CHINA TO PRESENT ITSELF AS DEFENDER OF GLOBALISM AT DAVOS, SWITZERLAND

CHINA TO PRESENT ITSELF AS DEFENDER OF GLOBALISM AT DAVOS, SWITZERLAND 
 European leaders snub forum despite focus on combating rise of populism
BY CLIFFORD CUNNINGHAM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Chinese President Xi Jingping is expected to aggressively
challenge President-elect Donald Trump and the growing number of
populist movements across Europe at the upcoming World Economic Forum
(WEF) in Davos.

While Premiers of China, including the
current Premier Li Keqiang, have attended Davos in the past, Jinping’s
attendance marks the first time a Chinese president (who also serves as
the head of the Chinese Communist Party) will attend the World Economic
Forum.
Jinping is expected to address his desire to move “economic globalization towards greater inclusiveness.”

“Clearly it signals that Xi Jinping is now interested in writing both
China and himself in a grander way on the global diplomatic horizon,” said
Orville Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the
Asia Society. “He feels it’s time to really come out. Behind that
probably is an assumption and wishful thinking that the U.S. is in
disarray, Europe is feckless, and so on.”

“He’ll be received almost as the number one citizen at Davos.”
The
organizers of the World Economic Forum, mindful of a rising populist
sentiment across Europe and the United States that resulted in a
successful referendum for the UK to leave the European Union and the
election of President Donald Trump, have cast this year’s theme as
“responsive and responsible leadership.”
“Every
simplified approach to deal with the global complex agenda is condemned
to fail. We cannot just have populist solutions,” said
Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum. “The problems we
face technologically, economically, socially and politically are so
tremendous, such that sustainable solutions requite a systemic, holistic
approach… and particularly the collaboration of all global
stakeholders, united in one mission – improving the state of the world.”
Despite
the inclusion of populism on the agenda, many European leaders have
paradoxically decided to not attend this year’s forum.
The
leaders of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have all indicated they
will not attend, opting to send their respective finance ministers
instead.
The United States
will be represented by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State
John Kerry; as the forum’s closing ceremony will take place just hours
before Trump is inaugurated, he will be represented by transition team
member Anthony Scaramucci.
VIDEO:

JEFF SESSIONS PLEDGES TO FOLLOW SUPREME COURT RULINGS UPHOLDING ABORTION & “GAY MARRIAGE”

 
JEFF SESSIONS PLEDGES TO FOLLOW SUPREME COURT RULINGS UPHOLDING ABORTION & “GAY MARRIAGE” 
BY HEATHER CLARK
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 WASHINGTON — Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, 
who has been nominated to serve as United States attorney general, told a
 congressional panel on Tuesday during his confirmation hearing that 
while he disagrees with Supreme Court rulings on abortion and 
homosexuality, he concedes that the decisions are the “law of the land” 
and will uphold them accordingly.

“You have referred to Roe v. Wade as ‘one of the worst,
colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time,’” Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, noted. “Is that still your view?”

“It is,” Sessions replied. “I believe it violated the Constitution, and really attempted to set policy and not follow law.”

But, he added, “It is the law of the land. It has been so
established and settled for quite a long time. It deserves respect, and I
would respect it and follow it.”

When asked later about the issue of same-sex “marriage,”
Sessions said that he likewise disagreed with the Supreme Court on the
matter, but will uphold the ruling regardless of his beliefs.

“[T]he president elect said that the issue of same-sex
marriage was ‘already settled; it’s law. It was settled in the Supreme
Court. It’s done, and I’m fine with that,’” Feinstein noted, quoting
from remarks made by Donald Trump during a November interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

She then asked Sessions, “Do you agree that the issue of same-sex marriage is settled law?”

“The Supreme Court has ruled on that. The dissents dissented
vigorously, but it was 5-4, and five justices on the Supreme Court. The
majority of the court has established the definition of marriage for
the entire United States of America, and I will follow that decision,”
he replied.

Feinstein then inquired how Sessions believes that Obergefell v. Hodges is the law, but Roe v. Wade is not.

“I haven’t said that a woman’s right to choose or Roe v.
Wade and its progeny is not the law of the land or not clear today, so I
would follow that law,” he contended.

Sessions had also been asked if he would ensure that rape
exceptions under the Hyde Amendment—which prohibits federal funds from
being used for abortion—are upheld, such as in cases when the woman
becomes pregnant as a result of sex trafficking. He likewise replied
that he would follow the law in such cases.

According to reports, Sessions serves as a Sunday school teacher at Ashland Place United Methodist Church in Mobile, Alabama.

 

ASSANGE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DESTROYING PUBLIC DOCUMENTS IN FINAL DAYS

ASSANGE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DESTROYING PUBLIC DOCUMENTS IN FINAL DAYS
BY MICHAEL TENNANT
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The Obama administration, in its waning days, is busily destroying
public records to protect its image, charged WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.

“Past administrations of both Democrat and Republican players have
engaged in mass destruction of records as they left office,” Assange said
in a live streamed press conference Monday. “We are told that
destruction of records is occurring now in different parts of the Obama
administration in different departments or agencies.”

“One understands the political motivation for it,” he explained, “but
to eliminate small political risks by destroying major elements of
history is, frankly, an obscenity.”

One needn’t go far back in history to find examples of administrations that “lost” or destroyed documents or e-mails, often those with political implications.

The most famous recent example, of course, is Hillary Clinton, who
maintained a private, unsecured e-mail server while serving as President
Barack Obama’s secretary of state and did not turn it over to the
government for archiving after leaving office. Obama later lied about his knowledge of this server, the existence of which enabled Clinton to withhold documents related to the Benghazi debacle from congressional investigators.

The Obama administration also destroyed all e-mails related to the operation that culminated in the alleged death of Osama bin Laden.

The George W. Bush administration, which destroyed videos documenting
the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture of detainees, claimed
to have lost some 22 million e-mails over the course of six years,
including all e-mails from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney
during certain periods. In reality, the administration “had simply shut
down the Clinton [administration’s] automatic e-mail archive,”
supposedly because of a server switch, wrote Newsweek.

The Clinton administration, Newsweek explained, had set up
the archive in the wake of a lawsuit “that prevented 6,000 White House
e-mail backup tapes from being erased” near the end of the George H.W.
Bush administration. That administration, like the Reagan administration
(which installed the first White House e-mail system) before it, did
not maintain e-mail archives despite the 1978 Presidential Records Act’s
mandate that all presidential and vice presidential records be
preserved. A large number of executive branch e-mails — the Bush
administration sent about 200 million — were, therefore, lost to
posterity, undoubtedly saving certain Reagan and Bush administration
figures from embarrassment, and possibly legal action, in their
retirement.

This is not to say the Clinton administration was a model of records
preservation. Numerous documents related to the Whitewater investigation
were later found in the personal residence of the Clinton White House.
And unlike Reagan — who also got key documents related to the
Iran-Contra affair shredded while he was in office — and the two
Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton has managed to get records destroyed or
disappeared even after leaving office. In 2003, Clinton’s national
security adviser, Sandy Berger, smuggled five terrorism-related
classified documents out of the National Archives and destroyed them,
for which he was fined $50,000 and sentenced to five years’ probation.
Last year, it emerged that documents related to the probe by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into the death of Clinton’s Deputy White
House Counsel Vince Foster had vanished from the National Archives, as had a two-terabyte hard drive from the Clinton administration.

Given all this, it would hardly be surprising to discover that Obama,
despite his promise of the “most transparent” administration in
history, was, as Assange asserts, even now trying to cover his tracks by
destroying documents.
Contrary to the repeated claims of Obama’s
supporters, his administration did have plenty of scandals that he would surely like to forget — and probably some that he hopes never come to light.

“Our philosophy is that such information [presidential records] is a
part of history. It belongs, legally and philosophically, to the
American people and more broadly, insofar as the United States interacts
with the world, it belongs to the people of the world,” Assange said.
“It is part of human history, and the destruction of major archives of
human history, frankly, should be formally listed as a crime against
humanity because those archives belong to humanity.”

WikiLeaks is offering a $30,000 reward for information leading to the
arrest or exposure of any Obama administration figures involved in the
destruction of documents. Assange urged “system administrators in the
Obama administration” to “take the data now” and then give it to
“WikiLeaks or other journalists at your leisure.”


“Get hold of that history and protect it,” Assange said, “because
that is something that belongs to humanity and does not belong to a
political party.”

UN DEMANDS MORE GLOBALIST PROPAGANDA IN SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS

UN DEMANDS MORE GLOBALIST PROPAGANDA 
IN SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS
BY ALEX NEWMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Under the direction of a known Communist Party operative from Bulgaria dogged by corruption charges,
the scandal-plagued United Nations “education” agency released a new
report demanding broad changes to school textbooks around the world. It
is the latest shot across the bow aimed at parental rights, local
control of education, and national sovereignty.


The goal of the “Global Education Monitoring Report
by the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
is fairly transparent: accelerate the indoctrination of impressionable
children worldwide with textbook propaganda promoting “global citizenship,” the discredited man-made global-warming theory,
homosexuality, transgenderism, and outright totalitarianism. And
according to the report itself, school textbooks are the best way to do
that.


“Few instruments shape children’s and young people’s minds more
powerfully than the teaching and learning materials used in schools,”
begins the report, hitting on something understood by every
mass-murdering tyrant from Chinese Communist Chairman Mao and Soviet
Communist Joseph Stalin to National Socialist Adolph Hitler. “Textbooks
convey not only knowledge but also social values and political
identities.”

The UN report focuses on whether the UN’s agenda for global
totalitarian rule is being promoted vigorously enough in school books.
The report seeks “to measure the extent to which global citizenship
education and education for sustainable development, … , are
mainstreamed in national education policies, curricula, teacher
education and student assessments,” reads the first page of the
revealing document. A German library of school textbooks from around the
world was used for the study.

The report, published by UNESCO in December, celebrates the fact
that, around the world, more and more captive students are being
bombarded with globalist propaganda through textbooks. The document is
filled with graphs gleefully highlighting the rapid expansion of
textbooks that promote the UN’s controversial causes across a range of
issues: globalism, pseudo-environmentalism, gender confusion,
multiculturalism, and more.

However, the report, also dubbed “Policy Paper 28,” laments that
students in some countries are still not receiving a satisfactory dose
of UN-backed indoctrination. Education authorities in numerous
countries, including the United States, came under fire in the UNESCO
document for failing to promptly incorporate the UN’s latest demands, as
outlined in the Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals.”   

Despite the “progress” in hijacking control of textbook content, the
UN claims much more must be done. “As this policy paper shows, textbooks
in many countries still fail to deal comprehensively, clearly and
fairly with concepts that are crucial,” the report claims, citing the UN’s
bizarre version of “human rights” (the opposite of individual God-given
rights as understood and protected in America by the Constitution)
, so-called “gender equality,” environmental activism, “social cohesion,” and more.

“All governments should urgently review and revise their textbooks to
ensure that the content covers these ideas, which are integral to
Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals,” the report continues,
with the reference to the illegal pseudo-treaty signed by Obama aiming to “transform our world,” as the UN puts it in the agreement. Perhaps not surprisingly, the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China boasted openly of its “crucial role” in creating the dictator-backed Agenda 2030. 

The relevant UN Agenda 2030 goal touted by UNESCO, which this magazine has cited on numerous occasions,
focuses on “education” in particular. It calls on the UN and
governments to “ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and
skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among
others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable
lifestyles, … global citizenship and appreciation of cultural
diversity.”

In other words, it not enough to just learn to love the UN’s totalitarian ideology of “sustainable development”;
children must be so thoroughly indoctrinated that they actually promote
it. UN Agenda 2030 is very clear in its plan to exploit and weaponize
young children, too, turning them into what the UN document refers to as
“critical agents of change.” The Agenda 2030 also says children “will
find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities
for activism into the creation of a better world.”

And throughout the new UNESCO report, the goal of exploiting and
indoctrinating children to demand global tyranny is crystal clear. On
environmentalism, for example, the UN’s agenda for turning kids into
globalist activists is transparent. “As well as ensuring that
environmental problems are seen as global issues, it is critical for
textbooks to develop students’ sense of agency,” the UNESCO report
declares.

In other words, impressionable young children must be taught to
believe that the UN must solve real and imagined “environmental
problems” because they are “global issues.” And the students must be
turned into activists demanding UN control over environmental issues,
the report argues. Throughout the report, textbooks that teach children
how to become pro-UN activists receive favorable coverage while those
that do not encourage activism by the children are chastised for not
doing enough. 

In the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, UNESCO complains that
“textbooks are primarily a medium for teaching children scientific facts
and make little to no effort to contextualize environmental education.”
Stated another way, schools books must not simply teach facts, but must
be weaponized and politicized to advance the UN’s agenda.

Global citizenship education
is also a frequent topic in the report and all throughout the UN’s
global indoctrination efforts masquerading as education. Fortunately for
readers, the UNESCO report even describes the real agenda. “Global
citizenship education aims to inculcate students with a notion of
belonging not just to their own country but to broader trans-national
and global entities,” the document explains.

Do you “belong” to “trans-national and global entities”? Your
children might think they do — at least if UNESCO gets its way. And
indeed, Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan boasted that UNESCO was his “global partner” in creating “green” global citizens
thoroughly indoctrinated in the UN’s dangerous “sustainable
development” ideology. Quoting a proud communist terrorist, Duncan spoke
of “education” as a “weapon” to “change the world.”  

Also coming under fire are school textbooks that show women and
mothers in “traditional roles,” including the performance of
“housework.” In some Turkish textbooks, UNESCO complains, “traditional
roles among the females in the house (mother, daughter) are portrayed in
the context of cooperation.” “Moreover, women are rarely depicted as
working women,” the report complains. In other words, in the UN’s view,
women are for working and paying taxes, not for being mothers, and to
suggest otherwise is to run afoul of the UN’s anti-family, pro-abortion
“gender equality” demands.

The report also complains that many textbooks around the world do not
sufficiently promote homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality,
transgenderism, and more. “While textbooks call for tolerance of
diversity, sexual diversity is repeatedly excluded,” the report
complains. Unsurprisingly, the Swedish government is praised by the
radical UN agency for promoting homosexuality and homosexual parenting
in school textbooks.

Other UNESCO “education” documents also call for the sexualization of children. The “International Guidelines for Sexuality Education” released in 2009, for instance, call for teaching children starting at age five that masturbation is “pleasurable.”
By age nine, children begin lessons on “aphrodisiacs,” “homophobia,”
“trans-phobia,” the alleged safety and desirability of legal abortion,
and various perversions. By age 15, the children learn how to “promote
the right to and access to safe abortion.” Agents of change, indeed.

Some textbooks used in American schools come under fire in the new
UNESCO report just for providing factual information — in this case,
true facts about alleged man-made climate change that challenges the
UN’s discredited narrative. “The textbooks not only cast doubt on the
causes of climate change but also emphasize its positive effects and
describing [sic] its negative effects as uncertain,” fume the UNESCO
authors, highlighting a textbook that points out the well-known fact
that not all scientists agree with the UN’s failed theory.

It also acts as if warming leading to increasing agricultural yields
were a taboo subject that cannot be uttered in the presence of children,
even while explicit sexual material is supposed to be not only
appropriate but mandatory for children under five years old. “None of
the textbooks analysed contained a call to action explicitly linking
student behavior or need to take mitigating actions,” the report added
about some American textbooks that fail to call on students to become
climate-justice warriors.

Ironically, despite the lip service given to non-violence, the UN’s
record in this area is sordid beyond belief. UN “peace” troops, for
example,
have rightly developed a reputation around the world as vicious
predators, with UN forces implicated in systematic rape and sexual
exploitation of children in virtually every country ever occupied
by the UN. Killings of unarmed protesters and civilians by UN forces also occur regularly, going back generations.

Schools run by the UN, meanwhile, were exposed yet again last year training Arab children to wage constant “holy war” against their Jewish neighbors.
By contrast, the UNESCO report criticizes some Western textbooks for
highlighting Islamic military history, arguing that the facts might lead
people to associate Islam with violence. 

As The New American has highlighted on multiple occasions,
textbooks are just one facet of the problem. The UN actually has a
transparent agenda to re-shape the ethics, values, beliefs, attitudes, and even the spirituality of children — according to the UN’s own top leaders.
“We have the collective duty to empower every child and youth with the
right foundations — knowledge, values and skills — to shape the future
as responsible global citizens,” declared UNESCO boss Irina Bokova, a longtime senior operative with the mass-murdering Bulgarian Communist Party.

Just last week, a UN group of self-styled “human rights experts” slammed a local school district in Connecticut and demanded that it choose new textbooks. And this is just the beginning, as the UN becomes increasingly bold and vicious in attacking U.S. independence, liberties, and self-government.

The latest UNESCO report on textbooks concludes with the
recommendation that textbooks around the world be revised as soon as
national governments’ curricula are updated to meet the UN’s demands for
the UN “sustainable development agenda.” “Guidelines explicitly related
to environmental issues, peace and global citizenship, sustainable
development, human rights and gender equality need to be integrated
within textbook review processes,” the document demands.

The report never does explain why the tiny group of fringe globalists
and communists running UNESCO and other radical UN bureaucracies should
have any say at all in school standards and textbooks used by American
children. Yet, the real agenda is clear: As every dictator of the 20th
century has understood, to be sustainable, tyranny must be inculcated in
the minds of the youth from an early age.

As of right now, U.S. law prohibits any American taxpayer funding for UNESCO. And the UN more broadly is skating on thin ice amid ongoing attacks on American freedoms and self-government.
But that is not nearly enough. The U.S. government should totally
withdraw from UNESCO, along with exiting and defunding the entire
dictators club that is the UN. The minds of the youth, and therefore the
future of freedom and self-government, literally depend on stopping the
rogue global organization from achieving its goals.


Related articles:  

UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism

UN Speaks Out Against School Textbooks in America

UN Goals for Humanity Target Children as “Agents of Change”

UN Schools Caught Teaching Arab Children to Wage Jihad on Jews

Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress

Homeschooling Offers Hope

UN: Gov’t Must Control Private Schools Because of “Human Rights”

UN Plots Future of Education: Creating Green “Global Citizens”

Common Core and UN Agenda 21: Mass Producing Green Global Serfs

Schooling for World Government: UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education Forum

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

UN Pushes Common Core-style Global Education Regime

UNESCO Report: Sex Guidelines for Kids From Birth

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

Corrupt Communist UNESCO Boss Leads Race for UN SG Job

ANARCHISTS ARE HOPING TO TURN TRUMP’S INAUGURATION INTO ONE OF THE BIGGEST RIOTS IN U.S. HISTORY

ANARCHISTS ARE HOPING TO TURN TRUMP’S INAUGURATION INTO ONE OF THE BIGGEST RIOTS 
IN U.S. HISTORY 

Revealed: Planned Disruption Of Election

  
Their stated goal is to “disrupt” the
Inauguration festivities as much as possible, and they are planning a
wide range of “actions” to achieve that stated goal
BY MICHAEL SNYDER
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Radical leftists are planning to make January 20th the most chaotic Inauguration Day in American history. 
Their
stated goal is to “disrupt” the Inauguration festivities as much as
possible, and they are planning a wide range of “actions” to achieve
that stated goal.  Some of the more moderate groups are using terms such
as “civil resistance” and “civil disobedience”, but others are openly
talking about “blockades”, jumping barricades, throwing projectiles and
“citywide paralysis”.  My hope is that all of their efforts will turn
out to be a big flop, but it is important to understand that these
groups are well funded, highly organized and extremely motivated.  The
election of Donald Trump has been perhaps the single most galvanizing
moment for the radical left in modern American history, and they are
working very hard to turn January 20th into a major political statement.
In fact, just recently one activist group took out a full page ad in the New York Times

Thousands of activists, journalists, scientists,
entertainers, and other prominent voices took out a full-page call to
action in the New York Times on Wednesday making clear their rejection of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence with the simple message: “No!”
“Stop
the Trump/Pence regime before it starts! In the name of humanity we
refuse to accept a fascist America!” the ad states, followed by a list
of signatories that includes scholar Cornel West; author Alice Walker;
Chase Iron Eyes of the Standing Rock Sioux; educator Bill Ayers; poet
Saul Williams; CNN‘s Marc Lamont Hill; Carl Dix of the Communist Party USA; and numerous others.

The ad pointed people to refusefascism.org, and it asserted that Trump must be stopped whether he was legitimately elected or not

Trump
promises to inflict repression and suffering on people in this country,
to deport millions, to increase violence up to the use of nuclear
weapons on people across the globe, and to inflict catastrophes upon the
planet itself. He has assembled a cabinet of Christian
fundamentalist fanatics, war mongers, racists, science deniers. NO! His
regime must not be allowed to consolidate. We REFUSE to accept a Fascist
America!

If you go to refusefascism.org,
you will discover that the protests that they are organizing in
Washington D.C. will begin on January 14th.  They say that they want to
“stop the Trump-Pence regime before it starts”, and they hope to have
protests going “every day and every night” without interruption through
at least January 20th.
Another group that plans to kick things off
on January 14th is DisruptJ20.  Of course that is short for “Disrupt
January 20th”.  If you go to their official website, you will find a long slate of events that have already been scheduled.
According
to Legba Carrefour, a spokesperson for DisruptJ20, one of the goals of
the group is to block major transportation routes into and throughout
our nation’s capital.  And he is not shy about the fact that they
literally want to “shut down the Inauguration”

“We are planning to shut down the inauguration, that’s the short of it,” he says. “We’re
pretty literal about that, we are trying to create citywide paralysis
on a level that I don’t think has been seen in D.C. before.
 We’re
trying to shut down pretty much every ingress into the city as well as
every checkpoint around the actual inauguration parade route.”

If Carrefour and his fellow conspirators are able to actually accomplish that, it truly would be unprecedented.
And while DisruptJ20 is not publicly advocating violence, they are not exactly discouraging it either…

Carrefour
says DisruptJ20 has no publicly announced plans to jump barricades
along the inauguration parade route or throw projectiles at the new
president, but that autonomous direct actions are encouraged.
“I
can’t comment on specific stuff we’re doing like that, mostly because
that would be illegal. But, yeah, it will get pretty crazy, I expect,”
he says. “‘Have fun!’ I say.”

After the
rioting that we have seen in Baltimore, Ferguson, Charlotte and many
other communities around the nation in recent years, I hope that
authorities are taking these threats quite seriously.
Once Donald
Trump won the election, many conservatives seemed to think that the war
was won.  But the truth of the matter is that many on the left were
completely blindsided by Trump’s surprise victory, and now that they are
fully awake they are gearing up for battle like never before.
And
these protests are not going to end on January 20th.  In fact, abortion
advocates are hoping to get close to a million women into Washington
D.C. on the day following the Inauguration to protest for abortion
rights.  Filmmaker Michael Moore is hoping that this march will be the
beginning of “100 days of resistance” against Trump’s presidency…

Filmmaker
and liberal icon Michael Moore has announced his plans to attend the
Women’s March on Washington to protest Donald Trump’s inauguration later
this month and has called for sore loser liberals to go further — by
staging protests acts of resistance through the first 100 days of
Trump’s presidency.
In an appearance, this weekend on
MSNBC’s The Last Word, the 62-year-old Trumpland and Fahrenheit 9/11
director made a “call to arms” to those opposed to Trump’s presidency to
join the Women’s March on Washington scheduled for January 21, the day
after the presidential inauguration.
“It’s important that everybody go there,” Moore told MSNBC’s Ari Melber.

Of
course it is easy to imagine how all of this could spiral wildly out of
control.  If Trump cracks down on these protests really hard in an
attempt to restore law and order, that could end up sparking a dramatic
backlash against his “police state tactics”.  And if the protests become
even bigger and more violent, Trump could respond by cracking down even
more harshly.
Let us hope for some really cold weather in D.C. at
the end of January so that as many troublemakers as possible get
discouraged and stay home.  Violent protests, blockades and riots aren’t
going to solve anything, and they could easily open fresh wounds in a
nation that is becoming more divided with each passing day.

SOROS CEMENTING CONTROL OVER EUROPE’S LEFT

 Soros Cementing Control Over Europe's Left
SOROS CEMENTING CONTROL OVER EUROPE’S LEFT 
 Globalist trying to stop anti-EU populism
BY WAYNE MADSEN
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Global hedge fund tycoon George Soros, recognizing that
growing numbers of European voters are turning away from the
corporate-controlled “social democratic” parties, is reining in
so-called “left” parties in order to cement his control over parties,
including SYRIZA in Greece and Five Star in Italy, that threaten the
cohesiveness of the European Union.

When SYRIZA in Greece
was able to form a government after the repeated electoral failures of
the establishment corporate conservative and social democratic, Soros
and his American National Endowment for Democracy (NED) moved in to
exercise control over SYRIZA leaders.
The first thing the
previously Euro-skeptical SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras did when he
became prime minister in 2015 was to embrace the EU-directed draconian
austerity measures that swept him into office in the first place.
 The first clue that Tsipras and SYRIZA would sell out to the EU bankers
and the Soros-funded globalist interests in Europe was his choice of
former Brookings Institution fellow, the Greco-Australian Yanis
Varoufakis, as finance minister.

Varoufakis, a Soros plant, immediately set out to work out agreements
with his fellow EU finance minister, as well as with the Euro-bankers.
To
ensure that SYRIZA’s leftists could be held in check, Tsipras was
forced to conclude a coalition agreement with the Independent Greeks, a
breakaway party from the conservative and pro-EU/pro-NATO New Democracy
party.
With SYRIZA’s bona fide leftists outraged by Tsipras’s
selling out to the EU and bankers, his coalition partners, the Left
Platform and the Internationalist Workers Left faction, bolted from
SYRIZA to form Popular Unity.
The Greek Communist Party and
Popular Unity serve as the only true leftist bulwark against the Soros
schemers in the rest of Greek leftist politics.
After Italian
prime minister Matteo Renzi lost his December 4, 2016, referendum to
limit the power of Italy’s regional governments and curb the power of
the Italian Senate, the Sorosites in Italy became alarmed that Italy was
becoming another loose cog in the EU machinery.
Renzi’s
government resigned as a result of the “No” vote, which was likened to
the BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
The leading Italian Euro-skeptic party is the Five Star Movement (M5S) of Italian comedian Beppe Grillo.
Five
Star formed a Euro-skeptic bloc in the European Parliament with
Britain’s UK Independence Party (UKIP), for which Nigel Farage is the
leading spokesman.
Moreover, Five Star politicians campaigned against Renzi’s referendum.
Soros, working from behind the scenes in New York and London, engineered a coup over this past weekend.
Grillo
was convinced to abandon his alliance with UKIP and offer to join the
European Parliament’s extremely pro-EU bloc — the Alliance of Liberals
and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).
The leader of ALDE is one of
Farage’s oratory sparring partners in the parliament, the boyish-looking
former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt.
After the BREXIT
vote, Verhofstadt, an uncompromising European federalist, was named the
EU’s chief BREXIT negotiator, a move intended to make the UK’s
withdrawal from the EU as financially and politically painful as
possible for the country.
Grillo showed the world his puppet
strings to Soros when he announced that the Five Star Movement and ALDE
shared a “common vision” for European unity.
The shift in Five
Star’s political leanings from anti-EU to pro-EU was a political
bombshell that will weaken the opposition to the EU within Italy.
And that has been Soros’s plan all along.
There was one major glitch for Five Star and Grillo.
ALDE refused to permit Five Star to join its parliamentary bloc.
However,
the damage was done. The anti-EU Five Star, which has wrested control
of the mayors’ offices of Rome and Turin, had been exposed as a Soros
front.
It can be expected that Five Star’s embrace of the EU will result in a split in the party.
Two
leading members of Five Star, Giovanni Favia and Federica Salsi, were
expelled by Grillo after they questioned his fascist tendencies to make
all the decisions without input from other party disciples.
Many former Five Star officials concluded that the party was nothing more than a cult following for Grillo.
But
for Soros, such cultist movements are fodder for his operations, as
previously seen with the loyal cult followers of Tsipras and Varoufakis
in Greece.

 

OBAMA HAS GIVEN IRAN $700 MILLION MONTHLY, TOTALLING OVER $10 BILLION SINCE NUCLEAR DEAL

 OBAMA’S TREASON: 

AIDING & ABETTING THE ENEMY

$10 BILLION OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS’ MONIES GIFTED TO TERRORIST SUPPORTING IRAN

Obama administration has given Iran $700 million each month since nuke deal signed, totaling over $10 billion

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/obama-administration-has-given-iran-700-million-each-month-since-nuke-deal-signed-totaling-over-10-billion;

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

 “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer
death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under
this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding
any office under the United States.”

There ought to be an investigation into whether Obama’s actions
regarding Iran, where the mullahs have ordered the people to chant
“Death to America!” in the mosques every Friday, constitute treason.


This money is going to pay for a great deal of jihad terror.

“Iran: U.S. Surrendered More Than $10 Billion in Gold, Cash, Assets,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 9, 2017:

The Obama administration has paid Iran more than $10
billion in gold, cash, and other assets since 2013, according to Iranian
officials, who disclosed that the White House has been intentionally
deflating the total amount paid to the Islamic Republic.

Senior Iranian officials late last week confirmed reports that the
total amount of money paid to Iran over the past four years is in excess
of $10 billion, a figure that runs counter to official estimates
provided by the White House.
The latest disclosure by Iran, which comports with previous claims
about the Obama administration obfuscating details about its cash
transfers to Iran—including a $1.7 billion cash payment included in a
ransom to free Americans—sheds further light on the White House’s back
room dealings to bolster Iran’s economy and preserve the Iran nuclear
agreement.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi confirmed last week a recent report in the Wall Street Journal
detailing some $10 billion in cash and assets provided to Iran since
2013, when the administration was engaging in sensitive diplomacy with
Tehran aimed at securing the nuclear deal.
Ghasemi disclosed that the $10 billion figure just scratches the
surface of the total amount given to Iran by the United States over the
past several years.
“I will not speak about the precise amount,” Ghasemi was quoted as saying in Persian language reports independently translated for the Washington Free Beacon.
The $10 billion figure is actually a “stingy” estimate, Ghasemi
claimed, adding that a combination of cash, gold, and other assets was
sent by Washington to Iran’s Central Bank and subsequently “spent.”
“This report is true but the value was higher,” Ghassemi was quoted as saying.
“After the Geneva conference and the resulting agreement, it was
decided that $700 million dollars were to be dispensed per month” by the
U.S., according to Ghassemi. “In addition to the cash funds which we
received, we [also] received our deliveries in gold, bullion, and other
things.”
Regional experts who spoke to the Free Beacon about these
disclosures said that the $10 billion figure offered by the Obama
administration should be viewed “as a conservative estimate for what
Iran was paid to stay at the table and negotiate.”<…

UN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS IN AMERICA

 http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/spanish/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Ricardo-Sunga-big.jpg
ABOVE: RICARDO SUNGA OF THE U.N.:
“These deeply offensive texts
should be replaced with accurate depictions of history which convey the
message of the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings,” Sunga
was quoted as saying, adding that textbooks the UN disagrees with “may
lead to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, Afrophobia and
related intolerance.” 
UN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS 
IN AMERICA 
BY ALEX NEWMAN 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

After the United Nations was exposed last year indoctrinating vulnerable Arab children at UN schools to wage jihad on Jews, the scandal-plagued global body is now meddling in the selection of textbooks for American students. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, in America, school textbook selection has traditionally
been a responsibility of individual teachers, schools, or perhaps a
local school district elected and controlled by the community. Yet as
the UN increasingly seeks more control and influence across every area of life, education and the minds of children are just the latest target — albeit an extremely important one for the furtherance of the UN’s controversial Agenda 2030 for global governance.
In fact, through the UN “education” agency UNESCO, the global body is seeking to dictate school textbook content to promote its agenda globally. And top UN officials regularly brag about seeking to shape the attitudes, values, ethics, and even spirituality of children worldwide.
The UN brouhaha involving textbooks in the United States began as a
simple local matter that would not have attracted attention even one
state over. On November 29, a student’s mother complained to local
school-district officials about a social studies book being used in
Norwalk public schools. The book in question, known as The Connecticut Adventure,
came under fire for what critics called a “paternalistic,”
“simplistic,” and “insensitive” comment on slavery in the state’s
history.

The relevant section of the book reads: “Compared to other colonies,
Connecticut did not have many slaves. Some people owned one or two
slaves. They often cared for and protected them like members of the
family. They taught them to be Christian, and sometimes to read and
write.”
Less than a week after the complaint, local officials announced that
the book would no longer be used. “The portion of the textbook minimizes
the impact and implications of slavery from the perspective of many
constituents in the Norwalk community,” wrote Norwalk Public Schools
Chief Academic Officer Michael Conner in a letter addressed to parents.
Meanwhile, the publisher promptly announced revisions to the relevant sections of the book.
And that should have been the end of it. But it was not.
Somewhere along the line, a team of self-styled UN “human-rights
experts” caught wind of the story, and decided to try to exploit yet
another local issue to justify the UN outfit’s existence, to demonize
America, and to meddle in what should have been a local matter for local
elected officials.
“The chapter discussing the history of slavery in Connecticut is a
distortion of the true nature of enslavement,” fumed Ricardo Sunga, a
self-styled “human rights expert” who, despite not being African, leads
the UN “Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.” That
paternalistic outfit was established by the dictator-controlled UN “Human Rights” Council to supposedly stand up for Africans and their descendants, as if they needed special UN protection.   

In a press release posted on the UN News Center and the website of UN human rights chief Zeid Hussein,
a prince of an Islamic dictatorship, Sunga instructed local American
school officials as if he were in charge. “These deeply offensive texts
should be replaced with accurate depictions of history which convey the
message of the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings,” Sunga
was quoted as saying, adding that textbooks the UN disagrees with “may
lead to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, Afrophobia and
related intolerance.”

In a bit of irony, instead of choosing an African to run the UN
Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the UN chose
Sunga III from the Philippines, a country that surveys show is one of the most racist countries in the world.
The same UN outfit last year visited America to demand reparations for
slavery, more infringements on the constitutionally protected rights to
self-defense and to keep and bear arms, an end to voter ID laws, and
much more.

It was not clear why the UN could not find an African or at least a
person of African descent to lead the UN Working Group of Experts on
People of African Descent. The outfit’s previous boss, Mireille
Fanon-Mendes-France, is from France, though at least she reportedly had
an African ancestor on one side of the family. Critics said the lack of
African leaders for the African group might reflect institutional UN
bigotry.
But if the non-African leaders of the UN African group want to find
real terror aimed at Africans, they can look much closer to their own
offices. Indeed, if actions speak louder than words, the UN’s alleged
concern for “People of African Descent” is something of a cruel joke. Non-stop
scandals on the systematic rape and exploitation of children in Africa
by UN “peace” troops have been swirling around the controversial
organization for decades
.
In one African town, for instance, a survey cited by BBC revealed that eight out of 10 underage girls admitted to being regularly raped and sexually abused by UN troops. Separately, UN troops killed potentially tens of thousands of Haitians via carelessly spreading cholera recently, then claimed immunity. UN forces and their proxies have also mercilessly slaughtered and terrorized African civilians amid efforts to enforce submission to communist or Islamist strongmen
When it comes to Africa, the UN and its oftentimes brutal
“peacekeeping” forces have become infamous for terrorizing and abusing
Africans, for extreme corruption, and for other lawlessness. Yet rather
than cleaning up its own house, the UN prefers to demonize America,
where its armies of self-styled “experts” always have a lot to say about
alleged racism.
For example, in July, following the murder of five Dallas police
officers by at least one racist “black power” activist who said he hated
whites, the UN
put out an official press release touting “black lives matter” and
blasting American law enforcement for “structural racism.”
The UN’s
“experts” on “people of African descent” — the same bureaucrats
attacking local school officials in Connecticut — also called for
prosecuting and punishing local police officers involved in two fatal
shootings, before investigations were even complete.
“We call for prompt independent investigations to ensure the
perpetrators are prosecuted and punished,” declared Sunga III, seemingly
unaware that multiple independent investigations were ongoing. The UN
bureaucrat might also have been unaware that, in America, at least,
decisions on whether to prosecute people are generally taken after
investigations have been completed. Decisions on whether to punish,
meanwhile, are made by a jury, after a court case featuring due process
of law, constitutional protections that under most UN member states
would be inconceivable.
But on textbooks, at least, it is not just Americans under UN attack
over what is taught (or not) in school: Africans are also under fire by
the UN for choosing textbooks the UN dislikes. In Africa and beyond,
school children and the textbooks they read are being targeted, in
particular, by the communist-controlled UN “education” agency known as UNESCO.
Just last month, UNESCO issued a “Global Education Monitoring
report blasting education authorities in Uganda, Kenya, Algeria,
Zimbabwe, and other nations because they chose textbooks that allegedly
show women in “traditional roles,” including “housework.” The report
also complains that school textbooks used in Africa do not sufficiently
promote “global citizenship,” homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality,
transgenderism, global-warming alarmism, and more.
The UN even argues that private schools must be made to submit as a requirement of what it calls “international law.” UNESCO also has a radical scheme known as the “World Core Curriculum” that its minions hope to impose on schools around the world, along with everything from pseudo-history and quack reading schemes to programs for the sexualization of children.
Where the UN does directly control education, though, its lessons
range far from promoting equality, peace, and goodwill toward others. As
The New American reported last year,
UN schools run by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and funded by
U.S. taxpayers were caught on video brainwashing Arab children to
glorify terrorism and wage constant war against their Jewish neighbors.
In the documentary “The UNRWA Road to Terror: Palestinian Classroom
Incitement” released last year by a pro-Israel watchdog group, UN
schools were even exposed offering military-style jihad training to
young Arab children.
“The thing to understand is that these schools, they’ve developed a
full-scale military-training system,” said David Bedein, director of the
group behind the documentary exposing UN schools. “How many people
realize that there’s military training going on in these camps? It’s not
even just hate education, it’s war education. The education for the
last 16 years, the school system has been devoted to indoctrinating
children to make war on the Jews.”
With each press release attacking the United States, America’s system
of limited constitutional government, and the liberties of the American
people, the UN further delegitimizes itself. The latest brouhaha over
textbooks in a Connecticut school district, of all things, is a perfect
example. In fact, the whole situation illustrated why local control
works well and centralized control is undesirable and dangerous: An
offensive segment was found in a school book, the matter was raised by a
parent at a local school district meeting, and then the book was
removed from use after a week-long probe.
Imagine how much harder such an effort would be, if not impossible,
if the selection of school textbooks was actually a state, federal, or
even UN responsibility. Plus, if the UN and its largely dictatorial
member regimes succeed in dictating textbook content and selections,
consider the extreme and violent ideologies of the member regimes that
would be making the decisions —
hard-line Islamists, communists, mass-murderers, genocidal war lords,
and others would all have a say in what little Johnny learns at school
, while parents would have virtually none.
Instead of focusing on school textbooks in the United States, the UN
might spend more time worrying about what it will do if and when U.S.
taxpayers get fed up and quit providing the estimated $10 billion
annually. Right now, leading members of Congress are working on plans to defund the UN. Other lawmakers, citing attacks on American freedom and allies, are working on the American Sovereignty Restoration Act to end U.S. membership in the UN altogether.
Americans seeking an American exit from the UN, or an Amexit,
can be thankful that the UN continues to provide more reasons to pursue
a U.S. withdrawal on an almost daily basis. But despite the absurdity
of the dictators club meddling in a local Connecticut school district’s
book selections, the UN is no laughing matter. For the sake of liberty,
it should be shut down.

Related articles:
UN Schools Caught Teaching Arab Children to Wage Jihad on Jews
After Dallas Cop Killings, UN Touts “Black Lives Matter”
UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism
Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress
Homeschooling Offers Hope
Ex-Textbook Company Exec. Admits: Common Core Has Anti-American, Anti-Christian Agenda
Twisting Children’s Minds With School Textbooks
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
UN: Gov’t Must Control Private Schools Because of “Human Rights”
UN Plots Future of Education: Creating Green “Global Citizens”
Common Core and UN Agenda 21: Mass Producing Green Global Serfs
Schooling for World Government: UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education Forum
Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN
Congress Planning to Defund UN as Critics Seek Full Withdrawal
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
http://www.trunews.com/article/un-us-should-pay-blacks-reparations-for-racist-past 
AND:
 UN Demands More Globalist Propaganda in School Textbooks 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/25111-un-demands-more-globalist-propaganda-in-school-textbooks 

“RACIST” CHARGES & LIES BY DELAWARE’S CHRIS COONS & DEMOCRATS AGAINST JEFF SESSIONS

“RACIST” CHARGES & LIES BY DELAWARE’S CHRIS COONS & DEMOCRATS AGAINST JEFF SESSIONS
 NO PROOF OF RACISM:
SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions
SENATOR CHRIS COONS KNOWS DELAWARE WAS A SLAVE OWNING STATE!
 http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160630080814-coons-lynch-clinton-meeting-cuomo-intv-newday-00000000-super-tease.jpg

WILMINGTON

 1105 N. Market St.
Suite 100
Wilmington, DE 19801-1233
Phone: (302) 573-6345

 

DOVER

500 W. Loockerman St.
Suite 450
Dover, DE 19904
Phone: (302)736-5601
Toll-Free (877) 668-3368

WASHINGTON, D.C.

127A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone:(202) 224-5042

_________________________________________________

Jeff Sessions Forces Racist Media To Eat Their Lies 

 

Published on Jan 10, 2017

The
confirmation hearings for President Elect Donald Trump’s cabinet began
with Senator Jeff Sessions confirmation as The United States Attorney
General. Of course activists fed lies by the mainstream media and the
Democratic Party disrupted the proceedings.

Senator Sessions addressed those concerns admirably.

But the Democrats still questioned Sessions two decades of experience, twisting it to meet their jaded perspective.

Senator
Sessions held his ground and answered truthfully. A tactic that has
been all but non existent during the previous two Attorney General
candidates.

 

OBAMA’S LEGACY IS AMERICA’S LEGACY

OBAMA’S LEGACY IS AMERICA’S LEGACY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By Bradlee Dean
January 11, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
Find
out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.

-Fredrick Douglass
Legacy:
Anything handed down from the past, as from a predecessor.
Over
the last couple of weeks, we have been hearing much of Barack Obama
and his legacy. In other words, we have been hearing about what state
he has left America in.
I
can sum up his legacy for you in short order here:

He is a narcissist, usurper-in-chief, (Isaiah 14) dictator wannabe

He is a liar-deceiver-a fraud-an imposter
(2 Corinthians 11:14)
He is a thief (John 12:6)
He is a racist
He is a sodomite (Romans 1:24)
He is a Communist- Muslim sympathizer, a
Marxist, and a devil worshipper (See Rules
for Radicals
)
Barack’s
Master
[YouTube
Video
]

He is a terrorist
ISIS
is the modern day version of Hitlers SS

He is, literally in everyway, is America’s enemy!
But
American already knew this (Leviticus 26:17).
He
has warred against American freedoms, our God, our rights, our Constitution,
our veterans, our patriots, our unborn, our families, etc. He is the
enemy to everything that we, as Americans, stand for. This is his legacy.
When
the White House attacks
[YouTube
Video
]
Recently,
a self proclaimed law professor on Fox News explained in one sentence
what is wrong with this country. He said, “The president can do
whatever he wants, he is the president” (Psalm 94:20).
So
it stands true, that they will always do whatever you let them get away
with.
Lord
Acton was correct when he stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Remember,
today’s conservatives are yesterday’s liberals. The law
professor (sworn to the bar, not the Constitution mind you) I mentioned
was talking about how Barack
Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah
, the foreign agent in the people’s
White House who has 47 different social security numbers and a fake
birth certificate, somehow can do whatever he wants.
Foreign
enemy within attacking
Treason
[YouTube
Video
]
I
guess somewhere, I have yet to read it anywhere in any founding document,
some people have gotten the idea that any president can do whatever
he wants to. That is not true! As long as the people believe it to be
so, it must be true, right? That is not true. Apparently, what this
law professor said was true because the people in this country have
given Obama a free hand to do whatever he wants to do. I guess that
is all he has to do is call it an “executive order,” and
like a magic wand, it somehow becomes law. 
Executive
orders
[YouTube
Video
]
It
seems that this law professor, along with the American people, have
not taken the time to understand that government in this country is
limited to the confines of constitutional law, which are found in our
Constitutional
Republic
, and can run off the powers that have been delegated to
them by the people, who elect them as representatives on their behalf
to exercise that authority.
America’s
legacy is Barack Hussein Obama’s legacy. Americans have tolerated
a foreigner within to destroy at will (Deuteronomy 28:36).
Americans
have tolerated this criminal to advocate what God clearly condemns (Jeremiah
2:5), and disobey the God of Israel by giving a free hand to him who
said at the offset of his unlawful incumbency that he would “Fundamentally
transform America
.” Instead of taking responsibility and throwing
off this criminal
administration
(Article 2, section 4 & Article 3, section 3
of the united States Constitution) and indicting every one of them,
Americans let him do it.
If
it is not so, then I ask, How can two walk together unless they be agreed?
(Amos 3:3) This is America’s legacy.
Listen
to Bradlee Dean on The Sons of Liberty Radio Here
________________________________________________________

Barack Obama’s Master- Saul Alinsky

When the White House Attacks America’s Military

Treason Within – As Long as He is Smiling!

Unconstitutional and Illegal Executive Orders;

I Will Not Comply!



REZA ASLAN: A MUSLIM “WILL & GRACE” WILL CURE “ISLAMOPHOBIA”

REZA ASLAN: A MUSLIM “WILL & GRACE” WILL CURE “ISLAMOPHOBIA” 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“What changed people’s minds was ‘Will and Grace,’ was ‘Modern
Family,’ was watching people who were gay on television being, you know,
‘normal,’” says the establishment propaganda media’s favorite Muslim,
Reza Aslan, as he threatens to inflict upon us a self-righteous,
fatuous, virtue-signaling Muslim family sitcom. Because, you see,
“stories have the power to breakthrough the walls that separate us into
different ethnicities, different cultures, different nationalities,
different races, different religions.” And, apparently, forget about
jihad terror. Because “bigotry is not a result of ignorance, it’s a
result of fear.”
This is just another spurious claim of Muslim victimhood from someone
who has made a tidy living in the Muslims-Are-Victims industry, Reza
Aslan. And it is more muddled thinking from a spectacularly muddled
thinker. The fallacy of his reasoning lies in the fact that when “Will
& Grace” aired, there were no international gay terror groups
mounting terror attacks in the U.S. and around the world, and boasting
of their imminent conquest of the U.S. The suspicion that Americans have
of Islam comes from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, not from
bigotry, and Americans know this distinction, despite the best efforts
of people like Reza Aslan to obscure it and make people feel guilty for
opposing jihad terror. Some slick TV show depicting funny, warm,
attractive, cuddly Muslims would not end jihad terror, or blunt concern
about it — it would only serve to further the idea that resisting jihad
violence was somehow “bigoted.”
This is not the first time Aslan has revealed his abject intellectual vacuity. He regularly makes howling errors of fact, including his ridiculous claim that the idea of resurrection “simply doesn’t exist in Judaism,” despite numerous passages to the contrary in the Hebrew Scriptures. He has also referred to “the reincarnation, which Christianity talks about” — although he later claimed that one was a “typo.” In yet another howler he later insisted was a “typo,” he claimed that
the Biblical story of Noah was barely four verses long — which he then
corrected to forty, but that was wrong again, as it is 89 verses long.
Aslan claimed that the “founding philosophy of the Jesuits” was “the
preferential option for the poor,” when in reality, that phrase wasn’t even coined until 1968. He called Turkey the second most populous Muslim country, when it is actually the eighth most populous Muslim country. He thinks Pope Pius XI, who issued the anti-fascist encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, was a fascist. He thinks Marx
and Freud “gave birth to the Enlightenment,” when it ended in the late
18th century, before either of them were born. He claims that “the very
first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery,” when in fact Muhammad bought slaves, took female captives as sex slaves, and owned slaves until his death. He thinks Ethiopia and Eritrea are in Central Africa.
A “renowned religious scholar” such as Reza Aslan should not make
such elementary mistakes. But this is, of course, the man who writes “than” for “then”; apparently thinks the Latin word “et” is an abbreviation; and writes “clown’s” for “clowns.” Aslan
is less a “religious scholar” than he is a marginally literate,
unevenly educated charlatan with a talent for telling the mainstream
media what it wants to hear. And here is some more of it:

“Reza Aslan: A Muslim ‘Will & Grace’ Will Change American Perceptions Of Islam,” by Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics, January 4, 2017:

Writer Reza Aslan thinks a Muslim Will & Grace or Modern Family could truly change American perceptions of Islam.

REZA ASLAN: You are, according to the FBI, more likely to
die as the result of faulty furniture, than by an Islamic terrorist.
So, you should really be scared of your La-Z-Boy. For a very long time,
really the only Muslims that you saw on TV were the Muslim villain, Who
would scream “Allahu Akbar” and then blow himself up….
After about ten years of being cable news’s favorite Muslim I’ve come
to the realization that I don’t think it’s doing any good. Bigotry is
not a result of ignorance, it’s a result of fear. And fear is impervious
to data, fear is impervious to information. The only way that you’re
gonna dissipate that fear is by getting people to know someone that
they’re afraid of.
In this country, we went from overwhelming majorities who were
against same-sex marriage to overwhelming majorities supporting same-sex
marriage, within the span of a couple of years.
What changed people’s minds was “Will and Grace,” was “Modern
Family,” was watching people who were gay on television being, you know,
‘normal.’
They’re struggling with the same issues that you’re struggling with.They are human beings.
And so for the last few years, I’ve decided that what I’m gonna do is
try to change people’s minds through pop culture, through film and
television. Stories have the power to breakthrough the walls that
separate us into different ethnicities, different cultures, different
nationalities, different races, different religions.Because they hit us
at the human level.

________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

 BBC accused of “Islamophobia” for satirizing the Islamic State in “The Real Housewives of ISIS”

ROBERT SPENCER ON THE WAR ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT; VIDEO & TEXT

ROBERT SPENCER ON THE WAR ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT; VIDEO & TEXT
 The ground we’ve lost during the Obama years — and the dangerous
consequences for national security. I’ve posted this video before, but
here is a transcript as well.

Below are the video and transcript to Robert
Spencer’s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration
Weekend. The event was held Nov. 10th-13th at the Breakers Resort in
Palm Beach, Florida.

Robert Spencer: Thank you very much.  It’s great to
be here on this occasion.  I’m here year after year and this is
certainly the happiest Restoration Weekend I’ve been to and very happy
to say we won’t have Chick Nixon to kick around anymore.  Come on.  The
fact is that Hillary Clinton’s defeat is a very, very serious victory
not only for the Second Amendment, but for the First and this is
something that has been insufficiently appreciated in all the commentary
before the election and after.  Donald Trump, of course, he went after
her many times saying Hillary Clinton is against the Second Amendment,
she’s going to stop the sale of lawful weaponry in every way she
possibly can, but he never spoke about the threat that she posed to the
First Amendment and that is an ongoing threat and a still existing
threat and it’s very important to bear that in mind because even though
she was defeated, this threat has not gone away.  The left is in a full
court press and a year’s long effort to destroy the First Amendment and
essentially to criminalize any point of view that is not their own and
this is a struggle that they are going to continue.  Now, there are
many, many facets of this.  One is, of course, the most notable one I
should say, is the organization of Islamic cooperation, which is 57
Islamic governments around the world, 56 states and the Palestinian
Authority, the largest voting block at the United Nations, and they of
course for years now since the publication of the Danish Cartoons of
Mohammed in 2006 they have been working to restrict the freedom of
speech and to compel Western states to restrict the freedom of speech at
the UN.

I know a lot of you are familiar with that effort and that they have,
under the guise of what they call “incitement to religious hatred,”
been trying to compel Western governments to criminalize essentially
criticism of Islam.  Obviously, when you talk about incitement through
religious hatred, any kind of incitement, unless it’s absolutely direct
and explicit, is a subjective judgment in the first place.  Secondly,
nobody cares when people put crucifixes in jars of urine or mock Israel
and Judaism.  Nobody cares about those things.  They only care about
religious hatred in an Islamic context, and the most insidious aspect of
this endeavor, this initiative, is of course that any honest discussion
of how Islamic Jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify
violence is classified explicitly by the OIC as incitement to religious
hatred.  So, what they want to do is criminalize any discussion of the
motivating ideology behind Jihad terrorism and the goal of that, of
course, is to enable Jihad terrorists to advance unopposed and
unimpeded.

Now, this has been going on for years.  It’s been going on since the
Bush Administration and the Bush Administration at the UN vetoed these
initiatives every year, but then of course came Barack Hussein Obama and
twice the United States signed on to these initiatives and actually
cosponsored one with Egypt in 2009 and even more notoriously signed on
to Resolution 1618 of the UN Human Rights Council, which once again
called upon UN member states to criminalize incitement to religious
hatred and then had a little asterisk going to a footnote explaining
that yes, the UN understood that there were certain countries that had
protection for the freedom of speech and they would have to devise other
ways to implement this initiative that would not collide with their
laws.  Now that was the most insidious aspect of the whole thing and
Hillary Clinton explained what it was all about not long after that in a
speech in Istanbul to the OIC. And she said, and I know many of you
have heard this quote, many of you are very well aware of what she said
in this, but I think that not many of you are aware of exactly how this
initiative is proceeding.  What she said of course was that we value the
freedom of expression, which she doesn’t, but she said that she did and
that in light of protecting the freedom of expression as well as
protecting religious sensibilities, in order to compel people not to do
what we don’t want them to do, we have to resort to, she said,
old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming. Remember when she
said that?  This is exactly how the Western media has proceeded in
order, essentially, not to criminalize, but to rule out of the realm of
acceptable discourse any honest discussion of these issues.

What happened to Oleg in his presentation just now is actually a case
in point.  He’s not facing a felony charge for using the wrong kind of
glue.  C’mon, we weren’t born yesterday.  We know that if he had been
putting up posters for the Palestinians there would have been no problem
at George Mason University, but because he was putting up pro-Israel
posters from the David Horowitz Freedom Center suddenly all these rules
about glue kick in and he goes to jail.  Now, peer pressure and shaming
is essentially a strategy that makes it impossible for us to discuss
these matters because of exactly that kind of bias and favoritism.  Only
one point of view is acceptable and any other point of view is
something that we’re going to be shamed out of.  You can just think
about how many times Trump supporters were mocked, ridiculed.

I read a piece by Paul Berman from December 2015.  I re-read it a few
months ago.  I recommend that you find it and read it.  It was in
Tablet Magazine and he explains how Trump gives his poorly educated,
redneck racist supporters permission to hate.  Now what is that but peer
pressure and shaming?  People read that in Tablet and they think, “Oh,
well, I don’t want to be one of those.  I don’t want to have permission
to hate.  I don’t want to be a racist redneck yahoo,” and so they’re
shamed out of it. The objective, the goal is — I would hope that nobody
was foolish enough to read that and think, “Oh, I better not support
Donald Trump” — but the goal of it was to shame his supporters out of it
and this is something that goes on. It manifests itself in all kinds of
forms.  Of course, the primary vehicles for this peer pressure and
shaming is the whole concept of hate speech.  Now, hate speech is really
pretty straightforward.  If somebody is speaking hatefully and saying
that you’re a terrible person, you ought to be killed, you ought to be
beaten up, that’s pretty hateful, but hate speech as a concept, hate
speech as something that ought to be a consideration in determining who
gets a platform and who doesn’t is an entirely spurious fiction, an
invention of the left in order to silence those with whom it disagrees
in order to silence us.  That’s what hate speech is all about.

I was speaking a couple years ago at Cal Poly University in San Luis
Obispo, wonderful little town, and very nice crowd and some very good
questions during the presentation.  At one point I said that there was
actually restriction on the freedom of speech on the Cal Poly campus and
people said, “What? What are you talking about you racist, bigoted
Islamophobe That’s not true,” and I said, “Well, take me as a case in
point.  I’ve written all these books.  I’ve written a biography of
Mohammed.  I’ve written a guide to the Quran.  Several studies of Jihad
from various angles.  I guarantee you,” I said to the students, “that
the point of view that I represent is not discussed in your classes on
Middle East studies or Islam and if it is it is only discussed in order
to be dismissed if not reviled outright,” and a young lady said, “Oh no,
you’re wrong.  We did discuss your books.  We did discuss your work in a
class that I just took.” And I said “Oh that’s very interesting.  What
was your conclusion?” And she said, “Hate speech is not free speech.”
That was the first time I heard that. Have you ever heard that?  Hate
speech is not free speech.  This is an increasingly common slogan that
is going to be used and is being used right now to shut us down.  What
the young lady at Cal Poly was saying was that she had supposedly read
my work and decided that it was hate speech and that hate speech in and
of itself does not enjoy the protection that the freedom of speech ought
to be given, that hate speech is not speech that we ought to respect
even to the extent of saying I may disagree with what you say, but I
will defend to the death your right to say it.  And so I said, “Okay,
that’s very interesting.”

I asked the young lady this following question.  Then who gets to
decide because I don’t think what I’m doing is hate speech, unless the
Quran is and I quote it, but you think it’s hate speech.  Now, which one
of us has the right to determine what’s hate speech? What governing
authority, to whom should be entrusted this governing authority so that
we know what hate speech is and rule it out of free speech protection?
And she said, “Well, the relevant governing authority. That’s not
important for this discussion. That would be something that would be
determined by Congress and the president.” And I asked her, “You really
want to give them that kind of power?  Do you realize that to give
anybody the right to determine what hate speech is and silence it on
that basis is a tool of the powerful to silence the powerless and the
tool of the tyrants to silence their critics?” And she said, “That’s
just a Hobbesian argument against the powerful.” And I thought, “Oh, now
I’m stretched because I had to remember okay who’s Hobbes and what does
she mean by that?” I haven’t been to college in 30 years, but of course
she meant Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan. I had to look it up and
Leviathan is a political treaties from the 17th century that
posits that the only thing that can save us, because we’re all sort of
brutal and violent and selfish and vicious, the only thing that can save
us from an all-out war of all against all is a strong government that
keeps everybody in line. And there are some countries you can say that’s
true about, but what she was saying was that I was manifesting an
alarming lack of trust and that really I ought to just relax and let the
relevant authorities determine what is hate speech and quietly go to
jail with Oleg.

But the thing is, of course, that she only thinks that because her
position is the dominant one that’s in power.  The problem that she
manifests however, the problem of which she is an example, is the fact
that there’s a whole generation of young people who are growing up with
the idea that there is a concept of hate speech and that we are it and
that we are way beyond the pale and ultimately to be criminalized and
this is happening.  As a matter of fact, no less a constitutional
authority that Chris Cuomo articulated this last year when we dared to
try to stand up for the freedom of speech in Garland, Texas and, of
course, in January 2015, 13 people who had dared to draw Mohammed were
murdered by Islamic Jihadis in Paris and in response to that we thought
we have two choices.  When they say we’re going to kill you for drawing
Mohammed you either have to draw Mohammed or you have to submit and say
yes you can get me to do what you want by threatening to kill me, and so
you can manipulate me into silence and slavery. And so to stand up for
freedom and for freedom of speech of course we had a Mohammed art
exhibit and cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Jihadis attacked it and
there was a great deal of media coverage there for a while about it at
which time Chris Cuomo actually stated that the First Amendment does not
apply to hate speech and what we were doing was hate speech and
therefore it was ruled out.

Now, actually, if you read the First Amendment it doesn’t say
anything about hate speech nor is there any legal thing in United States
law called hate speech.  There is no such concept because of course
what’s hateful to you is not hateful to me.  One man’s ceiling is
another man’s floor.  Everybody has a different evaluation of what is
true and good right and what is evil and hateful for that matter, but
just the advance of this idea, that Chris Cuomo could think that, a
major commentator on a major network, that in itself indicates how deep
the rot has gone and how far advanced this concept is, that there is an
idea of hate speech and that we are it.  Now, the peer pressure and
shaming advances of course by charging us with this hate speech and
recently — there are so many examples of this I could talk all evening
(I promise I won’t) — but there are so many examples of this where
opinions that are perfectly valid and have a claim to truth and in an
earlier and saner age would have been evaluated on their merits are
instead dismissed as hate speech, labeled as such and that is all part
of this overall initiative of peer pressure and shaming that Hillary
Clinton told us they were going to do.

One example of course is our friends at the Southern Poverty Law
Center, a group that actually did valid work in the ’60s for civil
rights, but now has completely gone off the rails and become a tool for
the left. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently, as you may know,
issued a report on the 15 top anti-Muslim extremists in the United
States, which included of course David Horowitz and me, Frank Gaffney,
Pamela Gellar, many others, 10 or 12 others obviously and two of the
people on the list of these anti-Muslim extremists were a reformist
Muslim from the UK, Maajid Nawaz and the ex-Muslim from Somalia, the
famous freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Now, this made this all very
interesting because Frank, David and I and the others we’re used to
being defamed in this way, although this was a new one.  To call us
anti-Muslim extremists, if you think about that for a minute, what does
the Obama Administration call terrorists?  Extremists.  Their whole
program to fight Jihad terrorism doesn’t say “Jihad” or “Islam” because
that’s forbidden in the Obama Administration and it’s called “countering
violent extremism.”  So, to call us extremists the SPLC is saying we
are terrorists.  We are the equivalent of Baghdadi, the ISIS Caliph and
Osama Bin Laden and Al Laki and all the rest of them.  We are just the
flipside of the coin.  Now actually it’s true.  David and I do plan to
fly a plane into a high-rise building later on tonight, but in the
meantime, I do think that that is an absurd categorization, but what
happened in the wake of this was that Maajid Nawaz, in
particular because he is very prominent on the left and particularly
popular among the atheist critics of Islam and Jihad, Sam Harris,
Richard Dawkins and so on, the atheists’ spokesmen who have actually
spoken about Islam, there was a petition to get Maajid Nawaz and
Ayaan off the list and of course the implication was it was perfectly
fine for us racists and bigots to be on it, but now they had crossed the
line.  Now, there was a certain touching naïveté to this.

You see, these supporters of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were
thinking that those 13, those terrible deplorables, they belong on the
list, but our friends, they don’t.  These people, no, they’re just
unjustly maligning Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan.  They’re taking their
statements out of context and misrepresenting them.  They are claiming
guilt by association, indicating that they have associations with
unsavory types and they’re questioning their motives and so on.  Well,
what do you think happened to the rest of us?  This is just what the
SPLC and its allied groups have been doing to us for years.  It’s
exactly the same thing.  It’s all been a large-scale effort at peer
pressure and shaming, making it so that we are toxic so that nobody else
wants to speak out in the same way because they don’t want to be toxic
and the whole idea of speaking out is stigmatized so that everybody is
mute and silent as the Jihad advances.  It’s very well thought out. 
I’ve really got to give them credit.  It’s a very skillful plan.  It’s
very clever and very imaginative and deeply evil, but there’s always a
silver lining, and the uproar about Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan being
included among us anti-Muslim extremists it woke up a lot of people who I
think had no idea that the SPLC is just a propaganda machine, but it is
part of this propaganda machine that is working to extend the peer
pressure and shaming to every honest critic who explores the motivating
ideology of the Jihad terrorists and so we see it in all kinds of
contexts.  Quite aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  We even
see it at ESPN.

Now, ESPN is where I go when I want to not think about this, but it
intruded even there.  Of course you probably know that Curt Schilling,
the great baseball pitcher, after his pitching years were over he joined
ESPN as a sports analyst of some kind.  I guess he probably talked
about baseball and Curt Schilling actually is a conservative.  He now
has a conservative talk show in the Boston area and he’s got very sound
views on pretty much everything as far as I know and he actually dared
to tweet out on his Twitter account some statements about Islam, most
notoriously one where he said you say that only a tiny percentage of
Muslims are Jihadis.  Well, only a tiny percentage of Germans were
Nazis.  How did that work out?  For daring to say that he was
suspended.  For saying other things that were outside the realm of what
is acceptable he was ultimately fired by ESPN.  So, apparently, in order
to talk about baseball on ESPN you have to have the right opinions or
you will be shamed out of your job and the wrong opinions are of course
the ones that probably most of us hear hold today.  It’s being taken for
granted that we represent hate speech and it’s being extended into
every aspect of society.

The ultimate goal of course is to make everyone afraid to hold these
opinions because everyone will be afraid of losing their job, of being
stigmatized as a racist and a bigot and so on and of course we’re so
used to this we’ve heard ourselves called this for so many years, but it
has never been so far advanced into the mainstream.  It is a tremendous
blow to this whole initiative that Donald Trump was elected president. 
Above all, because it shows that people don’t just buy this off hand.  I
actually started to get some hope.  All summer and all fall the news
was so bleak, the polls were so bad and Hillary was saying, “Why aren’t I
ahead by 50 points?” And everything was so bleak, but I saw one thing
that made me just dare to hope that things might turn out better and
that was that trust in the media was at the lowest point it had ever
been since anybody started keeping track of this sort of thing. And so
while they are working to shame us and to apply peer pressure to silence
us and while they are working to label what we do as hate speech, more
and more people are waking up to it and 60 million of them did not buy
it and voted for Donald Trump.  What we have now, however, is a
president of the United States who commits hate speech and is subject to
peer pressure and shaming and it’s an extraordinary position because
after working so hard to delegitimize half of the American electorate
and half of the spectrum of opinion that Americans legitimately hold,
now that opinion is in power against their best efforts.

Now things are really going to get interesting and one of the best
things actually that’s come about in this election cycle besides the
election of Donald Trump was also the WikiLeaks exposure of just what
the media really is and that’s one of the reasons why the trust in it is
so very low because we grew up – I remember my father yelling at Walter
Cronkite.  Walter was not in the room.  He was on the screen, but it
was just what he was saying, and I remember Nixon, the first one, saying
that he had faced bias from the press when he was running against John
Kennedy in 1960.  Now that’s an awfully long time ago and that’s a lot
of elections.  We’ve all grown up taking for granted media bias, but now
we know that it’s far worse than that.  I took an online tour of the
major news outlets in the early fall and the New York Times, the
Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, all the major names,
and every last one of them had story after story after story about what a
dangerous scoundrel Donald Trump was and stupid to boot.  There is an
inherit self-contradiction in how they classify all conservatives.  They
did this with George W. Bush, too.  He was a monkey, he was a marginal
idiot, but he was also an evil genius who had somehow thwarted all their
plans while being an idiot monkey.  Really astonishing talents. And of
course Trump is the same way. And every last media outlet had
anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump stories.  Not even the pretense of
trying to be balanced news outlets anymore.  Not even pretending to have
any objectivity.  It was just all wall-to-wall anti-Trump all the time
and then it came out in WikiLeaks.

George Soros-funded organizations paid those august, trusted news
outlets, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, you name it, they
paid them for favorable coverage of the Iran nuclear deal.  They paid
them for favorable coverage of the Muslim migrant influx into Europe. 
They paid them for reports on the terrible Islamophobes.  They probably
paid for that Southern Poverty Law Center anti-Muslim extremist list,
but they certainly paid for other reports about how David Horowitz and I
and others are these terrible, hateful, evil people who no decent
person should have anything to do with.  And so we now know this is not
news outlets at all.  These are bought and paid for propaganda outlets
and their hegemony has been broken.  Even if Hillary Clinton had won,
they would never have the hold that they had.  They will never have it
again.  And so, we have every reason to be upbeat.  This is an ongoing
initiative, as I said, and it’s not going to go away.  There are going
to be continued efforts to stigmatize us, continued efforts to smear
Trump as he becomes president, as he does anything, continued efforts to
say that this is just some anomaly, sunspots, an accident of the
Electoral College, something happened so that this maniac got to be
president, but he’s still a maniac and any decent ordinary person will
think he’s a maniac.  Nonetheless, the blades of grass have broken
through the concrete, and it can’t be repaired, and so there’s every
reason for hope.

But I will close with noting what exactly it is that we’re up
against, what the effect of this stigmatization really is.  We have
heard for decades now, and particularly after 9/11, that any honest
discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the text and teachings of Islam,
which you can see in my Guide to the Koran and biography of Mohammed,
available now, any honest discussion of that is hateful in itself,
bigoted, racist, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.  No.  This is
how this works.  A few years back there was a Jihad plot against Fort
Dix in New Jersey, and a group of Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix
and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves
were killed because the Koran promises paradise to those who kill and
are killed for Allah.  It’s the only promise of paradise in the Koran. 
It’s Chapter 9, Verse 111 if you want to look it up, and it says you’ll
go straight to paradise if you kill and are killed.  These Muslims were
going to go into Fort Dix and kill and be killed and go straight to
paradise.  But they were foiled.  Now, they were only foiled — it was on
a shoestring.  As it happened, these guys were Islamic Jihadis. 
Islamic Jihadis love death.  They always tell us that.  They love death,
they love bloodshed, they love gore. And they went to a video store
because they had their bloody Jihad videos, their beheading videos and
their bombing videos, they had them on VHS tapes, and so they asked the
young man at the video store, 17-year-old boy, they asked him to
transfer their VHS Jihad tapes to DVD.  As he’s doing the job, he saw
what was on the tapes and he got alarmed, and he went to his boss, and
he said, “Dude, I’m seeing some very weird shit on these videos.  Should
I call the police or would that be racist?”  Now, I should tell you,
these Jihadis were Albanians; they were Albanian Muslims.  Albanians are
blond-haired, blue-eyed white guys, so there was nothing remotely
racist about what they were doing, not by any stretch of the
imagination.  The idea that turning them into the cops would be racist
was just something that had been drummed into this young man’s head all
his life, that Muslims are victims and that any movement against Jihad
terrorism, there’s something wrong with it.  And you think that that’s
outlandish; it’s not.

A very successful program of surveillance in Muslim communities, a
completely legal program that had been challenged in court and held up
to the challenge, in New York City, was shut down by Mayor de Blasio on
the grounds that it was hateful.  Now, what’s hateful about trying to
defend ourselves against these people?  If you think about it, you
know, how Trump is Hitler because he had proposed a temporary moratorium
on Muslim immigration.  Now, you may recall the real Hitler, in 1940,
he banned the immigration of Jews so that he could kill them.  And
Trump, not Hitler, wants to ban the immigration of Muslims so they won’t
kill us.  Those two things are not exactly equivalent.  But the idea
that it’s a terrible anti-Muslim thing completely obscures the fact that
he doesn’t have something against Muslims.  He doesn’t have something
against brown people.  That’s the way it’s always put.  He does not have
some racist agenda here because, for one thing, he’s not saying let’s
have a ban on Hindu or Buddhist or any other kind of immigration of
people of the same brownness as supposedly the Muslims are.  The problem
is that he’s trying to address in suggesting this ban is that there are
going to be Islamic Jihadis among the Muslims who get into the
country.  How do you keep them out?  You can’t tell the Jihadis from the
peaceful Muslims.  They don’t carry membership cards in Al-Qaida.  So
how are you going to tell?  There’s no way to tell to distinguish the
one from the other, so you either have mass immigration of Muslims into
the United States or more Jihad massacres or you have a ban on the
immigration, but the idea that it’s racist and hateful is just more of
this peer pressure and shaming that almost worked with that young man at
Fort Dix.  He did turn them in.  He decided to go ahead and be racist,
and so he saved a lot of people from being killed, but the stigma had
already worked or he wouldn’t have hesitated, and the stigma is what
they are trying to apply to any and every form of resistance to Jihad
terror, that it’s anti-Muslim, it is hateful, and therefore, it must be
ruled out of polite society.

Now, you understand, we still have the First Amendment.  We still
have the freedom of speech.  But we now that there are certain things
that can be said in the mainstream and certain things that will
immediately be branded as hateful, and that is how Hillary Clinton’s
program of peer pressure and shaming works just absolutely so well, and
is going to continue to do so, unfortunately, despite her defeat.  The
upshot is, however, that we do have every reason to be optimistic not
just with Trump’s election, but with the breaking of the stranglehold of
the mainstream and the possibility that truth might now actually even
breakthrough somewhere like CNN.  I’m not counting on it.  I suspect
that these great news conglomerate industries will go out of business
before they would moderate what they’re doing, but the people have had
enough and that is our hope.  What we have is an ongoing struggle that
we have to be very aware of and resolute in whatever fashion that we can
be in our own sphere in life to resist, and to identify this as an
insidious attempt at the peer pressure and shaming to stigmatize what is
a legitimate point of view and indeed a necessary one for our common
defense.  And because, ultimately, we do have the truth on our side, we
know that we will, in the final instance, be victorious.  Thank you very
much.

Question and Answer Session

Audience member: Robert, could you tell us how do you undo Resolution 1618 that has been signed by Hillary Clinton?

Robert Spencer: Well, resolutions in the UN are not
iron dogma, but they can be reversed. They can be repealed just like in
any other parliamentary body, and one thing that I think the Trump
administration ought to do is make sure that the United States is
clearly and explicitly and defiantly on record defending the freedom of
speech at the UN.  And –

Audience member: Because in fact, they’re going
forward with this 1618 resolution and making it larger and bigger, all
of the states at the United Nations, so it’s something perhaps –

Robert Spencer: Hillary probably would have tried to
implement it.  All you needed was a ninth justice who was a foe of the
freedom of speech.  The four leftist justices on the court right now
have all gone on record saying they would be in favor of various kinds
of restrictions on the freedom of speech. And so all you needed was one
more.  We really dodged a bullet here.  All you needed was one more to
say hate speech is not free speech and does not enjoy First Amendment
protection and actually codify that in a Supreme Court decision and the
First Amendment would have been dead.

Audience member: One more question.  There’s 1.7
billion Muslims according to your very, very thorough research.  What
percentage would you say of that 1.7 billion are a threat to the world?

Robert Spencer: There’s no way to answer that
question. The reason why is because the teachings about Jihad warfare
against unbelievers and subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law,
which denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and
equality of rights of women and so many other things, all that is in
Islamic law.  It is not negotiable.  It’s not some extremist opinion. 
It’s basic mainstream ordinary Islam.  Those who tell you otherwise are
lying.

Now, that said, does every Muslim believe that?  Is every Muslim
bound to carry those things out?  No.  Absolutely not.  Just like in any
other religious tradition, there’s some people who are very serious
about it and some people who aren’t and every gradation in between.  So
you have in the Catholic church, contraception is illegal, is immoral
according to the Pope, but surveys show most Catholics practice
contraception.  Does that mean that the Catholic church does not teach
that?  No, it really does, but most Catholics don’t pay attention.

Now, in Islam, it’s the same thing.  Does Islam in all its various
sects and forms teach Jihad warfare against unbelievers?  Yes.  Does
that mean every Muslim is a Jihadi?  Absolutely not.  Many, many Muslims
don’t know about that, don’t care about that, are never going to put it
into practice.  They would rather live a comfortable life than go blow
themselves up, but they’re not going to lift a finger to stop the guys
who are blowing themselves up because they know that it’s in there.

Who has the mic?

Audience member: I do. This is a question I wanted
to ask Anne Coulter and probably would have gotten a flip, funny answer,
but I’d actually rather ask it to you, which is what would you like to
see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  I’d appreciate your perspective
on that.

Robert Spencer: What would I like to see happen to
the UN in a Trump world?  Was that the question? Well, can you imagine
the mushroom cloud?  Seriously, what I would like to see happen to the
UN is that certainly the U.S. should withdraw all funding from it and
evict it from the United States.  We can’t shut it down because there
are a few other countries in it, but we can keep it out of New York and
the United States in general.  They can go to Geneva and they can raise
their own money.  It’s a propaganda arm for the global Jihad, for the
OIC.  It’s a propaganda arm to hit Israel above all and so we have no
business allowing our ally to be subjected to this or to continue with
this pretense that it’s something that actually brings anything good to
the world.  It doesn’t.

Audience member: Robert, thank you.  First of all I
want to thank you profusely for all of your efforts in the cause of
freedom. Your courageous efforts.  Now, could you kind or explain or
expound upon and assess the following two assertions that we hear all
too frequently?  One of them, we are not at war with Islam and the
second one, the ideology of takfirism is an existential threat to the
United States.

Robert Spencer: Well, the ideology of takfirism is
kind of an incoherent thing to say because takfir is the practice of one
Muslim group declaring that another Muslim group is not Muslim and can
therefore be killed as heretics or apostates because heresy and apostasy
carry the death penalty in Islam.  So many of the groups that are more
entrenched in holding on to their wealth and power, like the Saudi
government, the Iranians, they declared groups like Al Qaeda, they call
groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS takfiris, which means these are the people
who are saying that the rest of us are not Muslims and trying to kill
us, but that doesn’t mean that, of course, the Saudis or the Iranians
— the Iranians say it because they’re Shiites and the Al Qaeda and ISIS
people are Sunnis, but in any case, nobody should get the idea that the
takfiris or that is Al Qaeda and ISIS and the other Jihad groups are the
only people who hold to the view that there should be warfare against
unbelievers.

This is, as I said, standard Islam, kill them wherever you find
them.  It’s three times in the Quran, Chapter 2:191, 489 and 95 if you
want to look it up.  Chapter 9, Verse 29 says to wage war against the
Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of
Islamic law, paying a special tax.  All these things are in basic Islam.

So if somebody says that it’s just these takfiri groups, Al Qaeda,
ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf and so on, that practice this, that’s just
completely false on the face of it.  It’s taught by all the mainstream
sects of Islam.

And the first question, we are not at war with Islam.  That also is
sort of a false statement.  I mean, we’re not at war with Islam, but
large portions of Islam are at war with us and the Muslims who are at
war with us, they point to the Quran and Sunnah the example of Mohammed
to justify what they’re doing and they recruit some unpeaceful Muslims
and unless and until we recognize that, we’re never going to get
anywhere.

The Obama administration in 2011 outlawed any honest discussion of
the motivating ideology of the terrorists.  It actually is forbidden. 
If you joined the FBI today, which I would not recommend, maybe when
Trump is in, but not right now, if you joined the FBI today and you say I
want to go into counterterror, you will not learn anything about Islam,
anything about Jihad, even though that’s the largest global threat the
U.S. faces.  You will hear about right-wing extremists and militias and
constitution groups, but it is official policy of the Obama
administration that there be no mention of Islam and Jihad in connection
with terrorism.  The upshot is that our agents are completely
unequipped to deal with what they are seeing with the Jihadis.  You
can’t defeat an enemy you don’t understand and to get the intel about
these people they don’t know what it means.

The Tsarnaev brothers who blew up the Boston Marathon, Russia
reported them to the FBI.  They said these guys, actually Tamerlan the
older one, he went to Jihad groups, he joined Jihad groups in Dagestan. 
Now this was right around the time that the FBI under orders from John
Brennan and Obama were erasing all mention of Islam and Jihad from
counterterrorism.  So they get the intel from the Russians that says
these guys joined Jihad groups right when the United States is blinding
itself as official policy to the idea that Jihad is benign, nothing to
worry about, nothing to be concerned with.  How could they possibly have
followed through on that intel?  It went against the state policy of
the administration and so the marathon blew up.

And so we have to understand that Islam, to a tremendous degree, is
at war with us and that if we don’t realize that, it’s just going to get
worse, but of course, Trump he made a big deal during the campaign of
the fact that he would say that there was a threat from what he called
radical Islam. It’s actually mainstream Orthodox ordinary Islam, but
even saying radical Islam after these 8 years of denial and willful
ignorance is refreshing and one would hope that he will change the
institutional culture in the FBI and the CIA and Homeland Security and
all the rest of them.  It’s drastically needed.

Who has the mic?  Yes, sir.

Audience member: Hi.  So I go to a high school where
99 percent of the students their parents are lobbyists or work in
government.  I guess you could say I live in the swamp.  So I recently
wrote something reflecting on the results of the election and as you can
probably imagine it’s pretty positive and also as you can imagine I
received a slew of peer pressuring shaming as you’d say.  I was told
that Trump validates the KKK and white supremacy and I said no, the only
reason they latched onto the campaign is because of the media’s lies
and character assassination that told everybody that Trump was racist
even though that’s not the case.

However, what other advice would you give to someone like me who
lives in the midst of all those people to defend myself against such
claims?

Robert Spencer: I think that mockery is awfully
undervalued and that there’s a tremendous potential for it, particularly
on college campuses.  I didn’t quite hear everything that you were
saying.  Are you in a college right now or –

Audience member: No, high school.

Robert Spencer: High school, okay, even better. 
Same thing really at this point.  The colleges are high schools and the
high schools are middle schools and so on.  But the Muslim groups, I
don’t actually know about high school, but I know that when you get to
college you’ll see, the Muslim groups or the anti-Israel groups, the
Students for Justice in Palestine and so on, they make a great show of
their victimhood and their grievance theater is always featured on
campuses.  So, for example, they have Israeli Apartheid Awareness week
and they build a wall and have a checkpoint and you have to go through
the mock IDF soldier to get to your class and it’s supposed to show you
how terrible Israel is.

Well, we can have a lot of fun with that kind of thing if we turn it
around on them and have, for example, they have Islam awareness week,
well, why don’t we have Quran awareness week and put up “kill them
wherever you find them” and “if you fear disobedience from your wife,
beat her,” and all these things from the Quran. And they’ll say how
could you have this terrible Islamophobia?  Well, it’s just the Quran.  I
thought you wanted us to be aware of Islam.  And you play their
contradictions back on them.

They talk about being feminists and being in favor of women’s rights
and yet they are in bed with and in league with the most misogynistic
and absolutely violent ideology toward women on earth.  So you have
honor killing victim awareness week and put up the pictures of the
unattractive women who have been killed by their fathers or their
brothers for not wearing the hijab.  Actually, they have hijab week now
on campuses and I’m seeing that all these non-Muslim girls are wearing
the hijab to show solidarity with the poor Muslim girls who are yelled
at for wearing hijab by racist, Islamophobic Trump supporters and, well,
what about all the girls that have been killed for wearing hijab?  I
can give you a long list and give you pictures of them.  And what about
them?  Do they have any rights?  Can we have an awareness week for
them?  What, you don’t care about these women?  It’s only those women? 
And so on.

You see what I mean, that you have to in the first place have a very
thick skin and be ready to be called everything that there is and
understand that this is their tactic, to shame us out of doing what
we’re doing, but you bring it back on them and shame them for their own
contradictions and hypocrisy.

Audience member: Why are you so racist? No, that
wasn’t my question.  My observation first of what you last said.  There
are student groups working on colleges planning just that.  Saudi Arabia
apartheid week. And planning to do street theater with gays hanging
from – in Iran week.  But the question now, if I can remember, it was
about changing the culture in our security services.  I know people from
the intelligence and FBI community.  On a personal level, they are
highly aware of this, but their investigations cannot be geared that
way.  How long do you think it will take after 1:00 or 2:00 on January
20 for that to change? And how do we go about doing it?

Robert Spencer: You’re absolutely right.  I also
know many people in the FBI and other agencies who are well aware of the
nature and magnitude of the Jihad threat, but they’re keeping their
head down, they’re doing their job, they’re biding their time and so
things will get better very quickly.  But there’s also 8 years’ worth of
agents who don’t have a clue and who have been completely misinformed. 
I have a local FBI agent whenever I get death threats. He calls me or I
call him and he says they’re on it and I say yes and then we go back to
our business and nothing happens.

But I talk to him now and again and he was reassuring me the other
day, last time I got a death threat and he’s saying, “I want you to know
that I’m well aware of this problem with these guys that you’re
tracking and also, we’re right on top of the other guys on the other
side” and I said, “What do you mean, the other guys on the other side?”
 And he said, “The people upstate, the right-wing militias, they’re just
as dangerous as the guys you’re talking about,” and I thought, do they
smoke opium now in the FBI as a matter of training?

Can you imagine, he thinks right-wing, when have you heard of
right-wing militias, I mean, 30,000 terror attacks around the world by
Islamic Jihadis acting explicitly in the name of the Quran, Islam,
Mohammed since 9/11.  How many right-wing militias have done that?  And
you can say, oh, yes, well, this fella or that fella or this guy had a
Confederate flag, the psychopath with the bowl haircut in South
Carolina.  This is hardly proportionate and hardly remotely the same
magnitude of threat, but this is what they’re being taught nowadays and
they can only explore the ideology of the one group and not the other. 
So we can hope and I have every confidence now that that’s going to
change and change quickly when the new administration comes in.

Thank you so much for being here.

OBAMA PLANNING TO FREE AT LEAST 18 MORE GUANTANAMO JIHADIS WHO HAVE VOWED TO MURDER AMERICANS

OBAMA PLANNING TO FREE AT LEAST 18 MORE GUANTANAMO JIHADIS WHO HAVE VOWED 
TO MURDER AMERICANS 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Obama is doing all he can to make sure that Trump will have plenty of 
experienced, dedicated, battle-hardened jihadis to contend with.
 

“EXCLUSIVE: At least 18 MORE Guantanamo detainees to be freed within
days as Obama starts mass transfer of fanatics who have threatened to
bomb and behead Americans,” by Alana Goodman, Dailymail.com, January 5, 2017:

President Obama is planning to transfer at least 18 more
Guantanamo Bay detainees within days after announcing that four
prisoners are being sent to Saudi Arabia, DailyMail.com has learned.

The group being released will be drawn from those held at Guantanamo –
who include an accused senior al Qaeda bomb-maker, the terror group’s
top financial manager, and two intended 9/11 hijackers, who have all
been held in the Cuba-based U.S. detention facility for more than a
decade.

According to a military source briefed on the process, as total of 22
detainees are being prepared for transfer out of the camp, also known
as Gitmo, before January 20.

On Thursday afternoon, the Pentagon announced the ‘transfer’ of four
detainees to Saudi Arabia – Yemenis Salem Ahmed Hadi, Mohammed Ghanim,
Mohammed Bawazir, and Abdullah al Shabli.

A source told DailyMail.com there will be three more sets of transfers before Obama leaves office on January 20.

Although the White House has not specified which inmates will be
transferred next – or which foreign countries have agreed to accept them
– it has indicated that this will be a priority for Obama in his final
days in office.

‘I can’t speak to any individual notifications that have been made to
Congress or give you a specific preview about upcoming transfers,’ said
White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

‘I think I would expect at this point additional transfers to be announced before January 20th.’

Obama will likely focus on moving detainees who have been ‘cleared
for transfer’ – a group that includes the alleged head of al Qaeda’s
bomb-manufacturing operation in eastern Afghanistan, the head of al
Qaeda’s Tunisian faction in Afghanistan, and senior weapons trainers.

Those held in Guantanamo in recent years have been dubbed ‘the worst of the worst’ by military and intelligence officials. …

GREAT AGAIN: CHRYSLER TO CREATE 2,000 JOBS, INVEST $1 BILLION IN U.S. FACTORIES

GREAT AGAIN: CHRYSLER TO CREATE 2,000 JOBS, INVEST $1 BILLION IN U.S. FACTORIES
 Using Twitter, Trump reverses decades of globalism before entering office
BY KIT DANIELS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Fiat Chrysler will create 2000 new jobs and spend a billion
dollars on factory investments in the US as a result of the pro-America
environment Donald J. Trump has created as president-elect.

Even more, the automaker is moving truck production back to Detroit, Mich.
“According
to the company’s plan, the plant in [the suburb of] Warren, Michigan
will be made capable of producing a pickup truck currently built in
Mexico,” reported Fox. “The Warren plant will make the new Jeep Wagoneer
and Grand Wagoneer large SUVs. A plant in Toledo, Ohio also will get
new equipment to make a new Jeep pickup.”

The move is unprecedented considering that Chrysler, much like other
automakers, has spent the past several decades moving production out of
Detroit which began with the closing of the Hamtramck Assembly Plant in 1980 and accelerated with the signing of NAFTA in 1994.
Ford also recently announced plans to create 700 jobs in the US and invest $700 million in a factory in Michigan.

“Fields said the investment is a ‘vote of confidence’ in the
pro-business environment being created by Donald Trump; however, he
stressed Ford did not do any sort of special deal with the
president-elect,” reported CNN Money. “…Last year, Ford announced it would invest $1.6 billion
in Mexico to transfer production of the Ford Focus from Michigan to
Mexico to save costs. Now the Focus will be built at an existing plant
in Hermosillo, Mexico, and Ford will instead expand its plant in
Michigan.”
It’s ironic how in less than two months, Trump has
reversed a decades-long globalization trend spearheaded by transnational
elites who decided in secret that China, not the US, would be the
economic powerhouse of the 21st century despite its significant human
rights abuses.
And Trump did this through Twitter, which in itself
reverses the decades-long dominance  of the mainstream media in setting
global policy by controlling public opinion.

ARE THE CFR CONSPIRATORS TRYING TO OVERTHROW TRUMP?

ARE THE CFR CONSPIRATORS TRYING TO 
OVERTHROW TRUMP?
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By
Servando Gonzalez


January 10, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
In a
previous article I explained how the CFR globalist conspirators created
the Central Intelligence Agency only to protect and advance their own
interests, and how the Agency has never worked for the American people.
[1]
It seems that currently they are using their CIA to overthrow President-Elect
Donald Trump.
Granted,
this is not the first time the CFR conspirators have used the CIA to overthrow
world leaders who don’t comply with their wishes. Just a few years
after they created the CIA in 1948, they used it to overthrow the Prime
Minister of Iran and the President of Guatemala.
Initially,
the CIA was structurally divided into four different directorates: Intelligence,
Support, Administration, and Plans, each one headed by a Deputy Director.
Eventually the Directorate of Administration disappeared, and the Directorate
of Science and technology was created. As is everything related to the
CIA, however, the name “Directorate of Plans” was intentionally
highly misleading. It actually had to do with the armed branch of the
CIA, the one devoted to covert military operations of sabotage, subversion,
terrorism, and psychological warfare.
After
the end of World War II, Allen Dulles served as a government consultant
in matters of intelligence. In 1948, after the CIA’s “failure”
to forecast Colombia’s Bogotazo riots of April 9, 1948, Dulles was
appointed to chair a three-man commission responsible for assessing the
U.S. Pintelligence system and the CIA’s failure to predict the Bogotazo.
[2]
The
Dulles Report of 1949 (also known as the “Dulles-Jackson-Correa
Report”) was a hatchet job on CIA Director Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter.
It held Hillenkoetter responsible for what it considered a major and ongoing
failure in intelligence coordination.
[3]
It is interesting to see that the common explanation for CIA’s alleged
“failures” —not connecting the dots for lack of inter-agency
communication— was an excuse invented less than a year after the
Agency was created and the CFR conspirators have consistently continued
using it ad nauseam. One of the latest examples was the 9/11 Commission
Report.
Hillenkoetter
was a professional military man, the first CIA Director and the third
Director of Central Intelligence of three short-tenured directors of a
transitional organization called the Central Intelligence Group —the
first two had been Admiral Sidney Souers and General Hoyt Vandenberg.
When in the spring of 1947 the Central Intelligence Group was renamed
Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral Hillenkoetter, who was not under
the control of the CFR conspirators, became CIA’s first Director.
As a
result of Dulles’ biased report and his conspiratorial activities
behind the curtains, supported by undersecretary of State Robert Lovett
(CFR-controlled, Skull & Bones) and Robert Blum (CFR), an aide to
Defense Secretary James Forrestal (CFR),
[4]
in October 1950 Hillenkoetter was substituted by General Walter Bedell
Smith, a CFR member.
[5]
A year later, in 1951, Dulles was made CIA’s Deputy Director for
Plans, the CIA’s clandestine arm in charge of covert operations.
Two
years later, in 1953, CFR agent President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed
Allen Dulles Director of Central Intelligence and CIA Director. Finally,
the CFR conspirators were in full command of the aberrant monster they
had created: the CIA. The very same year he was appointed CIA Director,
Dulles and his Wall Street masters used the CIA to overthrow the Iranian
nationalist leader, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.
In 1928
the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Royal Dutch-Shell, and the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Company had formed a powerful oil cartel. But Mossadegh nationalized
Iran’s oil production, breaking the oil cartel. This action sealed
Mossadegh’s fate. Some American oil companies, in which Dulles was
directly involved, feared their interests had been threatened by Mossadegh’s
nationalist views. In 1953 Dulles used the newly created CIA’s covert
action branch to overthrow Mossadegh by a CIA planned and executed coup
d’ètat. The CIA had used its covert action capacity not to
protect the interests of the American people, but the interests of the
CFR conspirators.
The
Iranian operation was so successful, that they repeated it a year later.
In 1954 the CIA planned and executed Operation Ajax, the coup d’ètat
that overthrew Guatemala’s democratically-elected head of state
President Jacobo Arbenz. The reason for this was not because Arbenz threatened
the American people but because, a few months after being elected, he
nationalized some unused land owned by the United Fruit Company.
Allen
Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles were partners in the Wall Street
law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. Among their important clients was
the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit. With John Foster Dulles heading the
State Department and Allen Dulles heading the CIA, they were the czars
of Eisenhower’s foreign policy, and they made sure that the interests
of Sullivan & Cromwell clients weren’t ignored.
The
Guatemalan coup, which cost American taxpayers $20 million (a considerable
amount of money at the time), was perhaps a setback for American interests
in Latin America, because it reinforced the image of an imperial U.S.
forcibly affecting the destinies of her Latin American neighbors. It was,
however, a total success for CIA director Allen Dulles and his powerful
CFR masters.
The
Mossadegh and Arbenz operations were so successful that the CFR conspirators
have repeated the same procedure again and again with good results. Some
years later they repeated it again in Chile.
In 1973,
after a long process of destabilization carried out by both the CIA and
Fidel Castro, democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende
was overthrown by a coup d’ètat. The Agency had run a powerful
propaganda campaign against Allende, directed at convincing the conservative
middle classes that Allende was a Stalinist would-be despot and a tool
of Moscow and Castro. On his part, Castro carried out a propaganda campaign
directed at convincing the Left that Allende was not radical enough.
It was
not a coincidence that John McCone (CFR), a former CIA Director, headed
ITT, one of the U.S. corporations actively involved in the coup. Also,
war criminal Henry Kissinger (CFR) played an active role in the coup against
Allende.
But
the CIA’s nefarious activities have not been limited to actions
abroad. Despite the fact that the CIA is not supposed to act in US territory,
CFR agents infiltrated inside the Agency have used it to overthrow at
least two American presidents: John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, and
were very close to overthrowing President Reagan to bring their secret
agent George H.W. Bush into the White House.
What
is new, however, is that the CFR conspirators are currently using the
CIA in a desperate effort to overthrow not a sitting US president but
a President Elect. Now, in order to fully understand why the CFR conspirators
are planning such an unprecedented thing we need to really understand
what really happened in the past presidential election.
If you
believe what the mainstream media and the disinformers of both sides of
the Repucratic coin are trying to make us believe, the past election was
a victory for Republican candidate Donald Trump over Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton. Moreover, it was a victory for conservative Americans
in their fight against liberal, progressives.
Nothing
could be farther from the truth.
The
result of the past election was not a victory for Donald Trump. Actually,
it was a calamitous defeat for the forces behind the New Gay World Order,
particularly the CFR conspirators and their minions.
To top
it off, Trump’s election by the American people has coincided with
the Brexit, the growing collapse of the European Union, Russia’s
strong opposition to their New Gay World Order, the CFR’s failure
to overthrow Assad in Syria to give control of the whole Middle East to
extremist Muslims, the refusal of Philippine’s President Duterte
to play their game, and the Colombian people’s rejection of a Peace
Accord with the murderous, corrupt FARC guerrilla.
[6]
No wonder
the CFR conspirators are so nervous and concerned about their future.
It seems, though, that they still refuse to accept the reality of their
defeat and are desperately planning to avoid at all costs that Donald
Trump becomes the next president of the United States — even if
to avoid it they have to push America into a nuclear Armageddon. The CIA,
Obama, and their lapdog John McCain, a traitor and one of the most despicable
characters of American politics, are working hard to push America into
it.
Currently,
the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq are now desperately trying to delegitimize
Trump by claiming that the Russian government influenced the results of
the election. Moreover, impostor Barry Soetoro has declared that he plans
to stay in Washington D.C. with Michael in order to create a “shadow
government” to fight President Trump.
[7]
Now, given the fact that Soetoro is a mentally-retarded moron, one has
to conclude that his “shadow government” will be fully under
the control of the Invisible Government controlled by the Wall Street
bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of transnational corporations ensconced
at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan.
Nevertheless,
we should not be surprised by the globalist conspirators’ knee-jerk
reaction. They have plenty of reasons to be scared to death.
It is
evident that one of Trump’s goals is to disassemble the New Gay
World Order machinery the globalist conspirators have so carefully been
assembling during the past hundred years. An investigation of Obama’s
true place of birth may bring him to a long vacation in a federal prison
and will automatically invalidate all his executive orders and maybe even
his nominations to the Supreme Court. An investigation into Hillary’s
shady deals through her Foundation may send her to join Obama. An investigation
of McCain’s activities at the Hanoi Hilton may uncover his dirtiest
secret. An investigation of the roles of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and
other CFR members in the 9/11 events may bring stiff penalties to them
and their accomplices. Even worse, an investigation of the treacherous
role of the Council on Foreign Relations may result in its destruction.
[8]
 Obviously,
the CFR conspirators cannot risk these possibilities. For them, preventing
a Trump presidency is a matter of life or death.
During
a 1992 interview with Sarah McLendon, at the time a senior journalist
of the White House press corps, George G.W. Bush told her: “Sarah,
if the American people ever find out what we have done, they would chase
us down the street and lynch us.”
[9]
Well, currently a large majority of the American people has found out,
and apparently the CFR conspirators have not yet realized that the only
person who stands between them and the lynch mobs is Donald Trump. He
is their only chance they have to solve this problem in a legal, civilized
way.
So,
the traitorous CFR conspirators should tread carefully, and not underestimate
Trump and his allies. The fact that he has already selected for this cabinet
several prestigious retired military officers indicates that he is prepared
for any contingency, including an attempt at coup d’etat.
The
best the CFR conspirators should do is accept their defeat, keep their
agents and puppets under a tight leash, and avoid an incident that may
bring them dire consequences.
Servando
is the uthor of Psychological
Warfare and the New World Order
and I
Dare Call It Treason
, and the DVDs Treason
in America
and Partners
in Treason
, all of them available at NewsWithViews.

BILL TO GET U.S. OUT OF U.N. INTRODUCED IN NEW CONGRESS

BILL TO GET U.S. OUT OF U.N. INTRODUCED 
IN NEW CONGRESS 
BY ALEX NEWMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Amid growing outrage on both sides of the aisle surrounding the United Nations, legislation to get the U.S. government out of the UN and evict the scandal-plagued global body from the United States has been re-introduced in the new Congress. If approved, H.R.193,
better known as the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” would end
U.S. participation in and funding of the widely ridiculed “dictators
club” while protecting American sovereignty under the Constitution.
Support for the effort is spreading like wildfire.

As in past years, the measure to defend the rights and
self-government of the American people from escalating UN attacks will
undoubtedly face intense opposition from entrenched globalists and the
“swamp” establishment. However, analysts and lawmakers believe the bill
stands its best ever chance of becoming law this session — especially
under the
anti-globalist, anti-establishment Trump administration and a Congress
that remains incensed at a recent anti-Israel UN Security Council
resolution
targeting Jews in East Jerusalem and other areas.

On the campaign trail, Trump, whose campaign was equated with ISIS by a top UN bureaucrat,
lambasted the UN, saying it was “not a friend of freedom” or the United
States. He also vowed to “cancel” key UN agreements in office,
including the illegitimate “climate” regime concocted in Paris in 2015.
“When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They don’t. They
cause problems,” President-elect Trump declared following the
controversial UN vote condemning Israeli settlements. “So, if it lives
up to the potential, it’s a great thing, and if it doesn’t, it’s a waste
of time and money.”

Globalists appear to be taking Trump’s rhetoric very seriously. “Global Governance” director Stewart Patrick with the establishment Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for example,
warned recently that the UN was set to get “hammered” in the years
ahead by the hostile administration and GOP-controlled Congress
. The CFR’s Patrick, who responded to the systematic rape of children by UN “peace” troops by demanding more power for the UN, called for the UN to try to dupe Trump into believing that he could use the dictators club to “get things done.”

H.R.193 was re-introduced in the 115th Congress on January 3, the
first day of the new Congress, by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Ala.)
and a coalition of liberty-minded lawmakers. While the full text of the
legislation is not yet available online, sources on Capitol Hill
confirmed that the bill was the same as H.R. 1205 of the 114th Congress, also known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. The new bill is currently going under the header, “To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.”

If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of
1945, which authorized U.S. involvement, and shutter the U.S.
government’s mission to the outfit. It would also “terminate all
membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ,
specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of
the United Nations.” That specifically includes UNESCO, which President
Ronald Reagan withdrew from, along with the World Health Organization,
the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the UN’s dictator-controlled “Human Rights Council,” and more. It would end all U.S. involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too. 

The proposed law, introduced in numerous Congresses in recent
decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies —
with the estimated savings to taxpayers reaching as high as $10 billion
per year, and potentially even more. The legislation prohibits all U.S.
military involvement in UN “peacekeeping” schemes, too, creating a ban
on U.S. troops serving under UN command.

Finally, following generations of espionage and subversion aimed at
the United States conducted by hostile foreign regimes under the guise
of UN “diplomacy,” the bill would evict the UN and its spy- and
dictator-infested headquarters from U.S. soil. It would also ban any use
of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping
UN bureaucrats and dignitaries of the diplomatic immunity that has
become synonymous among critics with the total impunity and lawlessness
that pervades the organization.

In a statement
announcing the bill in the last Congress, chief sponsor Representative
Rogers explained the reasons why he and many of his constituents in East
Alabama wanted to end U.S. government participation in the UN
immediately. “The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient
bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars,” the
congressman said, echoing widespread concerns about the international
outfit expressed across America and worldwide.

Beyond just being a waste, it is also a threat to U.S. interests,
sovereignty, allies, and liberties, the Alabama Republican warned. “Why
should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that
works against America’s interests around the world?” he asked. “The
time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of
the United Nations.”

The congressman cited attacks on U.S. liberties as a key motivation for the legislation.
“Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s
annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack
our rights as U.S. citizens,” he explained in the statement. “To name a
few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty,
which would subject our country to internationally based environmental
mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to
re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which
would heavily target our fossil fuels.”  

Indeed, the UN has in recent years become incredibly bold in attacking the rights of Americans,
and even the U.S. Constitution that enshrines those unalienable rights.
From attacks on free speech and gun rights to assaults on parental
rights and even America’s federalist system of limited government, the
UN and its member regimes have become increasingly aggressive during the
Obama years. It has also attacked U.S. independence like never before, with recently departed UN boss Ban Ki Moon claiming the UN was the “Parliament of Humanity” and that the radical UN Agenda 2030 was the new “Declaration of Interdependence.”

Representative Rogers took special aim at a deeply controversial UN
treaty infringing on gun rights that has become a lightning rod for
bipartisan opposition across America. “The U.N. has also offered a
potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment
rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already
facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration,” Rogers
explained. That treaty, ATT for short, would purport to require gun registration and eventually strict controls.
The ultimate aim is disarming civilians and leaving all weapons in the
hands of the UN and “authorized state parties” such as the
mass-murdering regimes enslaving North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China,
Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Venezuela, and other prominent UN members.

The UN’s anti-Israel bias, which some critics on both sides of the
aisle have even dubbed systemic anti-Semitism, also attracted criticism
from Representative Rogers. “Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel
and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority non-member state permanent
observer status,” he argued. “Anyone who is not a friend to our ally
Israel is not a friend to the United States.” Following the recent vote
on Israeli settlements, even leading globalists and neo-cons in Congress
have announced plans to defund the global organization.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a cosponsor of the bill, has also outlined
a wide array of reasons for the U.S. government to withdraw from the UN
in what he termed an “Amexit,” or American exit,
after the historic
“Brexit” vote in Britain to exit the European Union. “Who would be
crazy enough to stay in the United Nations and pay the most for their
funding while it’s attended by Third World dictators who are writing
rules and regulations that are supposed to bind our country?” asked the
liberty-minded lawmaker in a radio interview promoting the legislation
last year.

He also suggested that support in Congress for reining in the UN is
strong and growing stronger. “When it did come to a vote we came just 70
votes short of cutting funding for the United Nations, and 70 votes is
not a lot,” he continued. “You know, you flip 35 votes and it’s passed,
out of 435. I think there will be more attention paid to it as time goes
on, I think we’re going to pick up momentum. This was trending
yesterday on Facebook, this issue.” Indeed, polls show Americans are
overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the controversial global body, even in
the face of an establishment media that generally conceals the truth
about the UN.

Congressman Massie, one of the leading constitutional conservatives
in Congress, called on listeners to help ensure more cosponsors for the
bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to move it forward. Other
cosponsors on the latest bill include Congressmen Walter Jones (R-N.C.),
Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.). More are expected. Last
Congress, establishment operatives on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee were able to keep the bill from moving. This time, with
momentum growing fast, that may be more difficult.

UN estimates suggest that American taxpayers pay as much as $10
billion per year to support the UN system and all of its tentacles,
including the scandal-plagued “peacekeeping” forces that have become
infamous around the world for raping and sexually exploiting children.
That means the United States, which is constantly being demonized and
attacked for its freedoms by the dictators club, pays more than some 185
other nations — combined. In exchange, the United States is constantly
attacked by the UN for its constitutional protections.

Since the American Sovereignty Restoration Act was introduced in the
114th Congress, more than a few political heavyweights have echoed calls
for a full U.S. withdrawal. Among them is former Alaska governor and
GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has become increasingly
vocal since Brexit in calling for the United States to sever the UN
“shackles” binding America. “I called for our next president, Donald
Trump, to call for the unshackling of the political bands tying us to
the UN,” Palin said in a recent radio interview.
“It’s our money funding the lion’s share of the globalist circus. It’s
We the People needing to rise up and make this a part of the revolution
that we have just so benefited from.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), meanwhile, has also expressed a desire to dismantle the UN
during a campaign stop while a leading contender for the 2016 GOP
presidential nomination. “I dislike paying for something that two-bit
Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the
United States,” explained the popular pro-liberty senator, the son of
liberty icon and former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) who led the
charge for an Amexit in Congress during his long career as an undefeated
constitutionalist lawmaker. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like
the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.” 

In addition to the effort to withdraw from the UN, U.S. lawmakers are also preparing an effort to defund the controversial global institution.
“I believe Congress should end U.S. taxpayer funding for the United
Nations unless and until the UN reverses this anti-Israel resolution,
and I believe there will be considerable support in Congress, I hope in
both parties, to do exactly that,” said Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas),
adding that the push would come “soon, very soon.” Even establishment lawmakers are joining the defunding bandwagon as demands for a U.S. withdrawal become mainstream.

Defunding the UN may be a good interim step on the road to full
withdrawal, helping to neutralize the dictators club and the havoc it
can wreak in the coming months. However, cutting funds for the UN is no
substitute for a complete Amexit from the increasingly totalitarian
global outfit. For liberty and self-government to survive over the long
haul, the UN and its globalist agenda must be stopped. Thankfully,
Americans now have the best opportunity in generations to “Get the U.S. out of the UN
and the UN out of the United States. It will take hard work and effort.
But setting the globalist establishment back by decades while
preserving American freedom and independence is well worth the price.

Related articles:

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

Congress Planning to Defund UN as Critics Seek Full Withdrawal

#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!

After Equating Trump With ISIS, UN Freaks Out Over His Victory

Top CFR Globalist Warns UN Will Get “Hammered” by Trump

Get the U.S. Out of the UN

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

New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist

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

Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN  

Trump: “Americanism, Not Globalism, Will Be Our Credo”

Merry Christmas: UN Declares Arms Trade Treaty to Go Into Effect Dec. 24

The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government

Sen. Rand Paul Would be “Happy to Dissolve” the UN

Bulgarian Communist Is Now “Frontrunner” to Lead UN

EPIC TRUMP TWEETS OF THE WEEK #3

EPIC TRUMP TWEETS OF THE WEEK #3
Published on Jan 8, 2017

President-Elect
Donald Trump is back at it again having a field day on Twitter. He
continues to apply his “Art of the Deal” techniques using Twitter’s 140
characters to speak directly to the American people. Infowars reporter
Millie Weaver highlights his most epic tweets from the first week of
2017.

BREAKING: FEDS ANNOUNCE TAKEOVER OF U.S. ELECTORAL PROCESS

http://truthfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/obama-jeh-johnson-800x416.png
BREAKING: FEDS ANNOUNCE TAKEOVER 
OF U.S. ELECTORAL PROCESS 
 DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson Designates Elections ‘Critical Infrastructure’
BY ADAN SALAZAR
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 US election systems will henceforth be treated as “critical 
infrastructure,” the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh 
Johnson decreed Friday in a move some are describing as a major federal 
overreach.
 

In a letter to the Associated Press,
Johnson revealed the US government would monitor and intervene in
future elections, a process previously handled on a state-by-state
basis.
“Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is
clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet
the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law,” Johnson
stated. “Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the
right and obvious thing to do.”

The designation “allows for information to be withheld from the
public when state, local and private partners meet to discuss election
infrastructure security – potentially injecting secrecy into an election
process that’s traditionally and expressly a transparent process,”
according to the AP.
“U.S. officials say such closed door
conversations allow for frank discussion that would prevent bad actors
from learning about vulnerabilities. DHS would also be able to grant
security clearances when appropriate and provide more detailed threat
information to states.”

The announcement of a federal takeover of the electoral process
follows a report from several intelligence agencies also released Friday
which purports the Russian government worked to influence the outcome
of the 2016 US election.
The AP reports several states in recent
months opposed the move fearing “the designation would lead to increased
federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally
run voting systems across the country.”
At least one member of the
US Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group, Georgia
Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, stated he opposed the measure claiming
“more federal oversight could make systems more vulnerable and could
make protected records more accessible,” the AP writes.
Kemp
reportedly called the move “a federal overreach into a sphere
constitutionally reserved for the states” on a conference call with
Johnson Thursday, and said the designation “smacks of partisan
politics.”
Examples of election infrastructure include storage
facilities, voter registration databases, voting locations, voting
machines and other systems designed to manage the election process, the
AP notes.
DHS currently designates 16 public sectors as “critical
infrastructure sectors,” including the communications sector, the food
and agriculture sector and the energy sector. “Critical infrastructure”
is defined as systems “so vital to the US that their incapacitation or
destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national
economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination
thereof,” according to DHS.
As
recently as August when he addressed concerns by then-Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump over election rigging, Obama
asserted the federal government plays no role in US elections.
“Of
course the elections will not be rigged. What does that mean? The
federal government doesn’t run the election process. States and cities
and communities all across the country, they’re the ones who set up the
voting systems and the voting booths.”

 “If Mr. Trump is suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory that is
being propagated across the country – including in places like Texas,
where typically it’s not Democrats who are in charge of voting booths –
that’s ridiculous, that doesn’t make any sense, and I don’t think anyone
should take that seriously.” 
______________________________________________________
 jihadi jeh johnson elections

Jihadi Jeh Johnson Makes It Official – Election Systems Now Under His “Protection”

SEE: http://rickwells.us/jihadi-jeh-johnson-makes-official-election-systems-now-protection/;

EXCERPT:  “The
mechanisms and propaganda for this declaration have been in the works
since the closing months of the election but the upset victory by Donald
Trump made implementation a little more delicate. Now that they’ve had a
couple of months of selling the mantra that “the Russians hacked the
election,” to provide themselves with a permission slip, the globalists
at DHS are officially putting our state-run election systems under their
control, “in the name of security.”
Hiding
behind the claims that “increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors”
and an election infrastructure that’s “vital to our national interests,”
mandate that Jihadi Jeh Johnson and his band of jihadists and criminals
at DHS take over the United States elections. They can’t let the
American people get in their way again.”

KELLEIGH NELSON: REPEAL, BUT DON’T REPLACE OBAMACARE

REPEAL, BUT DON’T REPLACE OBAMACARE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By Kelleigh Nelson
January 9, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
Let
me get this straight…We’re going to be “gifted”
with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don’t,
which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people, without adding
a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by
a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed
by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from
it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered
by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll
be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government
which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen
by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s
broke.
—Donald J. Trump
Healthcare
is Not a Right
Last
year, a man at my local meat market stopped taking his blood pressure
medication because he could no longer afford it when his employer switched
to a cheaper insurance plan. Obamacare literally priced him out of his
life. He died two months later.
Now
that 2017 is here, and Obama is leaving office, the real stranglehold
of Obamacare is hitting the American middle class with huge cost increases
and heavy deductibles.
Please
President Trump, repeal Obamacare, but do not add another boondoggle to
our already ridiculously huge government. NO REPLACEMENT OF OBAMACARE
IS NECESSARY!
What
is wrong with allowing the free market to handle healthcare?
Past
major laws and other policies implemented by the Federal and state governments
have interfered with the health care marketplace to the point where our
people are not only suffering, but dying. Is that the intent? Nearly
every law regarding healthcare that has been passed since the early 1900s
should be repealed, not just Obamacare!
If
Obamacare is allowed to stand – and the purchase of government-endorsed
health insurance remains compulsory – there will be no meaningful limit
on Washington’s reach into the lives of the American people. That is certainly
not what the Founders intended, and neither is it liberty, freedom or
free enterprise.
Is
Any of Obamacare Good?
President
Trump has rightly stated that competition
across state lines
would create more competitive insurance markets,
and that pre-existing conditions should not disqualify care under new
health plans.
But
why are we allowing young people to be carried on their parents’
insurance until age 26? The percentage of youth who actually become ill
between college graduation and age 26 is so miniscule as to be almost
unchartable.
Most
young people don’t need much care. Lots of younger men don’t
even bother with annual checkups, and many don’t do more than that
— and it’s not just because they think they’re invincible.
Young
women are more likely to see a doctor at least once, and the yearly exam
can cost up to $500. But even with what you might shell out for birth
control, it can still be cheaper than the total cost of insurance —
which may not cover the doctor you want to see, anyway. So why not find
a doctor you like and pay in cash for simple, one-office treatments?
How
much have our insurance rates gone up simply because parents across the
country are now insuring their children until age 26? And the big question…why
aren’t these young people responsible for themselves?
Illegal
Aliens Increase Costs
Between
1983 and 1992, health care costs rose almost 10% annually. Prescription
drug costs rose 12.1 percent a year. Home health care prices increased
18.3 percent annually. (Perhaps there were only 10 to 15 million illegal
aliens in our country 30 odd years ago, but I believe we’re at 50
to 60 million today).
Congress
expanded Medicaid to include illegal immigrants, children
(through CHIP,
Children’s Medicaid), and pregnant women.
Because
of the U.S. Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
of 1986 (42
U.S.C.
), most hospitals may not refuse anyone treatment for an emergency
medical condition because of citizenship (illegal aliens), legal
status
, or ability to pay. An example of the cost conflict
between federal government, state and local government, and private institutions,
is that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) brings injured
and ill illegal aliens to hospital emergency rooms, but does not pay for
their medical care. Almost $190 million, or about 25 percent, of the uncompensated
costs Southwest border county hospitals incurred, resulted from emergency
medical treatment provided to illegal immigrants.
Emergency
rooms on our southern borders have gone bankrupt and closed. Whether anyone
wants to admit it or not, the cost to American taxpayers for medical treatment
of illegals, and now the so-called Syrian refugees and Somalis, has exacerbated
and exponentially increased our own healthcare costs. [Link],
[Link],
[Link]
Anchor
baby births alone have cost Americans billions of dollars each year. Breitbart
documents
that one is born every 93 seconds. Medicaid alone
paid
$2.2 billion last year
to partially reimburse hospitals for unpaid
illegal alien delivery bills,
double estimates from news
reports.
The
amount not reimbursed to hospitals is in the tens of billions. A
staggering 84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close
their doors because of unpaid bills by illegal aliens
. Los
Angeles emergency rooms are full of illegal aliens
. Hospitals which
manage to remain open, pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which
translates into more out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums
for Americans.
In fact,
at one hospital in Dallas…Parkland Memorial Hospital (yes, the same
hospital where JFK died after his assassination in 1963), a staggering
70%
of all babies born are to illegal aliens
. Nationally, 400,000
anchor babies a year — 1
in 10 of all births
— are illegal alien offspring.
Special
Interests Lobby Politicians
Since
the early 1900s, medical special interests have been lobbying politicians
to reduce competition. By the 1980s, the U.S. was restricting the supply
of physicians, hospitals, insurance and pharmaceuticals, while subsidizing
and sponsoring more demand. Since then, the U.S. has been trying to control
high costs by moving toward something perhaps best described by the House
Budget Committee: “In too many areas of the economy – especially
energy, housing, finance, and health care – free enterprise has
given way to government control in “partnership” with a few
large or politically well-connected companies
.”
After
1998, people rebelled and demanded more choice in providers. As demand
increased again, so did prices. This time, pharmaceutical companies invented
new types of prescription drugs. They advertised directly to consumers,
creating additional demand. (Source: “History of Health Spending
in the United States, 1960-2013,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, November 19, 2015.)
If we
don’t advertise alcohol or cigarettes, because of their inherent
dangers, why are drug companies allowed to advertise, especially when
so many deaths occur each year from pharmaceutical drugs? [Link]
When you hear the side effects, why would anyone take those drugs?
Congress
Creates Crisis
Since
the early 1900s, medical special interests have been lobbying politicians
to reduce competition. We know that by the 1980s, the U.S. was restricting
the supply of physicians, hospitals, insurance and pharmaceuticals, while
subsidizing demand. Free enterprise has given way to
government control in “partnership” with a few large or politically
well-connected companies.
Here’s
a quick look at the history of government messing with our healthcare…
In 1910,
under Republican President Taft, limiting healthcare competition was started
after the American Medical Association (AMA) lobbied the states to strengthen
the regulation of medical licensure and allow their state AMA offices
to oversee the closure or merger of nearly half of medical schools and
also the reduction of class sizes, controlling supply and demand.
In 1912,
Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent progressive candidate, with many
liberal reforms, including national health care. Back then however,
healthcare was fairly cheap.
In 1925,
prescription drug monopolies began after the federal government, led by
Republican President Calvin Coolidge, started allowing the patenting of
drugs. And guess what…these drug monopolies have been promoted by
government research and development subsidies targeted to favored
pharmaceutical companies
.
By the
1930s, advances were happening in medicine. The FDR administration pushed
for health insurance, and against the advice of insurance professionals,
Blue Cross began offering private coverage for hospital care in dozens
of states.
During
the early 1940s, FDR asked for a Bill of Rights which included medical
care. Truman later offered a national health program plan, proposing
a single system that would include all of American society
, but
it was denounced by the AMA and was called a Communist plot by a House
subcommittee.
In 1945,
buyer monopolization began after the McCarran-Ferguson
Act
led by the Roosevelt Administration exempted the business of medical
insurance from most federal regulation, including antitrust laws.
In
1946, institutional provider monopolization began after favored hospitals
received federal subsidies (matching grants and loans) provided under
the Hospital
Survey and Construction Act
passed during the Truman Administration.
In 1951,
The IRS declared group premiums tax deductible. Employers then started
to become the dominant third-party insurance buyer during the Truman Administration.
Federal
responsibility for the sick and poor was established as a government responsibility
in the 1950s rather than a responsibility of families or churches. The
price of hospital care doubled.
In the
early 1960s, when the administration of John F. Kennedy discussed a plan
for government health care that would cover people of Social Security
age, the American Medical Association (AMA) fought back, along with the
insurance and pharmaceutical industries, with a well-funded campaign–complete
with a commercial featuring actor Ronald Reagan, who was determined to
talk to America about an “imminent threat.”
During
Lyndon Johnson’s tenure, nationalization of healthcare was started
when the democrat house and senate passed his Medicare/Medicaid
bills
, and we’ve seen massive cost increases every year since.
Most of us have paid into Medicare all our lives, it is not an entitlement,
neither is Social Security. We paid for it, we want it back!
In 1974,
The Nixon Administration also strengthened buyer monopolization after
the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act
exempted employee health benefit plans
offered by large employers (HMOs) from state regulations and lawsuits
(brought by people denied coverage).
During
President Nixon’s reign, he renamed prepaid group-health-care plans
as health
maintenance organizations (HMOs)
, with legislation
that provides federal endorsement, certification, and assistance. Back
then, congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed that American patients
should be forced into managed care; that patients do not know this fact
is evidenced by public outrage directed at HMOs instead of Congress, the
real culprit…again.
Healthcare
costs were rising exponentially due to the high Medicare expenditures,
expansion of hospital expenses and profits, and changes in medical care
including greater use of technology, medications, and conservative approaches
to treatment. American medicine was seen as in crisis. Nixon’s plan for
national health insurance was rejected.
The
proliferation of managed-care organizations (MCOs) in general, and HMOs
in particular, resulted from the 1965 enactment of Medicare for the elderly
and Medicaid for the poor. Literally overnight, on July 1, 1966, millions
of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions.
Offering
so-called “free care” led to predictable results. Because Congress
placed no restrictions on benefits and removed all sense of cost-consciousness,
health-care use and medical costs skyrocketed.
In the
1980s, under Reagan, there was a shift towards privatization and
corporatization
of healthcare. Medicare shifts to payment by
diagnosis (DRG) instead of by treatment. Private plans quickly follow
suit, with growing complaints by insurance companies that the traditional
fee-for-service method of payment to doctors is being exploited. I can
remember when I would go to a physician with a problem, and he could diagnose
my symptoms without weeks of various expensive tests.
In 1984,
prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Reagan Administration
after the Drug
Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act
permitted the extension
of patents beyond 20 years. (*The government also allowed pharmaceuticals
companies to bribe physicians to prescribe more expensive drugs
.*)
Under
President Clinton, health care costs rise at double the rate of inflation
throughout the 1990s.
During
the 2000s, health care costs continue to rise, and Medicare is seen as
unsustainable.
In
2003, the Medicare Modernization Act added Medicare
Part D
to cover prescription drug coverage. It also changed the name
of Medicare Part C to the Medicare
Advantage
program. The number of people using those plans tripled
to 17.6 million by 2016. Those costs rose faster than the cost of Medicare
itself.
In 2013,
full nationalization of healthcare was given to us through Obamacare.
And we already know the results of this giant government debacle. [Link]
Physicians
have openly stated that Obamacare
was never about health care
, but about achieving another Progressive
goal of massive wealth redistribution.
Our
Loss of Freedom
In 2015,
U.S. health care costs were $3.2 trillion. That makes health care one
of the largest U.S. industries, equaling 17.8 percent of Gross
Domestic Product
. Compare that to 1960, when health care only cost
$27.2 billion, just 5 percent of GDP.
 “Would
socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Vladimir
Lenin thought so
when he declared, “Socialized medicine is the
keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
The
ultimate objective of the Democratic socialists is to nationalize the
entire health care industry of the United States, thus completely taking
over one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Their goal all along has been
to implement a single-payer system, where the federal government alone
collects all fees for health care services, pays all costs, and has complete
control.
And sometime down the road under
ObamaCare the government will (control the food) tell you what you can
and can not eat
. They are using the Marxist Hegelian
Dialectic
to accomplish exactly that.
Prior
to Obamacare, most citizens were happy with their healthcare, other than
the rapidly escalating costs. Claims that US healthcare is substandard
are hogwash. Almost half of those who are now insured are on the Obamacare
Medicaid expansion.
For
an in-depth overview of America’s healthcare, see Discover
the Networks, a Guide to the Political Left
.

NEW SHERIFF WHO DEFEATED ARPAIO (WITH HELP OF SOROS) CALLS ILLEGAL ALIENS “GUESTS”

 New Sheriff Who Defeated Arpaio (With Help of Soros) Calls Illegal Aliens “Guests”
 http://meredithaz.images.worldnow.com/images/11893005_G.jpg
NEW SHERIFF WHO DEFEATED ARPAIO 
(WITH HELP OF SOROS) 
CALLS ILLEGAL ALIENS “GUESTS” 
BY WARREN MASS
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Newly sworn-in Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Paul Penzone, in a
January 4 interview with Phoenix TV station ABC 15, referred to illegal
aliens as “guests.”


Penzone (shown), who assumed office on January 1 after defeating
six-term Sheriff Joe Arpaio in November, said during the interview:


We will need to work with the guests who
are here in our nation and are pursuing citizenship and separate that
from those who are committing crimes and make sure that we a caring
community that is serious about public safety.

While it may not be immediately apparent from this quote that Penzone
was referring to illegal aliens when he spoke about “guests,” the ABC
15 reporter who interviewed the new sheriff noted that for “24 years,
sheriff Joe Arpaio made no bones about it: illegal is illegal. The new
sheriff uses different terms for undocumented immigrants. He calls them
‘guests.’ ”

“Undocumented immigrants” is the popular euphemism for illegal aliens
among those who wish to ignore the fact that illegal immigration is a
crime.

In a statement quoted by both the AP and the Arizona Republic,
Penzone described what he regards as his first order of business: “The
top priority is addressing the issue of the federal monitors and meeting
those objectives and those outcomes,” he said. “We have to do that. We
can’t move forward until we’ve gotten on the same page, so I look
forward to working with the ACLU. I look forward to working with the DOJ
on the monitors and getting everybody on the same page so this
community can be in a better place.”

The monitors to which Penzone referred were assigned after a federal
judge ruled that the sheriff’s department had racially profiled Latinos
during traffic operations.

A news release posted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of
Public Affairs on August 13, 2015 stated that the U.S. District Court of
the District of Arizona had granted a motion by the Department of
Justice’s Civil Rights Division to intervene in a private lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, brought against Sheriff Arpaio.

In Melendres, the federal court found in May 2013 the
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) had engaged in “unlawful
discrimination” against Hispanic persons in its traffic enforcement
operations in violation of the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the
Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“As a party in the Melendres case, the Department of Justice
can now work together with the court, the plaintiffs and the
independent monitor to ensure that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
meaningfully implements the court-ordered reforms so that the
constitutional rights of all people of Maricopa County are protected,”
the release quoted Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Kappelhoff of
the Civil Rights Division as saying.

The appointment of federally ordered monitors represented what has
become a common practice in recent years, as federal authorities
intervene more and more into matters that were never designated as areas
of federal responsibility in the Constitution and which should,
therefore, be left to the states.

Penzone’s second priority, he said in an interview with the Arizona Republic,
will be improving morale among employees. Penzone said he’s been
getting acquainted with the staff ever since his decisive win in
November.

“We’ll be working on getting them to feel good about where they are,
what they’re doing,” he said. “There hasn’t been a change in 24 years,
so it’s a big change for everyone.”

Penzone’s predecessor, Arpaio, had developed a well-deserved
reputation during his 23 years in office for his no-nonsense
conservative practices. As a result, he became controversial much of the
time, often because of his tough stance on illegal immigration. He
began focusing on many law enforcement-related issues associated with
illegal immigrants in 2005. After that, his office ran a large number of
operations investigating and raiding businesses in Maricopa County that
employed illegal aliens, and arrested many of them. He had an excellent
success rate in nearly 60 raids, with 100 percent of the people
arrested for using stolen identity cards being proven to be illegal
immigrants.

Penzone, who had served on the Phoenix Police Department for 21
years, made his first bid for elected office in his unsuccessful
campaign for Maricopa County sheriff in 2012 against Arpaio.

In 2016, Penzone ran again against Arpaio, who by then had been in
office for 24 years. This time Penzone defeated Arpaio by 665,478 votes
(55.6 percent) to Arpaio’s 531,674 votes (44.4 percent).

Though several factors might be named as contributing to Penzone’s
defeat of Arpaio, including fallout among Hispanic voters due to the
charges that the sheriff’s department had racially profiled Latinos
during traffic stops (always a subjective accusation) made in the Melendres
case, perhaps the biggest factor of all was millions of dollars spent
by a PAC to attack the sheriff and support Penzone. A report in The New American last November
noted that the PAC — Maricopa Stong — had already spent $2.9 million on
negative mailers and television ads, claiming that “Arpaio talks tough,
but he doesn’t keep us safe,” because he ignores crime while he
“focuses on his personal agenda.”

As the article pointed out, that “agenda” was to take illegals off
the streets of Maricopa County before they contribute disproportionately
to crime in that county.

The article reported that leftist billionaire George Soros had spent
$2 million of his own money to create Maricopa Strong and pointed to
another report in Politico that produced evidence that a Soros spokesman
had admitted that Soros is funding the attacks on Arpaio. Politico
quoted Michael Vachon, the Soros spokesman, who stated:

We made a major investment in the effort
to defeat Joe Arpaio for two reasons…. First, Joe Arpaio has been a
stain on the justice system in Arizona for more than two decades,
violating civil rights and abusing his office. Second, his influence on
the national conversation about immigration has been poisonous. This
election is an opportunity to send a message: When matched on an even
playing field, the values of justice and inclusion will defeat the
politics of fear-mongering and intolerance.

Politico also quoted Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, who in 2012
co-founded Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement, a PAC to take on
Arpaio and assist Penzone in the last sheriff’s race. “The persuasion
campaign that Maricopa Strong is running is critical to the effort to
defeat Joe Arpaio,” said Gallego.

While Penzone does boast of a lengthy record in law enforcement,
which might otherwise make him a well-qualified sheriff, the very large
interest that Georges Soros (whom Human Events readers once
voted as “the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the
country”) has taken in knocking out Arpaio and replacing him with
Penzone does not bode well for the people of Maricopa County.


Related articles:

Soros Spends Millions to Unseat Sheriff Joe Arpaio

What’s Next for Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate Still Being Investigated

 

NEW YORK TIMES AIDS COMMUNIST-SOCIALIST-FEMINIST-LGBT-ANARCHIST PLANS FOR INAUGURATION DAY MAYHEM

NEW YORK TIMES AIDS COMMUNIST-SOCIALIST-FEMINIST-LGBT-ANARCHIST PLANS FOR INAUGURATION DAY MAYHEM 
BY WILLIAM F. JASPER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“Washington D.C. — Make It Ungovernable! Protest the Presidential Inauguration.”

“Washington D.C. — Protest at the Inauguration: Stand Against Trump, War, Racism and Inequality”

Those are two of the messages of strident WeResistTrump (www.weresisttrump.com),
one of the plethora of “resistance” groups that are calling for mass
protests, demonstrations, marches, civil disobedience, “direct action,”
and other disruptive activities before, on, and after Inauguration Day,
January 20.

Who is behind WeResistTrump? The group’s website lists a single
“organizer”: the Workers World Party (WWP). And who is the WWP? Not
exactly a household name, the WWP is a small, hardcore communist party
that has gained enormous influence over the past two decades by creating
front group coalitions that exploit hot-button issues guaranteed to
rile up the most combustible Clinton-Obama Democrats: open borders,
LGBTQ issues, anti-war, “racial injustice,” anti-police, “social
justice,” global warming, etc. The biggest coalition launched by the WWP
comrades is ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism),
which has been a key leader of many aggressive (and often violent)
demonstrations from the Iraq War protests to Occupy Wall Street
occupations to pro-immigration (i.e., pro-illegal alien, pro-amnesty,
anti-deportation) rallies to climate-change sit-ins.

Even when various events downplay (or omit altogether) the organizing
leadership of WWP/ANSWER, their handprint is evident by the mere fact
that a sea of black and yellow (the WWP color scheme) placards dominate
the event. Here’s another “clue” for the clueless reporters of the
establishment media: Those black and yellow signs invariably have
“ANSWER” and “www.answercoalition.org” printed on them somewhere that is
plainly visible. It’s really not that difficult; even a Journalism 101
student should be able to follow the trail.

However, as we have reported in the past (see here and here),
the pro-Left major media have intentionally, studiously covered up the
radical far-left nature of these organizations, in an effort to make
them appear more mainstream and boost the leftist causes. Thus, for
instance, the New York Times, on November 12, ran a story entitled “Protesters Take Anti-Trump Message to His Doorstep, and Plan Next Steps,” in which Times
reporters in New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Kansas City
reported favorably on the riotous anti-Trump “protests” across the
country. They refer to WWP’s veteran communist organizer Ben Becker as
“an organizer with the ANSWER Coalition, an anti-war and anti-racism
activist group based in New York.” C’mon, is that it? Now everyone knows
that the same alleged reporters, had they been attending a pro-Trump
(or other “right-wing”) rally, would have dug and probed until they
found some unfortunate lad or unsuspecting lass whose brother-in-law’s
uncle’s bowling buddy in 1965 was pictured in a local paper carrying the
Confederate flag in an Independence Day Parade in Mobile, Alabama. And
THAT, of course, would suffice to declare that the entire event was a
racist, fascist, KKK, neo-Nazi gathering, and everyone in attendance, as
well as the cause for which it was called, should be subject to the
deepest opprobrium. But the central role of WWP/ANSWER communists?
Nothing to see here; move along. It was the same with the violent
BlackLives Matter riots, where WWP/ANSWER played a leading role.

notrumpThe
Workers World Party is not the only totalitarian-oriented organization
promoting anti-Trump mayhem for Inauguration Day — not by a long
stretch. Another veteran communist group, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP),
is a violent Marxist-Leninist organization that idolizes Chinese
mass-murdering dictator Mao Tse-tung. Operating through a front
organization, www.refusefascism.org, the RCP took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times on January 4 that is noteworthy on several points. First of all is the fact that the Times ran the ad at all, inasmuch as the Times’ declared policy is, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”

Really? No “attacks of a personal nature?” That’s very PC and all,
but why then does the RCP ad not qualify as an attack of a personal
nature? After all, it does charge Trump and Pence and the incoming
“regime” they are leading with being fascists, xenophobic nationalists,
racists, and misogynists — among other execrable things.

The Times ad opens with the declaration: “NO! IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY WE REFUSE TO ACCEPT A FASCIST AMERICA!”

“Our anguish is right and just. Our anger must now become massive
resistance — before Donald Trump is inaugurated and has the full reins
of power in his hands,” the would-be saviors of America proclaim.

“We therefore call for a month of resistance that reaches a crescendo
by the January 20th 2017 Inauguration,” the communist manifesto
continues. “Because we refuse to accept a fascist America, millions must
rise up in a resistance with a deep determination such that we create a
political crisis that prevents the Trump/Pence fascist regime from
consolidating its hold on the governance of society.”

“By any definition, Donald Trump is a fascist,” the ad insists. “He
has put together a regime who will carry out this program, and worse.”

Here is another excerpt from the advertisement, as it appeared in the Times (emphasis in the original):

The Trump Regime Must and Can Be Stopped Before It Starts!
This is not wishful thinking but could be
made a reality if all who hate what is represented by this fascist
regime translate our outrage into massive mobilization to create the
political conditions which make this possible. We are millions.
Our only recourse now is to act
together outside normal channels. Every faction within the established
power structure must be forced to respond to what we do — creating a
situation where the Trump/Pence regime is prevented from ruling. 

“Creating a situation where the Trump/Pence regime is prevented from
ruling?” That coincides with numerous other seditious appeals from
leftist groups vowing to make the United States “ungovernable” in the
new Trump administration. Yes, these are the same folks who feigned
“horror,” mimicking Hillary Clinton’s remark during the final debate
that Trump’s refusal to say that he would concede defeat immediately
after the Election Day count was announced was absolutely “horrifying.”

The Revolutionary Communist Party/RefuseFascism.org advertisement goes on to say (emphasis in original):

We call on each and every one who opposes
what this regime stands for, and what it will do, to take part in and
actively build, this resistance and refusal.
Organize. Plan. Act.
The Month of Resistance must grow to
millions — becoming protests that don’t stop — where people refuse to
leave, occupying public space, and more and more people stand up with
conviction and courage demanding:
NO! We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America!

Who are the prominent, upstanding patriots that are leading this call to action? The ad lists a number of them, notably: Bill Ayers, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist; Marc Lamont Hill, CNN commentator; Carl Dix, Revolutionary Communist Party activist/lecturer; Professor Cornel West, regular
campus speaker companion of Carl Dix; Imam Aiyub Abdul-Baki, Justice
Committee, Islamic Leadership Council of New York (the NYC Gound Zero
Mosque agitator); Ed Asner, pro-communist actor; and Professor Henry
Giroux, Marxist exponent of “critical pedagogy.” A sterling lineup
representative of a cross-section of America, no?

Here is the select list of signatories included in the ad:

Imam Aiyub Abdul-Baki, Ed Asner, Bill
Ayers, Fr. Bob Bossie SCJ, Herb Boyd, Charles Burnett, Isabel Cardenas,
Margaret Cho, Kia Corthron, Joe Dante, Chuck D, Carl Dix, Alex Ebert,
Niles Eldredge, Kurt Elling, Eve Ensler, Charles Gaines, Merrill Garbus,
Pastor Gregg L. Greer, David Gunn Jr., Lalah Hathaway, Marc Lamont
Hill, Chase Iron Eyes, Everett Iron Eyes Sr., Henry Giroux, Evelyn Fox
Keller, Robin D.G. Kelley, Wayne Kramer, John Landis, Julie Mehretu, Vic
Mensa, Debra Messing, Jessica Care Moore, Thurston Moore, PZ Myers,
Arturo O’Farrill, Michelle Phillips, Milton Saier, Yusef Salaam, Dread
Scott, Michael Shannon, Danny Simmons, David Strathairn, Alice Walker,
Naomi Wallace, Cornel West, Saul Williams, and thousands more.

A larger list of signatories can be found on the refusefascism.org website here.

These are the hardcore anti-Americans who just can’t accept that they
have been totally rejected and repudiated in the recent elections,
despite the fact that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, vastly outspent
Donald Trump and had the support of all the Big Banks, Big Business, Big
Labor, and Big Media. They are doubling down with even more radical
rhetoric and what amounts to calls for, and endorsements of, the same
riotous protesting that followed election day.

The New York Times, which did everything within its power to
help Clinton and destroy Trump, is doubling down with them, escalating
its attacks and providing sympathetic coverage and propaganda for the
anti-Trump protesters. Again, as with its coverup of the WWP red hand
behind the anti-Trump ANSWER agitators, the Times likewise
covers up the RCP red hand behind the anti-Trump refusefascism.org
petition and advertisement. Perhaps the esteemed “Grey Lady” is so far
into her dotage that she needs a little assistance. So here’s another
Journalism 101 clue for the NYT’s clueless reporters: Go to the
Revolutionary Communist Party’s Web page (here), which gives a history of their launch of the refusefascism.org and a detailed explanation their strategy/program.

Here are a few more free-of-charge “clues” that seem to evade the Times
reporters: The appearance of a mass of identical posters, placards, and
banners, along with identical chants, in cities all across the country,
bespeaks organization, not spontaneity. And when those
posters/placards/banners all have the same RCP Red/Black or Red/Yellow
color schemes and bear RCP and www.revcom.us labels, it’s a fairly good
“clue” that the RCP is playing a prominent role. Add to this the
conspicuous communist symbols — clenched fist, hammer and sickle, red
star — and, well, how many clues does one need? If that does not
suffice, it is a fairly simple matter to interview the RCP militants
leading the chants; they’re usually more than ecstatic to proclaim the
RCP’s unique role as the vanguard of the people.

A few years ago the Times was exposed for giving the Soros-funded, ultra-left MoveOn.org a special cut-rate deal (reduced
by more than half) on a full-page advertisement, something they would
never think of doing, of course, for, say, a pro-life, pro-gun, or Tea
Party group. They should have a right in the free market, naturally, to
discriminate in favor of their soulmates. But realizing it would expose
the phoniness of their claimed “objectivity” and political “neutrality,”
they backtracked, claimed the discount had been a clerical error (a
$77,000 one!) and asked MoveOn.org to cough up the rest of the funds to
cover the normal ad price. We do not know whether the Times has
again given preferential pricing for the ads of its anti-Trump comrades
in arms, but that probably is not necessary, since the professional
AstroTurf protesters seem to be swimming in cash.

Similarly, the Times had no problem with publishing a virulently anti-Catholic ad by
atheists of the Freedom From Religion Foundation that included
offensive cartoon caricatures of the pope. When Jewish activist Pamela
Geller and the American Freedom Defense Initiative attempted to purchase
an ad using text almost verbatim to the anti-Catholic ad but
substituting Islam for Catholicism, and cartoons of an imam and the
Koran, the Times refused the ad.

However, the Times’ notorious bias and proclivity for
partisanship, censorship, and disinformation seems to be only getting
worse, although that may have seemed at one time to be
impossible. Here’s one example out of the many daily candidates that
could be cited to illustrate the Times’ far-left lunacy, in
this case with regard to the paper’s overt support for the
globalist-funded communist-socialist-Marxist-anarchist effort to make
America “ungovernable”: “The Anti-Inauguration,” by Charles M. Blow,
which appeared on January 5.

Blow, like many of the Times’ columnists, reporters, and
editors, has been obsessed with attacking, first, Trump the candidate,
and now, Trump the president-elect. He has devoted most (if not all) of
his recent vintage diatribes to slamming the GOP standard-bearer and all
he represents. In his January 5 column, Blow calls Trump “a
demi-fascist” and refers to his coming inauguration as “the impending
Day of Darkness.” He urges Americans to “Protest” by joining in the
demonstrations planned by organizations such as Not My President and
Women’s March on Washington, both of which are endorsed and promoted by
not only the Revolutionary Communist Party and Workers World Party, but
also by the Communist Party USA  and the International Socialist Organization, a militant Trotskyite communist group. Of course, none of these affiliations will be mentioned by the Times, CNN, or the rest of the establishment media echo chamber.

However, these media enablers must be held to account when (not if)
the seasoned communist riot-makers they are promoting initiate bloody
insurrection and fiery chaos in the streets of our cities.

Related articles:

Call for May Day Offensive Reveals Communist Direction of Occupy Wall Street Movement 

George Soros’ War on America: Time to Prosecute the Billionaire’s Global Crime Spree

Trump “Protests” Manufactured by Leftist Elites and Manned by Professional Protesters

Hacked Documents: Soros Funded Black Lives Matter 

Soros Spends Millions to Unseat Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Hacked Docs Expose Soros-Obama-UN Refugee Invasion Network 

Soros Provides Pressure From Above, Below 

Soros Migration Rent-a-Mob Amps Up for Aug. 28 Wash., D.C. Refugee Rally 

Pawns in a Losing Game

WHY WE SHOULD AVOID DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

WHY WE SHOULD AVOID DIETRICH BONHOEFFER 
BY BRANDON HINES
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a very well liked teacher among modern
Christians. While no one can deny his bravery in not bowing down to
Hitler, there are problems with his theology that simply cannot be
ignored.

Liberalism

Liberalism is the belief that the Bible contains errors. It denies
the infallibility of Scripture, which it very troubling. While being a
heresy itself, it also opens up the door for other heresies. Bonhoeffer
wrote on page 73 of Christ the Center,

‎”The Bible remains a book like other books. One must
be ready to accept the concealment within history and therefore let
historical criticism run its course. But it is through the Bible, with
all its flaws, that the risen one encounters us. We must get into the
troubled waters of historical criticism. Its importance is not absolute,
but neither is it unimportant. Certainly it will not lead to a
weakening, but rather to a strengthening of faith because the
concealment within the historical belongs to the humiliation of Jesus
Christ.”

When speaking of the creation account, Bonhoeffer claimed it was in error. He said,

“Here we have before us the ancient world picture in
all its scientific naïveté. While it would not be advisable to be too
mocking and self-assured, in view of the rapid changes in our own
knowledge of nature, undoubtedly in this passage the biblical author
stands exposed with all the limitations caused by the age in which he
lived. The heavens and the seas were not formed in the way he says: we
would not escape a very bad conscience if we committed ourselves to any
such statement.”
(Creation and Temptation, page 27)

Moral Relativism

The moral law of God is a reflection of God’s nature. It is absolute
and unchanging. However, some, including Bonhoeffer, would claim that
all morality is subjective. He claimed,

“The Christian himself creates his standards of good and evil for himself.” (No Rusty Sword, page 143)

To claim this is to claim that God’s law is subjective. It could be considered a form of Antinomianism.

Pluralism

Morality is not the only thing Bonhoeffer thinks is Relative. He has
also promoted the idea of their being many paths to God, which is the
Pluralist heresy. In Testament to Freedom on page 53, Bonhoeffer claimed,

“What are we to think of other religions? Are they as
nothing compared to Christianity? We answer that the Christian religion
as religion is not of God. It is rather another example of a human way
to God, like the Buddhist and others, too, though of course these are of
a different nature.”

Not only does he falsely claim that Christianity is not of God, but
he states that Buddhism and other religions are the same as
Christianity, all being examples of human ways to God. He said something
similar in his sermon entitled “Jesus Christ and the Essence of
Christianity”.

“Christ is not the bringer of a new religion, but
rather the one who brings good. Therefore, as an impossible way from the
human to God, the Christian religion stands with other religions.”

Neinauferstehungism
The resurrection is essential to Christianity. A denial of the resurrection is a serious heresy. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:14 (ESV),
“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
This is a large contrast to what Bonhoeffer has to say in Letters and Papers from Prison, page 329,
My view is that the full content, including the
‘mythological’ concepts, must be kept—the New Testament is not a
mythological clothing of a universal truth; this mythology (resurrection
etc.) is the thing itself.
His prime example of a myth is the resurrection? That
is troubling. Since his faith is in a Jesus who has not risen from the
dead, I would say that that faith is in vain and his preaching is in
vain.

Peccatheism

The sinlessness of Jesus is essential for the atonement. Without
being sinless, His sacrifice would be insufficient and He would no
longer be a perfect sacrifice. In fact, He would also cease to be God!
To claim otherwise is a heresy I call Peccatheism. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
was a Peccatheist. This can be read in Christ the Center page 109, where he claims,

“The sinlessness of Jesus fails if it is based upon
the observable acts of Jesus. His acts take place in
the homoioma sarkos. They are not sinless, but ambiguous. One can and
should see both good and failure in them.”

Bonhoeffer was not a sound teacher. He may have done good things, but his teachings should be avoided and warned about.

REVIEW: LOUIE GIGLIO’S SIMPLE PURSUIT: A HEART AFTER JESUS (A DAILY PASSION DEVOTIONAL)

REVIEW: LOUIE GIGLIO’S SIMPLE PURSUIT: A HEART AFTER JESUS (A DAILY PASSION DEVOTIONAL) 
BY BUD AHLHEIM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 _225_350_book-2072-cover

Simple Pursuit: A Heart After Jesus
A Daily Passion Devotional
Copyright 2016
Published by Thomas Nelson, a registered trademark of HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc.
ISBN-13: 9780718087623

Simple Pursuit is a
daily devotional book that comes out of Louis Giglio’s Passion
Movement.  Merely containing an introduction by Giglio, with brief
commentaries by “Christian celebrities” Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, and
Matt Redman, the daily devotionals are written by 68 “Contributing
Writers” drawn from the book’s target millennial audience of 18-25 year
olds.

Following Giglio’s brief introduction, the book issues its “268
Declaration,” a five-pointed mission statement for the Passion Movement
that is sourced in Isaiah 26:8
The crux of the statement is drawn from John Piper’s Christian Hedonism
theme, “The heart of Passion is God’s glory, and God is most glorified
in us when we live lives that are fully satisfied in Him.”  The outlined
five points of Passion are:

  1. A Passion To Know God Above All Things
  2. Love For The Local Expression of His Church
  3. Unity Among Believers That Amplifies His Name
  4. A Desire To See Christ Celebrated Where I Live
  5. Willingness to Shine The Gospel To All People

It is from this outlined premise that the writers of the daily
devotionals have penned pithy summaries primarily of “you can do it with
God” sorts of encouragement that read with a tone that implies “knowing
God” is more an experiential function for the believer than it is one
of apprehending and understanding Scriptural truth. (Colossians 1:9-10, Philippians 1:9)

This Christian hedonism approach to faith is inherently dangerous. 
It encourages the experience of pursuing the joy of God for ourselves
above that of the apprehending and understanding of God’s written
revelation of Himself.  Christian hedonism, as popularized by Piper, and
echoed throughout this devotional guide, elevates the pursuit of one
fruit of the Spirit – joy- above the others and, by emphasizing the
pursuit of that experience, relegates all other aspects of ongoing
sanctification in the believer to a lesser-than status.


Dr. Peter Masters’ analysis of Piper’s hedonism would be appropriate in response to the similar theological premise of Simple Pursuit’.  (Masters
is, btw, pastor of Metropolitan Tabernacle whose pulpit was previously
occupied by the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon.)

“God’s Word does not provide a single organising
principle to govern and drive all the component duties of the spiritual
life. ‘Christian Hedonism’ is not drawn from the teaching of the Lord,
nor of Paul. However, the Bible does provide a clear prescription for
the Christian life, listing a number of spiritual and moral duties, all
of which must be given direct and individual attention. We are given
famous lists (such as the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, and the
lists of 1 Timothy 6.11-12 and Galatians 5.22-23
– see footnote 3) and we must set our minds to accepting a
multiple-track righteousness. We will pay a high price for any kind of
clever system that reduces biblical duties to an artificial formula,
however sound and inspiring many of its elements may seem to be.”   Dr.
Peter Masters  (Source)

41lwvmuq4lSimple Pursuit
faces the same challenges of any devotional book: brevity, Biblical
integrity, and believer edification.  Most devotional books do not pull
this trifold challenge off with any success; Simple Pursuit hasn’t either. (A perpetually reliable, and recommendable, devotional guide would be Spurgeon’s Morning and Evening.)

The format of Simple Pursuit is
a page-per-day devotional in which each is headlined by a singly
plucked verse of Scripture accompanied by a one, two, or maybe very
brief, three-paragraph commentary of encouragement or explanation,
concluding, on most days of the books’ entries, with a one or two
sentence, suggested summarizing prayer.

Obvious exegetical risks accompany any such endeavor with so limited a
scope of intent. The contextual fullness of singly-plucked verses is
difficult to responsibly divulge to the reader. The poor exegetical
performance of Simple Passion
is evident by its clear lack of pastoral oversight or theological
insight that exhibits concern for, and consistency of, sound doctrine. 
Verses are plucked, often out of context, presumably because of their
particular importance to the unidentified author and exposited in a
Scripturally-illicit “what’s this verse mean to me” sort of manner.

The theme of “unity,” as highlighted in point three of the five
points of Passion, runs through a number of the daily entries.
 Commenting on this in the book, contributor Chris Tomlin writes, “Jesus
said that the world would know we are His by our love (John 15:35). 
Interestingly, He did not say ‘by our doctrine’ or ‘by our
denomination,’ but by our love.”  This “doctrine is divisive” narrative
echoed by Tomlin is not unknown, and, ironically, it is most often
offered by those who “don’t know” what Scripture teaches in its fullness.

The popular suggestion that doctrine divides is a vehemently
anti-Scriptural claim.  The Apostle Paul, through whom the Holy Spirit
inspired and wrote much of the Jesus-approved New Testament defined
division in the church.

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who
cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you
have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord
Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they
deceive the hearts of the naive.  Romans 16:17-18

Another example of doctrine-avoiding unity is from the devotional on
Day 182:
  “What is one thing that every denomination has in common? 
Despite stylistic differences, we reach out to God in prayer.  If we are
going to see Jesus at work through our generation, then we need to be
united around a clear purpose.”  That mechanism of unity, for the Simple Pursuit writer, is not the Jesus of Scripture, but the Jesus of prayer.

While the “stylistic differences” may exist between those, for example, praying at Hillsong, or Bethel, or the nearest Catholic
parish, or the Baptist church down the street, one thing is certain
among all of those congregations – each is praying to a very different
“Jesus.”  The actual Jesus of Scripture, however, gave us His focal
point for Christian unity in His high priestly prayer to the Father:
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”  (John 17:17)

Scripture – and the sound doctrine it contains – is the point of
unity for believers.  According to the writer of this day’s devotion,
with no agreement on the correct Jesus or God of Scripture, Christians
could theoretically be found in spiritual unity with any religion that
prays.  But it’s a certainty the Muslims are praying to a decidedly
different “God” than Christians do.  Appeals for unity outside the
boundaries of Scripture are dangerous to the believer, toxic to sound
doctrine, and may rapidly become blasphemous to God.  Indeed, for those
not adhering to sound doctrine and proclaiming illicit variants of it,
the apostle is quite clear: “Avoid them.”  (Romans16:18)

The prevalent “Gospel” contained in Simple Pursuit
is the ever-popular, but always unbiblical social gospel.  From one
entry we read, “Not only does our pursuit of justice bring healing to
this world, but it also brings us closer to God.”  Or there’s this line,
“Fighting injustice, speaking against lies, loving others, and seeking
to end poverty all require much effort often personal discomfort – but
they give so much gain.”   Or, from another entry, this explanation:
“Just as materialism is heart bondage, so poverty and injustice are
physical bondage.  When we generously give to the needy for the good of
God’s kingdom, we take part in God’s purpose for the world: to free
creation from the bondage of evil through the love of Christ.”

The social justice refrains reflect an aberrant Gospel message exhibited in Simple Pursuit.
 They smack of a form of dominionism in which believers must eradicate
the ills of the world – poverty, homelessness, legal injustices, for
example – as critical to the “good of God’s kingdom.”  While these noble
acts of Christian charity are done as a consequential outflow of a
truly redeemed soul, the acts themselves do not constitute the Gospel.  
Apart from doing such charity with a clear, corresponding proclamation
of the Gospel, the results won’t be establishing “God’s kingdom,” but
simply making the world a better place from which to go to hell.

Rather, God’s plans for this divinely cursed world (Genesis 3:17) are certain – see 2 Peter 3:10-12 – and, until that “day of Lord” arrives, believers are to seek to reconcile with God the spiritually lost (and, according to Scripture,  spiritually “dead” – Ephesians 2:1)
by purposefully, audibly sharing – not merely “shining,” as Passion
point #5 puts it – the authentic Gospel of Christ.  God’s temporal
purpose is not to “free creation from the bondage of evil” through a
social gospel agenda, but to take for the Son from it a bride – the
church – comprised of those divinely regenerated as a result of His
powerful, authentic Gospel. (Romans 1:16)  Believers in the true Gospel of Scripture are awaiting the new creation, “a new heaven and a new earth.”  (Revelation 21:1)

Commensurate with a doctrine-less, social gospel platform for which
Passion is known, their devotional book perpetuates the unbiblical
notion that all men are the beloved children of God who merely need to
“love Jesus.”  Regrettably, the Jesus glimpsed on the pages of Simple Pursuit is a Jesus that cannot be properly gleaned from a responsible reading of Scripture.

Under the entry for Day 27, entitled “Hear The Knock,” the false, but
evangelically-hallowed, door-knocking Jesus is seen.  “Jesus knocks at
the door of our hearts and is waiting to enter fellowship with us.”  The
cited verse for this illicit statement?  Revelation 3:20
… a verse in which Jesus is not knocking on anyone’s heart, but is
issuing a dire warning against apostasy and disobedience to the
believer-void church of Laodicea.  The day’s devotional ends with a
dangerous tone of contemplative spirituality, “What can we do to be
still so we can hear God’s voice today?  Let us pause to hear His voice,
and answer the knock at the door of our hearts.”

The “Jesus loves everyone” notion shows up in a number of the daily
readings.  In one, the closing is in the form of a question, “How can
you learn to see everyone as Jesus does – a dearly loved child in need
of an eternal savior?”  While every believer should proclaim the gospel
to everyone, not everyone is “a dearly loved child” of God.  What this
errant proclamation fails to recognize is that even Jesus, while on
earth, did not exhibit limitless, gushing divine love for everyone He
encountered.  In fact, the Jesus of Simple Pursuit seems unlike the judgmental Jesus of Matthew 13:10-16
who began teaching in parables precisely so that not all His hearers
would grasp His divinely taught truth.  As MacArthur writes, parables
“were designed to hide the truth.”  “Do you know why Jesus taught in
parables?” writes MacArthur.  “It was a judgment.  It was a judgment on
willful, hard-hearted unbelief.”  So much for “Jesus loves you and has a
wonderfully hedonistic plan for your life.”

pipgig

John Piper & Louis Giglio

Giglio, in his introduction to Simple Pursuit, says this:

“From the start [of the Passion Movement], we have wanted
to see a generation stand in awe of Jesus; to fall in love with the
wonder and majesty of who He is.  And we have sought to inspire them to
reflect that glory to their world.”

Those words ring with a noble resolve, to be sure, but the ambition
is based on an errant theology. The fundamental premise of Christian
hedonism that is rampant throughout the volume, as it is the Passion
Movement, elevates the pursuit of joy in Jesus above the very thing
which Christ Himself said would identify those who truly love Him: “If
you love me, you will keep my commandments.”  (John 14:15)  God commands our obedience.

Simple Pursuit
encourages social justice as a way to “shine” the Gospel for the intent
of maximizing individual joy.  This form of hedonism seems foreign to
the authors of the New Testament who defined themselves, often in the
opening words their epistles, as “doulos” – or slaves – of Christ.  (Romans 1:1, James 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1, Revelation 1:1)
A slave exhibits obedience to his master, first and foremost, not the
relentless pursuit of self-gratifying joy to be gained in the name of
his master.

“So my call to you now, in the name of God Almighty, is
that you might make it your eternal vocation to pursue your pleasure
with all the might that God mightily inspires within you.”  John Piper,
Passion Conference 1997 (Source)

Simple Pursuit is an
avoidable devotional guide for the millennial.  In a post-modern world
where relativistic, subjective pursuits run counter to Scriptural
veracities, the continued proclamation of the tenets of Christian
hedonism will drive many to ultimately seek escape from Christianity,
for the Christian faith puts a priority on obedience to Christ, with
sanctification resulting in many fruits in addition to joy. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Scripture does not promise unbridled temporal joy nor prescribe the
pursuit of indulgent self-gratification though Christian hedonism
slathers these ambitions with a veneer of Christian-ese. But Piper and
Giglio and his Passion colleagues are required to read into Scripture a
formula for faith not naturally, normally, or – from the record of
orthodoxy – historically found within it.  Such a “simple pursuit”
cannot be sustained by those who have no true foundation in the
fundamental doctrines of faith, the “sound teaching” from the Word.
(1 Timothy 4:6, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 1:9)

As Dr. Masters pointed out, “We will pay a high price for any kind of
clever system that reduces biblical duties to an artificial formula,
however sound and inspiring many of its elements may seem to be.” Simple Pursuit is
effectively a “rah-rah” approach to faith, proffered in a daily
sound-byte format, and most certainly exemplifies this dangerous,
menacing, “clever system.”

Simple Pursuit is not a sound, endorsable resource for authentic believers of any age.

(I received a complimentary copy of this book through
BooklookBlogger in return for my honest review.  I was not required to
give a favorable review to the book.)

“PASSION 2017”: A PASSION FOR EXPERIENCE; A DISREGARD FOR THE WORD

 pas3
“PASSION 2017”: A PASSION FOR EXPERIENCE; 
A DISREGARD FOR THE WORD 
BY BUD AHLHEIM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The Passion Conference just wrapped up its 20th
anniversary with a massive crowd of millennials in the Georgia Dome in
Atlanta. The event, running from January 2 –4, saw over 50,000 eighteen
to twenty-five-year-olds * packing the venue in order to, according to
the Passion 2017 website, “see a generation leverage their lives for what matters most.”

To accomplish this noble task, the event’s front man, Pastor Louis Giglio,
gathered a wide array of notable “celebrity Christian” personalities to
prance, dance, proclaim and croon across the platform.   False teachers
aside, the stellar celebrity Christian line-up must’ve been a deal even
at the $209 at-the-door ticket price.

pas4

(* The conference website is explicit in discouraging those under 18
in attending and, other than what it calls “Door Holders,” discourages
anyone over 25  -except leaders of groups of millennials – from
attending.  Children are not welcome.)

Among this year’s featured participants were the false teaching pastrix Christine Caine, the SBC’s resident recipient of revelation Beth Moore, and Hillsong New York’s “I’ve been on Oprah downplaying Christ” Carl Lentz.

csg

Charles Stanley, Louis Giglio at Passion 2017

“No sooner is there a good thing in the world, than a division is necessary.  [Genesis 1:4]
Light and darkness have no communion; God has divided them, let us not
confound them.  Sons of light must not have fellowship with deeds,
doctrines, or deceits of darkness. … In judgment, in action, in hearing,
in teaching, in association, we must discern between the precious and
the vile, and maintain the great distinction which the Lord made upon
the world’s first day.”  Charles Spurgeon, Morning & Evening

The pastoral presence of those who might have once been considered
reliable, but who are now clearly off the rails of Biblical, doctrinal
obedience – how exactly does one stand on a stage in a spiritual
endeavor next to known false teachers when Scripture clearly says “avoid
them”? (Romans 16:17, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
– included heavyweight of “Christian” hedonism, John Piper, and former-pastor-turned-conference-celebrity Francis Chan. Even 84-year-old Charles Stanley – father of the “Scripture isn’t important” Andy Stanley
– made an appearance to pray with Giglio for the gathering, his
appearance giving the explicit nod to the event and an implicit
thumbs-up to its headliners.  These days, it seems, that enemy who
appears as an angel of light is most often showing up cloaked in
an evangelically-approved tunic of ecumenism.

pasAmong the musical talent obtained for the conference were Matt Redman,
Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, Christy Nockels, and – because no
gathering of millennials can possibly worship Jesus without them – the Hillsong United band.

The gathering of these known false teachers and hurlers of “another Gospel” (Galatians 1:8-9)
would represent, for the Biblically-informed believer, an obvious event
to avoid, much less one to encourage or send your millennial charges
to. But undiscerning parents and seeker-sensitive churches exhibiting
zero biblical discretion supported this ecumenical endeavor with gusto.
According to a report in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “the faithful come from 90 countries and more than 1,600 colleges.”

What did they come for?   Well, it wasn’t for sound doctrine and
reliable Biblical teaching. That much we can ascertain from the
headliners. In fact, as noted in our review of the Passion Movement’s recent devotional book, Simple Pursuit,
the superficially appealing, but persistently Passion-prevalent
refrains for “unity” are couched neatly in the increasingly popular, but
biblically-toxic, notion that “doctrine divides.”

Devotional contributor Chris Tomlin noted as much in the text itself,
writing “Jesus said that the world would know we are His by our love (John 15:35). 
Interestingly, He did not say ‘by our doctrine’ or ‘by our
denomination,’ but by our love.”   As we noted in our review, the
Apostle Paul clearly identified those who divide the true church as
those engaged in teaching and behavior “contrary to the doctrine you
have been taught.” (Romans 16:17-18)
Instead of obeying Paul’s command to “avoid them,” Passion paraded them
across the stage, blasted them across social media, and posts them to
YouTube. Doctrine doesn’t matter to Passion.

cuOne of the most glaring examples of a disregard for what the New Testament places high regard for – doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 1:9) – came in the crowd-stunning, surprise performance by country superstar Carrie Underwood. According to Wide Open Country,
“Underwood joined Christian rocker David Crowder on stage at Atlanta’s
Passion 2017, an evangelical conference that focuses on reaching college
students.” Reaching them is, of course, one thing; but reaching them
with solid Truth from Scripture is quite another. Passion might easily
accomplish the first, while the latter seems casually disregarded.

But on Monday evening, January 2, Underwood performed her #1 hit, the
“Christian” song “Something in the Water.” This wildly popular song
seems to be promoting a wildly erroneous doctrine … baptismal
regeneration. She sings of amazing grace because, as the song’s
repetitive focus emphasizes, “there must be something in the water, Oh
there must be something in the water.”

(Underwood also affirms gay marriage, another clear doctrinal divide from the Truth of Scripture.   SOURCE, SOURCE)

Well, umm, no. There is nothing in the water. Baptism does
not save. If baptism had any divine, salvific value, one must wonder why
the Savior Himself didn’t make the procedure a staple of his River
Jordan ministry, but Jesus didn’t baptize  (John 4:2).
 Of course, if baptism saves, wouldn’t that find our Lord issuing a
cross-bound lie to the thief on the adjacent cross, “Today you will be
with me in paradise?”  (Luke 23:43)

A good dunking – even if motivated or accompanied by the
emotions-manipulating theatrics of a well-orchestrated musical
performance, coupled with Hollywood-like mood lighting and a
professionally managed environmental aura designed to evoke a feel-good
“experience ” – does not save. It is not the experience of emotionally
intensified liquid immersion that saves. It is the supernaturally aided
comprehension of divine Truth – the Gospel (Romans 1:16)
– that saves.   It is when God sovereignly opens the eyes to see and
the ears to hear that He regenerates through the power of His Gospel. It
is the apprehension of divine Truth that is the believer’s validation
and their assurance. Baptism is the symbolic external act of obedience
that He has, indeed, brought life to a previously dead soul.  (Ephesians 2:4-5)

As Josh Buice commented in his blog,
“The truth is, Carrie Underwood sang heresy to thousands of college
students and the students let everyone know that it was acceptable.”

There is nothing in the water … rather, everything is in the Word.

The concern with Passion 2017, though, isn’t the Word.  Though the
conference is appealingly besmeared with a millennial-friendly,
church-approved slathering of Christian-ese, the actual “Jesus” of
Scripture, of orthodox Christianity, is absent. “Jesus” may be lauded,
but authentic believers must be cautious against just any “Jesus” being
proclaimed.   There are many “false messiahs.”  (Matthew 24:24)
Only one Jesus truly saves, and He is known in His Word, through its
diligent consumption by the individual, by its responsibly taught
proclamation by preachers and teachers, and apprehended solely by the
illuminating, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

“The Scriptures are not a sanctified pep pill.  The Scriptures are there to give you knowledge.”  John MacArthur, Why Believe The Bible?

The “Jesus” of Passion is the “Jesus” of experiential faith, most
often exemplified in one’s life by acts compliant with a social gospel
agenda. Ending poverty, sheltering the homeless, seeking to correct the
woes of injustice – all are noble efforts, to be sure, but those acts
alone are not the Gospel. Only when accompanied by the actual,
proclaimed Gospel of Jesus from His Word are such acts potentially,
eternally worthwhile.  No one is saved by good works, neither yours done
for them, nor those done for themselves.  Sola Fide.  Apart from the
Gospel proclaimed, one is merely comforting the already condemned (John 3:18)
as they are being propelled towards God’s final wrath. Only through His
proclaimed and powerful Gospel might He save those whom He wills. (Romans 1:16)

But the Jesus of Passion isn’t driving adherents to the Word, but to
an experience that unifies all who laud any “Jesus.” It’s this pursuit
that is the danger of Passion, for the Jesus who unites is the One who,
as He prayed to the Father, sanctifies and unites through His Word. (John 17:17)

As one person, engaged in dialogue with a Passion 2017 attendee, noted on Facebook,
 Jesus is, according to the attendee,  “all about making us do stuff
for others in His name.” The evident assessment from this encounter?
“The Jesus they know … is NOT the Jesus of the Bible!!”

Given the parade of false teachers and doctrine-avoiding – and, in
some cases, doctrine-denying – celebrity Christians across the Passion
platform, it’s little surprise that attendees are clueless about the
authentic Jesus who, with His Word, is exalted above all things,
particularly in His Word. (Psalm 138:2)

But, as one 21-year-old attendee to the conference said, “We all want the same thing – the experience.”   (Source)

But experience doesn’t save.   Gospel Truth saves. It’s clear in
Scripture … from the lips of our Lord, no less … “I am the way, the
truth, and the life.”  (John 14:6)
 You’ll note He didn’t say, “I am the experience.”  A few chapters
earlier in John’s Gospel, the Lord identified His disciples, not as
those who had an “experience of the Truth to be set free,” but that they
would “know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  (John 8:31-32)  That Truth is found by abiding in the Word.

The Biblically astute ought to be most Berean about Passion because,
as Pastor Buice noted, “Passion without knowledge is deadly.”

Indeed, for Passion attendees, it appears a toxic dose may just have been served … all in the name of “Jesus.”

 
1 627 628 629 630 631 787