IN CENTRAL AMERICA, POPE ENCOURAGES THE POOR TO GO TO AMERICA; CALLS IMMIGRATION LAWS “CRAZY”

IN CENTRAL AMERICA, POPE ENCOURAGES THE POOR TO GO TO AMERICA; CALLS IMMIGRATION LAWS “CRAZY” 
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/01/23/in-central-america-pope-encourages-the-poor-to-go-to-america-calls-immigration-laws-crazy/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Let’s be clear; the Pope has always been a globalist. And by “the Pope,” I mean any Pope. After all, the term “Catholic” means universal, and the Roman Catholic church has always wanted a one-world government under the auspices of their power. The Vatican is a political Nation-State that wants the world united under its authority, and it has found the perfect tool to unite the world under its globalist aspirations with its Jesuit and Marxist pontiff, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, also known as Pope Francis.
However, standing between Roman Catholicism and globalism is Protestantism and its great champion, the United States. Also standing between Roman Catholicism and globalism is the Nation-State, a form of governance that federalizes power in a specific nation with unique language, culture, and borders. The Nation-State is the single greatest bulwark of individual liberty and personal freedom in the world (because the Nation-State exists for the sole purpose of protecting the liberty of its Citizens), and it cannot be allowed to stand intact if globalism is to prevail.
Pope Francis, like all globalists, seeks to dismantle every Nation-State from the world and remove them as an obstacle to global control. To do that, however, they must prevent the Nation-State from having their own language, culture, and borders.
Francis – yet again – took an opportunity to throw shade at the American president and America’s right to have its own sovereign borders. In a trip to South America today, Francis claimed that migration has “made us crazy” and insinuated that having a border wall is an act of insanity.
Beginning in 2016 when Francis denounced anyone who wants to build a wall to keep out migrants as “notChristian,” he has continually claimed that having a wall is unChristlike. 
Ironically, Francis’ comments seem to ignore the words of his host, Archbishop Jose Domingo Ulloin of Panama – where the Pope made the comments – who claimed that “young people often fall into the hands of drug traffickers and so many other realities that our young people face.”
Rather than offer suggestions for how the wealthy Roman Catholic church could help Central America – which has been ravaged by pedophile priests – Francis insinuated that their only hope would be for the poor to migrate to the United States to be taken care of by our welfare programs.
Francis will remain in Panama for the World Youth Day event where 150 thousand or so will attend. Many more will stick around for an extra vigil and a final Mass on Sunday. Foreign policy experts believe that Francis will use several of his planned addresses to encourage the youth of Central America to come to the United States to seek “better opportunities.”

NO SURPRISE: “NO PERSONHOOD” RHA STRIPS NEW YORK PENAL CODE OF CRIMES AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN

NO SURPRISE: “NO PERSONHOOD” RHA 
STRIPS NEW YORK PENAL CODE OF CRIMES 
AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/01/24/no-surprise-no-personhood-rha-strips-new-york-penal-code-of-crimes-against-pregnant-women/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
[New York State Senate] ALBANY, NY— Senator Sue Serino today joined Livia Abreu—an Army veteran who tragically lost her unborn daughter as a result of a terrible domestic violence attack—at a press conference calling for the passage of legislation that would restore important protections for victims of domestic violence that will be removed when the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) becomes law.
“Contrary to popular rhetoric, the Reproductive Health Act does not simply codify the current law of the land, it is an extreme proposal that goes far beyond the current standard, allows non-doctors to perform abortions up until the day of birth, and it removes critically important legal protections for pregnant victims of domestic violence,” said Senator Sue Serino. “I am incredibly grateful for Livia’s courage in telling her story to advocate on behalf of victims across the state. To deprive a pregnant domestic violence victim of the justice she and her unborn child deserve is particularly reprehensible and the ‘Liv Act’ will ensure that these dangerous perpetrators are held fully accountable for their heinous crimes.”
The bill, introduced by Senator Cathy Young, has been named the ‘Liv Act,’ in honor of Abreu, a courageous military paratrooper who was 26 weeks pregnant when her ex-boyfriend stabbed her multiple times and caused the tragic loss of her daughter. After the brutal attack, Abreu’s assailant heartlessly left her on the floor for a half-hour in her own blood. She bravely crawled from her apartment to a neighbor’s home for help.
Specifically, this legislation addresses a major injustice and flaw in the Reproductive Health Act (S240), which strikes from current law the criminal charges that are applied to perpetrators like Liv’s ex-partner who specifically commit acts of violence against pregnant women. The bill establishes the crime of ‘assault on a pregnant woman’ by expressly recognizing that violence against them is a felony, and it would apply when there is violence done to a pregnant woman, even if it does not involve the loss of her pregnancy.  I
In a statement following the press conference, Abreu said:
The Reproductive Health Act is, in my opinion, extreme and filled with gaps. It does not codify Roe v. Wade in the state of NY. In fact what it does is decriminalize abortion in all aspects, including abortion as a product of an assault on a pregnant female. Essentially, if this bill passes today and becomes law it will remove abortion as a crime from the penal code as a whole. Oscar Alvarez is currently facing abortion charges in the 1st & 2nd degrees. The passing of RHA will likely exonerate him from those charges. Which will in turn lessen his sentence now that a judge has decided the case is going to trial and the new law will take effect prior to that date. Let that sink in. He will likely be convicted of the crimes he committed against me, but the loss of my daughter will be a non-factor to the law because she wasn’t “born and alive.” That’s language used in the RHA bill. To clarify, I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I am very much neutral, because most things are never simply black or white. Choosing one side or the other will make me an extremist, and that I am not. I understand that there are circumstances in which a difficult decision must be made in order to save a life. However, I find it completely unacceptable for pregnant women & their unborn babies to be left unprotected under the law. I’m thinking about the many women who could be faced with a situation like mine. Domestic Violence & Assault cases on pregnant women continue to rise. I pray that it doesn’t, but what happened to me will likely happen to someone else. I cannot imagine living in a world where harming and/or killing an unborn child as a product of an attack on a pregnant woman is not a crime… A world where mothers have been stripped of & have to bury and mourn their unborn child but the person responsible is not held accountable for it. Read the bill if you haven’t already.
With RHA enacted, the criminal and civil laws here in the state would fail to adequately recognize the harm experienced by Liv and other victims here in New York. Passage of the ‘Liv Act’ would ensure that a criminal statute would still exist in New York that would recognize that violence done to a pregnant woman puts her reproductive freedom at stake.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written by New York State Senator Sue Serino and originally published at The New York State Senate. Title changed by P&P]
______________________________________________________

How To Schedule Abortion At Nine Months Pregnant!

Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver challenges the Democrat talking point that “late-term abortions are only available for medical emergencies” by showing she was able to schedule an abortion appointment in her 9th month of pregnancy simply using the vague excuse of depression.

FACEBOOK BANS PULPIT & PEN PUBLISHER FOR SAYING “TRANSGENDERISM” IS A MENTAL ILLNESS~SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON “TRANSGENDER” SOLDIERS

FACEBOOK BANS PULPIT & PEN PUBLISHER FOR SAYING “TRANSGENDERISM” IS A MENTAL ILLNESS
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/01/26/facebook-bans-pulpit-pen-publisher-for-saying-transgenderism-a-mental-illness/;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Last month, Facebook banned me for 30 days for calling Bruce Jenner a man. You can read about it in this article, Facebook Bans Pulpit & Pen Publisher for Calling Bruce Jenner a Man, which received more than 29 thousand Facebook shares of people who didn’t think that stating facts was particularly hateful. Within a few days of being released from ‘Facebook jail,’ the social media giant banned me again for stating yet another fact; those claiming ‘transgenderism’ are mentally ill.

The post I made was sharing this article, which was simply reporting the news that the U.S. Supreme Court would allow the Commander in Chief to do his job, and use his best judgment in providing a capable fighting force. No doubt, Facebook probably considers the Supreme Court decision or our President’s decision to ban ‘transgender’ people from the military to be hate speech in and of itself. The article was a re-post of what was first written at LifeSite News.
However, what Facebook probably took exception with was my comment at the top, “We should never want to send the mentally ill to war zones. It is not humane or loving.
What kind of heartless person would disagree with that?
Of course, what no doubt violated Facebook’s capricious, ever-changing, politically correct “community standards” was the scientific declaration that thinking you’re the wrong gender is mentally ill.
But…enter science.
The American Psychiatic Association lists Gender Dysophoria as a mental health disorder. I didn’t make that up. It’s currently listed as a mental health disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
I don’t need a textbook to tell me if you think you’re a duck, and you’re not a duck, you’re mentally ill. And I don’t need a textbook to tell me if you think you’re a man, and you’re a woman, you’re mentally ill. But let me ask you, who do you think is a better expert on mental illness, Facebook or mental health professionals?
Since when is medical science “hate speech”?
I appealed the decision, and Facebook again insisted it was hateful. Facebook then asked for feedback regarding their decision. I responded…

What Facebook is doing is clarifying that in their opinion, science doesn’t accord with Facebook “community standards.”
For the matter of record, I need to clarify that when the American Psychiatric Association goes the way of the World Health Organization and removes this tragic mental illness from the list of disorders, it won’t change the fact that it’s still a mental disorder.
Finally, let me add that even though gender dysphoria is a mental illness, it doesn’t mean that it’s not primarily a spiritual illness. The Fall of man and its various outworkings of depravity affects man totally, including mind, body, and spirit. In this case, indwelled sin even affects someone psychologically to the point they become a living, breathing lie about God’s creation.
When people argue that Christians are somehow against science, remind them that it’s Facebook that thinks science is hate speech.
[Contributed by JD Hall]
___________________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

Another Victory for America, as Supreme Court Upholds Ban on “Transgender” Soldiers

KATE BROWN, OREGON GOVERNOR, SUPPORTS “UNIVERSAL” GOVERNMENT VISITS FOR ALL NEWBORNS & THEIR PARENTS

“OPENLY BISEXUAL”
“She is bisexual and is the country’s first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor.”
KATE BROWN, OREGON GOVERNOR, SUPPORTS “UNIVERSAL” GOVERNMENT VISITS 
FOR ALL NEWBORNS & THEIR PARENTS
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/oregon-governor-supports-universal-govt-visits-newborns-parents/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes: 
OREGON, January 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – News from Oregon that Governor Kate Brown is on board with a bill which would establish “universal” invasive home visits by state employees to all households with newborns is causing shockwaves throughout the nation.
While the proposed legislation, known as Senate Bill 526, remains in a nascent form with very few published details, it has nonetheless generated great excitement among progressive statists while sending chills down the spines of parents and families who fear increased government interference in their private lives.
The controversial bill directs the Oregon Health Authority “to study home visiting by licensed health care providers.” It has also been given “emergency” status, meaning that action must be taken before the end of this year.
The “emergency” designation has an oddly ominous tone, stating that the measure is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” so “an emergency is declared to exist.”
The language of the bill that is available has some concerned that these “universal” visits could be mandatory, even though state authorities are denying it.
“What’s the big emergency?” asked Paula Bolyard in an opinion piece penned for PJ Media.
“Apparently, the state of Oregon is concerned that some parents are raising their children without the watchful eye of Big Brother monitoring their every move – a big no-no in the view of the progressive left,” continued Bolyard.
“It’s frightening to think about what would happen to parents who refuse such visits,” noted Bolyard. She added:
As someone who has been involved in the homeschooling movement for more than 20 years, I have seen many attempts to increase the oversight of children taught at home by requiring home visits by a teacher or social worker. The basic premise behind these attempted power grabs is that parents cannot be trusted with the care of their own children — that an agent of the state is the only one qualified to ensure that children are being properly cared for. Without such surveillance, proponents argue, children are at risk for abuse and neglect, something they believe government agents can prevent, despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. In Oregon, in fact, children in the foster care system are abused at twice the national rate. One wonders how a state that can’t handle the children currently in its care could possibly manage to surveil an additional 40,000 children per year, let alone pay for such a program (answer: it can’t).
The proposed bill is a continuation of policies straight out of the Obama White House which aggressively sought to nudge Americans toward accepting ever-increasing government involvement in their private lives.
With the introduction of its Julia website, the Obama Administration demonstrated how a person could be wholly government dependent, from birth until death. The site was short-lived as Americans recoiled from its premise, with even CNN calling it the “Wrong vision for America.”

Statists do not trust parents to raise children without government’s invasive guidance

Patrick Allen, Director of the Oregon Health Authority, made it clear in a statement to the Beaverton Valley Times that this is not just about helping parents and children living on the edge, who might need recourse to government aid.
“This isn’t something for people in trouble,” said Allen.
“When the program is complete, every new parent — this includes adoptions — would receive a series of two or three visits by someone like a nurse or other health care practitioner,” noted Allen.
“Can we really trust that medical professionals employed by the government who come into our homes are going to actually benefit our children and families?” asked an essay in Health Impact News.
“Is this proposed bill for universal home visits possibly just another way for the State to collect funds, and to potentially remove children from their homes and place them into the lucrative foster care and adoption system?” the essay also asks.
Tellingly, at the head of the essay is a picture of a doctor standing in front of seated family, titled, “Government Approved Family.”
“If the program becomes reality, all families — regardless of income or area of residence — could see three visits from a nurse. They likely could come when the baby is 3 days old; 2 weeks old; and 2 months old,” said Dr. Alanna Braun of Oregon Health & Science University and member of the Oregon Pediatrics Society in an interview.
The program would also allow nurses to monitor moms for signs of postpartum depression and “check to make sure there’s a safe place for the baby to sleep and to be bathed and more,” according to the outlet to which Braun spoke.
She continued:
At the three-day mark, the visit could focus on such basics as weight loss.
At two weeks, the baby’s weight again could be checked. Babies could get the “heel stick,” the pinprick drawing of blood that checks for metabolic indicators of problems which, at that point, show no outward symptoms.
At two months, nurses and families could discuss the many vaccines that [babies] face.
Health Impact News cautions that “parents today face a very real risk of losing their children to Child Protection Services if they dare to question a doctor’s advice regarding medical procedures, or even wanting to seek a second medical opinion.”
Bolyard said that the home visits aren’t just about the health of the newborns, and that the state’s representative would also be observing and making judgements about the parents.
“Government agents monitoring the homes of law-abiding parents who have not been accused of a crime without a warrant is an unconscionable violation not only of parental rights and individual liberty but also a trampling of the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution,” warned Bolyard in her PJ Media commentary.
“The bottom line is that the statists pushing these policies do not trust us with our own children,” concluded Bolyard. “It’s not enough for them to have their hooks in them 180 days a year, feeding them propaganda from the first day of kindergarten through the end of high school. They now want access to them from the day they are born — and they will succeed if parents don’t rise up and tell the government nannies to back off.”
As currently conceived, if the plan becomes law, it would be rolled out over the course of four years.
___________________________________________________________

Oregon Lawmakers Push for Government Surveillance Of Newborns

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oregon-pol…
The state of Oregon could be the first in US history to require all parents of newborns to submit to universal home visits by agents of the state.


OHIO: WHY HASN’T MUSLIM JEW HATER “PALESTINIAN” DR. LARA KOLLAB’S MEDICAL LICENSE BEEN REVOKED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD?

ANOTHER SET OF LIES, TYPICAL OF MUSLIMS:

 HER ANTI-SEMITIC TWEETS & POSTS WERE DURING & AFTER HER MEDICAL SCHOOL, & AS A “LICENSED DOCTOR”; NOT BEFORE

In Kollab’s social media posts, the doctor compared Jews to “dogs” and “Nazis,” expressed having no sympathy about the Holocaust, invoked Allah to kill Jews, and threatened to give Jewish patients the wrong medications, among many other statements.

Lara Kollab, the former Cleveland Clinic resident accused of anti-semitic social media posts.

SEE HER ACTIVE “TRAINING CERTIFICATE” LICENSE: 


Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Why Hasn’t Dr. Lara Kollab’s Medical License Been Revoked?

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/robert-spencer-in-pj-media-why-hasnt-dr-lara-kollabs-medical-license-been-revokedrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
She tweeted about killing Jews, and then apologized — after she got caught. My latest in PJ Media:
The Jerusalem Post reports that the “Jewish-American advocacy group Proclaiming Justice to the Nations [PJTN] filed a complaint with the state of Ohio Medical Board insisting the medical license of Dr. Lara Kollab [be revoked] after it was revealed she tweeted she would provide Jewish patients under her care with the wrong type of drugs.”
That’s good, but why did a complaint have to be filed at all? Why hasn’t the Ohio Medical Board revoked her medical license already?
Kollab was, up until quite recently, a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. But then Canary Mission published a report on her fiendishly hateful anti-Semitic tweets, including one in which she declared that she would “purposely give all the yahood [Jews] the wrong meds.” In another tweet, she wrote: “Studying for my med micro final, came across this. Clearly, I pay attention in class and write very useful notes.” Accompanying that tweet was a handwritten note that read: “People who support Israel should have their immune cells killed so they can see how it feels to not be able to defend yourself from foreign invaders.”
Kollab’s Twitter feed was a cesspool of hatred for those she called “Jewish dogs.” In another tweet, she said: “walking through the streets of palestine is funny- every person who gets mad says something along the lines of ‘Allah yo5odhom el yahood’ [Allah will take them, the Jews] ” She reveled in her own hatred: “so basically every mseba [insult] I say is directed at the yahood [Jews] haha. even if I do something really stupid I say ‘hebel yihbilhom el yahood’ [stupid stupid Jews] hehe.”
It isn’t surprising that a devout and observant Muslim would have a seething hatred of Jews. The Qur’an tells Muslims that the Jews are the strongest of all people in enmity toward them (5:82), are accursed by Allah (9:30), and are always scheming against the Muslims (2:79; 3:75-3:78, 3:181, etc.). There is a great deal more anti-Semitic material in the Qur’an and Sunnah. These and other Qur’anic passages likely provide some insight into Kollab’s mindset.
But in the Hippocratic Oath, doctors pledge that they will “do no harm or injustice” to their patients. Kollab not only repeatedly expressed her vehement hatred for Jews, but actually stated explicitly that she would give them the wrong medicine in order to do them harm.
So why did this complaint need to be filed? Why hasn’t her medical license been revoked already?
Because she apologized.
“As a girl in my teens and early twenties,” she explained, “I had difficulty constructively expressing my intense feelings about what I witnessed in my ancestral land. Like many young people lacking life experience, I expressed myself by making insensitive remarks and statements of passion devoid of thought, not realizing the harm and offense these words would cause.”
Laying it on thick, she added: “These posts were made years before I was accepted into medical school, when I was a naïve, and impressionable girl barely out of high school. I matured into a young adult during the years I attended college and medical school, and adopted strong values of inclusion, tolerance and humanity. I have learned from this experience and am sorry for the pain I have caused. I pray that the Jewish community will understand and forgive me. I hope to make amends so that we can move forward and work together towards a better future for us all.”
As heartfelt and sincere as this may seem, it is noteworthy that Kollab never saw fit to say anything like it until her hate-filled tweets came to light. If she really had this change of heart, why didn’t she delete her old tweets and apologize for them before Canary Mission found them? Her apology has the look of damage control rather than a genuine change of heart.
Is the Ohio Medical Board prepared for the possibility that Lara Kollab’s apology is insincere?
Will the Ohio Medical Board be held accountable if it allows her to continue practicing medicine, and one of her Jewish patients is injured or dies while under her care?…
Read the rest here.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: https://www.breitbart.com/health/2019/01/06/aclj-ohio-board-should-revoke-license-of-doctor-who-threatened-to-give-jewish-patients-wrong-meds/; EXCERPT: “You can’t threaten to harm your patient,” said Dr. Arthur Caplan, the Director of the Medical Ethics Division at the NYU School of Medicine, “It breaks two rules of the core tenants of medical ethics: do no harm, and put your patient’s interests first.” “You can probably be online with all kinds of political views, even hateful views,” continued Caplan, “but the line that you can’t cross is threatening to mistreat or commit malpractice against a patient. That should cost [Kollab] her license.”
AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE JOINED WITH THE ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA IN THIS COMPLAINT: 
https://c391070.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/pdf/Ohio-Medical-Board-Letter-1-4-19_Redacted.pdf


AND ALSO:

PHYSICIAN JEW-HATRED ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA

Muslim “doctor” threatens to poison Jewish patients.

EXCERPTS:
Here are a few examples from her splattering of tweets:
“Our aim is to defeat the Zionist State through force.”
“May Allah kill the Jews to we stop being forced to the unclean ones.”
 “I hate Israelis. They should all die.”
“Zionism is the exploitation of Jewish suffering for political gain at the expense of others.”
“Haifa is nice but it’s full of Jewish Dogs””
“Every insult I say is directed at the Yahood. Haha. Even if I do something stupid, I say, stupid, stupid Jews.”
“I wish I could get paid for bashing Israel all day online. Oh, what a beautiful life that would be.”
“It’s annoying to go to school in a city full of Jews…”
“Anyone who says Jews are interested in peace are lying scumbags.”
When told she would have to write a school paper on the Holocaust, she said she’d be “Brutally unsympathetic” hashtag: #SorryNotSorry.
Lara also sent out tweets asking for Palestinian Islamic terrorists to be freed from jail. 
But the tweets that were the final straws to do her in were:
“I’ll purposely give all the Yahood  the wrong meds”
And another professed:
 “everyone who supports Israel should have their immune cells killed so that they can see what it feels like not to be able to defend yourself against foreign invaders.”

DAYS AFTER ENSHRINING “RIGHT” TO KILL PRE-BORN, NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO SIGNS BILL MAKING “GENDER IDENTITY” A DISCRIMINATION HATE CRIME

DAYS AFTER ENSHRINING “RIGHT” TO KILL PRE-BORN, NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO SIGNS BILL MAKING “GENDER IDENTITY” A DISCRIMINATION HATE CRIME 
BY HEATHER CLARK
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Just days after enshrining in New York law the “right” for mothers to have their unborn children murdered, and in some cases, even up until birth, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has now also signed a bill into law that makes discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” a hate crime. He also signed legislation that prohibits mental health professionals from counseling youth to turn from homosexuality and transgenderism, but does not apply when children are counseled in “acceptance [and] support” of such lifestyles.
Saying “God bless you” to those behind the creation and the passage of the bills, who were cheered and applauded by those in attendance at the signing ceremony on Friday, Cuomo told those gathered that the legislation he has signed in recent days puts forward a “different set of social values than what we see in Washington.”
“They say in Washington, ‘We’re going to appoint Supreme Court justices who can roll back Roe v. Wade, because we want to take us back 47 years ago …’ We say, ‘No. No. You want to take us back, we’re going forward. We’re going to pass a woman’s right to choose and put it into the law,’” he declared. “And I want a constitutional amendment so that no legislature or governor can change it.”
“The Supreme Court says, ‘You can discriminate against transgenders in the military.’ That’s what they said last week. We say today, ‘No, you can’t. You cannot discriminate against people by gender identity, period,’” Cuomo stated, again being met with enthusiastic applause.
He noted that New York was the first “big state” to pass a law legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that the state this week was going one step further to ban discrimination, as well as conversion therapy, which he called a “farce.”
“And I want everyone in this room to be proud of what we have done [among] our leadership on this issue together. There is no state that has been more aggressive in advocating and achieving rights and acceptance for the LGBT community than the state of New York,” said Cuomo, standing in front of a series of flags that included a homosexual and transgender flag. “This is New York at its best. … Hate is not the strongest four-letter word; love is the strongest four-letter word.”
The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) declares to be a hate crime any offense that was committed with “in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the … gender identity or expression … or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.”
In addition to physical assault, the law also outlaws the “harassment or annoyance” of another person due to their gender identity, as it outlines that “person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s … gender identity or expression … regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.”
“Being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming,” reads Senate Bill 1046. “New York has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts.”
Mental health professionals who assist youth who may be struggling with temptations toward the same sex or who feel that they identify as the opposite sex will be considered to have engaged in “professional misconduct,” and may face penalties that can include censure and reprimand, suspension of their license, the requirement to receive training and education, fines or a complete loss of their license.
The legislation notes that the prohibition does not apply to “counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender to another, or psychotherapies that provide acceptance, support and understanding of patients for the facilitation of patients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation inventions … [that] do not seek to change sexual orientation.”
The bill was presented in the Assembly by Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan—who identifies herself as “the first openly lesbian or gay member of the New York State legislature”—and in the Senate by Brad Hoylman, also of Manhattan.
The measure overwhelmingly passed both houses this month, being approved by the Assembly 134 to 3, followed by the Senate 57 to 4.
“You can not change who a person is,” Glick told the news outlet Governing.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates. 


SEE ALSO:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/31314-pro-abortion-lawmakers-in-vermont-hope-to-follow-in-new-york-s-steps?vsmaid=3155&vcid=3987
______________________________________________________________

New York Passes Radical Abortion Law, 

But World is Becoming More Pro-Life!!!

New Abortion Law in New York is Outrageous!

How To Schedule Abortion At Nine Months Pregnant!

Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver challenges the Democrat talking point that “late-term abortions are only available for medical emergencies” by showing she was able to schedule an abortion appointment in her 9th month of pregnancy simply using the vague excuse of depression.

IRAN’S JIHAD PROXY HIZBALLAH SLAMS TRUMP FOR “U.S. IMPERIALISM” IN VENEZUELA

IRAN’S JIHAD PROXY HIZBALLAH SLAMS TRUMP 
FOR “U.S. IMPERIALISM” IN VENEZUELA
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/venezuela-irans-jihad-proxy-hizballah-slams-trump-for-us-imperialism-in-venezuelarepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes: 
Hizballah has been active in Latin America for decades and uses the drug trade to raise money for its jihad activities. Hizballah is active in Mexico and South America, and “last year, Politico published an in-depth exposé about how President Barack Obama deliberately ignored Hezbollah in Latin America because he did not want to jeopardize a potential nuclear deal with Iran.”
Now the group has attacked US President Trump over his support for Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó against the “autocratic government of Nicolas Maduro, who succeeded strongman Hugo Chavez and has been crushing dissent.” And ever since Maduro’s takeover, there have been about 50,000 protests.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also condemned Trump for supporting Guaidó, going so far as to reference Maduro as “brother.” Erdogan stated“Maduro brother, stand tall, Turkey stands with you.”
The Maduro government has killed up to 20 people since widespread protests broke out in the country this week.
“Hezbollah, Iran’s Terrorist Proxy in Latin America, Slams U.S. Imperialism in Venezuela,” by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, January 24, 2019:
The Hezbollah terror organization slammed the U.S. on Wednesday for recognizing the Venezuelan opposition under Juan Guaidó as the legitimate government — though Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, is active there and throughout Latin America.
In a statement, Hezbollah reportedly condemned “blatant American intervention” and reiterated its support for the autocratic government of Nicolas Maduro, who succeeded strongman Hugo Chavez and has been crushing dissent.
Hezbollah has been active in the region for decades, and is deeply involved in the illicit drug trade as well as terror. The Miami Herald noted last year that Hezbollah’s involvement in Latin America began with a deadly terror attack:
Hezbollah’s growth in the West began on March 17, 1992, when a suicide bomber smashed an explosives-filled car into the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people and wounding 242 in the first major international terrorist attack in the Western Hemisphere. On July 18, 1994, another car crashed into the Jewish Center of AMIA, the Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina, also in Buenos Aires, killing 85 and injuring hundreds — the deadliest terrorist attack ever in Latin America. Iran and Hezbollah were linked to both attacks.
Since then, Hezbollah has expanded its operations into Venezuela, as well as a “subregion of South America known as the Tri-Border Area (TBA), at the crossroads of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay,” The Hill noted recently. Iran, which backs Hezbollah in Lebanon and throughout the world, has used the group to expand its global influence.
Last year, Politico published an in-depth exposé about how President Barack Obama deliberately ignored Hezbollah in Latin America because he did not want to jeopardize a potential nuclear deal with Iran. Obama even dismantled a program that traced Hezbollah’s operations in Latin America to terror financing and trafficking in drugs and arms.
The Trump administration has reversed that policy and taken the fight to Hezbollah — and to Iran. Iran’s proxy has depended on the Maduro regime to maintain its foothold in Venezuela, even as that country’s once-rich economy has failed and its democracy destroyed…..

TURKEY EXPORTING JIHAD IDEOLOGY INTO SOUTH ASIA “UNDER THE GARB OF RELIEF”~TIME TO STOP IMPORTING POPULAR TURKISH FIREARMS INTO U.S.

TURKEY DOUBLES TARIFFS ON U.S. IMPORTS; 
TIME TO STOP IMPORTING POPULAR 
TURKISH FIREARMS INTO U.S.
TURKEY EXPORTING JIHAD IDEOLOGY INTO SOUTH ASIA “UNDER THE GARB OF RELIEF” 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/turkey-exporting-jihad-ideology-into-south-asia-under-the-garb-of-reliefrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Turkey has been exporting its ideology under “the garb of relief,” a well-known global strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood that Brotherhood operatives practice frequently in the West. “Turkey’s strong backing of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has been extensively cataloged, but not much has been written about the country’s support for the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the Brotherhood’s ideological cousin in South Asia that also has an active presence in North America.” Turkey’s aggressive spread of the Islamic agenda worldwide has been no secret. Erdogan has also been spreading the jihad ideology through a network of mosques and religious centers.
“Turkey exporting radical Islam into South Asia under the garb of relief,” by Abha Shankar, Weeekly Blitz, January 25, 2019:

Turkey’s strong backing of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has been extensively catalogued, but not much has been written about the country’s support for the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the Brotherhood’s ideological cousin in South Asia that also has an active presence in North America.

JI’s role in advancing the Islamist agenda of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) was highlighted by a senior aide to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a video interview last year. JI and the MB are “soft power proxies” that helped bolster Turkey’s role as leader of a global caliphate “defending oppressed and victimized Muslims,” Yasin Atkay told the pro-government Hilal TV.
Islamist ideologue Maulana Syed Abdul Ala Maududi created the JI in 1941, when Lahore, Pakistan was part of British India. In addition to advancing a rigid interpretation of Islam, the Islamist movement has provided an ideological platform and recruiting base for terrorist groups in South Asia.
Turkey advocates actively on behalf of the JI. Erdogan, for example, denounced the 2016 hanging of JI Bangladesh leader Motiur Rahman Nizami as “neither fair governance nor a democratic mentality.” He also described the Islamist leader as a “mujahid [holy warrior].”
JI’s leadership also openly applauds Turkey’s Islamist leader and regime. After Erdogan was reelected president in June, for instance, JI Pakistan chief Siraj ul Haq called him “a great leader of the Muslim world.” Another JI leader described Turkey as “the hope of the Ummah [world community of Muslims].”
Turkey under the Islamist AKP has become a key sponsor of JI-affiliated organizations in Bangladesh and Pakistan as well as the Islamist movement’s proxy groups in North America.
The Union of NGOs of the Islamic World (UNIW) is a key agency used by the Turkish government to sponsor and coordinate JI activities, an Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) investigation finds.
The Istanbul-based organization was established in 2005 with the AKP’s blessing and boasts 340 NGOs from 65 countries, including in the United States. Through a global network of Islamist organizations, UNIW seeks to revive the global Muslim ummah and stand up to the U.S.-led world order. Its stated mission is “to create an ummah consciousness” among its members and seek unity among Muslim nations “against to [sic] the western world which want to weaken the Islamic World by their dirty tricks and try to separate it from each other although they are unions among themselves.”
The network’s membership roster includes leading Islamist and terror-tied organizations such as the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), Zamzam Foundation (Somalia), Islamic Relief (UK), International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and others. By sponsoring and coordinating developmental projects, providing humanitarian assistance, and addressing alleged violations of human rights and freedoms in the Muslim world, the umbrella group seeks to defend “Islamic culture and values” and assist in finding “solutions of the problems relating to the Islamic world collectively.”
Helping Hand for Relief and Development (HHRD) and Kashmir American Council (KAC) are U.S.-based UNIW members and work closely with the umbrella group.
Like UNIW, Helping Hand was founded in 2005. It is the charitable arm of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a JI front group headquartered in Jamaica, N.Y. Helping Hand regional partners have been found to have ties to U.S.-designated terrorist entities, including Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and its leader Syed Salahuddin……

_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-e-Islami 

GERMANY: MUSLIM MIGRANT STABS GERMAN IN HEART 6 TIMES FOR STOPPING HARASSMENT, NO REMORSE~AND OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE FROM JIHADISTS

GERMANY: MUSLIM MIGRANT STABS GERMAN IN HEART 6 TIMES FOR STOPPING HARASSMENT, NO REMORSE
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/germany-muslim-migrant-stabs-german-in-heart-6-times-for-stopping-harassment-no-remorserepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Danke, Merkel! What happens when you import large numbers of people from a culture of violence, in which women of different beliefs can legitimately be sexually assaulted (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, and 70:30)? This.
“Interview with mother of murder victim who interfered with a migrant harassing a woman in Germany and was stabbed in the heart 6 times.”
Thanks to Vlad Tepes.
________________________________________________________________

Germany: Muslim migrant charged with child rapes and murder

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/germany-muslim-migrant-charged-with-child-rapes-and-murderrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
He had fled back to Iraq, and apparently, his younger brother, who also took part in one of the violent sexual assaults, did also. Now, wait a minute. Weren’t they supposed to be “refugees”? Weren’t they supposed to be in danger in Iraq? Yet they found refuge there after committing crimes in Germany. That should tell the Merkel government something, but it won’t.
“Denied asylum, Iraqi charged with rape and murder in Germany’s ‘Susanna case,’” AFP-JIJI, January 24, 2019:
BERLIN – German prosecutors Wednesday announced child rape and murder charges against a rejected Iraqi asylum-seeker in a case that fueled a heated debate about immigrant crime.
The accused in the “Susanna case,” 21-year-old Ali Bashar, had fled Germany after the crime for northern Iraq but was extradited in a mission joined personally by federal police chief Dieter Romann.
Bashar is accused of beating, raping and then strangling schoolgirl Susanna Maria Feldman, 14, in a wooded area near his refugee shelter in the city of Wiesbaden last May 23.
Earlier he had also allegedly twice raped an 11-year-old girl — once in April 2018 after locking her in his room, and again near a supermarket parking area the following month.
Prosecutors also laid charges against an Afghan youth who was living in the same refugee shelter, Mansoor Q., who was believed to be aged at least 14 at the time, for also raping the 11-year-old girl.
Prosecutors said Ali Bashar’s younger brother — who is believed to be in Iraq, according to media reports — had also taken part in a violent sexual assault against the younger girl.
Following a public outcry over Susanna’s death, German federal police hauled Bashar back from Arbil, northern Iraq, where he had been arrested by local Kurdish security forces….
Bashar had first arrived in Germany in 2015 along with his parents and five siblings.
He faced deportation after his request for asylum was rejected in December 2016, but he obtained a temporary residence permit pending his appeal.
During this time, he got into trouble with police on several occasions, including for fights, alleged robbery and possession of an illegal switchblade.
In his upcoming trial he also faces charges for a park robbery in which he beat, strangled and threatened with a knife a man to steal his watch, bag, phone and bank card….

______________________________________________________________


UK: Muslim father plotted acid attack on his three-year-old son

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/uk-muslim-father-plotted-acid-attack-on-three-year-old-sonrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“A father who plotted a ‘cowardly’ acid attack on his three-year-old son during a custody battle had previously discussed killing his wife and children.”
All cultures are not equal. As much as Westerners deny that barbaric practices such as beheadings, acid attacks, honor killings, female genital mutilation, throwing gays off rooftops and the like have anything to do with Islam, such denial does not mitigate the reality that all these have arrived in Western countries along with Muslims.
So-called “honor” is ingrained in Islamic cultures, where no matter what — and at whose expense — the male pride must not be threatened, even if this means brutalizing a three-year-old boy in an acid attack, as we see in this case of the 40-year-old Afghan father, along with his six co-defendants.
“Acid attack trial: Dad had talked of killing wife and children, court told,” by James Connell, Worcester News, January 22, 2019:
A FATHER who plotted a ‘cowardly’ acid attack on his three-year-old son during a custody battle had previously discussed killing his wife and children, a court heard.
The 40-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was said to be the driving force behind the attack at Home Bargains in the Shrub Hill retail park in Tallow Hill, Worcester, as the prosecution opened the case at the city’s crown court today.
The father, an Afghan national, and his six co-defendants all deny conspiracy to apply a corrosive fluid with intent to burn, maim, disfigure or disable the boy or do him grievous bodily harm.
The toddler was said to have been squirted with sulphuric acid while out shopping with his mum and siblings on Saturday, July 21 last year shortly after 2pm. The other defendants are Adam Cech, aged 27, of Farnham Road, Birmingham who was said to have squirted the acid; Jan Dudi, 25, of Cranbrook Road, Birmingham; Jabar Paktia, 42, of New Hampton Road, Wolverhampton; Norbert Pulko, aged 22, of Sutherland Road, London; Saied Hussini, 42, of Wrottesley Road, London; and Martina Badiova, 22, of Newcombe Road, Birmingham.
The jury was told that the father had previously spoken to an Imam about killing his family and that the boy had also been targeted just over a week earlier on Friday, July 13 last year when three of the defendants had spent hours loitering outside a Worcester primary school.
Jonathan Rees QC said: “This case concerns a cowardly attack on a defenceless three-year-old boy in which he was squirted with a solution of sulphuric acid.”
The boy suffered acid burns to his left forearm and forehead and was treated in hospital although has since made ‘a good recovery’.
“The assault itself was carried out by the second defendant, Adam Cech. It was over almost in the blink of the eye and may have gone undetected were it not for the fact it was captured on the shop’s internal CCTV system,” said Mr Rees.
Mr Rees said the evidence also suggested that Pulko, Hussini and Badiova had spent hours loitering near a city school and that Pulko had followed the mother and children while holding an object of some sort in his hands although, perhaps because other people were present, no attack was carried out. A CCTV camera was said to have recorded Pulko following the family.
The court heard how the father’s wife had left him and issued divorce proceedings although he was seeking greater access to his children which she opposed….

______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/turkey-exporting-jihad-ideology-into-south-asia-under-the-garb-of-relief 

U.N. & N.Y. TIMES TARGET ANTI-VAXXERS, PUSH TO END EXEMPTIONS

“VACCINE HESITANCY” A PROBLEM FOR THE GLOBALISTS
U.N. & N.Y. TIMES TARGET ANTI-VAXXERS, 
PUSH TO END EXEMPTIONS
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/31298-un-new-york-times-target-anti-vaxxers-push-to-end-exemptions?vsmaid=3122&vcid=3987;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The establishment just launched a full-blown attack against medical freedom and people concerned about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, with so-called “anti-vaxxers” and exemptions to mandatory vaccines in the crosshairs. The United Nations World Health Organization, led by a known communist, recently called “vaccine hesitancy” one of top threats to “global health” in 2019. To deal with it, the UN WHO recommended that vaccines be mandated and that those who refuse to submit be punished, among other strategies. Establishment mouthpiece the New York Times, meanwhile, ran a totalitarian screed calling for state and federal authorities to crack down on vaccine skeptics. Critics, though, are crying foul.  
The largely discredited UN WHO, which recently honored a genocidal mass-murderer as “Goodwill Ambassador,” launched the first salvo in the attack this month when it labeled “hesitancy” about vaccines as one of the top 10 threats to “global health” that it intends to combat. Among the key policies pushed on national governments and dictators by the WHO’s “Strategic Advisory Group of Experts” (SAGE) are “mandating vaccinations” and “sanctions for non-vaccination.” What sort of punishment refusers ought to receive was not specified by the globalist “health” organization’s self-styled “sages.” However, if they were truly medical experts, they would know that medicine by coercion goes contrary to all legitimate medical ethics. More on WHO later.
The media seized on the WHO’s attack to launch phase two of the campaign. In an editorial headlined “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers,” the radical New York Times editorial board cited WHO’s jihad on vaccine hesitancy as justification for its own effort to instigate official persecution of concerned parents. Among other strategies, the Times celebrated the elimination of religious, philosophical, and all other exemptions to mandatory vaccine statutes in the state of California, thereby forcing all parents to vaccinate their children in order to attend school. “Other states ought to follow this lead, and the federal government should consider tightening restrictions around how much leeway states can grant families that want to skip essential vaccines,” the Times said.
Setting aside the editorial board’s ignorance or hatred of the U.S. Constitution — the feds have no constitutional power to impose “restrictions” or give “leeway” to state governments in their vaccine policies — the policies they are demanding are downright totalitarian. Following a measles outbreak in California in which many of the victims were already vaccinated, totalitarian state lawmakers funded by Big Pharma seized the opportunity to smash liberty. The chief stooge behind the push to eliminate the exemptions was State Senator Richard Pan, a far-left Democrat who was the top recipient of pharmaceutical industry cash. Of course, the same pharma companies buying lawmakers to mandate drugs also bought lawmakers to exempt themselves from liability when their vaccines kill and maim people.
But the New York Times and many other establishment mouthpieces want the California model to go national. And so does the United Nations. In its list of top threats to global health, WHO put a giant bullseye on the backs of loving parents who simply ask questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. “Vaccine hesitancy — the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines — threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases,” the WHO claimed, throwing out more unsubstantiated numbers about an alleged two to three million deaths prevented each year by vaccines while claiming another 1.5 million could be prevented if more people received vaccines.  
The UN has developed a multi-pronged approach to deal with surging skepticism. “There is no single intervention that addresses all instances of vaccine hesitancy,” it said, calling for “interventions” that are “targeted” to groups who have not received all the vaccines that WHO and Big Pharma think they should receive. “Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning.” These so-called interventions include bringing religious leaders on board, using the “mass media” for propaganda, “mandating vaccinations,” “sanctions for non-vaccination,” “non-financial incentives,” and more.
Aside from mandating vaccines and punishing those who will not submit, the WHO SAGE also calls on governments to train health workers to deal with people and parents who are hesitant or concerned about the shots. “Countries [governments] should further undertake education and training of health care workers to empower these to address vaccine hesitancy issues in patients and parents,” the organization’s conclusions and recommendations report states. “In addition, vaccine hesitant behaviors within health care workers should be addressed.”
And of course, the WHO has a plan to do that. In a WHO training guide for health workers, the controversial UN organization explains that one of the ways “vaccine hesitancy” is expressed is when parents ask: “What are the risks in providing vaccines to my child?” Apparently the UN believes it is a problem that parents want to know about the risks of injecting unknown chemicals and viruses (some grown on the tissue of aborted children) into their own children — something that sounds especially bizarre when one realizes that the risks listed in the vaccine package insert typically range from paralysis and dangerous allergic reactions to brain swelling and even death.
The training then gives strategies for convincing parents to comply, often using manipulation, and even provides misleading or downright false answers to possible questions parents might ask. “Can vaccines cause harmful side effects, illness and even death?” the hesitant parent in the program asks. “No, vaccines are very safe,” the health worker is told to say, even though that is demonstrably false, and every vaccine maker in the world acknowledges that vaccines can cause harmful side effects, illness, and even death. Ironically, even the presentation itself later contradicts this, stating: “Serious adverse events or death are VERY rare.” Either they are rare or they do not happen — both cannot be true simultaneously.  
An obvious pattern of dishonesty emerges in the WHO training program for health workers on vaccine hesitancy. Another sample question asked by hesitant parents, for instance, is listed as: “Can vaccines cause the infection they are supposed to prevent?” The health worker is told to tell parents that, “Inactivated vaccines do not have live germs and cannot cause infections.” And yet, right after telling parents vaccines cannot cause the infections, the WHO admits that vaccines “rarely” cause the infections to “occur.” This is what normal people would call lying. Apparently, health workers are supposed to build “trust” by telling deliberate, provable lies to their clients (or victims, as the case may be).  
That is just a small sample of the dishonesty and the demonstrable lies included in the propaganda workshop for health workers. Another question listed that may be asked by hesitant parents: “Is protection from natural infection more effective protection?” The response is easily debunked: “With vaccines, the immune system is stimulated to develop protection without infection, hence it is more effective.” Of course, every doctor in the world would recognize that as a lie — natural immunity to diseases such as chicken pox lasts for life, while immunity acquired through vaccines often wears off over the years, thereby exposing patients to added risks of getting diseases later in life, when they might be more dangerous.
Because those strategies alone have not stemmed the tide of concerns, the UN work was underway on developing “additional tools to help understand and develop interventions on hesitancy.” One is to propagandize “younger individuals” about vaccines so as to “shape future vaccine beliefs and behavior,” the WHO said. Another is demanding that “civil society organizations,” typically tax-funded AstroTurf groups, get involved in “enhancing demand for vaccination and in helping to address vaccine hesitancy.”   
The UN-backed establishment campaign to mandate more and more vaccines and even remove exemptions from those unethical mandates is a complete violation of the essential medical ethic on informed consent. And critics say these sorts of mandates are dangerous. “The relationship of patient and physician is shattered; in administering the vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent of the state,” explained Executive Director Jane Orient, M.D. with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), calling such mandates a violation of medical ethics and even the Hippocratic Oath.
In short, their strategies for countering “hesitancy” include lying to parents and punishing people who refuse to comply. And then they have the nerve to attack those who are “hesitant.” Regardless of what one believes about the risks and safety of vaccines, it is unethical, immoral, and wrong to force medical treatments on people. And it is wrong to lie to people. And the UN and its propagandists are advocating for both. Americans should ignore Big Pharma-funded propagandists parroting UN talking points and demand that health freedom and parental rights be respected nationwide. And while they are at it, they should insist that Big Pharma be liable for its products, just as is every other industry in America.
Related articles:

ROGER STONE’S EMERGENCY MESSAGE TO TRUMP POST INDICTMENT~AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK & POTUS MUST TAKE ACTION NOW

ABOVE: ROGER STONE, REAR; ROBERT MUELLER, SPECIAL COUNSEL, DOJ, LEFT; TYLER NIXON, STONE’S LAWYER, RIGHT
Greta Van Susteren Suggests FBI Tipped Off CNN Before Raiding Roger Stone

CNN cameras were at the raid of Roger Stone…so FBI obviously tipped off CNN…even if you don’t like Stone, it is curious why Mueller’s office tipped off CNN instead of trying to quietly arrest Stone;quiet arrests are more likely to be safe to the FBI and the person arrested



Upon reflection, there are others who could have tipped off CNN …others knew, maybe even Stone suspected it and tippped them off…as an aside, if I worked for a news org and had the tip, I would have sent cameras

ROGER STONE’S EMERGENCY MESSAGE TO TRUMP POST INDICTMENT~AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK & 

POTUS MUST TAKE ACTION NOW
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/roger-stones-emergency-message-to-trump-post-indictment/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Roger Stone joins Alex Jones live over the phone to issue an emergency message to President Trump as his lines of communication are cut off and the mainstream media ignores his actual statements regarding the indictment.
“He needs to appoint a Special Counsel to examine the FISA warrants. He needs to declassify them immediately,” Stone explained.

America and Infowars are both under attack by globalists in the Deep State.
The arrest of Roger Stone appears to be an abuse of power by the deep state to next go after President Trump.
Tyler Nixon joins Alex to break down the lies used to frame Roger and what may be coming next.

Below is Roger’s first interview after attempting to talk to mainstream media and instead, being shouted at and silenced. Below is Roger’s first interview after attempting to talk to mainstream media and instead, being shouted at and silenced. Roger Stone joins Alex Jones live via Skype to give the exclusive, first interview after his press conference was turned into a heckling fiasco to stop him from speaking the truth about the phony crimes he’s been charged with committing by the infamous Robert Mueller.
Also, Infowars’ Alex Jones talked with Stone immediately following his release and before his MSM press conference. Roger Stone delivers his first statements exclusively to Infowars since being arrested. Tune in for more breaking news on this vital story!

SEE ALSO:
https://www.infowars.com/roger-stone-stages-second-press-conference-after-first-one-was-censored/
https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-first-statement-from-roger-stone-after-his-arrest/
https://www.infowars.com/greta-van-susteren-suggests-fbi-tipped-off-cnn-before-raiding-roger-stone/

Roger Stone’s Emergency Message 

To Trump Post Indictment

Roger Stone joins Alex Jones live over the phone to issue an emergency message to President Trump as his lines of communication are cut off and the mainstream media ignores his actual statements regarding his indictment.

Why Did The FBI Arrest Roger Stone?

FBI raid footage and MSM press coverage reveal why the Deep State is so afraid of Roger Stone. Roger joins Alex Jones live over the phone to issue an emergency message to President Trump. “He needs to appoint a Special Counsel to examine the FISA warrants. He needs to declassify them immediately,” Stone explained.

America is under attack and POTUS must take action now.

Roger Stone’s lawyer: 
This witch hunt has been taken to the extreme

Roger Stone Arrested — Alex Newman Sounds Off
Hannity: Did Mueller’s Office ‘Tip Off Their Favorite Fake News Network’ On Roger Stone’s Arrest?

Ben Shapiro REACTS To Roger Stone Arrest!

Roger Stone interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Fox News about the FBI raid – 01/25/2019

Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said in a Fox News interview Friday that the indictment brought against him as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is “thin” and is really “about silencing” him. But, Stone said, he was prepared for the fight of his life.

“There’s a war on alternative media,” he said. “There’s a war where they’re trying to criminalize political expression. There’s a war where they’re trying to criminalize free speech.”

Stone’s remarks on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” came after he was taken into custody earlier Friday and indicted on charges of obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering.

“I’m in for the fight of my life but I will not quit. I will not fold. I will not bend. I will not bear false witness against the president,” Stone said. “I intend to fight because this indictment is fabricated. This indictment is thin as can be.”

At a news conference earlier in the day, Stone vowed to fight the allegations, slamming the charges as “politically motivated.”

Stone, who was arrested in Fort Lauderdale on Friday morning, told Carlson that he would’ve turned himself in had authorities gotten in touch with his attorney. Video aired by CNN of the arrest showed numerous FBI agents with guns banging on Stone’s door and demanding that he come outside.

Stone said it was “disconcerting” that the network “was aware that I would be arrested before my lawyers were informed.”

“I had no firearm in the house. I don’t have a permit for a firearm. I don’t own a firearm. Only my wife, my two dogs, my three cats were at home,” he said.

“I’m not a flight risk, in fact, I think my passport has expired or it will expire in a few days. I have no record of a criminal past. And frankly, they just could have contacted my attorney and I would have voluntarily turned myself in,” Stone said. “The proof of this is that only hours later, the judge granted me a $250,000 surety bond, meaning on my signature with no funds put forward because I’m not a flight risk.”

The indictment unsealed Friday does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign, or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them. Instead, it accuses him of lying about his interactions related to WikiLeaks’ release during probes by Congress and Mueller’s team.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-…

The indictment states that during the summer of 2016, Stone spoke to senior Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks and information it might have had that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

It also said Stone was contacted by senior Trump campaign officials to inquire about future releases, and that Stone continued to communicate with members of the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.

The 24-page indictment alleged that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony.

Fox News’ Alex Pappas contributed to this report.


EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH INFOWARS’ ROGER STONE AFTER ARREST BY FBI SWAT TEAM WITH LARGE FIREARMS, 17 VEHICLES

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH INFOWARS’ ROGER STONE AFTER ARREST BY FBI SWAT TEAM 
WITH LARGE FIREARMS, 17 VEHICLES 

CNN Producer Admits He Was "Waiting" Outside Roger Stone's House an Hour Before Arrest

CNN PRODUCER ADMITS HE WAS “WAITING” OUTSIDE ROGER STONE’S HOUSE AN HOUR BEFORE ARREST

Claims “reporter’s instinct” was to thank for knowing of imminent raid

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/cnn-producer-admits-he-was-waiting-outside-roger-stones-house-an-hour-before-arrest/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
CNN producer David Shortell admitted that he was “waiting” outside Roger Stone’s house at 5am, an hour before FBI agents and police arrived to arrest the former Donald Trump associate.
Stone was arrested at 6am at his home in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla on a seven-count indictment which includes one count of obstruction, five counts of making false statements and one count of witness tampering.
However, Shortell subsequently gave an interview with New Day host Alisyn Camerota during which he admitted, while smiling throughout, that “we were here at 5am waiting for whatever was going to happen – it was dark – 6am just after the hour about a half dozen police vehicles with sirens….pulled in front of this Ft. Lauderdale home where Roger Stone lives.”
CNN producer describes the moment Roger Stone was taken into custody by the FBI. The longtime Donald Trump associate has been indicted by a grand jury on charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller

4:25
193K views

Shortell also revealed that CNN reporters were the only journalists at the house when the arrest was made.
Earlier, former Fox News host Greta Van Susteren tweeted that the “FBI obviously tipped off CNN” before the raid, but later walked it back, claiming anyone could have tipped them off.
Shortell also commented on the heavily armed presence of the FBI agents and police officers involved in the arrest, stating that they were wearing “tactical vests” and carrying “large weapons”.
_________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST, WHICH INVOLVES 
ROGER STONE:
__________________________________________________________

Roger Stone Arrested-Alex Newman Sounds Off

Correspondent Alex Newman discusses the suspicious pretenses of Roger Stone’s arrest this morning. Newman, who has interviewed Roger Stone, questions the motives behind the arrest, and even argues that it’s the work of the deep state at hand.
Related links:


COVINGTON’S 16 YEAR OLD NICK SANDMANN REBUTS MEDIA SMEAR ARTISTS IN NBC INTERVIEW~DEFAMED BY MUSLIM REP. ILHAN OMAR~NATHAN PHILLIPS, NATIVE AMERICAN “ACTIVIST” HAS CRIMINAL RECORD


COVINGTON’S 16 YEAR OLD NICK SANDMANN REBUTS MEDIA SMEAR ARTISTS IN NBC INTERVIEW
BY WILLIAM F. JASPER
“Do you feel, from this experience, that you owe anybody an apology? Do you see your own fault in any way?” Those were the opening questions from NBC Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie, in her hardball grilling of 16-year-old Nick Sandmann that aired Wednesday. Sandmann, who is a junior at Kentucky’s Covington Catholic High School, is the victim of a Fake News/social media lynching that egregiously violated not only the basics of journalistic due diligence but all the basics of decency, fairness, and ethics as well. In Sandmann’s first national interview, NBC’s Guthrie seemed intent on continuing to cast him — rather than “Indigenous activist” Nathan Phillips — as the aggressor, in what Guthrie characterized as an “infamous encounter with a Native American elder.”
Guthrie asked Sandmann, “Why didn’t you walk away?” when Phillips began beating a drum in his face. And she suggested further that “there’s something aggressive about standing there, standing your ground.” In addition, her questioning suggested that Sandmann and his classmates might be responsible for triggering the “infamous encounter” because they were wearing red, pro-Trump “Make America Great Again” caps. Moreover, she showed she was going to side with the politically correct narrative by pressing Sandmann to explain why he smiled during the ordeal, an expression that his attackers insist on interpreting as a disrespectful “smirk.”
Nicholas “Nick” Sandmann, through no intention or planning of his own, suddenly became the face of “racism,” “white privilege,” “aggression,” “hate,” “disrespect,” and more — all for standing peacefully and smiling in the face of aggression by adult bullies. Disregarding easily available video evidence and the testimony of witnesses, the Fake News media rushed en masse to present a false and inflammatory story that quickly went global. Sandmann and his fellow classmates had come to Washington, D.C., for the 47th annual March for Life to voice their stand against the violence of abortion on pre-born children. Unexpectedly, they found themselves victims of a media flash mob that presented them to the world as vicious delinquents.
So, in justice, Guthrie might have opened the program with an apology of her own — for NBC and for all their Fake News brethren that participated in this defamatory attack on Sandmann and Covington Catholic High School. Instead, Guthrie and NBC doubled down and did everything possible to salvage their tattered (or non-existent) credibility by attempting to force Sandmann to say that he was at fault, and cause him to cave, cower, whimper, and beg forgiveness for some perceived crime of which he was not guilty. (The New American’s Selwyn Duke wrote an excellent analysis of the media melee over the Sandmann/Covington/Phillips incident, with videos embedded, here.)
To his immense credit, Nick Sandmann demonstrated extraordinary calm and composure in the face of this one-sided inquiry. His answers to Guthrie’s leading and antagonistic questions showed a young man who is intelligent, articulate, sensitive, thoughtful, and humble — and yet, incredibly courageous. Leftist agitators love to quote the “speaking truth to power” trope — and the establishment media are ever ready to present leftist agitators as courageous truth speakers. In this instance, under what had to have been very stressful and intimidating circumstances, the young Mr. Sandmann displayed how to genuinely speak truth to power.
As noted above, Guthrie opens the interview with two questions aimed at reinforcing the false narrative: “Do you feel, from this experience, that you owe anybody an apology?”; and: “Do you see your own fault in any way?”
“As far as standing there, I had every right to do so,” Sandmann calmly stated. “I don’t — my position is that I was not disrespectful to Mr. Phillips. I respect him; I’d like to talk to him. I mean, in hindsight I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing, but I can’t say that I’m sorry for listening to him and standing there.”
NBC apparently felt they couldn’t get around showing an important part of the incident that was conveniently omitted in most of the earlier media smears. It involves video footage showing the profanity-laced, aggressive taunting of the Covington students by members of the Black Hebrew Israelites, a radical, militant organization that includes branches that have engaged in racial terrorism, torture, and murder.
Most of the initial coverage smearing the students censored the involvement of the aggressive Black Hebrew Israelite antagonists. This omission, obviously, changes the context of the event. Here is some of the exchange in the NBC interview:
SANDMANN: They started shouting, you know, a bunch of homophobic, racist, derogatory comments at us.
GUTHRIE: What kinds of things did you hear them say?
SANDMANN: I heard them call us incest kids, bigots, racists, they called us [bleep].
NBC then rolled video that is widely available on the Internet, in which one of the Black Hebrew Israelite men is shouting at the Covington students, calling them “A bunch of incest babies. A bunch of child molesting [bleep].”
Guthrie asks, “Did you feel threatened at all?” Sandmann responded: “I definitely felt threatened.” Guthrie’s follow-up question suggests she doesn’t see why he might feel threatened. “There were more of you than them, but you felt like they were stronger?,” she asked. “They were a group of adults and I wasn’t sure what was gonna happen next,” Sandmann answered.
Guthrie then drops into the “objective reporter” mode, feigning inability to decide who is at fault.  “It’s unclear from the video who actually started the confrontation,” she says. “Each side believes it was the first to be taunted. Sandmann [says] his chaperone gave students permission to shout school chants, an attempt, he says, to drown out the Hebrew Israelites.”
Yes, the same media sharks who rushed to find fault with, and tear apart, a whole group of youngsters, now profess to be unable to determine any fault. Here’s more:
GUTHRIE: Do you think it was a good idea to start chanting back at the protesters?… Did anyone shout any insults back or any racial slurs back at the group?
SANDMANN: We’re a Catholic school and it’s not tolerated. They don’t tolerate racism, and none of my classmates are racist people.
GUTHRIE: Did anyone say, “Build the wall”?
SANDMANN: I never heard anyone say “Build the wall” and I don’t think I’ve seen it in any videos.
Guthrie then acknowledges that “After a review of the videos, NBC News could not hear anyone shouting that hot-button phrase, but Nathan Phillips claims he heard the teens shout, ‘Build the wall.’” Perhaps she should subject Phillips to the same kind of grilling that Sandmann received, rather than the sympathetic media promotionals that have greeted Phillips. Perhaps she could also clarify why the alleged “Build the wall” statement even matters. Are Guthrie and NBC suggesting that if a Covington student had shouted that short sentence then Phillips’ behavior was totally justified? Are we to take from this that Guthrie/NBC view the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free expression must yield to the aggressive objections of those who disagree?
NBC’s Guthrie continues to promote Phillips’ version of the event, appearing to give credence to his claim that he was being a peacemaker, trying to “defuse the tense situation” between the Covington students and the Black Hebrew Israelites. “Phillips says he was trying to defuse the tense situation,” Guthrie tells viewers. “Sandmann says he was confused about Phillips’ motives and why he was there.”
What videos of the incident clearly show is that it was Nathan Phillips, a “Native American elder” (and, apparently a fake Vietnam veteran), who engaged in confrontational, aggressive behavior. It was he who marched up to Sandmann and noisily chanted and pounded his drum in Sandmann’s face. Yet Guthrie puts the onus on the 16-year-old. She even suggests that Phillips and his group — who went out of their way to confront Sandmann and the Covington students — may have felt threatened. Her questions show she is still taking sides, while pretending to be neutral:
GUTHRIE: Why didn’t you walk away?…
GUTHRIE: The center of the firestorm, what critics characterize as a smirk, some saying it was an attempt to stare down Phillips. What do you think that looks like?…
GUTHRIE: What some people see is a young kid with a smirk on his face….
GUTHRIE: What would you say for people who see that and are making a judgment about who you are?
SANDMANN: Well, people judge me based on one expression — which I wasn’t smirking, but people have assumed that’s what I have — and they’ve gone from there to titling me and labeling me as a racist person, someone that’s disrespectful to adults. Which they’ve had to assume so many things to get there without consulting anyone that can give them the opposite story.
Guthrie’s questioning is all the more amazing (and upsetting) since Sandmann reacted with extraordinary equanimity toward Phillips, responding peacefully with a smile, as the aggressive activist got in his space and in his face. None of the critics who have engaged in pop psychology to turn his peaceful smile into a “smirk” have likewise examined the facial expressions of Nathan Phillips, which any fair-minded observer would admit could certainly be seen as threatening and scary — especially when only inches away from one’s own face. And, even if Sandmann did indeed “smirk” at Phillips — so what? He is a neophyte and has probably never been in such a situation before. As such, Sandmann reacted with exemplary aplomb. Phillips, on the other hand, is a professional activist; he has been engaged in political demonstrations and confrontations for years. Why would a smirk by a teenager bestow on Phillips the right to get in the teen’s face and attempt to intimidate him with drum thumping?
More from NBC’s interview:
GUTHRIE: Have you looked at that video and thought about how it felt from the other’s perspective? In other words, there were a lot of you, a handful of the others. Do you think they might have felt threatened by a bunch of young men kind of beating their chests?
GUTHRIE: There’s something aggressive about standing there, standing your ground, you both stood your ground, and it was like a stare-down. What do you think of that moment?
SANDMANN: I would say Mr. Phillips had his right to come up to me. I had my right to stay there. Our school was slandered by the African-Americans who had called us all sort of things.
The NBC host then asks a question that seems to suggest Sandmann and some of his fellow students may be responsible for triggering the confrontation by the mere act of wearing red Make America Great Again hats. “Do you think if you weren’t wearing that hat, this might not have happened or it might have been different?” she asks. Sandmann provided an excellent response. “That’s possible,” he answered, “but I would have to assume what Mr. Phillips was thinking and I would rather have him speak to why he came up to us.”
“What’s this been like for you and for your family?” Guthrie asked. “It’s been terrible,” Sandmann responded. “People have threatened our lives.” Tellingly — but not surprisingly — Guthrie let the matter drop there. There was no follow-up question about the threats and no follow-through condemnation of the death threats or any expression of sympathy for the Sandmann family and Covington Catholic High School from Guthrie or her NBC co-hosts. Contrast this unsympathetic treatment with the slobbering love bombs and rock-star treatment the media elites have lavished on David Hogg, the truculent, sanctimonious student activist who has ridden the Parkland school shooting to fame and glory. Claims that he was the recipient of nasty tweets and death threats provided excuses for media condemnation of the NRA and gun owners, as well as media sermons on civility. Likewise, contrast the media treatment of Sandmann/Covington with the media credulity for every “hate crime” claim, even though hundreds of these stories that have received massive media coverage have turned out to be fake.
Guthrie ends the Today program by announcing that they will be having Nathan Phillips on again — for the fourth time — tomorrow. Typical of what we have come to expect from the “mainstream” media, the NBC interview with Nicholas Sandmann offered no media mea culpas, no admissions of bias, no apologies for flagrantly smearing Sandmann and the Covington Catholic students.
In her closing statement, Guthrie lamely intones: “Well, it’s one of those situations where you actually have video, so people are certainly free to make their own judgments about what they think happened here.”
It is likely that millions of Americans have already viewed those videos and not only have made “their own judgments about what they think happened here,” but also have seen the ongoing media mayhem and dishonesty in this instance as still more reinforcement of the validity of President Trump’s “Fake News” charge against much of the major media. And, undoubtedly, millions of Americans are cheering Nick Sandmann for speaking truth to power with courage and grace.
______________________________________________________________
Muslim Rep Defamed Covington Boys in Now-deleted Tweet. What Will Congress Do?

Muslim Rep Defamed Covington Boys in Now-deleted Tweet. 

What Will Congress Do?

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
The Muslimas whom the voters of Michigan and Minnesota sent to Congress are making quite a name for themselves — a bad name.
Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan’s 13th district, who took her oath of office on a Koran, famously told a group of leftist subversives that “we’re going to impeach the motherf***er,” a reference to the plan among Democrats to impeach President Trump. Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, thinks she’s in Congress to represent “Palestine,” not her constituents.
Representative Ilhan Omar (shown) may even be more of an embarrassment and more exemplify the clash of cultures that often accompanies Third World immigration to the United States. Omar started her career in Congress by ridiculing the Christian faith of Vice President Mike Pence. Then without evidence, she claimed that Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, was “compromised,” a veiled accusation that Graham might be a closeted homosexual.
And now we learn the Mogadishu-born immigrant briefly joined the seething social-media lynch mob that falsely accused the boys of Covington Catholic High of harassing and otherwise disrespecting a “Native American elder” during a “confrontation” at the Lincoln Memorial.
Omar posted then deleted a tweet that falsely accused the Covington boys of terrible things.
Questions: Will they sue her for defamation?
And will the GOP’s politically correct posse on Capitol Hill, which so quickly turned on one of its own after he was falsely accused of supporting white supremacy, demand action as quickly on the hijab-adorned Democrat?
The Tweet
Having distinguished herself by ridiculing Pence and defaming Graham, the Somali immigrant joined the anti-Covington lynch mob after the leftist media wove a false narrative about their encounter with Nathan Phillips, the left-wing activist who confronted the boys at the Lincoln Memorial during the March for Life on January 18. Phillips, of course, has a violent criminal past and lied about his service in the Marine Corps.
But Omar’s finger on the Twitter trigger was quick. She tweeted multiple big lies, all of which are defamatory and possibly grounds for a lawsuit.
-The boys were protesting a woman’s right to choose yelled “it’s not rape if you enjoy it”
-They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants
-Sandmann’s family hired a right wing PR firm to write his non-apology
In fact, the boys in question were not chanting any such thing, the “5 black men” taunted the white boys and the Indians with viciously racist chants, and they did not surround Phillips. The drumming, chanting “Native American elder” confronted them. Then he led a raiding party to the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at Catholic University.
Anyway, the tweet inspired this comeback from Robert Barnes, the lawyer who offered to represent the boys pro bono: “This is libel. Retract, or get sued.”
Omar deleted the tweet.
That might not help her case, given that she has 450,000 followers on Twitter, and of course, the allegations in her tweet constituted per se defamation. They were defamatory on their face.
Barnes also threatened to go after the reporters whose vicious attacks on the boys and false reporting about Phillips have inspired crazy leftists to threaten them and their families.
Barnes, who represented actor Wesley Snipes, gave the media 48 hours to retract their statements.
Will Congress Pass a Resolution
Omar’s tweet should, it would seem, invite action from Congress, and not just Republicans, although they should lead the crusade if their Democratic colleagues can’t or won’t move against the anti-Christian legislator.
Last week, after the New York Times published a story containing quotes that suggested Iowa’s GOP Representative Steve King supports “white supremacy,” Democrats erupted in fury. Terrified Republicans collapsed in hysterics and ignored King’s explanation. The Timeshe said, garbled his remarks and because of a punctuation error, created a false impression.
Although Democrats feared censuring King because of their own loose cannons such as Tlaib, they proposed and with hearty Republican support passed a resolution condemning “white supremacy.”
But unlike Omar, King didn’t attack anyone. He said nothing that was untrue. Indeed, the Times erred and imputed to King beliefs he does not espouse.
Omar flat-out lied. She defamed those high-school boys. Then she deleted her lies.
As yet, the leaders on Capitol Hill have not condemned her.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/muslim-rep-ilhan-omar-called-for-lighter-sentences-for-muslims-who-tried-to-join-isis
_____________________________________________________________

Indian Drummer Was Violent Criminal, Escaped Jail, 

Tried To Disrupt Mass at Basilica

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
In the matter of Indian activist Nathan Phillips, it seems, the media speak with a forked tongue.
The heretofore relatively unknown agitator, who became a left-wing hero after he provoked a confrontation with Catholic high-school boys protesting abortion at the March for Life, didn’t just fake his military past. He has also a rap sheet that shows he was a violent criminal.
And he had a big problem with the firewater.
Of course, the media didn’t look into Phillips’ past before they portrayed the bedraggled “Native American elder” as a “victim” of “privileged” white boys who ridiculed his drum-pounding and chanted gibberish.
Nor have they said much about his attack on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Story Unravels
The Fake News story about the confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial between Phillips and the boys of Covington Catholic High began with the usual leftist narrative. But it quickly collapsed after a full video account surfaced, which undermined the short video with which leftists in the media gleefully savaged the boys.
Such was the hysteria that the boys and their families received death threatsRepresentative Ilhan Omar, the hijab-wearing, anti-Christian, Muslim Democrat from Minnesota, attacked them in a defamatory, now-deleted tweet.
But then, as is typical, the wheels came off the wagon that pulled the leftist narrative.
Nathan Phillips isn’t the man the media said he was. The put-upon Omaha Indian has something of a checkered past. Very checkered.
The Washington Examiner has disclosed that Phillips was a violent criminal who escaped jail.
As The New American reported yesterday, when Phillips enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1972, he enlisted under another name, Nathaniel Stanard. In his late teens and early 20s, the Examiner found, Phillips, then Stanard, was a dangerous and violent criminal who tangled more than once with John Barleycorn — and lost.
At 19, Phillips was “charged with escaping from the Nebraska Penal Complex where he was confined May 3,” the newspaper reported, citing an article in the Lincoln Star.
As well, “he pleaded guilty to assault on June 19, 1974, and was fined $200. In addition, he was charged with underage possession of alcohol in 1972, 1973, and 1975, as well as negligent driving. A destruction of property charge against him was dropped in August 1973, but Phillips was sentenced to one year probation for a related charge of alcohol possession by a minor. In December 1978, he was charged with driving without a license.”
But even before the Examiner disclosed Phillips’ lengthy rap sheet, news surfaced that he lied about his military record. He told Vogue magazine that he was “recon ranger” in the Marines. And the media turned Phillips into a “Vietnam veteran,” and “Native American elder” who “fought in Vietnam.”
Of course, it was all false.
Phillips was not a “recon ranger” and didn’t serve in Vietnam. He was a refrigerator repairman who never left the states. And he went AWOL — Absent Without Leave — multiple times.
To his credit, it appears that Phillips never claimed he fought in Vietnam. The media simply assumed he did. And that, as former Navy SEAL Don Shipley said, made the narrative even better, or conversely, made the scene at the Lincoln Memorial “look even worse, him being a Vietnam vet and getting harassed.”
Shipley posted a video on YouTube that exposed the military record of Phillips.
Attack on the Mass
But the former jailbird and Marine Corps refrigerator repairman wasn’t satisfied with nearly starting a riot at the Lincoln Memorial.
Phillips and some fellow “Native American activists” went to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at Catholic University. There, they demanded that the boys be punished, and, somewhat amusingly, that the papal bull encouraging the age of discovery be “revoked.”
A spokesman for the basilica confirmed for the Catholic News Agency that Phillips led the raid that aimed to disrupt a special Mass on January 19.
“A group of approximately 50 individuals attempted to gain entrance to the basilica while chanting and hitting drums,” the spokesman told CNA. They assembled “across the road from the shrine before setting off toward its main entrance, chanting and playing drums.”
Security guards, CNA reported, were forced to lock the doors to keep the angry protesters out.
A California seminarian told CNA that protesters pounded on the basilica’s doors.

VIDEO: GLAZOV ON “AMERICA CAN WE TALK?” DISCUSSING “JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH”

VIDEO: GLAZOV ON “AMERICA CAN WE TALK?” DISCUSSING “JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH”

Debbie Georgatos talks to Frontpage Editor about how Islamic Supremacists are charming, seducing and devouring us.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272675/video-glazov-america-can-we-talk-discussing-frontpagemagcomrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

[Jamie Glazov will be speaking at Beverly Hills Hotel on Feb. 6 about his new book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring UsRegister HERE. Order the book HERE.
In this new episode of America Can We Talk?, host Debbie Georgatos talks to Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his new book, Jihadist Psychopath. Jamie reveals how Islamic Supremacists are charming, seducing and devouring us — and how President Trump offers tremendous hope that the tide can be turned. Don’t miss it!
[To learn more about Jamie’s unveiling of the Jihadist Psychopath’s plantation — and how we can escape from it, CLICK HERE.]

J.P. M. CHASE BANK PURSUES FORECLOSURE & SEIZURE OF HOME OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS YEARS AFTER MORTGAGE SATISFIED BY GOOD SAMARITAN~COUPLE’S CAR RAMMED BY ILLEGAL; HOSPITAL & LEGAL BILLS

Meet the Founders: JoAnn DeBartolo & Tom Ravana. They were the Chairmen for the Collier County TRUMP for President Campaign. Trump’s successful win in 2016, led them to keep the momentum going by creating the Collier for Trump Club. Learn more here: .

SEE: https://www.collier4trump.com/


J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK PURSUES FORECLOSURE & SEIZURE OF HOME OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS YEARS AFTER MORTGAGE SATISFIED BY GOOD SAMARITAN~COUPLE’S CAR RAMMED BY ILLEGAL; HOSPITAL, INSURANCE & LEGAL BILLS 

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR GO FUND ME ACCOUNT
Joann Debartolo & Tom Ravana were hit by an illegal alien and due to medical bills they are now at risk of losing their home. They join Roger Stone via Skype to discuss the details.
FIRST COURT SIDED WITH THEM. APPEALS COURT REFUSED TO ADMIT THEIR EVIDENCE; ONLY THE BANK’S.
SEE ALSO:
_______________________________________________________________
PHOTOS: 
20171108_114913.jpg

20180409_193646.jpg

JoAnn and Tom.jpg
JoAnn & Tom were the Chairmen for the Collier County Donald J TRUMP for President Campaign.  With the successful & unprecedented win in 2016, they decided to keep the momentum going by creating the Collier for Trump Club, Inc.

Through their hard work & commitment, Collier County was the #1 County in the State of Florida as a percentage for get out the vote in the Florida Primary.  JoAnn & Tom built a network of loyal Trump volunteers over the 15 months of campaigning. These volunteers are still loyal to the Republican cause and come out to support any Donald Trump events they sponsor.  

On Illegal Immigration…

JoAnn is extremely passionate about the status of illegal immigration in our country today. A few years ago, she was involved in a terrible accident, where her car was struck by an illegal immigrant. As she lay in the hospital for almost two months, she began her hard, long road to recovery and learning to walk again. While she still suffers with pain today, she still considers herself blessed.  JoAnn hopes that through stronger illegal immigration practices, no one else will have to suffer the way she did, and hopes to end illegal immigration for good.

“MIGRANT CARAVAN” NOW 5,600 STRONG; CRIMINALS ALONG FOR THE MARCH NORTH

“MIGRANT CARAVAN” NOW 5,600 STRONG; 
CRIMINALS ALONG FOR THE MARCH NORTH 
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
The latest caravan of nearly 6,000 illegal aliens headed toward the U.S.-Mexico border, and an estimable character Mexican cops found inside it, have once again proven the president right about illegal immigration.
The latest caravan is moving without resistance through Mexico, another 500 illegal aliens left Honduras on Sunday, and another invasion army is forming now for departure in February, the Wall Street Journal reported.
In other words, the invaders won’t stop coming. And it doesn’t appear that Mexico is interested in stopping the invasion of its own territory, and hopes the illegal-alien invaders will land in the United States.
Caravan Size Increased 10 Times
Frighteningly, the size of the latest caravan has grown from 500 when it left San Pedro Sula in Honduras on January 15 to 5,600 now, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The human tsunami is stalled at the border between Guatemala and Mexico, however, having stormed into Guatemala last week.
The illegal-aliens, the Journal reported, await visas that will allow them to keep trudging north. Mexican officials, citing humanitarian reasons, won’t deport them.
But that’s just one part of the invasion force. “Some 1,500 migrants who forced their way into Mexico last week are heading northward in the state of Oaxaca without hindrance from authorities, while a third group of about 400 left the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Sunday.”
Even worse, the newspaper reported, a survey of social media shows organizers planning to launch another illegal-alien invasion for February.
On top of this locust-like plague relentlessly moving north, at least 2,500 illegal aliens are still squatting in Tijuana in the hope of entering the United States with phony asylum claims.
Most of the migrants in that first caravan, which rose to some 14,000, have returned home.
Some Migrants Determined
The Mexican government is helping push the latest caravan forward, again, with humanitarian visas that can be renewed annually, the Journal reported. They permit “migrants to work and move freely in Mexico. But most say they just want to get quickly to the U.S. border.”
As President Trump tweeted on Saturday, “Mexico is doing NOTHING to stop the Caravan which is now fully formed and heading to the United States. We stopped the last two — many are still in Mexico but can’t get through our Wall, but it takes a lot of Border Agents if there is no Wall. Not easy!”
Although “lawyers and migration experts say the migrants’ chances of getting asylum in the U.S. are lower than ever” because the “Trump Administration has sharply limited the daily number of asylum applications … and has sent soldiers to the border,” the Journal reported, the illegal aliens are “unfazed by the obstacles and remain determined to leave behind a life of poverty, violence and political turmoil in Honduras.”
Apparently, despite President Trump’s reputation as a frothing racist and bigot, “migrants say they don’t care about President Trump’s hostile rhetoric and harsh immigration policies, and hope the U.S. will open its doors to them sooner or later,” the Journal reported.
Apparently, border agents have a word for the stubborn vagabonds: “non-impactable.” An open-borders activist told the Journal that “no level of enforcement will serve as a deterrent for them — not detention, separating parents from their children, or even a wall.”
“Hondurans will continue to leave in spite of the dangers and uncertainty of the journey until they feel that they can be safe and make a living in their home country,” she told the newspaper.
That illegal aliens are determined to break into the United States and push phony asylum claims is beyond doubt.
Last week, borders agents collared nearly 400 illegals who popped up in Arizona after digging under the border. 
Another Day, Another Gang Member Collared
Meanwhile, Mexican authorities collared yet another dangerous gang member in the latest caravan.
Mexican cops screening for criminals, Fox News reported, caught an 18th Street gangbanger from El Salvador known as Amílcar Orlando “N.” The prosecutor in Chiapas caught the fine young man with the help of the Salvadoran government.
His crimes? “Aggravated murder, kidnapping, extortion, gang membership and drug possession.”
The Coast Guard, meanwhile, intercepted six illegal aliens who were sailing for Florida. Included in the sea-faring bunch were two Jamaicans, a Dominican, and a Bahamian. One had “previous drug convictions,” Associated Press reported, “and another had previous convictions for drug trafficking, kidnapping and aggravated assault.”

MCDONALD’S APOLOGIZES TO CHINA FOR AD DEPICTING TAIWAN’S INDEPENDENCE~FAST FOOD GIANT CLAIMS SUPPORT FOR ONE-CHINA POLICY

MCDONALD’S APOLOGIZES TO CHINA FOR AD DEPICTING TAIWAN’S INDEPENDENCE~FAST FOOD GIANT CLAIMS SUPPORT FOR ONE-CHINA POLICY
BY BEN WARREN
SEE: https://www.newswars.com/mcdonalds-apologizes-to-china-for-ad-depicting-taiwans-independence/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Fast food titan McDonald’s caved to online outrage and apologized to China for an ad showing Taiwan as an independent country.
The ad depicts a young woman celebrating her good fortune after her ID was miraculously cleaned by unlikely circumstances.
The online outrage came after a close-up of said ID listed “Taiwan” as her nationality.
The online mob took to the video’s comments section to express outrage which later merited a verified McDonald’s account to deliver an official statement on the matter.
“The advertising agency failed to carry out strict background checks on the video and caused a misunderstanding,” read the statement. “We deeply regret this.”
“We have always supported the one-China policy and we are determined to continue to uphold China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Notable comments that stirred controversy on Chinese social media site Weibo include:
“McDonald’s, this is what you want to do? Help Taiwan independence?” Reads one comment.
Another comment is more specific: “What is Taiwan? It’s a province! The girl’s nationality should be China.”
In addition to the apology, the ad was pulled and McDonald’s thought it important to mention the commercial was directed by a Taiwanese agency.

The ID nationality detail that caused the online circus (Screenshot from the commercial)

This is the latest case of China strong-arming U.S. companies to honor their stance on Taiwan.
Last July, major U.S. airlines caved to China’s demand to change how they list Taiwan as an independent country on their booking websites in a move the White House described as “Orwellian nonsense.”
As a result, American Airlines, Delta, and United Airlines used Taipei’s airport code and city instead of direct references to Taiwan as a country.
“United Airlines has begun to roll out changes to its systems to address China’s requirements,” said a United Airlines spokesman. “United abides by and respects local laws and regulations in all markets and jurisdictions where we operate and conduct business.”
________________________________________________________________

McDonald’s Taiwan ad makes China really really angry – TomoNews



MICROSOFT EDGE BROWSER USING SPURIOUS LEFTIST “FACT-CHECKING” SITE, NEWSGUARD, TO PLACE WARNING LABEL ON JIHAD WATCH

“PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT”

“NEWSGUARD” CREATES BLACK LISTS, BASED ON “NUTRITION LABELS” TO HELP YOU SEE THE INGREDIENTS

NewsGuard lists Breitbart News, the Daily Mail, and the Drudge Report as fake news websites, but gives the all-clear to CNN, Buzzfeed, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Vice News, despite recent high profile fake news stories from a variety of these approved sites.
STEVEN BRILL: “WE DON’T USE ALGORITHMS, JUST BIASED JOURNALISTS WHO ARE ‘ACCOUNTABLE'”

NewsGuard uses journalism to fight false news, misinformation, and disinformation. Our trained analysts, who are experienced journalists, research online news brands to help readers and viewers know which ones are trying to do legitimate journalism—and which are not.

EDGE BROWSER USING STEVEN BRILL’S SELF-APPOINTED TEAM OF JOURNALIST-CENSORS TO SCORE WEBSITES
MICROSOFT USING SPURIOUS LEFTIST 
“FACT-CHECKING” SITE TO PLACE WARNING LABEL 
ON JIHAD WATCH 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/microsoft-using-spurious-leftist-fact-checking-site-to-place-warning-label-on-jihad-watchrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Microsoft has now placed a warning label on Jihad Watch for those who use its Edge browser:
This once again raises the question I keep asking again and again: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen? According to the BBC, NewsGuard warnings have also appeared on the Daily Mail and Sputnik. But what about NewsGuard itself? Is it fair? Unbiased? Trustworthy? No to all three; it is just another “fact-checking” organization with entrenched Leftist biases that is flagging sites that don’t hold firmly to the Leftist line as inaccurate, without acknowledging their own biases, gaps in knowledge, or inconsistency.
This is just another way to shut down sites that don’t parrot the Leftist agenda, which includes embracing of mass Muslim migration and staunch opposition to any opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which NewsGuard relies on extensively in its hit piece on Jihad Watch, has long designated Jihad Watch as a “hate group.” The idea that it’s “hate” to oppose jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays and others is defamatory and absurd, but nonetheless it has resulted in donations to Jihad Watch not being accepted by MasterCard and Visa, and in my being dropped from Patreon and GoFundMe. It has also resulted in my being shadowbanned on Twitter and Facebook, and routinely vilified in the establishment media.
And now, if all that doesn’t work, and you still come to Jihad Watch via Microsoft Edge (and other browsers will almost certainly follow), you’ll get a warning label falsely claiming that our work is inaccurate.
They’re desperate to silence me and shut down Jihad Watch, and while they may well succeed, they will not thereby turn truth into falsehood and falsehood into truth. The truths we expose here will remain, and they will be dealing with them sooner or later, no matter how much they deny and ignore them.
Last summer, when John Gregory of NewsGuard contacted me, I wrote an article at FrontPageabout the spurious “fact-checking” procedures of Gregory and his cohorts. It’s worth reprinting in full here now:
Steven Brill’s NewsGuard and the “Fact-Checking” Scam
Who watches the watchmen?
In their ongoing efforts to discredit, marginalize, and silence all those who dissent from their agenda, Leftists are increasingly trying to fool the public by establishing ostensibly neutral “fact-checking” organizations that purport to identify “fake news,” but which actually apply that label only to those who don’t parrot their nonsense. One of the most notorious examples of this is Snopes, which claims to be an objective arbiter of the accuracy of news reports, but which I have shown to be a deeply biased and misleading site: see here and here.
Recently I was contacted by John Gregory, an underling from a new entry in this field, NewsGuard, an initiative of the hard-Left self-appointed news arbiter Steven Brill. It was obvious that Gregory’s pen was sweating blood, and in my answers, I asked him about his own biases and those of NewsGuard. Gregory, as you’ll see below, ducked my questions, but his biases (and NewsGuard’s) are nonetheless obvious from his invocation of the Southern Poverty Law Center, his claim that it is inaccurate to say that the UN supports jihad, and more. He claims that his opinions are not relevant, but of course they couldn’t be more relevant, because they inform how he regards and evaluates Jihad Watch and other news sites. His refusal to acknowledge that, and to explain how he claims to overcome his own biases and produce an objective evaluation, is evidence of either astonishing naivete or craven dishonesty.
Here is my back-and-forth with Gregory:
1. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
My name is John Gregory, an analyst for NewsGuard, a new company researching and evaluating news sites to separate those which are performing real journalism.
In reviewing Jihad Watch, I had several questions about your editorial policies:
1) Does the site have a policy of correcting mistakes in its initial reporting? If so, could you point me to a recent example where a mistake was corrected and the original error was disclosed to readers?
2) Why is no biographical or contact information provided for writers other than Mr. Spencer?
3) How does the site disclose when articles are presenting the opinions of Mr. Spencer and other writers? Are those opinions presented as fact?
4) How does the site disclose its ownership by the Horowitz Freedom Center? The only mention I could find is the mailing address at the bottom of the homepage.
Thank you in advance for taking some time to answer these questions.
2. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
Some questions for you:
1. What is the political bias of NewsGuard?
2. Are you asking these questions of sites that minimize and/or deny the problem of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and other groups, or only of sites that call attention to it?
3. How do you distinguish what is “real journalism” as opposed to putative fake news?
4. Have you found any error of fact regarding Islam or jihad, or any demonstrably false news story, on Jihad Watch? Or do you simply object to the sources being cited? If so, on what grounds?
5. If you render a negative judgment on Jihad Watch, does Jihad Watch have any recourse and appeal? If so, how?
6. Who funds NewsGuard?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Your answers:
2. I am the primary writer and editor for the site. I operated it alone for several years, and so this is not some conscious decision, it just happened that no one thought to add this info. You have a good idea, however, and I’ll add info for Hugh Fitzgerald, Christine Douglass-Williams, and Andrew Harrod asap.
3. Opinions are never presented as fact. The commentary that goes above every article is clearly the analysis of the author, and is generally backed up with references from authoritative Islamic sources and/or other relevant material.
4. The affiliation between Jihad Watch and the Freedom Center is no secret. The mailing address listing at the bottom of page is an obvious recognition of that fact. Jihad Watch is listed as a program of the Freedom Center in my bio page on Jihad Watch, and at the bottom of every article I write, as well as in Freedom Center publications.
3. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
Thank you for clearing that up. I’ll keep checking to see if the new writer bios are added.
In response to your questions:
Some questions for you:
1. What is the political bias of NewsGuard?
We aspire to have none.
2. Are you asking these questions of sites that minimize and/or deny the problem of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and other groups, or only of sites that call attention to it?
We are asking these types of questions to all types of news sites, from those run by major newspapers to small market local TV stations as well as blogs, specialty publications, everybody.
3. How do you distinguish what is “real journalism” as opposed to putative fake news?
We adhere to the same standards in dealing with all sites and our criteria are found on our site, Newsguardtechnologies.com.
4. Have you found any error of fact regarding Islam or jihad, or any demonstrably false news story, on Jihad Watch? Or do you simply object to the sources being cited? If so, on what grounds?
I can’t speak to this yet as we haven’t finished our research. In cases where we cite fact checks done by other sites to which you have responded in the past, like in the case of Snopes, your response would be included.
5. If you render a negative judgment on Jihad Watch, does Jihad Watch have any recourse and appeal? If so, how?
Yes, you can make your case that our assessment is wrong
6. Who funds NewsGuard?
A full list of our investors can be found here: https://newsguardtechnologies.com/our-investors/
4. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
The new writer bios were added several days ago. You should have seen them by now.
Steven Brill, eh? Yes, sure, you’re not biased. You’re as even-handed as the day is long. Steven Brill.
5. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
Ah, I was looking in the wrong place. Our evaluation will be updated with info about the new writer bios.
Circling back on your previous question, we have found several instances where Jihad Watch has published misleading claims, failed to correct errors in its headlines and presented opinion as fact for which I’d like to offer you a chance to respond.
1. An April 2018 story entitled “Muslima nurse practitioner beheads her 7-year-old son near Rochester, New York” seems to dismiss the quote from the county sheriff about this attack having “zero indicators of anything religious, zero indicators in anything cultural,” and presents a Qur’an verse as proof of the religious nature of the attack. Your story also says this alleged perpetrator is a Muslim, but I can’t find mention of her religion from any of the local news outlets covering the story. Did Jihad Watch independently confirm her religion? Was there some other source pointing to a religious motive?
2. A July 2015 story based on Pamela Geller’s tweet about an ISIS-linked account tweeting minutes before a shooting in Chattanooga was later found to have occurred hours after the attack. Your story was updated to acknowledge this, but the original headline and story based on the false information remain unchanged. Does your corrections policy not include changing headlines later found to be incorrect?
3. A Dec. 2015 story entitled “House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam.” That headline ignores how the resolution as proposed was non-binding, meaning no new criminal statutes would have been enacted as your headline said. Was this story ever corrected or retracted?
4. Among the instances where stories on Jihad Watch have presented opinion as fact is a June 23 story by Christine Douglass-Williams calling the United Nations “jihad-supporting.” What factual basis was there for attaching that description to the U.N.?
5. We will be including the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of Jihad Watch as a hate group in our evaluation. I know you’ve written about this assessment before, but do you have any statement now as to why you think the SPLC’s judgment on your site is unfair or unjust?
Again, thanks in advance for taking the time to answer these inquiries.
6. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
None of these are misleading or false — except, of course, to someone who opposes efforts to oppose jihad terror and who considers such efforts to be “Islamophobia.”
Also, why were the staff bios important to you? I don’t mind having them there, but fail to see how they comport with your stated mission. The number of sites that don’t include bios of all the staff writers must be in the thousands or more. Are you making similar demands of Leftist sites? Or is this question simply designed to demonize sites that oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others?
1. The story does not present a Qur’an verse as “proof of the religious nature of the attack.” It presents a Qur’an verse as an indication that a religious background was a possible element. There are many, many instances in which authorities have dissembled in cases involving jihad terror; see, for example, here: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262826/global-outbreak-mental-illness-robert-spencer. It was on this basis that the sheriff’s statement was regarded with suspicion. It is unlikely that he had the background or competence to determine such a question in any case. Your misrepresentation of our reporting on this is a predictable indication of the inherent unfairness of self-appointed “news guards” that are in reality only attempts to smear and defame those who do not accept the establishment Leftist perspective on important current issues.
2. Your link doesn’t work, so I cannot evaluate your claim here. I doubt it is true or accurate; we have corrected plenty of headlines that have been found to be inaccurate. If one remained uncorrected, it was an oversight. If you’re trying to make something out of an article that carries a correction, your case is exceedingly weak indeed.
3. The article notes that the resolution only “condemns” what it calls “hateful rhetoric.” It discusses no criminal penalties, as there were none. What your inquiry fails to note is that the headline says that the “House Democrats Move to Criminalize,” not that they “Criminalized,” criticism of Islam. Issuing non-binding resolutions of this kind is a step toward issuing binding ones, and outlawing categories of speech. Your enterprise itself is a step down the same road, attempting to defame honest news reporting when it disagrees with your perspective.
There are plenty of other stories similar to these. You’re a news watchdog organization, you say?
5. NewsGuard is clearly engaged in the same defamation and demonization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has engaged in for years in attempting to destroy foes of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. The SPLC includes few Leftist and jihad groups among its “hate group” listings, while defaming Jihad Watch and other groups that stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law because we dissent from its hard-Left agenda. NewsGuard is a new and marginally more sophisticated attempt to defame pro-freedom groups by claiming on spurious grounds that what we report is inaccurate. We have published over 50,000 posts since 2003, and NewGuard took issue with exactly five of them, none of them on any factual grounds. We can only hope that discerning readers will be able to see through NewGuard’s false claims to be an objective evaluator of the accuracy of news reported, and not fall for this latest Leftist attempt at defamation and, ultimately, censorship.
7. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
Your responses will be noted. My apologies about the non-working link in #2, this was the story I was referencing:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/isis-tweets-chattanooga-as-gunman-begins-shooting-there-4-murdered
As for the staff bios, we are asking that question of every site we review. We have come across quite a few where stories don’t have bylines or don’t provide information about who’s creating the content beyond a name. Your site meets that standard.
8. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
There is nothing inaccurate about that headline. They did tweet Chattanooga soon after the attack. I expect you are unaware that this was a jihad attack inspired by foreign jihadis — see this AP story: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/16/navy-concludes-chattanooga-shooting-was-inspired-by-foreign-terrorists/
It’s noteworthy that you have nothing to say in response to my pointing out your own obvious biases. I’ll be publishing these exchanges when your hit piece on Jihad Watch appears.
Also: re your claim that “we are asking that question of every site we review,” I happen to know that that is false, as I know of at least one site that you have not asked that of.
9. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
I’m writing an article about the “fake news vetting” scam, and have the following questions for you. Thank you in advance for your answers:
1. How does NewsGuard plan to disclose its own biases and the perspectives of those who are claiming to be objective assessors of the accuracy of various news sites?
2. In vetting the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s reporting, did you take into account your own biases and perspectives on the subject matter treated at the site? If so, how? If not, why not?
3. Have you ever read the Qur’an in whole or part? The Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim? The tafasir of Ibn Kathir and the Jalalayn? If not, how can you judge the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression of women, gays, and others?
4. Which do you think is the larger problem: jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
5. Which do you think are more severely threatened: women who wear the hijab in the U.S. or women who do not wear the hijab, chador, or other coverings in Iran and Saudi Arabia?
6. Does NewsGuard plan to assess the reliability of sites that reflect the Leftist agenda, or only sites that oppose that agenda?
7. Are you familiar with the Latin phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”? If so, what is your answer to it?
8. Your questions to me appeared to show that you consider the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable guide to what constitutes a “hate group” and what does not. Are you aware of the widespread challenges to the SPLC’s credibility in this regard? Are you familiar with Maajid Nawaz? What do you think are the implications of the SPLC’s removal of Nawaz from its list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for those who remain on the list?
10. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
Just in case you missed these questions over the weekend, I am re-sending.
One more also: How does NewsGuard respond to charges that it is simply an attempt to defame and marginalize sites that dissent from a hard-Left agenda?
Thanks again in advance for your answers.
11. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
My apologies for getting these to you late.
Dear Mr. Gregory:
I’m writing an article about the “fake news vetting” scam, and have the following questions for you. Thank you in advance for your answers:
  1. How does NewsGuard plan to disclose its own biases and the perspectives of those who are claiming to be objective assessors of the accuracy of various news sites?
    We will be running full professional bios of all staff and contributors on our website.
  2. In vetting the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s reporting, did you take into account your own biases and perspectives on the subject matter treated at the site? If so, how? If not, why not?
    We aspire to be as fair and objective as possible, and multiple people are involved in every review. As soon as we learn we made a mistake, we will correct it publicly and transparently.
  3. Have you ever read the Qur’an in whole or part? The Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim? The tafasir of Ibn Kathir and the Jalalayn? If not, how can you judge the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression of women, gays, and others?
We endeavor to be fair about every site we evaluate.
  1. Which do you think is the larger problem: jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
My opinion is not relevant here.
  1. Which do you think are more severely threatened: women who wear the hijab in the U.S. or women who do not wear the hijab, chador, or other coverings in Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Again, my opinion is not relevant here.
  1. Does NewsGuard plan to assess the reliability of sites that reflect the Leftist agenda, or only sites that oppose that agenda?
We are rating sites across the political spectrum under the same criteria.
  1. Are you familiar with the Latin phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”? If so, what is your answer to it?
    Our mission is to review news and information sites to give readers some guidance in assessing the sites’ credibility. Anyone is free to “guard” or review us, of course.
  2. Your questions to me appeared to show that you consider the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable guide to what constitutes a “hate group” and what does not. Are you aware of the widespread challenges to the SPLC’s credibility in this regard? Are you familiar with Maajid Nawaz? What do you think are the implications of the SPLC’s removal of Nawaz from its list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for those who remain on the list?
    We are aware of criticisms on the SPLC’s ratings and designations. Your own responses to SPLC’s claims about Jihad Watch would be mentioned in our final evaluation.
In any case, despite the paltriness of his case against Jihad Watch (over 60,000 posts and he is quibbling over four of them, and author bios), it is certain that John Gregory and NewsGuard will claim that this site is not accurate or trustworthy. In reality, however, the inaccurate and untrustworthy one is NewsGuard itself, in its claim to be an objective arbiter of the accuracy of news reports. It is no more objective or reliable than its guide, the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And while it may fool the credulous and uninformed, those who know better will recognize it for what it is: yet another attempt to blacken the reputation of, and thereby silence, news outlets that don’t regurgitate the Left’s fantasies about how Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims are victims of widespread discrimination in the U.S., and the like. There’s another sucker who will buy this nonsense born every minute.
______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
______________________________________________________________

Why Should You Trust Us?

  • Because we are trained journalists who have spent our careers dedicated to the profession. We care deeply about reliable journalism’s pivotal role in democracy. (In case you’re wondering, our experienced journalists come from diverse backgrounds and have no political axes to grind.)
  • Because you can see the credentials and backgrounds of everyone responsible for every NewsGuard reliability rating and Nutrition Label that you read. For the names and biographies of our staff and contributors, click here.
  • Because we have an ethics and conflicts of interest policy to which all of our analysts and editors have to agree. You can read that policy here.
  • Because we are totally transparent about how we make all of our decisions. Our Nutrition Label write-ups explain what is behind our decisions. We disclose and explain in detail the nine criteria we use to rate each news site on its journalistic practices. We’re not a black box algorithm.
  • Because we make concerted attempts to get comment from every website’s editor or manager before we write anything negative about the site, and always include the comment in our Nutrition Labels (or make changes after weighing the comment and realizing our initial conclusion was wrong). Algorithms don’t call for comment.
  • Because we will post any complaints from website proprietors about anything we have written about them. And we will answer them publicly – and when warranted will make corrections, publicly, after we consider the complaint. You can read our policy for correcting errors or mistakes here.
  • Because we accept no fees from the news websites we rate. (Our revenue comes from the platforms and search engines for licensing our ratings in order to include them in their feeds and search results.) We rate all news and information sites among the approximately 4,500 sites responsible for 98% of the online engagement in English in the United States.
  • Because we do not collect any personal information of any kind from those who download and use our browser plug-ins. None. You can read our privacy policy here.
  • Because bringing more information to people about the news sources they encounter online is our only business. Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable.

______________________________________________________________

How NewsGuard Helps Consumers Fight ‘Fake News’

Aug.27, 2018 — Steven Brill, co-chief executive officer at NewsGuard, explains how the service uses nine criteria to examine the bias and truthfulness of news sites. He speaks with Bloomberg’s David Westin on “Bloomberg Markets: Balance of Power.”
“APPLYING ‘COMMON SENSE” 
WHEN PASSING JUDGMENT ON WEBSITES
NewsGuard Technologies is aiming to help people navigate through fake news on social media. Both Facebook and Twitter acknowledged that Russian propaganda reached more than 126 million Americans through their platforms around the 2016 election. NewsGuard co-founder Steven Brill joins “CBS This Morning” to discuss the $6 million venture that will use analysts to research and rate thousands of news sources.
“WE WILL TAKE YOUR COMPLAINTS”


newsguard-microsoft-reporting-hoaxes-fake-news-credible-epic-fail-jennie-kamin-john-gregory

Microsoft’s “fact-checker” NewsGuard labels proven hoaxes “credible,” blacklists factual stories Leftists dislike

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/microsofts-fact-checker-newsguard-labels-proven-hoaxes-credible-blacklists-factual-stories-leftists-dislikerepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
NewsGuard has Jihad Watch blacklisted also, not because they can show that anything we report is actually inaccurate, but because we don’t toe the Leftist line. Microsoft has taken a giant step into the Orwellian future by including this spurious “fact-checking” data on one of its web browsers, but now that NewsGuard is so thoroughly shredding its own credibility right out of the gate, maybe Microsoft will reconsider and we will have a bit more time before the freedom of speech window closes entirely.

NewsGuard hatchet man John GregoryEMAIL: 



“Nolte: Blacklisters at Microsoft’s NewsGuard Label Proven Hoaxes ‘Credible,’” by John Nolte, Breitbart, January 28, 2019:
NewsGuard, which is the establishment media’s latest effort to blacklist alternative media sites, is giving its sign of approval to proven hoaxes, even to stories that have been retracted.
Microsoft is so desperate to spread fake news and blacklist ideas it doesn’t like, NewsGuard is automatically included in one of its browsers.
You will find more examples below, but here is NewsGuard’s seal of approval (on the Google search page) for Rolling Stone’s 2014 hoax about a gang rape at the University of Virginia (UVA).
Rolling Stone (which NewsGuard gave a passing grade) was eventually forced to retract the story and settle some lawsuits, but the far-left HuffPost’s aggregation of Rolling Stone’s proven lie is still live, and that green checkmark is NewsGuard’s way of telling readers they are reading something credible:
You see, when you do a Google search of stories, NewsGuard and Microsoft use the green checkmark to tell you what is and is not credible, what is and is not blacklisted, and this is NewsGuard giving the green light to a story that was so fake, it had to be retracted.
Compare that to NewsGuard’s labeling as fake news a basic news story like this one…
Why is NewsGuard labeling that fake news? Simply because Breitbart News published it. We didn’t even write that story. The AP did. We are simply aggregating the AP…
Look at the roundup below, which took less than 20 minutes to track down. Every single one of these stories is fake news, starting with BuzzFeed’s debunked lie about President Trump telling his then-personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress.
Look at how NewsGuard and Microsoft openly and audaciously deceive their readers…
The Washington Post’s debunked hoax about Russia hacking Vermont’s utility grid — credible!!
The lie about first lady Melania Trump being an illegal alien — credible!!
The lie about Trump changing the name of Black History Month — credible!!
The lie about Trump threatening to invade Mexico — credible!!
The lie about Congress investigating a Russian fund with ties to Trump — credible!!
So why? Why are NewsGuard and Microsoft deliberately marking fake news as credible? Why are they looking to fool people into believing proven hoaxes are legitimate stories — even outrageous ones about the first lady coming to the country illegally?
This is all about 2020, my friends.
As I pointed out last week, NewsGuard marks as fake every single story Breitbart News publishes — not because the story is inaccurate, but because we report stories NewsGuard does not believe should be reported.

GEORGE ORWELL’S “1984”: MAGA KID WAS PERSECUTED FOR COMMITTING “FACECRIME”

1984: MAGA Kid Was Persecuted For Committing "Facecrime"

GEORGE ORWELL’S “1984”: 
MAGA KID WAS PERSECUTED FOR COMMITTING “FACECRIME”

Leftists enforced Orwellian notion that having the improper facial expression is politically incorrect

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/1984-maga-kid-was-persecuted-for-committing-facecrime/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Following the massive demonization of ‘MAGA kid’ Nick Sandmann for the crime of smirking, some of his supporters pointed out startling parallels to George Orwell’s 1984, in which citizens were persecuted for committing “facecrime”.
Even after video footage proved that Native American Nathan Phillips walked straight into the middle of a group of Covington High School teens and was not “mobbed” by them as the media had claimed, Sandmann was still crucified for smirking during the encounter.
In victimizing Sandmann over a facial expression, leftists are mimicking Big Brother’s treatment of dissidents who committed “face crime” in Orwell’s fictional dystopian classic.
Orwell writes about face crime in Part 1, Chapter 5 of 1984;
“The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.”
Another comment in relation to the book points out that a “person committed a face crime if he had a politically incorrect expression on his face at any time.”
null
In essence, that’s precisely what Sandmann was persecuted for since he merely stood his ground and adopted an expression, at no point attempting to provoke or get in Nathan Phillips’ face.
As we document in the video below, innumerable leftists also had Twitter meltdowns over Sandmann’s expression alone, claiming that it represented bigotry and white privilege.


NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO SIGNS ABORTION BILL ALLOWING MURDER OF UNBORN UP UNTIL BIRTH

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO SIGNS ABORTION BILL ALLOWING MURDER OF UNBORN 
UP UNTIL BIRTH
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2019/01/23/new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo-signs-abortion-bill-allowing-murder-of-unborn-up-until-birth/;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
ALBANY, N.Y. — Liberal New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who has decried what he calls “extreme conservative” politicians who impose on the people by law “their view of what God says should be done,” has signed into law a bill that expands abortion access in the state, allowing babies to be killed during the third trimester if they are not expected to survive or if they are deemed to threaten the health or life of the mother.
The Reproductive Health Act passed the state Senate 38-24 and the Assembly 92-47 on Tuesday—the day marking the 46th year of Roe v. Wade—and was quickly signed into law the same day by Cuomo, who was joined during the signing ceremony by Sarah Ragle Weddington, the attorney who had represented Roe before the Supreme Court.
As previously reported, Roe, who later came forward as Norma McCorvey, admitted in her 1994 book “I Am Roe” that her case was a lie, outlining that she made up the claim that she had been raped at the advice of her feminist attorneys to make her effort more convincing.
McCorvey also never obtained an abortion, but put her daughter up for adoption and went on to become a vocal pro-life advocate, even going to court in an effort to overturn the ruling.
“My decisions were wrong and I am fighting with every breath to change what has occurred,” McCorvey, who died in 2017, said in 2008.
Cuomo praised Waddington during his speech, and also presented her with an award for “public service,” telling her “God bless you” as he kissed her on the cheek.
“In many ways, Sarah, what you did is what we as a collective try to do. You made such a difference in your life. You’ve been such an example for so many. Rarely has such a precedent been so powerful for so long,” he stated. “And they way you did it, taking on all the odds—you couldn’t write a better story or heroism or courage or leadership.”
“Sarah, that is such a beautiful public service. That is such a precedent that had driven laws all across the nation,” Cuomo remarked.
He told those gathered that the event that he believed the bill was necessary because he feared that Roe v. Wade would be overturned by the Supreme Court and that he needed to “protect our state.” As previously reported, Cuomo had refused to sign the budget bill this coming April without the passage of the Reproductive Health Act.
“We should not be here in the first place. We should not have a federal government that is trying to roll back women’s rights,” Cuomo stated. “This administration defies American evolution. We’re supposed to be moving forward. We’re supposed to be advancing. We’re supposed to live and learn. We’re supposed to be growing.”
He again called for the presentation of a ballot initiative, which would codify what he called “a woman’s right to control her own body” in the New York Constitution. The constitutional amendment would be in addition to the legislation that he signed Tuesday evening, so as to prevent any efforts to restrict or do away with abortion in the state by future leadership.
Cuomo claimed that the issue is a matter of “equality,” comparing it to his efforts for “marriage equality.”
“This has been too long coming, and it has been too obvious and too unfair. Women’s equality in the law and in the constitution for all,” he stated, generating applause.
According to video footage posted online, the Senate chambers broke into standing cheers and applause after the bill was passed.

Photo Credit: Joseph Spector

One World Trade Center was also lit pink overnight to celebrate the passage of the so-called Reproductive Health Act, according to Joseph Spector of the Albany Democrat & Chronicle.
In addition to allowing babies to be aborted at any time if they deemed non-viable or if the mother’s health or life is stated to be jeopardized, the legislation also removes protections for babies who survive attempted abortions and eliminates language from criminal statutes that would prosecute an individual for acts that result in the death of an unborn baby. Non-physicians will additionally now be permitted to perform abortions.
“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality,” the bill reads. “Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of healthcare services.”
Groups such as New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms were among those who actively opposed the legislation, while also acknowledging that it would likely pass due to the Democratic control of the state legislature.
“New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms opposes the Reproductive Health Act in the strongest possible terms. We respectfully call upon members of the legislature to summon the courage and compassion to vote against it,” it wrote in a Memorandum of Opposition.
Among its numerous concerns, the organization lamented the legislation’s expansion into the “health” of the mother, which it believes is a broad term that could be utilized for virtually any reason. It pointed to the 1973 Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton, which determined that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
As previously reported, former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once outlined that the life or health of the mother is never a reason for an abortion as doctors will simply deliver the baby in order to save both lives.
“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life,” he said. “If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section.”
“[The doctor’s] intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby,” Koop continued. “The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
2 Kings 21:16 reads, “Moreover, Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.”
_____________________________________________________________

One World Trade Center Lit Up in Pink 

to Celebrate NY Abortion Law

EXCERPTS:
Entitled the Reproductive Health Act, New York’s latest abortion law allows termination of a pregnancy until the expected day of birth with certain limitations:
[An] abortion May be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.
Breitbart News reported:
The [Reproductive Health Act] also redefines “person” as “a human being who has been born and is alive,” eliminating the possibility of recognizing the personhood of an unborn child. During her presidential campaign in 2016, Hillary Clinton stated that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”
Breitbart News also highlighted the Reproductive Health Act’s ending of criminal penalties for self-abortion and harming or killing — with specific mention of  “homicide” — unborn children. 
_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
_______________________________________________________

THE TRUTH ABOUT 9 MONTH ABORTION LAW 

IN NEW YORK

Find out what the media is hiding 

about the state’s new bill

NY’s Barbaric New Ninth-Month Abortion Law Isn’t About Women – It’s About Money

New Abortion Law in New York is Outrageous!

How To Schedule Abortion At Nine Months Pregnant!

Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver challenges the Democrat talking point that “late-term abortions are only available for medical emergencies” by showing she was able to schedule an abortion appointment in her 9th month of pregnancy simply using the vague excuse of depression.

DAVID DALEIDEN, UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, DISMISSES SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS’S 2020 WHITE HOUSE BID~REMINDS ALL THAT SHE ORDERED A SWAT TEAM RAID OF HIS HOME TO SEIZE ABORTED BABY PARTS VIDEOS

DAVID DALEIDEN, UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, DISMISSES SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS’S 2020 WHITE HOUSE BID


Controversy is swirling over Senator Harris’ past criminal justice record. Undercover video journalist and pro-life advocate David Daleiden CLAIMS Harris once sent a SWAT team to raid his home when she was attorney general of California. One America’s Neil W. McCabe spoke to him about the situation.

Pro-Life Groups Demand Kamala Harris Resign After Raiding David Daleiden’s Home, Stealing Videos

1 485 486 487 488 489 787