity. All organizations
desiring to conduct soliciting activities on campus must adhere to
College policies and procedures.”
The policy then goes on to lay out the process a group must follow
before being allowed to distribute literature. The school claims that
the three YAL students violated the policy and thus were arrested and
jailed.
One of the arrested students recalls the activities of another
on-campus group that were not held to strict obedience to the
Solicitation Policy. Here’s the story as told by Brandon Withers, one of
the jailed YAL members:
The ADF sees several violations on the part of KCC of the YAL students’ constitutionally protected civil liberties.
First, they argue that the school’s solicitation policy affords
unconstitutionally broad discretion to school administrators, allowing
them to approve or reject petitions according to their own whims.
Next, the lawsuit claims: “KCC maintains an unwritten speech zone
policy limiting student expression to one location on campus. If
students express themselves on campus without a permit or in any other
location, KCC deems them to be violating the Code of Conduct for
Students, which exposes them to a variety of sanctions, including
expulsion.”
There is no doubt that that United States has become a land where
speech must be approved and when approved must be spoken only in
designated zones set aside for that activity.
Moreover, just because you have the “right” to speak, you must make
sure that the words you say are not offensive to anyone (even in the
slightest degree, the so-called “micro-aggressions”) or you may have such
“rights” taken from you and you may be subjected to severe punishment
for failing to remain safely and mutely inside your government-approved
speech zone.
“All public colleges—which are supposed to be the ‘marketplace of
ideas’—have the duty to protect and promote the First Amendment’s
guarantee of free speech,” declared ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham.
“Ignoring this duty, KCC arrested these club supporters for
exercising this freedom, and, ironically, for handing out copies of the
very document—the Constitution—that protects what they were doing,” he
added.
There is a specter of suppression of speech that is not completely in
concert with the upholding and obeying of the regime. One unable to
restrain himself from criticizing the central planners will be summarily
subjected to a denial of liberty, regardless of the erstwhile
protections offered by some musty old “parchment barrier.”
As so eloquently stated by Ron Paul, “In the empire of lies, truth is treason.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Echoing the language used by critics of the controversial global scheme, the president of the United Nations General Assembly has started referring to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” or SDGs, as the “master plan for humanity.” Speaking to a UN summit for “youth” this week, top UN leaders all demanded that children worldwide be indoctrinated and conscripted to help impose the UN’s extreme vision on humanity. But as awareness of the UN plot grows, criticism is growing in tandem.
The totalitarian global plan, adopted by the governments and dictators of the world over a year ago, has also been referred
to by top UN officials as the world’s “Declaration of Interdependence,”
with the UN being touted as the (un-elected) “Parliament of Humanity.” Dictators and even genocidal mass-murderers around the world continue to express delight
about the plot, expecting massive subsidies for their regimes from
Western taxpayers under the UN scheme. The mass-murdering Communist
Chinese dictatorship even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating Agenda 2030.
If President Donald Trump’s early efforts offer any indication of his plans,
however, the UN Agenda 2030, far from being a “master plan for
humanity,” may already be a failed scheme. And even without Trump, the
U.S. Senate has not ratified the proposed global regime, as required by
the U.S. Constitution for all treaties. The chances of it being approved
by the Senate for the foreseeable future are essentially zero. And
without all the wealth from U.S. taxpayers promised to Third World
dictators and regimes in exchange for their cooperation with UN Agenda
2030, the rest of the planet is also likely to be spared from the
totalitarian vision outlined in the UN document.
The first time UN General Assembly boss Peter Thomson publicly used
the phrase “master plan for humanity” in reference to the UN SDGs appears
to have been at a November, 2016, briefing for UN member states.
“The 2030 Agenda presents the world with what I have termed a
‘master plan for humanity’ to achieve a sustainable way of life on this
planet,” he explained, with “sustainable development” serving as code
language among establishment globalists, communists, and other tyrants
for planetary economic controls, population reduction, global
governance, pseudo-environmentalism, wealth redistribution, and
technocratic rule.
The UN Agenda 2030 is composed of 17 separate “goals,” along with 169 specific “targets”
to be imposed on humanity. Among other schemes, the document demands
national and international wealth redistribution, government and UN
control of production and consumption, the indoctrination of children to
not just believe in the UN’s agenda but to actually “promote” it, and
much more. Under the guise of solving everything from world poverty to
hunger and disease, the controversial UN documents demands massive
expansion of national, regional, and international governments’ coercive
powers. Virtually the entire document violates the limitations on
government power established by the U.S. Constitution, making it illegal
in America without changing the supreme law of the land.
Essentially, UN officials and the leaders of most of the UN’s largely
un-free member regimes are plotting to use Agenda 2030 as a blueprint
for advancing, among other goals, the globalist establishment’s agenda
of totalitarian control and centralization of power. Even a brief
perusal of the document itself makes that clear. In the same briefing on
November 8 of last year, Thompson made that clear as well, although he
used less than honest language to describe the effects that implementing
the “master plan for humanity” would have.
Speaking to representatives of the world’s governments and
dictatorships, Thomson said the theme for his mission would be “The
Sustainable Development Goals: A Universal Push to Transform our World.”
And by “transform our world,” he means exactly what he says, demanding
that “all actors — globally, regionally, nationally and at community
levels — view our world through the lens of sustainability.”
Specifically, he vowed to bring onboard “international financial
institutions, multilateral bodies, regulatory authorities, the private
sector, philanthropic foundations, civil society, women’s organizations,
academia, local authorities and people everywhere.” His team will also
“promote the inclusion of the SDGs on the school curricula of every
country.” UNESCO is working on that, too.
Thomson, who hails from Fiji, used the same rhetoric this week at a UN forum
aimed at bringing youth into the scheme and giving the impression of
support for the UN agenda among young people. Touting the importance of
the SDGs and the pseudo-treaty on “climate” known as the Paris Agreement,
which Trump has vowed to cancel, Thomson said the two UN schemes
provide a “universal master plan to place humanity on a trajectory to a
safe, secure and prosperous future for all.” The event was held by the
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the Office of the Youth
Envoy of the Secretary-General, and the UN Inter-agency Network on Youth
Development.
“Implemented urgently, effectively and at scale, these agreements
will transform our world, to one in which extreme poverty is eliminated
and prosperity is increased and shared more equitably,” Thomson claimed,
as if tyranny and wealth redistribution resulted in prosperity, adding
that “bold ideas” and “urgent collaborative action” would be needed to
bring about the future outlined in the UN documents. “It will require
fundamental changes in the way we produce goods and consume them if our
world is to be sustainable. Youth will have to be at the forefront of
this transformation.”
So crucial is co-opting children, Thomson continued, that he has
already “written to all Heads of Government urging them to include the
SDGs on the education curricula of schools.” That way, young people can
learn about their non-existent “rights” and their “responsibilities”
under the so-called masterplan. “As those with the greatest stake in our
success, I call on all young people to bring your energy, passion,
idealism and ideas to the task of transforming our way of life on this
Planet to the one set out in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda,”
concluded Thomson, whose government is hoping to extort massive amounts
of wealth from more liberty-oriented (and therefore prosperous) Western
nations under the guise of “sustainability” and “climate change.”
Far from being original, the rhetoric used by Thomson and other UN
bosses at the youth forum was lifted almost word for word from the UN
Agenda 2030 itself. “Children and young women and men are critical
agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel
their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better
world,” the document claims. In Goal 4, the document demands that “all
learners” — that means your children and grandchildren — become so
indoctrinated in the UN’s extreme ideology of “sustainability” that they
will be ready not just to accept the scheme, but to “promote
sustainable development” as well. The plan also calls for mandatory indoctrination in “global citizenship,” which the UN’s “education” agency recently said
“aims to inculcate students with a notion of belonging not just to
their own country but to broader trans-national and global entities.”
“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills
needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others,
through education for sustainable development and sustainable
lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of
peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural
diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the
global plan for 2030 states. Read that one again, and consider what the
UN means when it pushes “sustainable development.” Even “human rights”
is misleading, referring to government-defined and easily revocable
privileges rather than the God-given rights America’s founders viewed as
self-evident.
Perhaps hoping nobody would notice, the UN itself has already spilled
the beans when it comes to the meaning of education for “sustainable
development,” a key tenet of the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
“Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes,
consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have
lower incomes,” a UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education
explains. “In this case, more education increases the threat to
sustainability.” In other words, people with real educations have higher
incomes and therefore threaten the whole “sustainability” agenda.
As this magazine has pointed out repeatedly, the SDGs really are a
“master plan for humanity,” a phrase this magazine has used on at least a
half-dozen occasions. But looking past the slick marketing slogans and self-serving gimmicks of the UN dictators club, its allies, and the mass-murdering tyrants responsible for drafting Agenda 2030,
it becomes clear that the master plan involves a surrender of freedom,
self-government, prosperity, national sovereignty, traditional values,
Western civilization, huge amounts of wealth, the Judeo-Christian
worldview, and much more. It is, in essence, a global plan for
totalitarian rule — a sort of neo-feudalism run by unelected and
unaccountable technocrats who lust for ever more power over their fellow
human beings.
The previous UN General Assembly boss, John Ashe, was also a major
booster of Agenda 2030. But just after it was adopted, he was arrested
by U.S. authorities and charged with corruption and receiving bribes to
influence policy from a known Communist Chinese operative masquerading
as a billionaire “businessman.” Ashe died under what analysts described
as suspicious circumstances before his testimony implicating powerful
individuals could be heard in a court of law. Whether other top UN
leaders will face justice for their schemes remains to be seen. But what
is clear is that, if liberty and self-government are to survive, UN
Agenda 2030 must die.
Congress and Trump are in the process of drastically curtailing funding for the UN dictators club and its totalitarian agenda.
But rather than playing defense against every new UN scheme that
threatens freedom and self-government, the American people should urge
their elected representatives to support a full U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193),
currently sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, would do
exactly that, making Agenda 2030 and all the rest of the dictator club’s
schemes irrelevant. All that is needed now is enough public pressure.
Related articles:
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
Former UN General Assembly Boss Arrested for Corruption
UN Goals for Humanity Target Children as “Agents of Change”
UN Demands More Globalist Propaganda in School Textbooks
Next on Trump’s List: Rein in the UN Dictators Club
UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism
Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
Beijing Boasts of Its “Crucial Role” in UN Plan for Humanity
China, G77 Tyrants, and UN Boss Demand “New World Order”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“He’s personally my favorite teacher in the whole school,” Ana
Kneisely told CBS Sacramento, in reference to a middle school American
History teacher, Woody Hart, in Rancho Cordova, California, who was
forced to retire by the Board of Education.
Hart, a 70-year-old teacher at Suttle Middle School of the Folsom
Cordova United School District, was ousted after using a Confederate
battle flag, along with a period United States flag, as part of a lesson
on the U.S. Civil War. The school’s superintendent, Deborah
Bettencourt, released a statement late last week that the board of
education had “accepted this Sutter Middle School teacher’s retirement
… and he will not be returning to school this year.”
In an interview with the local CBS affiliate, KCRA, Ana Kneisely, one
of Hart’s students, explained what had happened. “We just came in and
we saw the Union Flag on one side of the room and the Confederate Flag
on the other side of the room.”
Apparently, this was typical of the way Hart taught. “I actually very
much appreciated the way he taught history,” Kneisely said. “I felt
that we were getting more involved than what our other classes did.”
For example, Hart used the two flags of the opposing sides in the
Civil War to create interest. The two hanging flags were part of Hart’s
lesson, as students were members of one of the two armies.
Kneisely added that she did not understand why Hart’s display of the
flag of one of the two sides involved in the war was controversial,
considering that the flags, including the Confederate flag, are also
used in the textbook for the same purpose.
Back in November, a black family filed a complaint against Hart for
his remarks, in which he explained the unfair way blacks were treated
during segregation. Hart told his students that, at one time, some
Southerners responded to calls for “black equality” with disdain, saying
terrible things such as, “We treat all black people equally. We hang
them all.”
The Sacramento chapter of a group calling itself Showing Up for
Racial Justice also weighed in, demanding a public apology from Hart.
Apparently, Hart was only relating historical incidents in which
people went to the South during those days to promote better treatment
and equal rights for blacks, only to be told that they do treat blacks
equally — they hang them if they are in-state African-Americans, and
they hang them if they are visiting African-Americans. Hart was simply
telling the students how terribly blacks were far-too-often treated
during that time.
And, with the Confederate battle flag, Hart was teaching his class
accurate history as to the use of the flag — in battles during the Civil
War.
But the school district argued that it did not really matter how the
flag was used during the Civil War; it should not be seen by students
today. “We recognize that regardless of context, to many of our
students, families, and staff, the Confederate flag is a racist symbol
of hate. Although this matter is under investigation, it is important to
reiterate: Any employee who is found to engage in behavior that creates
an unsafe environment for students will face full consequences,
including the possibility of initiating termination proceedings.”
Bettencourt, the superintendent, said that the district’s action did
not mean that they were attempting to “limit the free speech of our
teachers.” Then, in an Orwellian addition, she stated that she expects
“teachers and staff will do this work using culturally appropriate
strategies.”
The district statement added, “It is our schools’ responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all children.”
It is not clear how the display of a flag, which was actually used in
many battles during the American Civil War, creates an unsafe learning
environment for children. And, exactly what is meant by “culturally
appropriate strategies?”
The obvious meaning is that certain events and symbols in history are
to be censored — or as George Orwell described it in his classic
dystopian novel 1984, some things should be disposed of in the “memory hole.”
Among those things that should be relegated to the “memory hole,” and
not even shown to students (because it apparently would make them
“unsafe”), is a Confederate battle flag. Since the murders inside a
church in South Carolina, in which the killer posted photographs of
himself on Facebook along with the flag, there has been an intense
offensive against any public display of the historical flag.
Critics contend that the flag is nothing but a racist symbol in a war
allegedly fought over slavery, and in more recent times, as a symbol
used by racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. But champions of the
flag have countered that the flag is simply a symbol of Southern
culture, and that slavery was not the issue over which the Civil War was
fought.
Sometimes called the “Southern Cross,” the flag was a variation of
the flag of Scotland. It was actually a Christian symbol, a St. Andrew’s
cross, with white stars added to a red field. An extremely large number
of southerners were descended from Scottish and Scots-Irish families,
and the flag represented the warrior culture of Americans of that ethnic
strain. It was never the official flag of the Confederate States of
America (CSA), but rather a flag to be used on the battlefield. It was
made famous by the Army of Northern Virginia, under the command of
General Robert E. Lee.
The original national flag of the CSA was dubbed the “Stars and
Bars,” and was used until 1863. At the Battle of First Manassas, or Bull
Run, this flag caused confusion, because with the smoke and dust of
battle, the two opposing armies often confused each other’s flag.
Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard, who was in command of
Confederate forces at Manassas, the first great battle of the war,
suggested adopting a different flag, to be used in battle, to avoid such
confusion. While this was eventually done, the Confederate Congress
never formally adopted it for use, but used other flags for the
Confederate government.
But it was used — that is a historical fact. But some historical
facts, apparently, should be erased from the history books and history
classrooms of this country — at least according to this school district
in California.
The action by this school district raises the question of whether we
are to censor history and eliminate certain events and symbols from our
collective memory. True historians convey history as it was — the good,
the bad, and the ugly — because to do otherwise is simply telling a lie.
The very reason we study history is to learn lessons from the
collective memory of the human race, both the living and the dead. If
certain things are to be excluded from that collective memory, we have
crippled ourselves from using the study of history in its proper way.
Unfortunately, such censorship of historical facts is not unique to
this one school district in California (although one suspects that in
that state, it is probably more common than in most others). Today, it
is the Confederate battle flag which is to be blotted out from the
historical record, because its detractors argue it has been used by
racists such as the KKK. Actually, if one examines photographs of Klan
rallies, more United States flags are used than Confederate battle
flags.
And what are we to do with the Klan practice of burning a cross on
someone’s lawn? Should the Christian cross be consigned to oblivion, as
well? One suspects there are many who would like to do so, using
whatever excuse that they can.
While I teach history at a Christian liberal arts college (Randall
University in Moore, Oklahoma, run by the Free Will Baptist
denomination), I began my career many years ago in a small, rural school
district in Oklahoma. The principal sat in on my World History class
one day when I was covering the Medieval Church. (The church was a
powerful and important institution in the Europe of the Middle Ages, and
the textbook devoted a whole chapter to it).
Later, he cautioned me to “be careful.” He suggested it might be
better to not mention the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, as
that might offend someone. At first I laughed, thinking he was joking.
But he was not. He was concerned that teaching what the Church taught
and did in the Middle Ages might even constitute government
establishment of religion.
It was a comment so odd that I was unsure what to say, but it would
be comparable to teaching the American Revolution without mentioning
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, or teaching about
Richard Nixon without mentioning the Watergate Scandal.
Can one imagine teaching about Adolf Hitler, and not mentioning the Holocaust?
Or, perhaps it would be like teaching a group of middle school
students about the battles of the Civil War, and refusing to use a
photograph of a Civil War battle because it happened to include a
soldier holding a Confederate battle flag. Horrors!
After all, they might feel unsafe.
Steve Byas is an instructor of history and government at Randall University, in Moore, Oklahoma. His book History’s Greatest Libels
is a challenge to some of the misrepresentations of history concerning
such individuals as Christopher Colombus, Marie Antoinette, and Joseph
McCarthy.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas lawmaker has been
placed under state protection after receiving death threats over his
recently-introduced bill to protect the lives of unborn children.
The Texas Department of Public Safety is providing
security assistance to Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, who has
reportedly received multiple death threats, as well as his wife.
His political consultant, Luke Macias, told the Dallas News
that the Arlington Police Department and the Tarrant County Sheriff’s
Office has been involved due to the number of threats and an
investigation is underway.
“All involved have done an incredible job protecting his family during this stressful time,” Macias said.
He advised that Tinderholt’s “wife in particular” had been threatened.
Tinderholt’s chief of staff, Micah Cavanaugh, confirmed the situation.
“Representative Tinderholt and his family have received
multiple death threats leading to his family being placed under DPS
protection on multiple occasions,” he told the Texas Tribune. “Specifics
to the threats cannot be discussed due to an ongoing investigation, and
we do not intend to speak on behalf of law enforcement.”
The threats surround Tinderholdt’s submission of H.B. 948 earlier this month, also known as the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act. As previously reported,
the bill declares that unborn children are entitled to human rights
from the moment of conception, and removes current exemptions under
state criminal homicide law relating to abortion.
“A living human child, from the moment of fertilization upon
the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum is entitled to the
same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the
laws of this state to any other human child,” it reads in part.
Abortions committed in cases when the mother’s life is at risk would not be prosecuted as murder.
“When you read and see how abortions are performed, and how
they end the life of an innocent child, it amazes me that we allow
that,” Tinderholdt told the Star-Telegram. “When we look back over
history and we see … the cultures that took the lives of children,
people are appalled by that. People are going to do that with America,
too, and look back one day and say they can’t believe we allowed this.”
He said that the bill is in response to language in the Texas Republican Party platform, which was passed in May, calling for the complete abolition of abortion in the state.
“We call upon the Texas legislature to enact legislation
stopping the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to
enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and
court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to
life,” the platform text reads.
Macais says that while Tinderholt and his wife, who identify
as Roman Catholic, have received death threats over the matter, there
has also been positive feedback from those supportive of defending life.
“Local law enforcement have been very protective of him and
his family,” he stated. “The truth is that he has received a tremendous
amount of feedback—both positive and negative—on the subject of his
legislation.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
It’s the Boy Scouts — or something like that, anyway.
There was a time when the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) spent money fighting a lawsuit brought by a girl
who wanted to be a “boy” scout. The organization won that battle. Now
it has lost its mind, deciding to let a girl join its ranks simply
because she claims to be a boy.
The BSA will now judge applicants based on their “gender identity”
and not, as had been the policy, based on the sex indicated on their
birth certificate. Because birth certificates are, as Barack Obama
proved, so yesterday.
As CNN reported,
the birth-certificate “‘approach is no longer sufficient as communities
and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these
laws vary widely from state to state,’ BSA spokeswoman Effie Delimarkos
said in a statement Monday.”
The Girl Scouts had already capitulated some years ago, allowing a boy masquerading as a girl to join their organization.
CNN further explains that the BSA’s collapse “comes a few months
after an 8-year-old Cub Scout in New Jersey accused the organization of
expelling him for being transgender. The Boy Scouts did not specifically
cite the New Jersey case in its statement. But Chief Scout Executive
Michael Surbaugh acknowledged the group recently had been ‘challenged by
a very complex topic … the issue of gender identity.’”
This brings to mind the apocryphal saying, “Moral issues are always
terribly complex for someone without principles.” Of course, the
psychology causing an individual to believe he’s a member of the
opposite sex, a different species (“species dysphoria”),
or Napoleon may be complex. The psychology causing CNN to, as is de
rigueur among mainstream media now, refer to children such as the
expelled N.J. Cub Scout as “him” may also be complex. But the simple
fact of the matter is that the child is a girl. There’s nothing complex
about that.
Meanwhile, girls who actually claim they’re girls again want to be Boy Scouts. One of them, 15-year-old Sydney Ireland, posted
a petition at Change.org stating, in part, “I cannot change my gender
to fit the Boy Scouts’ standards.” No? I guess poor Sydney didn’t get
the memo.
I don’t know if such rejection of the Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS —
“transgender”) agenda qualifies Ireland as a hater; she’s right in a
way, however, since by “gender” she means “sex.” As former “transsexual”
Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.”
Note that while most people identify the word “gender” with “sex,”
psychologists define it as a person’s “perception” of what he is and say
that this can be different from his “sex,” which is a biological
classification.
And what do people perceive? The list of “genders” grows like the national debt, with the literally scores of them including designations such as Agender, Bigender, Cis, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Pangender, and Neutrois.
Maybe this is why it sounds so “complex” to Chief Scout Executive
Michael Surbaugh, but let’s cut through the noise. The thesis behind the
MUSS (“transgender”) agenda states that, put simply, a person could be a
woman trapped in a man’s body, or vice versa.
The idea is that at issue is not a psychological problem, but a biological one. But is there any proof of this? As I wrote last year:
But it’s a brave new world, where identity is reality. Thus, why draw
lines based on biology at all? Why can’t a man such as 54-year-old
“Stefonknee” Wolscht, who claims to be a six-year-old girl (video
below), join the Girl Scouts? Inclusiveness, right?
Really, the BSA should just get ahead of the curve and rename itself
the Gender Fluid Scouts. After all, the notion of a “boy” is so passé.
Why bother following the spirit of the age when you can lead it? Aren’t
the scouts about leadership?
The BSA development is instructive. First, it illustrates how
political revolutions (which Donald Trump may be ushering in) can do
little to restore the culture, whose moral decay continues apace.
Second, a beneficiary of the BSA’s collapse may be Trail Life USA, an alternative, Christian scouting group
launched three years ago after the BSA decided to admit openly
homosexual boys. This is, of course, the market at work, but it also
underlines how fractured our civilization has become.
There was no need for such alternatives many decades ago because, by
and large, people’s sense of virtue was explicitly the same. Today,
however, with our emotion-guided decision-making causing millions of
people to march to the beat of a million different drummers, there’s
less and less we can unite around.
As for the BSA, along with its name, maybe its oath
needs some tweaking as well. Scouts could be told that you should keep
yourself “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight — or
whatever works for you.”
______________________________________________________
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LTRP Note:
For 15 years, Lighthouse Trails has had the motto “Bringing light to
areas of darkness.” One of those areas (which we call our Sensitive
Issues) is bringing to light the reality of child sexual abuse. We
believe that the sexual molestation of children is part of what we call
“the Death Religion,” which
includes evolution, pornography, abortion,
homosexuality, mysticism, pedophilia, and antisemitism. All of these
lead to one place – death, and the author of death is our adversary,
Satan. We have published three books thus far on this topic: The Color of Pain (by Gregory Reid), Laughter Calls Me (by Catherine Brown), and Seducers Among Our Children (by Sergeant Patrick Crough) and carry a number of other resources like these.
Over the past couple years, the Boy Scouts of
America have passed resolutions allowing practicing homosexuals (and
now transgenders) to actively lead and/or participate in the clubs.
What the organization has done is put countless young boys in harm’s
way. We believe it is just a matter of time before our society says it
is not a crime to engage in sexual activity with a child. With every
world empire in history that came to that resolution, it was the last
resolution they ever made. After that, their empire ended.
The following two excerpts by Greg Reid from his book The Color of Pain
illustrates what happens to a young boy when he is molested. Greg
writes from personal experience. While some may find it difficult to
read such an account, it is wrong to bury our heads in the sand and
pretend this is not really happening to boys and girls across this
nation. And the Boy Scouts have now made it possible for that epidemic
to grow bigger than ever.
As Patrick Crough says in his book, adults are
supposed to be the shepherd’s of children. We have a responsibility to
watch over and protect them.
“Letter to the Molester”
By Greg Reid
To Whoever You Are:
Your name doesn’t matter, for to me, you were
just a stranger in a Volkswagen who gave me a ride. And to you, I was
just a number, a cute fourteen-year-old anonymous kid, one of God
knows how many.
I think about it a lot. Even though you weren’t
the first to molest me, you probably did more damage than most. At
fourteen, I was just beginning to explore my sexuality, and I was
vulnerable. All my sexual antennas were active, but then you knew
that, didn’t you? That’s why you picked kids like me. We were easy
prey; we were little enough to feel scared and overpowered by you, old
enough to sexually respond to what you did.
I hated you, and I have forgiven you. Because
to not forgive you meant I always lived for you, thought about you,
lived in the darkness of what you did and longed for vengeance. Five
years after you raped me, I saw you while I was driving, and pressed
the accelerator to the floor to kill you. You were still driving the
same Volkswagen. Only God’s grace pulled back my foot and let you
live. And then I knew that you bound me still. And so I forgave not
because it was rational but because it was killing me, not because you
deserve it but because I needed to let it go. Forgive means “give
forth” and so I gave back the chains you put me in. I don’t hate you
anymore. I feel nothing at all, but sadness, for what you took from
me—that I can never reclaim my adolescence.
I do pray for you for repentance, if possible.
And if not, for imprisonment, not to punish you (for you must loath
your every breath) but to stop you. Because if you raped me, I wasn’t
the first, and certainly not the last.
I pray for all the kids you raped like me. You
cannot know what you took, what you destroyed. The walking wounded
see your face, feel your evil touch, and blame themselves.
I wish I could tell them it wasn’t them. You knew exactly how it’s done. They were powerless, and paralyzed, and afraid.
They probably still are.
“What Being Molested Cost Me”
By Greg Reid
The cost to a kid who gets molested is higher
than most people know. It’s too easy to minimize the damage by saying,
“It’s just one of those things,” or “Get over it.” Sexual violation
is a violent thing even when it’s not violent.
It takes so much inside. After many years, I’ve
taken notice of the losses (much of which has been healed and
restored), and I want to tell you about it so you’ll know.
It cost me my childhood. Repeated molestation
blocked my memories, and what I did remember was covered with a haze
of physical illness, stalking fear, repeat nightmares, and deep
loneliness.
It cost me my ability to trust. I resented
authority and feared adults so much I wouldn’t go anyplace like a
public rest room or swimming pool locker room because I’d get sick
from the fear of what might happen.
It cost me my ability to be spontaneous. I kept
such rigid control over my emotions, my body and my mind, that I
couldn’t laugh, I couldn’t play, and being around kids who could made
me feel sullen, angry, depressed, alone, left out.
It cost me my sanity. Shortly after the initial
abuses, I was in a complete emotional dead zone; and one night, as I
sat alone in a chair, my mind filled with filth and blasphemy, and
tears streamed down my face, because I loved God and I couldn’t stop
this mental rape, and I just snapped after several days of this, and I
started cursing, and smoking, and drinking, and I told God to give up
on me because I was evil.
I was eleven.
It cost me my education potential. I was a
brilliant child. Being molested cost me my ability to think without
confusion, trance outs, and frustration. I couldn’t concentrate. I
could have been a straight A Valedictorian. Instead, by the time I
finished High School, I was taking four basic classes and barely
passed.
It cost me my identity. Being molested created
such sexual and emotional confusion that I was an old man before I was
fifteen and still a boy at thirty. I felt numb and removed, like I
was not there, just a piece of property for others to use and discard.
It cost me my adolescence. Being molested made
me afraid of adults, men, women, crowds, public places, challenges,
fights and almost everything else including being scared to death I
was gay and scared of all my emotions including anger and joy. I
couldn’t date, I didn’t go to the prom, and alcohol was my only
“friend.” Being a kid is screwed up and scary enough, but I carried
enough guilt and fear to take down ten normal adults.
It cost me time. Being molested started me
running, and I ran and kept going until I crashed in my late twenties,
and then it cost me time in recovering, facing hard truth, and
healing.
It cost me family. Being molested crippled my heart enough to destroy any potential marriage or children.
God has restored most of what was taken, and
more. But you need to know being molested is not a “get over it”
thing. It’s an evil robber whose damage goes deep and keeps taking
until we can face it and start to heal.