republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Thirty counties in Illinois have declared themselves "sanctuary cities" and "safe spaces" for gun owners in an effort to discourage legislators from passing anti-gun legislation. According to Guns.com, the designations are part of a statewide effort to send a message to legislators, including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Counties across Illinois have passed “gun sanctuary” resolutions or similar measures, stating that gun owners, too, deserve protection from lawmakers. The Daily Wire reports that the “sanctuary” designations are “largely symbolic,” but the idea has become increasingly popular, particularly among Illinois residents outside of the Chicago metropolitan area. The counties are sending a message that if the Democratic-controlled Legislature continues to pass gun restrictions, the counties may bar their employees from enforcing the new laws, according to the Chicago Tribune.
"It's a buzzword, a word that really gets attention. With all these sanctuary cities, we just decided to turn it around to protect our Second Amendment rights," said David Campbell, vice chairman of the Effingham County Board.
"We're just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use," explained the Effingham County's top prosecutor, Bryan Kibler, who came up with the idea.
Mercer County was the latest to label itself a “gun sanctuary.”
"It is a message that the people here want to send saying we don't want Chicago and Springfield telling us what to do with our Second Amendment," said Board Member Brian Anseeuw. "It is guaranteed in the Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois."
With Mercer County declaring itself a “gun sanctuary,” approximately one-third of Illinois' counties are now “sanctuary cities,” and that number is expected to grow.
And according to Campbell, the idea could be gaining steam outside of Illinois as well. He said local officials in Oregon and Washington have asked for copies of Effingham County's resolution.
Illinois has become a battleground for gun rights, as the state has passed what it has deemed “common sense gun legislation,” including a restriction on anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a firearm, new fees on federally licensed gun dealers, a mandatory 72-hour waiting period on gun purchases, and even gun confiscation legislation.  
The state has also become a popular talking point for pro-gun advocates who note that despite the state’s strict anti-gun laws, its murder rate, particularly in Chicago, remains staggeringly high. In 2017 alone, the city witnessed more than 2,700 shooting incidents.
"That's where this narrative is so false and is so incorrect. And I don't understand the insanity of those — especially the Democrat legislators in Illinois and in the city of Chicago — who believe that if you have the most comprehensive gun control laws on the books, that that will prevent this gun violence that continues to occur," Fox News political analyst and Chicago native Gianno Caldwell said.
The Chicago Tribune notes that the battle over gun rights in Illinois has drawn attention to the “rural-urban political divide that was so stark in the last general election.”
County officials fear that they are unable to stop the passage of gun restrictions so long as they are outnumbered by lawmakers in Chicago and surrounding areas.
"They are trying to make a point that they really resent how the city of Chicago treats the rest of the state and how they're treated as gun owners," said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.
And not all Chicago residents are anti-gun. The Huffington Post pointed out last year that the rate of concealed carry permit requests in the city has soared in recent years, particularly amongst the black population, after the city loosened some of its restrictions, because law-abiding citizens are becoming increasingly frightened about rising rates of violent crime.
Second Amendment advocates are applauding the counties’ usurpation of the “sanctuary” status to advance the constitutional rights of its citizens. “I love this kind of pro-gun rights pushback,” Alan Gottlieb, with the Second Amendment Foundation, told Guns.com. “It sends a message that the right to keep and bear arms must be protected not attacked.”
Americans are increasingly resorting to these sort of nullification efforts to defeat government overreach. In California, counties and smaller municipalities have been rejecting their illegal immigration “sanctuary status” in an effort to force the state to comply with federal immigration laws.
In Illinois, they are using the liberals’ own arguments for sanctuary status against them to push for Second Amendment protections.


On Tuesday, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a surprisingly pro-Second Amendment ruling. In a boon for constitutionalists and pro-Second Amendment advocates, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects open carry in public for self-defense, reversing a decision handed down by a U.S. District Court in Hawaii.
The ruling came out of a case involving a Hawaiian resident, George Young, who in 2011 had been twice denied a permit to carry a handgun. Hawaii is one of 15 states to require a permit or license to openly carry a handgun. The Hawaiian District Court determined that state officials did not infringe on the rights of one of its citizens by denying him a permit to carry a gun in public.
But Tuesday’s decision reverses that ruling, as two out of the three Ninth Circuit judges disagreed with the Hawaiian court. According to Judge Diarmuid O’ Scannlain, “We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence. But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
“Once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public,” Judge O’Scannlain wrote for the majority. “While the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside such protection, we are satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense.”
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including Founding-era treatises and Nineteenth-century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The majority opinion effectively breaks down the difference between “keeping” and “bearing” arms.
“While the amendment’s guarantee of a right to ‘keep’ arms effectuates the core purpose of self-defense within the home, the separate right to ‘bear’ arms protects that core purpose outside the home,” the majority wrote. Judge O’Scannlain observed that if the authors of the Second Amendment had meant to differentiate between the two, they would have merely protected the right to “keep” arms without also enshrining the right to “bear” arms.
Judge Richard Clifton dissented from the majority, claiming states “have long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms.”
The National Review notes that the ruling comes one year after the Supreme Court declined to rule on the issue. But Alan Beck, Young’s lawyer, believes that the question about open carry will eventually come before the Supreme Court.
“I think the Supreme Court is receptive to this,” Beck told Reuters.
Judge Clifton made a similar prediction in his dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court, he wrote, “will find it appropriate at some point to revisit the reach of the Second Amendment and to speak more precisely to the limits on the authority of state and local governments to impose restrictions on carrying guns in public.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
Hawaii’s state Attorney General Russell Suzuki responded to the ruling with disappointment, and claimed that Judge Clifton’s dissent was “well-reasoned” and supported the “constitutionality of this law.” Suzuki said he would be consulting with the state and local authorities to determine further action.
This marks the second time that the liberal Ninth Circuit court has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment this month. Just last week, the Ninth Circuit backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by determining that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
All of this is certainly surprising, as the Ninth Circuit has garnered a reputation for being one of the most liberal courts in the country. Fox News observes,
Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Of course, Young’s case could be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, where the decision could be overturned, and the Ninth Circuit could resume its role as the most liberal court in the country.


Crazy Video: Lady Doesn't Care About Toronto Shooter's Possible ISIS Ties

In this cringeworthy video a high school teacher tries to infringe on a reporter’s free speech

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/crazy-video-lady-doesnt-care-about-toronto-shooters-possible-isis-ties/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
While interviewing attendees of the memorial for Toronto’s Danforth shooting victims, The Rebel’s David Menzies encountered a woman who regurgitated every liberal talking point in the book.
When Menzies asked a couple about a CBS report claiming the shooter visited ISIS websites, the woman interrupted the interview by asking that “we not descend into racism,” apparently unaware that affiliation with the terrorist group has nothing to do with race.
“What did I say that was racist?” Menzies asked, but the woman just attacked The Rebel and said they aren’t welcome in “our community.”
From there, the woman called The Rebel “fake news,” endorsed socialism over capitalism, admitted she doesn’t care about ISIS, said a majority of Ontario citizens are “demented” and called Trump a fascist.
The woman, who said she’s a high school teacher who educates her students about the racist agenda of the right, then threatened to call the cops over the “racist hate speech.”


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/erdogan-spirit-of-hitler-lives-on-in-israel-because-of-new-nation-state-lawrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Turkey’s bombastic president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the “spirit of Hitler” lives on in Israel after the country passed a controversial “nation state” law which critics say is discriminatory towards the country’s Arab minority.
The jihad propagandist war against Israel continues. Erdogan referred to Israel as a “fascist, racist state” and invoked Hitler because of a new law that “downgrades Arabic from being an official language and encourages settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.”
There is no reason for Arabic to be an official language in Israel. Arab states do not designate Hebrew as an official language. Palestinians, moreover, are merely historic settlers from Ottoman South Syria, but since Erdogan’s goal is to revive the Ottoman Empire, his words are to be expected.
Erdogan also stated:
There’s no difference between Hitler’s obsession with a pure race and the understanding that these ancient lands are just for the Jews.
Yet Arab Muslims hold seats in the Knesset and are active in every sphere of Israeli life. Jews and other non-Muslims are not similarly represented in any majority-Muslim country. Then there is the inconvenient truth that the vast Arab Muslim lands of the Middle East were captured from Christians by means of violent conquests, and Christians are still being wiped out by Muslims in the Middle East.
Calling on the international community to stand up to the oppression of Palestinians, he said the law would lead the Middle East and the rest of the world to “blood, fire and pain”.
Erdogan is using false accusations against Israel to mask his open call for  jihad. Back in March, Erdogan called for “an army of Islam to attack Israel on all sides.”
“‘Spirit of Hitler’ has emerged in Israel after new nation state law, says Turkey president Erdogan,” by Bethan McKernan, Independent, July 24, 2018:
Turkey’s bombastic president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the “spirit of Hitler” lives on in Israel after the country passed a controversial “nation state” law which critics say is discriminatory towards the country’s Arab minority.
In a speech to his country’s parliament in Ankara he said the new law, designed to strengthen Israel’s identity as the “national home of the Jewish people”, showed that the soul of the Nazi leader had “risen again within some of Israel’s officials”.
“There’s no difference between Hitler’s obsession with a pure race and the understanding that these ancient lands are just for the Jews,” he declared, referencing the German regime which massacred six million Jews in the Second World War.
The proposed nation state bill was met with months of public protests from Israel’s 20 per cent Arab minority.
Its passing in the country’s parliament, the Knesset, last week was greeted with shouts of “apartheid” from Arab MPs, who waved black flags for an “evil” law.
Among other measures, the law, which holds constitution-like status, downgrades Arabic from being an official language and encourages settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.
The move makes Israel “the world’s most Zionist, fascist, racist state”, Mr Erdogan said…..


Erdogan, Turkey’s Radical Leader, Claims 

“Hitler’s Spirit” Is in Israel


SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/29635-erdogan-turkey-s-radical-leader-claims-hitler-s-spirit-is-in-israel?vsmaid=202&vcid=3987republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

The imam in Denmark who will face trial for saying he wants to kill Jews isn’t the only Muslim angry at the Chosen People.
So is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey. Indeed, Erdogan (shown) might be the angriest Turk on Earth, now that Israel has passed a law that says the Jewish state is, well, a state for Jews.
Erdogan, who has promised that Islam will subdue Europe, thinks the new law is Hitleresque, and said so in a speech. Coincidentally, liberals don’t like it, either.
Erdogan vs. Israel
Erdogan’s remarks about the law, which the Knesset passed 62-55 on July 19, were blunt.
Speaking in his country’s parliament, the hot-tempered Turk said the law proves that Israel is “the most Zionist, fascist and racist country in the world.”
And that’s not all. According to Erdogan:
The Jewish Nation-State Law passed in the Israeli parliament shows this country’s real intentions. It legitimizes all unlawful actions and oppression. There is no difference between Hitler’s Aryan race obsession and Israel’s mentality. Hitler’s spirit has re-emerged among administrators in Israel.
The law that sent the Turkish leader into a fury was its nation-state measure that’s been kicking around in the Knesset since 2011. It’s provisions are clear about who’s on top in Israel, and just what it means to live there:
a) Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people in which the state of Israel was established.
b) The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, in which it actualizes its natural, religious, and historical right for self-determination.
c) The actualization of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
The law made Hebrew Israel’s official language, while giving Arabic special status. The law also says “the state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”
Settlements are a matter of some controversy in Israel, and Arab lawmakers were predictably unenthused. An Arab member “ripped a printed text of the bill to shreds from the podium,” The Times of Israel reported. Said another, “I declare with astonishment and sorrow the death of democracy…. The funeral will take place today in the plenum.”
Liberals outside Israel, including Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, are also upset about the law. “This is a sad and unnecessary day for Israeli democracy,” he said. “The damage that will be done by this new Nation-State law to the legitimacy of the Zionist vision and to the values of the state of Israel as a democratic — and Jewish — nation is enormous.” He added:
There are millions of us who are united in our opposition to this new law and fortified in our determination to continue to fight for an Israel that will be true to its own founding declaration of equality for all within its land, with the freedom to worship and to live with true hope for the future.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who obviously does not agree, was characteristically blunt:
We enshrined in law the basic principle of our existence. Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, that respects the individual rights of all its citizens. This is our state — the Jewish state. In recent years there have been some who have attempted to put this in doubt, to undercut the core of our being. Today we made it law: This is our nation, language and flag.
Erdogan’s Minarets
But back to Erdogan, who is somewhat of a loose cannon even in the Muslim world.
For years, he has been threatening the West. He is a hard-line Muslim who thinks, not without good reason, that Islam will triumph in Europe. “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers,” he once said, quoting an Islamic poem. Such was his radicalism that he landed in jail and was briefly banned from holding political office. Now, he runs Turkey.
A “moderate” version of Islam cannot, he avers, be squared with Islamic teaching. “Islam cannot be either ‘moderate’ or ‘not moderate.’ Islam can only be one thing,” he said in November, criticizing the Saudi crown prince. Apropos of The New American’s story about the imam in Denmark threatening Jews, Turkey is building mosques in Denmark country to Islamize it, the Gatestone Institute reported in November.
Like Moammar GhadafiErdogan sees a high Muslim birth rate as the key to conquering Europe without a shot: “Go live in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses. Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe. That will be the best response to the injustices against you.”
Should the Islamization of Europe become reality, the plight of Jews in Europe (as well as others, including Christians) could become very perilous indeed.


BY Theresa K. Wrangham, Executive Director
SEE: https://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/July-2018/back-to-school-prevent-vaccine-bullying.aspx;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It’s July and many parents and college students are receiving their enrollment packages for the upcoming academic year. Families are also making new daycare decisions, or renewing daycare agreements.
As a parent, I have filled out my share of school enrollment packages and then mentored my adult children so that they could make their own decisions during the college enrollment process and beyond. I’ve both seen and experienced vaccine bullying, and I know first hand the importance of understanding vaccine policies and laws that govern the enrollment process.

This article provides timely vaccine resource information to assist our readers during enrollment and to prevent families and adults from being bullied into making vaccine decisions that do not align with their values and beliefs.

School Vaccine Requirements & Exemptions

NVIC receives numerous inquiries every year about school vaccine requirements and exemptions. School vaccine mandates (requirements) and exemptions vary from state to state because they are determined by each state’s legislature. You will need to understand the laws of your specific state.
State law also dictates how often school vaccine paperwork must be submitted, to whom that paperwork is submitted, as well as how personal vaccine information is shared with a state’s immunization information system (IIS), more commonly known as a vaccine registry.
State vaccine laws can also vary on which settings the law applies to, such as day care, K-12, and college, as well as whether or not the law applies to private schools. In Colorado, for example, the school vaccine law applies to day care facilities and private schools. Understanding how your state’s vaccine laws apply to a specific setting is helpful when completing enrollment documents.

Vaccine Requirements vs. Recommendations

Sadly, one of the stories often shared by parents with NVIC is that they have been incorrectly told by a school official, health care professional, or day care professional that all vaccines on the CDC’s recommended childhood schedule are required for enrollment. Exemption information is often not disclosed in these conversations. 
While there are some states and private institutions that do require all federally recommended vaccines as a condition of enrollment, the majority of states require fewer vaccines than the 69 doses recommended by the CDC from birth to age 18. Additionally, most states offer varying degrees of vaccine exemptions. NVIC provides an overview of the difference between a vaccine requirement and a vaccine recommendation that many readers have found helpful as they navigate school and day care enrollment requirements.

Vaccine Registries Track Vaccine Status

As parents make their vaccine choices, it is also wise to consider how privacy rights may be impacted by these decisions.
Many states have a vaccine registry that tracks the vaccination status of school children. More recently, federal policy and state laws are expanding registries to include adult vaccination status.1 Registries are often populated by data gathered from personal electronic medical records2 that health care professionals are incentivized to use by the federal government.3 4

The majority of state vaccine registries are opt-out, meaning you or your child’s vaccine information may already be in your state’s registry, and if you do not want to share that information, you must opt out. Unfortunately, some registries only allow opting out of data-sharing, and your health department may retain your information even after you opt out. NVIC’s state pages link to each state’s registry so that readers can learn about how data is acquired, discover if their personal vaccine information is in the system, and find out what opt-in or opt-out options are available and what information is retained when opting out.
Federal Privacy Rights Trump HIPAA
Often overlooked, or misunderstood, in the enrollment process is the difference between federal privacy rights conferred by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA)5 6 in the educational setting, and the “confidentiality” offered by state vaccine registries that are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
FERPA protects records gathered by schools, inclusive of vaccine status information.7 Generally speaking, schools are prohibited from sharing personally identifiable information in those records without the specific written consent from the student’s parents or the adult student.8 However, not all schools are subject to FERPA and there are other exceptions that should be reviewed9 to more fully understand the privacy protections conferred by FERPA.
School vaccine information collected by other state agencies, such as the health department, is not protected by FERPA and may instead be subject to HIPAA.10 11 The primary difference between FERPA and HIPAA is that HIPAA allows information to be shared with third parties for public health related activities, without the consent or knowledge of parents and adult students.12 13 Again, we encourage our readers to take the time understand how data-sharing is governed under HIPAA prior to submitting school enrollment information to entities other than a school.
Additionally, NVIC is aware of tactics by state agencies, like those in Colorado, to circumvent FERPA14 through the introduction of legislation to change the law and allow health departments to gather school vaccine information for use in the state’s vaccine registry. Abuse of authority and misleading families into giving their vaccine status information to health departments across multiple states has also been reported to NVIC. These types of activities are monitored on NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal to keep our readers informed on what is happening in their state and what actions can be taken to protect this sensitive medical information.
If you believe your FERPA rights have been violated, filing a complaint against a school is relatively easy, and must be filed within six months of the violation by the parent of the student, or the adult student.15
Any abuse of school vaccine laws should be brought to the attention of the agencies involved and copied to your state legislator asking for corrective measures. Please consider sharing this correspondence with NVIC so that we may further our advocacy efforts to protect and defend vaccine informed consent rights in your state.

Vaccine conversations unfolding in classrooms. 

More recently, NVIC has received emails from parents concerned about vaccine related curriculum being taught as early as elementary school.
Knowledge is power and talking to your child(ren) about vaccines is important, because the reality is that the vaccine conversation may already be taking place in the classroom, and it may lack balance and information on the ethical principle of informed consent.16 17 18 Mentoring children on how to identify reliable information and resources, and exercising their informed consent rights when making health care decisions will prepare them for the health care decisions they will face as adults.

College enrollment and getting information in advance.

In fact, some of the first health care decisions young adults must make are vaccination decisions related to college admission, with meningococcal vaccine being a focus of discussion for incoming freshmen.
NVIC provides reliable information on diseases and vaccines to assist young adults and parents who are navigating these waters for the first time. As college choices are weighed, many families have found it helpful to proactively:  
  • research the state’s vaccine requirements and exemption laws as part of college selection process; 
  • ask the admissions officer for the school’s vaccination and exemption policy in writing (should be on the institution’s letterhead), if it is not already available on the institution’s website; and
  • ask if there are programs, such as nursing or other medical programs which require vaccination.
It is better to have this information in advance of deciding which college to attend so that there are no surprises when filling out the college enrollment paperwork.

NVIC is your go-to resource!

The good news is that NVIC’s website provides the public with the information and resources necessary to navigate the enrollment process. In addition, please consider the following tips:
  • Be aware of the difference between a legal vaccine requirement and a recommendation to prevent bullying and coercion.
  • Research the state vaccine requirements and exemption laws for your setting (day care, K-12, college, private institution) to understand requirements and exemption options and how they apply to your situation.   
  • Research whether or not your state allows exemption from vaccination, or re-vaccination, if there is proof of immunity.
  • If dealing with a private business or institution that is not required to follow state vaccine laws, obtain written documentation of the vaccine policy to prevent bullying and coercion in private settings.
  • Understand the basics of FERPA and HIPAA and the privacy implications of your choices.

Vaccine requirements and exemptions change – stay informed

Some state laws permit health departments to add new vaccine requirements through administrative rule changes. There have also been numerous attacks on state vaccine exemption laws, as well as efforts to expand vaccine requirements.19 While vaccine mandates are determined at a state level, how vaccine requirements are implemented can vary.
The best way to know what is happening in your state and protect your ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine decisions is by registering for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal. The portal provides links to contact your legislator, bill information and analysis, and talking points when legislation to expand or restrict vaccine freedom of choice is introduced so that contacting your legislator with your concerns is easy.
NVIC encourages our readers to use the resources discussed above, research and become knowledgeable of your rights, and join NVIC in protecting and expanding vaccine freedom of choice for children and adults now and in the future!

Schools Bullying Children Into Taking Vaccines!

Alex Jones talks with Dr. Edward Group about how you can detoxify your body and stay healthy. Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. we all want liberty. Find the free live feed at http://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jo…

Baylor’s Doc Hotez Bullies Parents of Vaccine Injured Children by Barbara Loe Fisher

NVIC’s co-founder and president, Barbara Loe Fisher, responds to bullying remarks made by Baylor University’s Dr. Peter Hotez during a recent lecture at Duke University. Dr. Hotez accused NVIC of being a “hate group,” even though NVIC has consistently based its advocacy on the informed consent principle and served as a respected consumer watchdog monitoring vaccine science, policy, law and ethics. NVIC continues to respect all vaccine decisions, and advocates that all individuals should have access to accurate information on the risks associated with diseases and vaccines prior to vaccination and the human and legal right to make voluntary vaccine decisions for themselves and their minor children without coercion or sanctions.

Vaccination By Medical Bullying Creates Hostile Child With Sensory Processing Disorder

http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com – Megan took her very healthy unvaccinated 3 year old child in for a pediatric check up, was bullied into having her child vaccinated, and left with a vaccine injured child. The doctor called it “normal.” Her child was violently ill for days after the vaccination, and then she wound up with a persistent hostile/agitation that lasted for years; she was also diagnosed with a sensory processing disorder. Megan opposes mandatory vaccination and we hope you will too!

Stop Mandatory Vaccination

Produced by Larry Cook
Founder and Director of http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com
Contribute here:


SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29624-in-south-africa-obama-outlines-globalist-agenda-for-humanity?vsmaid=179&vcid=3987republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
As South Africa descends deeper into the “Second Phase” of Communist Revolution, former U.S. President Barack Obama swooped in to fan the flames of hatred and envy and to argue that the world should follow South Africa into the abyss. Paying homage to South African Communist Party bigwig Nelson Mandela on the 100th anniversary of his birth, Obama (shown) took swipes at President Donald Trump, his countrymen, free markets, the rich, and much more, pushing the globalist establishment’s vision for humanity.
Obama’s speech came amid growing fears of genocide against South African minority communities,  exploding poverty levels, the emergence of racist land-expropriation programs, and even the threat of civil war and societal collapse looming. Ironically, as the truth becomes more widely known, Obama’s own words will likely condemn him and his idol Mandela. And indeed, across America, Obama was ridiculed and criticized for his comments — hoisted by his own petard.
Throughout his speech, Obama sought to divide the world into two opposing camps, further developing a narrative that has been pushed by the globalist establishment for at least several years now. The first camp described by Obama, guided by him and his oftentimes uber-wealthy associates under the banner of a mythical Mandela caricature created by establishment-media propaganda, supposedly seeks only to build peace, harmony, love, tolerance, justice, equality, “multi-racial democracy,” and all things nice. The other camp, led by “populists” and “strongmen,” by contrast, supposedly seeks a world full of hate, division, paranoia, conspiracy theories, war, greed, corruption, evil, and everything bad. “Let me tell you what I believe,” Obama said. “I believe in Nelson Mandela’s vision.” Of course, he never accurately explained Mandela’s vision — communist totalitarianism, by Mandela’s own admission in his unsanitized auto-biography.
Without a hint of irony in his voice, after waging eight years of war against the constitutional republic created by America’s Founding Fathers, Obama even claimed he shared the vision they articulated in the Declaration of Independence. “I believe in a vision of equality and justice and freedom and multi-racial democracy, built on the premise that all people are created equal, and they’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights,” Obama claimed before and after taking swipe after swipe at the vision of genuine Christian liberty articulated by America’s framers and enshrined in the nation’s founding documents. In fact, Obama’s globalist speech sought to undermine even the very notion of national independence, claiming that “the only way to effectively address problems like climate change or mass migration or pandemic disease will be to develop systems for more international cooperation.” More international cooperation is globalist-speak for surrendering more sovereignty to the United Nations. 
A number of critics suggested that Obama had metaphorically defecated — to use a more polite term — all over the United States and its people, along with Western Christian civilization more broadly. For instance, Obama preposterously suggested that “years of institutionalized oppression have created yawning disparities in income, and in wealth, and in education, and in health, in personal safety, in access to credit.” In reality, of course, the spread of Western Christian civilization and the freedoms associated with it brought unprecedented advances in income, wealth, education, health, personal safety, and access to credit to billions of people around the world. Any honest history book makes clear that before the advance of Western Christian civilization across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, barbarism and poverty reigned supreme.
Throughout his speech, Obama also repeatedly and incorrectly claimed the United States was one of the world’s “democracies.” In reality, America’s founders were clear in their view that democracy was a horrible system of government. Instead, they expressed a desire to create a constitutional republic in which individuals’ God-given rights were enshrined in law. As “Father of the Constitution” James Madison put it in The Federalist, No. 10, “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” A “republic,” he continued, “by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
Despite his flowery rhetoric in support of “freedom” and “democracy,” with his speech packed with soundbites on the supposed glories of “democracy,” Obama’s true ideology and beliefs were easy to infer from the speech, and from his actions as president. And throughout his remarks, it was clear that Obama was promoting drastic changes in the direction of global governance. Among the key policies he promoted on more than one occasion, Obama echoed the rhetoric found in theUnited Nations Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals.” He argued, for instance, that “we’re going to have to figure out how do we close this widening chasm of wealth and opportunity both within countries and between them.” That rhetoric is taken almost verbatim from the UN Agenda 2030, which in Goal 10 calls on all governments to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” In short, they are seeking national and international wealth redistribution.
The agenda goes far beyond just stealing wealth from the poor and middle-classes of the Western world and redistributing it to Third World kleptocrats who have kept their victims mired in poverty. As Obama put it in his speech, the ongoing “pace of change” around the world is “going to require us to do more fundamental re-imagining of our social and political arrangements.” Among the policies he proposed was a “universal income,” a scheme also known sometimes as a “universal basic income.” Essentially, the idea, which is being promoted by the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations and other key Deep State organizations, calls for making everybody dependent on government by having it hand out money to everyone — no strings attached. The radical plan has been hyped by former SEIU boss Andy Stern, who served on the Council on Foreign Relations’ Trade Task Force, as well as Bilderberg attendee and far-left “economist” Guy Standing. Obama also touted the Rothschild dynasty-backed scheme of “inclusive capitalism.”
Of course, Obama’s proposed system of global governance would involve “some form of progressive taxation,” a key plank in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto that has been normalized in much of the West. The reason why “progressive taxation” is needed is “to make sure that everybody else has something to pay for universal health care and retirement security, and invests in infrastructure and scientific research that builds platforms for innovation.” In other words, under Obama’s vision, government would take over your healthcare, your retirement, as well as research and development — and much else too. Ironically, one of the key themes of Obama’s speech was inequality. What he did not say was that, since Apartheid ended and Soviet-backed communists took over, inequality and poverty have exploded far beyond the levels that existed under the previous regime, making South Africa one of the most unequal societies on earth. Average life expectancy has plummeted more than 10 years under the new regime, according to UN data.
And yet, Obama repeatedly hailed Mandela and his takeover of South Africa as a model for the world to emulate. Indeed, his entire plan for the “road ahead” was centered around various “guideposts that draw from Madiba’s work, his words, the lessons of his life.” “First, Madiba shows those of us who believe in freedom and democracy we are going to have to fight harder to reduce inequality,” Obama continued. “Second, Madiba teaches us that some principles really are universal — and the most important one is the principle that we are bound together by a common humanity.” What Obama did not say: Mandela was a communist terrorist (placed on the U.S. terrorist list by Ronald Reagan) who led the Soviet-backed, Communist Party-controlled African National Congress’s terrorist wing and was convicted of 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963, crimes that included manufacturing and using explosives in a campaign that slaughtered thousands of innocents. Mandela’s original autobiography manuscript promoted violence, terror, and communism before being sanitized by one of Obama’s officials.
Obama was also clear about what he opposed. For instance, he blasted “populist movements” as a backlash against the inevitable forces of progress and globalization, and suggested that those involved in fighting back against big government, globalism, and open borders were merely pawns being “cynically funded by right-wing billionaires intent on reducing government constraints on their business interests.” He also lambasted people who hope to secure their borders and maintain their nations, liberties, and self-government, suggesting that everyone who opposes his agenda was a vile racist living in the past. On multiple occasions, Obama lashed out at what he described as “strongman politics,” which virtually all analysts said was a veiled attack on President Trump and other leaders Obama hates. It seems Obama’s speechwriters forgot that it was Obama, not Trump, who vowed to bypass Congress and impose his agenda on unwilling Americans using his “pen” and “phone.”
Critics slammed Obama after the speech, though. Writing in Townhall, for example, prominent Cuban-American commentator Humberto Fontova ridiculed Obama’s criticism of “strongman politics” by examining some of Mandela’s own heroes — especially mass-murdering Communist dictator Fidel Castro and his regime’s mass-murdering chief executioner, racist extraordinaire Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Mandela claimed that Che Guevara, who executed thousands of alleged “counter-revolutionaries” after sham trials or no trial at all, was an “inspiration for every human being who loves freedom.” “The cause of communism is the greatest cause in the history of mankind!” Mandela also said, despite having lied about his membership in the SACP all his life. The South African revolutionary also claimed Fidel Castro “stands out head and shoulders above the rest” in his supposed “love for human rights and liberty!”
Ironically, Obama and other self-styled “progressives” in the United States and other Western countries like to tout Mandela and his Soviet-backed communist revolution in South Africa as a model for America to emulate. But Fontonova highlighted the facts. “For all its faults, in its record of repression, Apartheid South Africa couldn’t hold even a teenzy-tiny candle to the regime co-founded by Mandela’s idols Fidel Castro and Che Guevara,” he explained. “Mandela himself provides the perfect proof. You’d never guess it from the international hoopla regarding his imprisonment, but before his imprisonment (for communist terrorism,) Mandela enjoyed a bona-fide day in court with civilized standards of jurisprudence and under a judge who was not beholden to a dictator for his job (or his life.)” Of course, Mandela and his ANC were also vigorous supporters of the mass-murdering communist strongmen enslaving the Soviet Union, China, Libya, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and countless other nations.
Despite occasionally using language familiar to Americans, it should be abundantly clear that Obama’s vision is completely alien to everything America’s founders held dear: Individual liberty, God-given rights, limited government, Christian civilization, and more. Obama’s attacks on social media for helping to promote “paranoia” and “conspiracy theories” suggest that even the most fundamental Western values such as free speech would not survive in the utopia he and his comrades envision. As this writer and others have documented extensively in a book and a series of articles (see below) over a period of many years, Obama and Mandela share a deep bond — and that bond includes a desire to overthrow Western Christian civilization and all of the God-given liberties that Americans enjoy. And unfortunately, while Obama may be out of office and Mandela may be gone, the international Deep State network that built them up and put them in power remains firmly in place. Americans must get involved, or lose it all.
Related articles:

Say cheese: BRICS members family photo op in South Africa

Leaders of the BRICS emerging economies – Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa – arrived for the second day of the annual summit on Thursday, held this year in Johannesburg.