Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

U.S. SENATORS INTRODUCE BILL TO REDIRECT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING TO WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/02/07/u-s-senators-introduce-bill-to-redirect-planned-parenthood-funding-to-womens-health-care-providers/;

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

 WASHINGTON — Two U.S. Senators have introduced a 
bill that would redirect more than $500 million in federal funding from 
the abortion and contraceptive giant Planned Parenthood to women’s 
health care providers that do not perform abortions.

Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and James Lankford, R-Okla., recently introduced the “Protect Funding for Women’s Health Care Act” with the support of 127 co-sponsors.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no federal funds may be
made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of
its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors or clinics,” the bill reads in
part. “All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will
continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide
women’s health care services.”

The Act notes that community health centers, local health
departments, physicians’ offices and others provide a variety of women’s
services and pregnancy care—minus the killing. Reports state that there
are over 13,500 community health centers alone that assist with women’s
health.

“Such health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory and
radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postpartum care,
immunization, family planning services such as contraception, sexually
transmitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and
referrals,” the bill outlines. “Many such entities provide services to
all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and provide
services in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved
populations.”

As previously reported, the organization Live Action found in an
investigation that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood locations do
not offer prenatal care, and ultrasounds are only conducted in order to perform a guided abortion.

Sen. Lankford opined in a statement that the federal government
should not be distributing millions in taxpayer funds to a controversial
organization such as Planned Parenthood.

“For years, our nation has debated life and abortion, but at least we
should agree that no taxpayer should be forced to fund the largest
provider of abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars,” he said.
“There is no reason for a private non-governmental organization, like
Planned Parenthood, to receive $500 million a year in taxpayer money.”

Lankford also noted that “[r]edirecting taxpayer money from Planned
Parenthood to other entities that provide women’s health care won’t put
Planned Parenthood out of business; it will just ensure that taxpayers
don’t fund their activities.”

As previously reported,
according to Planned Parenthood’s annual report, during the 2014-2015
fiscal year, the organization received $553 million in taxpayer
funding/grants in 2014, up from $528 million the year prior, which
equated to 43 percent of its total income. $48 million of Planned
Parenthood’s income was used for sex education, and $39 million was used
for public policy, or to influence legislation, up from $33 million in
2013. Despite its expenditures, it still garnered a $61 million dollar
profit.

It aborted 323,999 babies nationwide during that fiscal year,
equating to approximately one-third of the more than 900,000 annual
abortions in America.

Planned Parenthood has not yet released its 2015-2016 report for unknown reasons.

Uncategorized

ANTI-GLOBALIST TED MALLOCH, TRUMP’S AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION IS LIKE U.K.’S NIGEL FARAGE

http://i.briefreport.co.uk/upload/news/large/16/47/Malloch_734670.jpg

Ted Malloch: America’s Nigel Farage Takes on EU

Published on Feb 7, 2017

Trump’s
pick for US Ambassador to the EU, Ted Malloch, has been met with calls
to block his appointment. But Malloch fired back in European interviews
over the weekend, pointing out that choosing an ambassador is the
prerogative of President Trump who just won the election and saying that
Trump would not be cowed down. He went on the offensive against
the President of the European Commission, the EU bureaucracy and
political correctness in a series of frank statements that showed he
would not be cowed down either.

“‘DAVOS MAN’ Is Dead” Says Trump EU Ambassador

Published on Feb 6, 2017

The
man tipped to be Donald Trump’s Ambassador to the EU made the rounds
this weekend with the European press. Candid, frank and defiant to the
unelected EU bureaucrats who are trying to block his appointment to the
EU, Ted Malloch has seen the global elites from the inside, organizing
their summits. He now pulls back the curtain and proclaims — “the Davos
Man is dead”.

Trump’s EU Ambassador: Trump Will Only Make Trade Deals With Nations, Not the EU

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/25321-trump-s-eu-ambassador-trump-will-only-make-trade-deals-with-nations-not-the-eu;

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

 Ted Malloch (shown), President Donald Trump’s proposed ambassador to the

European Union, made it clear on Sunday
 that the administration’s goal is to destroy the European Union. During
 an interview on BBC on Sunday, Malloch warned that the EU is in for a 
rude awakening: Whether the EU powers-that-be like it or not, Trump will
 only deal with countries on a nation-by-nation basis. That would 
effectively end the supposed underlying reason for the EU.

Malloch said, “Trump won’t cow down to the powers that be. He’ll
speak his mind even if it gets him in trouble or held in disregard for
others. It used to be called honesty but in the age of baby talk and
political correctness, and mostly bullshit, it’s now regarded as
dishonesty.”

EU leaders and media supporters have seen this coming since November.
Patrick Wintour, the diplomatic editor for the liberal British paper The Guardian, spelled it out last Friday:

In European eyes, figures like Malloch
and Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, do not really want to end
the US leadership role in Europe.

They want, in the view of the European Council president, Donald Tusk, to destroy the EU, and are … intent in doing so….

This is not a policy of non-interference.
The policy is to help oversee the break-up of the EU, using the bully
pulpit of the presidency and the Breitbart website to do all they can to
cheer on the populist forces across Europe. Victories for nationalist
parties in the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy this year would
ensure the EU’s implosion, and as such are to be encouraged.

Previous pronouncements from Malloch have confirmed that intent. In January Malloch told BBC News,
“I had a previous career in a diplomatic post where I helped bring down
the Soviet Union. So maybe there’s another union that needs a little
taming.” Malloch was a vocal supporter of Brexit, and has predicted that
the euro would collapse. He expressed his hope that all members of the
European Union would hold similar referendums.

In January Malloch, in an interview on BBC One’s This Week,
said that Donald Trump doesn’t like the idea of EU’s “integration”:
“[He] doesn’t like an organization that is supranational, that is
unelected, where the bureaucrats run amok, and is not frankly a proper
democracy.”

Malloch can be best described as the insiders’ “maverick,” supporting
various efforts but not buying into the ideology. He has served — he
calls himself a Sherpa — on the executive board of the World Economic
Forum, which hosts the Davos meeting of elites in Switzerland every
year. He has held an ambassadorial position in the UN. He headed up the
consulting division of Wharton-Chase Econometrics. He worked at the
international banking firm Salomon Brothers. He served in senior policy
positions with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, as well
as in the U.S. State Department. He is a research professor at Yale.

He’s even expressed support for the EU in the past, but usually with a
qualifying disclaimer: The EU is a “very important arrangement that was
largely brought about by American contributions.… For some long decades
it’s been absolutely critical to the trans-Atlantic alliance and to
US-Europe relations.” But he added, “I do believe it has more and more
become a supranational organization with political ambitions that
probably don’t fit with all of its member states’ ambitions.”

He has spoken critically of some of the EU’s top people, including
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. Juncker, said
Malloch, “was a very adequate mayor, I think, of some city in
Luxembourg, and maybe he should go back and do that again.”

This has not surprisingly generated genuine concern among those top
people. The liberal leader of the European Parliament, Guy Verofstadt,
and the head of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, sent a
letter to Juncker last week demanding that the EU not grant
“credentials” to Malloch if Trump does in fact name him as his
ambassador to the organization. The letter cited Malloch’s “outrageous
malevolence against the values that define this European Union. We are
strongly convinced that people seeing as their mission to disrupt or
dissolve the European Union should not be accredited as official
representatives to the EU.”

Nervousness bordering on panic has forced the New York Times to weigh in against Trump as Malloch’s potential employer. Steven Erlanger of the Times
launched a broadside against the president: “Mr. Trump has expressed
disdain for other multilateral institutions such as the European Union,
His praise has been reserved for populists and strongmen, like Nigel
Farage, the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, President
Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and, of course, President Vladimir V.
Putin of Russia.” Erlanger added:

Some European leaders are urging their
counterparts to recognize that Mr. Trump may represent a truly dire
challenge, one that threatens to upend not only the 70-year European
project of integration and security, but just about everything they
stand for, including liberal democracy itself.

Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, added:

Trump is the first American president
since the E.U. was created not to be in favor of deeper European
integration. Not only that, he’s against it and sees the destruction of
the European Union as in America’s interest.

European [leaders] see Trump as the
biggest threat to global order and the European ideal of how the world
should be organized. The U.S. has been a crucial part of the ballast
meant to be upholding the global order … in face of challenges….

But rather than acting as a check on these [challenges], Trump seems to be amplifying them, and that’s pretty terrifying.

By negotiating with the EU’s member states individually —
nation-by-nation — Trump and his ambassador-to-be, Ted Malloch, hope to
cut the legs out from under the primary foundational assumption that has
falsely and fraudulently supported the EU’s raison d’être:
that the union could obtain for them better economic performance than
individually. It would end the real reason for the EU: an economic union
leading inevitably to a political one as a step toward a One World
Government.

Uncategorized

UN LESSON PLANS TEACH KIDS TO GET CIVILIANS TO “TURN IN GUNS”

UN LESSON PLANS TEACH KIDS TO GET CIVILIANS TO “TURN IN GUNS”

BY
Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/25306-un-lesson-plans-teach-kids-to-get-civilians-to-turn-in-guns;

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

The United Nations (UN) is offering lesson plans for teaching
American and Canadian children about the benefits of civilian
disarmament and to familarize them with “the process by which the
international community, regional organizations, and the UN encourage
the practice of disarmament.”

Over the course of six lessons,
teachers using the “Disarmament Education Programme” prepared by the
United Nations Association in Canada will indoctrinate students to
accept the UN as a global government and an engine of peace with the
goal of creating a “world without weapons.”

The lesson titles should be enough to enrage every person who
recognizes that the first act of any would-be autocrat is to disarm the
people they intend to command.

Lesson One serves as an introduction to the topic, informing North
American schoolchildren that weapons lead to violence and that this
gun-related violence leads to “human and environmental destruction”
(there they go again surreptitiously packaging the Agenda 21 agenda into
another program), and this destruction “affects everyone regardless of
race, age, nationality, or gender.”

During the second class period devoted to Lesson One, kids are
instructed that in order to end the violence, they must cooperate in
“creating a culture of change at local, national, and global levels.”
They must begin immediately to “analyze cultural messages and the
prevalence of armament in our society” so that they may begin to
identify allies who will join them in “working toward disarmament.”

In Lesson Two, the drilling on the glory of disarmament gets so much worse.

The lesson plan for this section challenges the students to “analyze
the rationale for gun ownership.” Once they’ve investigated this issue,
they are to identify “successes and challenges in the campaign to ban
small arms and light weapons.”

Yes, it really says that, and that’s not nearly the end.

Next, the kids are tasked with learning their nation’s gun control
laws and proposing ways that “individuals, groups, and institutions” can
change those laws in ways that advance the aim of complete civilian
disarmament.

Students are told that “one person dies per minute” as a victim of gun violence.

The types of weapons that must be seized in order to secure global
peace are then listed for the students: revolvers and self-loading
pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and
light machine guns.

Why, the UN asks the students, must the listed weapons be outlawed for civilian ownership?

“Guns wound and kill individuals and serve as devices to frighten and
terrorize; it is very difficult to build and sustain progress when
people are fearful for their lives. As a result, countries that suffer
from gun violence are often stunted in development.”

Students, instructed as to the urgent need of ending the ability of
individuals to own small arms, are then informed as to “the reason[s]
for a person’s desire to own small arms”:

Exert power over others

Accepted cultural norms of civilian owning guns

For vengeance, if past violence has been suffered

To be seen as a person of great status

That list of reasons is taken verbatim from the UN’s disarmament lesson plans.

Since the desire to own guns is often complex, the kids must realize
that the solutions they propose “should address not only the guns
themselves, but the economic and social development of the country, as
well.”

In other words, disarm the people, make them dependent upon the
government for every aspect of human existence, and then the world will
be peaceful.

The final lesson, Lesson Five, is entitled “Road to Disarmament and
Non-Proliferation: A Human Security Approach,” and it is designed to
convince students that “human security” is the key to peace, and that
“human security” will only be achieved when they “put in place laws and
procedures to control … the production of small arms and light
weapons” and when they “ensure that good records are kept for as long as
possible on the manufacture, holding, and transfer of these weapons.”

Should national governments fail to enact these disarmament
solutions, then it may become necessary for the UN to “separate people
from their states.”

Finally, Lesson Five challenges the kids to come up with “ideas to
convince locals to turn in their weapons” and to “encourage the civilian
population to hand in … weapons, explosives, and ammunition.”

These lesson plans are no doubt to be implemented by teachers
sympathetic to the disarmament agenda, likely without the knowledge or
approval of local school boards. The students in these classes will be
unaware that they are being brainwashed, and their proclivity to put
faith in the words of their teachers will incline them to imbibe deeply
the draughts of disarmament being pumped into their classrooms.

Uncategorized

SOROS PUPPET JUDGE AIDS ISIS BY BLOCKING TRUMP

Soros Puppet Judge Aids ISIS by Blocking Trump

Published on Feb 5, 2017

Seattle,
Washington Federal Judge James Robart based his judgement of the Trump
administration’s decision to follow through with a travel ban of seven
Muslim countries as “not rationally based”. However, this purported
logical judge was quoted by CNBC as stating “Black lives matter.”
In
August of 2016 Breitbart reported that The Black Lives matter movement
was funded by U.S. National Security public enemy number one George
Soros ” ….in a detailed 69-page Open Society report on the agenda of
an Open Society U.S. Programs board meeting held in New York October 1
to October 2, 2015.” A portion of the Soros funded agenda read.
Recognizing
the need for strategic assistance, the U.S. Programs Board approved
$650,000 in Opportunities Fund support to invest in technical assistance
and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement”

Furthermore,
Soros’ shaping of Black Lives Matter was used to alter the 2016
elections, oddly never mentioned by the Democratic zeal to solely blame
the Russians. As a hacked open society document stated “Leaders of #BlackLivesMatter
and The Movement for Black Lives worked to influence candidate
platforms during the 2016 primary season. This came alongside the recent
acknowledgement by political strategists that African-American voters
may be much more pivotal to the 2016 general election than previously
forecasted.”

President Trump responded to Judge Robart in a tweet
stating”What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland
Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into
U.S.?” The DHS has stopped flagging travelers. And direct flights have
resumed from the previously banned countries to the United States.

After
the DOJ quickly appealled Judge Robart’s decision a Federal 9th Circuit
Appeals Court declined to reinstate the Travel Ban. We are now playing
Russian roulette with our National Security. Set into motion by a
Federal judge basing his decision on political opinion rooted in the
subversion of George Soros’ Open Society initiatives.

Judge
Robart’s name won’t fade into mainstream media history. Because when the
next inevitable terror attack occurs on U.S. soil, we’ll know exactly
who to hold accountable for this dangerous subversion of U.S. National
Security. Jon Bowne reports.

Uncategorized

THE MANDATORY “TWO MINUTE HATE” OF ORWELL’S DYSTOPIAN FUTURE HAS ARRIVED~”LOVE TRUMPS HATE”~AND IF YOU DISAGREE, WE’LL KILL YOU!

https://beyondthecusp.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/two-minutes-of-hate-screaming-at-video-of-emanuel-goldstein-from-the-george-orwell-novel-1984.jpg

“LOVE TRUMPS HATE”~AND IF YOU DISAGREE,

WE’LL KILL YOU!

BY WILLIAM F. JASPER

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/25303-love-trumps-hate-and-if-you-disagree-we-ll-kill-you;

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

“Love Trumps Hate! Love Trumps Hate!” This mantra has been
ricocheting noisily through our streets for the past several months,
usually interspersed with other anti-Trump chants including: “Not My
President!”; “No Trump! No Fear! Refugees Are Welcome Here!”; and “No
Trump! No KKK! No Fascist USA!”
So chanted the belligerent throngs of Disrupt J20, as they engaged in
KKK/Fascist-style tactics and linked arms to illegally block American
citizens — men, women, young people, and children, including military servicemen in uniform —
who had journeyed to Washington, D.C. on January 20 to peacefully
attend the inauguration of President Donald John Trump. “Love Trumps
Hate!” screamed the mob of “protesters,” as one of their number reached
through the crowd with a lighter to set a young pro-Trump girl’s hair on
fire. The criminal terrorist act was caught on video, but like most of
the other violent acts of the disrupters, it was not considered
newsworthy by the mainstream media (MSM). It would have disappeared
unreported down the memory hole if not for social media and the many
alternative news websites that are now daily exposing the lies and
propaganda of Big Media. The New York Times, Washington Post,
CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the controlled media herd that continuously
bleated and brayed during the entire election cycle about alleged
violence by a few Trump supporters have ignored this example of violence
and hate, as they have the hundreds of other violent acts by anti-Trump
disrupters during the inauguration.

Thankfully, the video has gone viral, and various police agencies,
reportedly, are looking for the woman arsonist/assailant and her
accomplice(s) who covered for her. Setting someone on fire is felony
assault and battery, an immoral, criminal act that deserves public
condemnation as well as prosecution.
All throughout the campaign and the post-election period, the media
moralists have called upon the Trump side to “dial down” the
inflammatory rhetoric, while the anti-Trump, pro-Hillary side was not
merely engaging in verbal pyrotechnics but actually setting cities
ablaze. All throughout the campaign and the post-election period, the
media moralists have condemned Trump and Trump supporters for alleged “hate crimes” and “hate speech” against various minorities, citing unsubstantiated, hearsay accusations as proof. Invariably, these highly publicized “crimes,” have turned out to be hoaxes, fabrications
of anti-Trump fanatics. If this had happened only a few times, the
media organizations might plead incompetence or lack of due diligence
and apologize for getting “punked”; blame it on the deadline rush.
However, when it happens repeatedly, ad nauseum, as we have
seen, and when the same “news” organizations repeat coverage of the
hoaxes even after they’ve been publicly and admittedly discredited for
days or weeks, it bespeaks willful deceit on the part of the
“journalists” involved.
And when this is coupled by a willful blindness on the part of the
media moralizers toward the multiple acts of real, actual, verifiable
violence and hate on the part of the anti-Trump extremists — captured in
flagrante delicto on video (see here, here, and here)
— it becomes clear that we are dealing with something even more serious
than obvious institutional “liberal-progressive” bias. We’re dealing
with real “pants on fire” liars, plain and simple, who are raving
ideological leftists to boot, who will censor and deny all facts and
acts that defy their preferred narratives.
(The following video contains vulgar language and violence.)

The Trump victory in November — which defied the predictions of
virtually all the lamestream media “experts” and their pollsters —
showed that the American people are repudiating the MSM in droves. The
annual Gallup Poll regarding the media
last year found only 32 percent of Americans trusted the major press.
However, the level of public trust in the corporatist media is even a
great deal more dire than the Gallup survey indicates. According to a study by the Media Insight Project,
a partnership of the Associated Press and the American Press Institute,
released in April of 2016, “Just 6 percent of people say they have a
lot of confidence in the media.”
Six percent! And that was before much of the worst media
misbehavior, during the final months and weeks of the Clinton-Trump
presidential run. And, of course, that misbehavior — by the anti-Trump
media and the leftist “protesters” — is continuing. “Love Trumps Hate!,”
the #J20 protesters in Washington, D.C. shouted, as fellow #J20
protesters were running amok with hammers, rocks, and other weapons,
smashing cars and windows, terrorizing inauguration-goers, hitting
police officers and passersby with metal poles, and setting a limousine
on fire, which sent smoke clouds (along with some anxiety and panic)
along President Trump’s inaugural parade route.
Ironically, the destroyed limo was owned by a Muslim immigrant,
Muhammad Ashraf, who was not a Trump supporter. And his driver, who was
in the limo when it was attacked and suffered injuries that required
hospital attention, is a Hispanic employee, Luis Villaroel. Of course,
one of the other anti-Trump mantras alternating with “Love Trumps Hate!”
is “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here!” But if some
immigrants get in the way of the righteous Marxist-Leninist Trump
haters, well, hey, that’s acceptable collateral damage, for as Lenin
reputedly quipped, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few
eggs.”
Much of the havoc, hate, rioting, violence, and vitriol aimed at
Donald Trump for the past several months has issued from unidentified
“activists” participating in rent-a-mob actions funded by George Soros,
the Ford Foundation, and other deep-pocket funders. And many of the
assassination threats and vile, obscene attacks on Melania, Ivanka,
Barron, and other Trump family members, Vice President Mike Pence, and
presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway have been made by anonymous
Internet assailants or ordinary Twitter users without any previous claim
to fame. However, during this past election cycle we have witnessed an
unprecedented outpouring of hateful, malicious, intolerant, and even
murderous rhetoric from anti-Trump celebrities, prominent individuals,
and public figures. The following are but a tiny fraction of the hateful
acts by the “Love Trumps Hate!” folks:
• Pop diva Madonna told the global audience to the Women’s March on Washington,
“Welcome to the revolution of love” — before announcing that she’d
“thought a lot about blowing up the [Trump] White House,” and then
blasting opponents with F-bomb vulgarity.
• Fellow Hollywood persona Ashley Judd delivered a vitriol-drenched rant to the Women’s March, insulting President Trump with the usual name calling: racist, Nazi, fascist, KKK, misogynist, etc.
• Ted Kornblum, Founder and CEO of the Magnatone guitar amplifier company, posted,
on January 30 on his personal Facebook page: “Rest easy people, it’ll
take only 100 days till Trump gets a bullet in the head!” He later
deleted the post and offered a tepid apology for what he said was a
“frivolous, insensitive political post” and a “careless mistake.”
Ted Kornblum post
• Matt Harrigan, CEO of tech company PacketSled, posted a series of Facebook threats
after the election, including: “I’m going to kill the president.
Elect.”; “Bring it secret service”; “Nope, getting a sniper rifle and
perching myself where it counts. Find a bedroom in the whitehouse that
suits you [expletive]. I’ll find you.”; “In no uncertain terms,
[expletive] you America.” (We can’t reproduce all of his posts here
because Harrigan insists on lacing his vile comments with X-rated
verbiage.)
CEO Matt Harrigan Facebook threat
• Don King, a senior banker with international megabank BNP Paribas Tweeted:
“Rape Melania then decapitate the [expletive]. Cmon ISIS where you at
when we need you.” (The “Rape Melania” theme appeared around the country
on posters carried by anti-Trump protesters.)
• Monisha Rajesh, a London-based writer for the establishment-Left Guardian of Great Britain, Tweeted: “it’s about time for a presidential assassination.”
Monisha Rajesh tweet
• Hussam Ayloush, spokesman for CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), the militant Muslim lobby, issued a Tweet calling
for the overthrow of the U.S. government, following the announcement
that Trump had been elected. “Ok, repeat after me: Al-Shaab yureed isqat
al-nizaam. (Arab Spring chant).” The second line of the tweet is
Arabic, which translates as: “The people want to overthrow the regime.”
As, Ayloush himself points out parenthetically in his tweet, this was
the “Arab Spring” regime-change chant that was used by the mobs during
the Obama/Clinton/Soros-orchestrated overthrow of Middle East
governments, which resulted in the installation of new anti-American
Muslim Brotherhood/ISIS/AlQaeda jihadist regimes throughout the region.
CAIRs Hussam Ayloush tweet
• Andrea Bocelli, Italy’s immensely popular blind
tenor backed out of performing at the Trump inauguration festivities due
to death threats, it appears. Initially, it was widely reported he had
declined as a result of fan backlash, but according to the UK Daily Mail,
Bocelli’s security detail convinced him the threats made attendance too
dangerous. In light of the enormous outpouring of vicious and
threatening rhetoric and violent actions from the anti-Trump camp, the
death threat explanation sounds more plausible. Similarly, the
“tolerance” folks bullied and threatened all other invited inaugural
performers, causing many to decline the invitation or to back out after
accepting, including Dreamgirls singer Jennifer Holliday,
who intially said she would perform despite the orchestrated anti-Trump
campaign against her doing so. Rather than condemning this bullying,
the Hollywood set and their media pals triumphantly celebrated the
sabotage and hypocritically pointed to the absence of “A-list”
entertainers as a supposed confirmation of President Trump’s
unpopularity and illegitimacy.
• Actor David Harbour, in accepting a Screen Actors
Guild award on January 29, delivered a fiery anti-Trump “call to arms”
that drew the SAG members to their feet cheering, and in which he
bellowed: “we will, as per Chief Jim Hopper, punch some people in the
face when they seek to destroy the weak and the disenfranchised and the
marginalized!” The “peace, love, and unity” crowd appeared to be wild
with ecstasy at the thought of punching in the face people they disagree
with.
• Ethan Fedida, director of social media at the California-based news website Ozy.com and a writer for the liberal-left pro-Obama/pro-Clinton Huffington Post, Tweeted: “Looking on the bright side: the stress of the presidency should help kill @realDonaldTrump faster…”
• Joss Whedon, director of the Avengers movies and donor of $1 million to a pro-Hillary Clinton SuperPAC, Tweeted this
coup-sounding comment after Trump had been legally elected: “This is
simple: Trump cannot CANNOT be allowed a term in office. It’s not about
2018. It’s about RIGHT NOW.” And how is Trump to be denied a term in
office without engaging in insurrection and sedition? And how do Whedon
and other members of the PC Choir square this seditious talk with their
claim that, like Hillary, they were absolutely “horrified” when Trump
said that he would not necessarily concede defeat immediately after the
election, if informed that Clinton had won. His response was entirely
reasonable, if taken in the proper context, inasmuch as it reflected a
“wait and see” approach that recognized the need to be sure that a
proper vote count had been taken and any voting “irregularities” or vote
fraud had been investigated. But here we are nearly three months after
the election, and after multiple post-election efforts by the
“horrified” folks to derail the Trump presidency, the “progressives” who
prattled endlessly about “peaceful transferal of power” are still
waging a scorched-earth war.
Have any of the privileged miscreants uttering these threats or
inflammatory, vulgar remarks been held to account? Not that we can see,
although a few of them have been, reportedly, visited by the Secret
Service. And some, after being shamed by the alternative media
(certainly not by the MSM hypocrites) have quietly removed their
offensive Tweets and Facebook posts. But few of the high-level offenders
have been forced to clean out their desks and resign.
By way of contrast, it may be recalled that Mozilla (Firefox) CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign
in 2014, but that was because he had been found guilty of the truly
abominable crime of … offending the LGBT Lavender Lobby. How so? It was
“discovered” that several years before, Mr. Eich had donated $1,000 to
(Oh, the horror!) California’s Prop 8 initiative, the voter-approved
state constitutional amendment that declared only marriage between a man
and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Such unpardonable
bigotry! So, according to the current dictates of our morally
disoriented intelligentsia, it is a righteous thing for the likes of
Eich to be hounded from his job for exercising his right as an American
citizen to oppose the now-sacred “right” of same-sex “marriage.”
But merely publicly threatening the president of the United
States with assassination, wishing his untimely death, or urging
revolution and insurrection, well, that’s OK, not even worth a tsk-tsk
from the media moralizers. We have seen no reports that Kornblum,
Harrigan, Ayloush, Whedon, or Fedida have suffered any employment
retribution, and certainly none of the lynch-mob treatment from the
media that would assuredly be meted out to any similar language directed
at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or other icons of the Left.
A few low-level anti-Trumpistas have suffered loss of employment for
their uncivil and unwise Internet postings, as, for instance, the
burlesque dancer in Kentucky, Heather Lowery, who Tweeted
this loving message: “If someone was cruel enough to assassinate MLK,
maybe someone will be kind enough to assassinate Trump.” What would be
laughable, were it not so deadly serious, is that Lowery’s wish for
murderous kindness includes: “#bekind #trump #lovetrumpshate.”
Heather Lowery
A few other privileged offenders have had their wrists (lightly)
slapped, but have gotten a pass from their comrades in the commentariat.
Katie Rich, a comedy writer for Saturday Night Live
(NBC), went way over the line when she targeted President Trump’s
10-year-old son, Barron, in this nasty tweet that suggested he would be a
mass-murderer: “Barron will be this country’s first homeschool
shooter.”
Katie Rich tweet
Even NBC recognized that Rich had gone out of bounds with this ugly
comment, but only temporarily “suspended” her. No media outrage over
this. In fact, as the Media Research Center reported, Rich’s confreres in the media bent over backwards to spare her. The New York Times
and Associated Press, for instance, both soft-pedaled the story,
intentionally failing even to quote, let alone reproduce, Rich’s
child-abusing tweet.
The Times reported that Rich had been suspended for tweeting
“a widely criticized post she made Friday on her personal Twitter
account in which she mocked Barron Trump, the 10-year-old son of
President Donald J. Trump.” That’s all, just a “widely criticized post”
that “mocked” the president’s son. The AP reported that Rich was
suspended “after tweeting a poorly received joke about Donald Trump’s
10-year-old youngest son, Barron.” No, nothing serious here, just a
“poorly received joke.” Clearly, the Times, AP, and the rest of
the mediameisters that followed suit did not want any of the outrage
that they have been so assiduously trying to gin up toward Trump to be
diluted or redirected toward any other target.
Another example: “Journalist” Julia Ioffe — a writer for Politico and a columnist for Foreign Policy
— got into (somewhat) hot water for an especially vile X-rated Tweet
(which we will not reproduce) speculating on incest between President
Trump and his daughter Ivanka. Ioffe, whose writings have appeared in
much of the “prestige press,” was in the process of leaving Politico for a new position at The Atlantic when she Tweeted. As a result of her controversial tweet, Politco announced it had “accelerated” her departure. Her new employer, The Atlantic,
however, didn’t flinch, merely stating that Ioffe “made a mistake today
on Twitter, which she regrets and for which she has publicly
apologized.” They expressed confidence that she would adhere to The Atlantic’s
standards. Those “standards,” apparently, fall well below those of Va
Va Vixens, the Louisville dirty-dancing company that fired the
aforementioned dancer Heather Lowery “the moment we were informed of
this incident.”
“We have a zero tolerance policy for such,” the owners of the
burlesque establishment said in a statement. “It’s no secret that we are
in the midst of a divided nation. With so much hate and anger in the
world, our hope is to be a sanctuary that welcomes all walks of life
with open arms,” they stated. The management at the New York Times, The Atlantic,
NBC, Saturday Night Live, and the rest of the MSM anti-Trump lynch mob
could take some “zero tolerance” pointers from the management of Va Va
Vixens.
And what about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Charles Schumer,
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, and Nancy Pelosi? Have
they denounced the incendiary rhetoric and violent demonstrations? To
the contrary, in their speeches they have poured gasoline on the fires
and helped further incite the extremists. Have the moralists of the
lamestream media named and shamed the advocates of assassination and
violence? Have the media moralizers, who repeatedly demand that Trump
and the Republicans “tone down” the rhetoric, made the same demands of
these Democrat Party leaders, whose followers are the only side engaging
in mass violence?
Hah! The mavens of Big Media have instead covered for these
“progressive” Democrat leaders, just as they have covered for their
violent followers, and have continued to stoke the anti-Trump atmosphere
that guarantees a continuation of the vicious “Love Trumps Hate!”
hypocrisy.
Or perhaps “Love is hate!” would be a better catch-phrase, echoing the 1984 Orwellian slogans “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”
Is that not where we now stand? Is it not truly Orwellian when
masked, violent “protesters” sporting communist hammer-and-sickle flags
and anarchist emblems chant “This is what democracy looks like!” — while
physically blocking peaceful citizens from the inauguration of a
democratically elected president? And when they chant “Love trumps
hate!” — while viciously, physically attacking fellow citizens with whom
they disagree? Is it not truly Orwellian when the “Ministry of Truth”
media hypocrites side with the attackers and accuse the victims of
provoking the violence?
One of the most frightening features of Orwell’s dystopian future was the mandatory daily ritual known as the Two Minute Hate,
in which propaganda films were used to work the inhabitants of Oceania
into a mass frenzy of rage and hatred against the “enemy” — creepily
similar to the actions of the mindless, screaming, hateful lunatic
fringies attacking President Trump (and anyone who disagrees with them)
while proclaiming “Love Trumps Hate!”

The anti-Trumpistas have already announced and demonstrated that they
intend to keep the chaos going. The blocking of airports by the
self-designated “disrupters,” in protest over President Trump’s
executive order restricting refugees and travelers from seven designated
countries, and the riot at the University of California Berkeley
indicate they do not intend to let up. The huge banners they carried at
UC Berkeley — “This is War” and “Become Ungovernable” — belie their faux
alternate appeals for “love,” “peace,” “unity,” “diversity,” and
“tolerance.” The photo below of the UC Berkelesy riot, from a Tweet by Occupy Oakland, gives
a clear “clue” as to the communist pedigree and direction of the melee
organizers. For the past several years Occupy Oakland has been one of
the most radical of the violent Occupy groups plaguing cities all across
the country. (See here, here, and here.)

The leaders of the ongoing havoc are bent on destruction, and their
allies who are sitting in key political offices and in influential posts
of the prostitute press are assisting them in this seditious process.
It’s up to us — you, me, and all Americans who are truth lovers — to
name and shame those that are sowing discord and promoting violence, and
to expose those who are aiding, abetting, funding, and encouraging
them.

Photo at top of graffiti left by anti-Trump protesters in Berkeley, Calif.: AP Images

Hat tips to: Alex Jones, Infowars.com; Jim Hoft,
thegatewaypundit.com; Joe Newby, conservativefiringline.com; Paul Joseph
Watson, Infowars.com; Newsbusters.org; Breitbart.com.
Related articles:
Clinton vs. Trump? No, It’s the Media vs. America
FAKE NEWS: Media Hysteria Over Irrelevant Fake Websites Masks More Sinister Agenda
Americans’ Trust in Media Takes Sharp Dip
“Fake News!”: Laughable Hysteria From Establishment Media
Anti-homosexual “Trump” Notes? Another Leftist “Hate” Hoax
CNN and BuzzFeed Run “Fake News” in Attempt to Damage Trump
Trump Victory Proves “Mainstream” Media Is Globalist Fringe
N.Y. Times Aids Communist-socialist-feminist-LGBT-anarchist Plans for Inauguration Day Mayhem
Nazi Collaborator Soros Continues Multi-pronged War on Trump, Calls Him “Would-be Dictator”

Uncategorized

MISSISSIPPI TOWN RALLIES AFTER ATHEIST COMPLAINT RESULTS IN REMOVAL OF CHRISTIAN FLAG

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ffrfmisstown500000lawsuitthreat-1280x720.jpg

http://cdn.gospelherald.com/data/images/full/21524/rienzi-christian-flag.jpg

MISSISSIPPI TOWN RALLIES AFTER ATHEIST COMPLAINT RESULTS IN REMOVAL

OF CHRISTIAN FLAG

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/02/06/mississippi-town-rallies-after-complaint-results-in-removal-of-christian-flag/;

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

RIENZI, Miss. — Over 100 residents from a small
Mississippi town rallied on Saturday after a complaint from a prominent
professing atheist organization that took issue with a Christian flag
being displayed in a public park resulted in the removal of the banner.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a
letter on Jan. 20 to Rienzi Mayor Walter Williams to assert that the
flag, which had been flown in Veterans Memorial Park, was
unconstitutional. It said that it had been contacted by a local
resident—who was not named—to advise them of the flag’s presence.
“We write to ensure that the town remove the Christian flag from its
memorial garden in order to avoid unconstitutional religious
endorsement,” the letter
read. “We appreciate that the town of Reinzi is attempting to
memorialize [veterans’] sacrifice. But as numerous government entities
have already discovered, honoring those who have served their community
and country does not override the need to remain neutral toward
religion.”
FFRF urged Williams to utilize a completely secular display instead,
and noted that it can be “quite costly” to ignore their request as
another city settled with FFRF in 2015 for $500,000.

“There are countless ways to recognize the sacrifice of our veterans
and military members without also endorsing one religion over all others
in violation of the Constitution,” it said. “By flying a Christian flag
over the memorial, Rienzi sends the message that the town values the
service of minority religious and nonreligious service members less than
their Christian counterparts.”
As a result of the letter, Williams had the flag removed.
“I never dreamed that something like this would have happened in a
town this small, but it happened,” he told local television station
WREG. “We’re gonna fly that flag again and I’m hoping it’s not going to
be long.”

On Saturday, more than 100 residents from the small town of 300 held a
rally in support of the flag, some themselves bearing the emblem.
“We’re not gonna let other people, or a foundation, or anybody else
up in Wisconsin tell us that we can’t fly our flag!” organizer Kevin
Nelms proclaimed to those gathered.
“My whole point behind this [is], you’re gonna take one down, we’re
gonna put a hundred back up,” he added to reporters. Supporters ran
another Christian flag up the flagpole during the event.
Nelms and his group rode from the VFW on their motorcycles to Veterans Memorial Park, flying the flag as they went.
“As a proud American, but number one as a proud Christian, I came
today to stand up for the Lord and stand up for our freedom,”
participant Susan Woodruff stated.
Williams says that he has hired an attorney and further discussion
about the matter will be held at its next board meeting on Tuesday. He
was among those who attended the rally on Saturday.
______________________________________________________

Rienzi, Mississippi Christian Flag Rally (2/4/17)

Published on Feb 4, 2017

A
crowd of people waving Christian flags descended on the Veterans
Memorial in Rienzi on Saturday after the Freedom From Religion
Foundation sent a letter to the town. The letter stated, “A religious
memorial, like any other religious display endorsed by the government,
is unconstitutional.” The town removed the flag for the time being, but
Rienzi Mayor Walter Williams hopes the Christian flag can fly again at
the site soon.

SHOULD
A MISSISSIPPI TOWN HAVE TO REMOVE A CHRISTIAN FLAG?

SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/MacAulay/jake191.htm;

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

By
Jake MacAulay
February 8, 2017
NewsWithViews.com

The
United States Code refers to the Declaration of Independence as the “organic
law” of the United States. And the Declaration clearly claims that
there is an Almighty Creator God, that our rights come from Him, and that
the purpose of civil government is to protect and defend the God-given
rights of the people. The Declaration makes reference to the Bible, God’s
Word, as the source of earthly, legal authority.

Civil
government includes federal, state, and local city governments like the
town of Rienzi, Mississippi, where this past weekend more than 1/3 of
the town’s population showed up to a rally in defense of a Christian
flag flying over their Veterans Memorial Park.

It seems
the Freedom from Religion organization wrote a letter that threatened
a half-million-dollar lawsuit against the small town of 300 people if
the flag wasn’t taken down.

Some
folks like organizer Kevin Nelms responded like Americans, declaring,
“We’re not gonna let other people, or a foundation, or anybody else
up in Wisconsin tell us that we can’t fly our flag! You’re gonna take
one down; we’re gonna put a hundred back up.”

Unfortunately
there were city government leaders showing a bit more bewilderment and
naiveté. Believing that he had no choice in the matter, Rienzi
Mayor Walter Williams pulled the flag down, saying, “I never dreamed
that something like this would have happened in a town this small, but
it happened.”

I am
sure this mayor is shocked that the First Amendment, which states, “Congress
shall make no Law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof…” would be used as a legal threat
by an assailing organization that hates God.

So,
the legal question I present to you is whether the city has broken the
law by flying a Christian flag, among others, at a Veterans memorial?
In other words, does flying a flag equate to Congress making a law, the
effect of which is to establish an official United States religion?

Well,
the answer seems to clearly be “NO” for at least two very
simple reasons:

1. The
city of Renzi is NOT “Congress”
2. A flag being hung is not a “law”

In order
to find that a flag hung in Mississippi (or anywhere else) is a violation
of the Establishment Clause, the first thing you have to conclude is that
the city of Renzi is, in legal contemplation, the Congress of the United
States.

Crazy,
you say?

I agree.
But this is exactly the conclusion that some maintain through a “legal
fiction” the courts call the “Incorporation Doctrine.”

George
Washington, our First President, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
that won the war for our independence, and the President of the Congress
that gave us our Constitution and the First Amendment, insisted:

“Of
all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion
and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great
Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and
citizens.”

In other
words, George Washington would have called dysfunctional organizations
like the Freedom from Religion “un-Patriotic” and therefore
“un-American”! So along with the city of Renzi, let’s
be Patriots and hang our Christian flags!

Learn
more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and his Institute on the
Constitution and receive your
free gift.

Uncategorized

TRUMP’S DEFENSE SECRETARY MATTIS WARNS NORTH KOREA: U.S. RESPONSE WILL BE “OVERWHELMING”

TRUMP’S DEFENSE SECRETARY MATTIS WARNS NORTH KOREA: U.S. RESPONSE WILL BE “OVERWHELMING”

Published on Feb 2, 2017

U.S.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warned North Korea that any use of nuclear
weapons by the North on the United States or its allies would be met
with what he called an “effective and overwhelming” response.
U.S.
defense secretaries have long offered assurances to South Korea and
Japan that its nuclear “umbrella” will protect them, but Mattis’s
statement was perhaps more pointed than most. He made the remarks during
an appearance with his South Korean counterpart, Defense Minister Han
Min Koo.
“North Korea continues to launch missiles, develop its
nuclear weapons program, and engage in threatening rhetoric and
behavior,” Mattis said with Han standing at his side and U.S. and South
Korean flags at their backs.
“We stand with our peace-loving Republic
of Korea ally to maintain stability on the peninsula and in the
region,” he added. “America’s commitments to defending our allies and to
upholding our extended deterrence guarantees remain ironclad: Any
attack on the United States, or our allies, will be defeated, and any
use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be
effective and overwhelming.”

Uncategorized

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ADDRESS AT MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, TAMPA BAY

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ADDRESS

AT MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, TAMPA BAY

Uncategorized

NATHAN LEAN OF GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY CALLS FOR “PUBLIC UPRISING” TO OVERTHROW TRUMP

NATHAN LEAN OF GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY CALLS FOR “PUBLIC UPRISING” TO OVERTHROW TRUMP

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/nathan-lean-of-georgetown-university-calls-for-public-uprising-to-overthrow-trump;

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

Georgetown’s Nathan Lean is a supreme example of how academia has
become a radioactive desert of hard-Left indoctrination and opposition
to the freedom of speech. He is supposedly an expert on “Islamophobia,”
which really means that he is an expert on character assassination of
those whom he deems “Islamophobes.”

A longtime foe of the freedom of speech, Lean has dedicated his life to defaming and lying about
anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about the
religious ideology that guides Islamic jihadists and incites them to
commit mass murder. His targets have included Richard Dawkins, Sam
Harris, Maajid Nawaz and me, and in every case, Lean plays fast and loose with the facts, cheerfully purveying falsehoods even when he has been shown that they are false
(the images are gone from that old post, but it still conveys the
substance), so desperate is he to clear away all obstacles to the
advance of jihad terror. Not content to defame his targets over their
opposition to jihad terror, he stalks them elsewhere: I was scheduled to
speak several years ago at an education conference that had nothing to
do with Islam, but Lean mounted a defamation campaign that intimidated a
cowardly Catholic bishop, Jaime Soto, to cancel the event (it was held at another location) because of my work on Islam.
Lean is not content to spread lies about those whom he hates; he is
also the lowest kind of thug, and has repeatedly tweeted out links to
what he thinks is my home address and places that I frequent (he was
wrong in both cases, but that’s beside the point), in an obvious attempt
either to frighten me into silence or to signal to his jihadi friends
and allies where I can be found and killed. He is an expert, practiced
hater — a look at his Twitter feed shows that he regularly revels in
crude and vicious abuse of those who dare to say the slightest negative
word about the Religion of Peace. As he claims to be opposing “haters,”
he is easily one of the most hateful individuals I have ever encountered
in my entire life.
And now he has shown his true colors. This is sedition. Will
Georgetown University continue to employ someone with such contempt for
the Constitution and the rule of law? Of course they will, because the
Saudis remunerate them handsomely.
________________________________________________________

Islamophobia in America: Causes, Challenges, and Solutions with Nathan Lean

Uncategorized

EXPOSED: INSIDER COUP TO SABOTAGE TRUMP

EXPOSED: INSIDER COUP TO SABOTAGE TRUMP

Coup designed to protect Clintons

BY JEROME CORSI

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/exposed-insider-coup-to-sabotage-trump/;

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

NEW YORK – Acclaimed Haitian-rights activist Ézili Dantò, who endorsed Donald Trump
for president in 2016, has alerted Infowars.com of an attempt to
sabotage from within Trump’s campaign pledge to be the “champion” of
repairing damage Haitian activists claim the Clintons have done.
The
Clintons were reportedly stealing possibly billions from the relief
effort organized in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake through the
State Department, while Hillary was secretary of state, and the Clinton
Foundation.
Specifically, Dantò is concerned Omarosa
Manigault, director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison
in the Trump administration is organizing a delegation to travel to
Haiti on Monday to witness the inauguration next Tuesday of
president-elect Jovenel Moïse.
Dantò and other prominent Haitian activists in the U.S. that voted
for Trump consider Moïse to be another corrupt candidate hand-picked by
the Clintons to perpetuate their crime syndicate grip upon their beloved
homeland.
At time of publication, Infowars.com is waiting for a
response to an inquiry placed with the White House press office for
comment.
Former president of the Haitian Senate, Bernard Sansaricq, issued a blistering statement last September that was posted on the Trump campaign website
accusing that Bill and Hillary Clinton used the 2010 earthquake
disaster as an excuse “to steal billions of dollars from the sick and
starving people of Haiti.”
The Clintons’ financial exploitation of
Haiti is discussed at length by Peter Schweizer in his 2015 bestselling
book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign
governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”
In
my 2016 book, “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the
White House for Personal Profit,” can be found documentation that after
the 2010 earthquake, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation
Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual efforts for
immediate relief efforts.
Yet on the Clinton Foundation website
there is no documentation an IRS Form 1023 application to form the
Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund had ever been filed, nor is there any
documentation of an IRS letter determination granting the Clinton
Foundation Haiti Fund tax-exempt status.
In 2016, the pages of the
Clinton Foundation annual reports and website remain peppered with
photographs of the Clinton family members mixing with the Haiti people.
The Clinton Global Initiative prose waxed eloquently with praise for
the philanthropic good Bill and Hillary Clinton have accomplished in
Haiti.
The Clinton Foundation 2013-2014 annual report mentions Haiti 48 times,
with the section entitled, “Clinton Foundation in Haiti: Investing in
sustainable economic growth,” displaying on pages 38-39 the text against
a two-page spread of full-page color photographs showing smiling
Haitian children at their desks in a schoolroom, being instructed by a
smiling teacher at the chalkboard at the front of the class.
Yet, as noted by Breitbart.com in an article published July 27, 2016, reports persist
that “black lives don’t really matter to Bill and Hillary Clinton when
it comes to Haiti,” as the evidence persists that the Haitian people
continue to live in essentially the same misery as they experienced in
the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake, while billions of dollars in aid
money went missing as it funneled through the Clintons’ grasp over
Haiti.
Also of concern was that Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham,
“landed a lucrative and historically rare Haitian ‘gold exploration
permit’ while Clinton Foundation donors, including Digicel mobile phone
company founder Denis O’Brien, were winning multi-million dollar
contracts that would siphon massive profits from the poorest country in
the Western Hemisphere.”
Omarosa gained fame as a guest appearing
during Season One of Donald Trump’s NBC reality-television show, “The
Apprentice.” Yet her roots are solidly in the Democratic Party.
Her
job history shows she worked for Vice President Al Gore in the White
House, despite a controversial history of supposedly being banished from
four jobs in two years with the Clinton administration, according to a report published by People Magazine in 2004.
The
2004 story in People Magazine reported that Omarosa “was asked to leave
as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive,” according Cheryl
Shavers, the former Under Secretary for Technology at the Commerce
Department, where Omarosa worked several weeks in 2000. “One woman
wanted to slug her,” Shavers said, according to the magazine article.
Evidence suggests Omarosa traveled to Haiti in 2007 with the Haiti Support Project – a group founded by Dr. Ron Daniels, the president of the Black World 21st Century, an organizer of the Black World Conference.

Uncategorized

APPLE 6’S NEW “EYE OF SAURON”: HOW THE CASHLESS SOCIETY WILL TRACK YOU EVERYWHERE

http://www.walkerdigital.com/media/gallery/photo-30.jpg

HOW THE CASHLESS SOCIETY

WILL TRACK YOU EVERYWHERE

Elite setting up totalitarian grids of control

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/how-the-cashless-society-will-track-you-everywhere/;

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

Alex Jones discusses the move towards a cashless society and
reveals how digital currency is designed to track and analyze humanity.

FLASHBACK – Cashless Society:

Apple’s New Eye Of Sauron

Uncategorized

CRAZY LADY KICKED OFF FLIGHT FOR HARASSING TRUMP SUPPORTER SEATED NEXT TO HER

CRAZY LADY KICKED OFF FLIGHT FOR HARASSING TRUMP SUPPORTER SEATED NEXT TO HER

REPORT BY MARK DICE

Published on Jan 24, 2017

A
lunatic liberal was kicked off a flight for harassing a passenger
sitting next to her when she found out he was a Trump supporter. Media
analyst Mark Dice has the story. Full video here: https://www.facebook.com/scott.kotesk…

Uncategorized

TO SHARON FROM BETHEL CHURCH: A RESPONSE TO YOUR REBUKE

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AAAqatnhPms/maxresdefault.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/b8/67/38b8670204e4f20d366e36a1e695960d.jpg

John and Carol Arnott - Catch the Fire (formerly Toronto Airport ...

TO SHARON FROM BETHEL CHURCH:

A RESPONSE TO YOUR REBUKE

BY BUD AHLHEIM

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/02/02/to-sharon-from-bethel-church-a-response-to-your-rebuke/;

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

Dear Sharon,
Thank you so much for taking the time to comment. Be assured that
yours is not the first “rebuke” that we’ve received for what is viewed
as an “attack” on Bethel Church, nor will it be the last.
But I would, at least, like to offer a response of my own to you. I
attempted to reply privately to the email address you provided.
However, my email was undelivered as the address you provided was
invalid.
It is true that I have engaged – and Pulpit & Pen has engaged –
in vigorous polemics against Bethel Church. But it has been done as a
result of something that you actually mentioned in your email – it’s
because “the Bible itself says.”
In places like Jude 3, “the Bible itself says”
to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” This
is what compels me – and others – to write or speak in a polemical
fashion against Bethel. The “faith” that Bethel represents is clearly
not the “faith once for all delivered.” (You can review the many assessments about the dangers of Bethel by going HERE.)
I contend not for the sake of winning an argument, but in the hopes
that you, and those like you, being deceived by evident and identifiable
error, might be prompted to “examine yourself to see if you are in the
faith.” (2 Corinthians 13:5) It’s as a result of a Berean-like comparison (Acts 17:11)
of Bethel’s practice and teaching against Scripture that I – and many
others – realize that Bethel is a toxic-waste dump spewing spiritual
poison at undiscerning, emotions-driven souls. We contend because those
souls matter and Scripture tells us to contend.
“The Bible itself says” in Romans 16:17-18
that we are to “watch out” for those who come along with “contrary
doctrine” who not only “cause divisions” in the church, but also who,
with “smooth talk and flattery,” “deceive the hearts of the naïve.” It’s
in those same verses where we are explicitly told to “avoid them.”
But, Sharon, “avoiding them” does not preclude me, or any believer, from
warning those caught in the clutches of their deception. To not tell
the blind man he’s about to plummet over the
unseen-by-him-but-assuredly-approaching precipice would be, as “the Bible itself says,” sin.

“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” James 4:17

Like the summertime ice cream truck as it drives by the playground
broadcasting child-enticing melodies through its loudspeakers, so too
does Bethel appeal with its spiritual charms that offer the exact thing
that fallen human nature desires – an experience that empowers us beyond
the often mundane realities of our sin-ridden human existence.
It’s not, as you say Sharon, that they “do it different than you”
that prompts the polemics. It’s that they do it wrong – not according to
my standards – but according to God’s, in His Word. The “Jesus” lauded
by Bethel – though the “Holy Spirit” gets lauded far more often, and as equally illegitimately
– is not the Jesus of His Word. The real Jesus revealed in Scripture
is not driving the Bethel ice-cream truck as it plays enticing tunes to
the world promising treats for your soul. The driver of Bethel’s
vehicle is far more nefarious, far more deceptive. The real driver is
an imposter who’s favorite alias is “Jesus,” and he’s selling spiritual
treats in return for your soul.
It’s because, Sharon, that “the Bible itself says,” in places like Matthew 7:15, that “false prophets” will most certainly plague the church. You said, “I hardly think Satan could be behind such great fruit!” Again, however, “the Bible itself says”
that these false prophets Jesus warned against would come attired not
in the garb of the devil. The enemy doesn’t appear with fangs dripping
blood and an angry, whipping pointed tail, bearing in his long-nailed
clutches a scythe of death and mayhem. Jesus said the agents of the
enemy will appear superficially just like the sheep, but that they are
“inwardly ravenous wolves.”
Please be reminded also that “the Bible itself says,” in 2 Corinthians 11:14,
that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” That’s the very
logical reason that his deception works. It works because it masquerades
as authentic, and those who don’t actually know what “the Bible itself says”
are intentionally naïve and vulnerable to false teachers, false
doctrines, and eternal destruction. It is imperative that we know
exactly what “the Bible itself says” in order to recognize deception, especially the deception that comes slathered in an appealing veneer of Scripture and Christianese.

“The Bible itself says that it cannot possibly contain everything that could have been written. There is so much more to Him.” Sharon from Bethel Church

The Apostle John wrote, in John 21:25,
that “there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one
of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain
the books that would be written.” But Sharon, your implication about
this is decidedly different than that of the Apostle, or, indeed, of the
rest of the testimony of Scripture.
John’s intent in writing what he did – by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – was very clear. “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)
While there is indeed “so much more to Him,” there is nothing “more”
that we need to know in order to arrive at the saving knowledge of Him
for which John wrote his inspired Gospel, which happens to be the point
of ALL of Scripture. God did not leave the Bible unfinished and
lacking; He gave it as complete, closed, and sufficient.

“I pray that you would not be afraid of the ‘more’ of God, knowing Him, not just His written Word” Sharon from Bethel Church

The Apostle John did NOT suggest, encourage, advise, or endorse the need for – or the practice of – going beyond what had been written. In fact, God Himself has told us specifically NOT to do this. “The Bible itself says,” in places like Deuteronomy 4:2, that “You shall not add to the Word which I am commanding you.” “The Bible itself says,” in Proverbs 30: 6, “Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” Again, in Revelation 22:18-19, “the Bible itself says,”
in a very dire warning, that “if anyone adds to them, God will add to
him the plagues which are written in this Book; and if anyone takes away
from” what “the Bible itself says” that “God will take away his part from the tree of life.”
There are many ways we may “add to” or “take away” from Scripture.
To do either doesn’t mean we take actual ink to paper, penning what we
presume are missing parts, pasting them in as an addendum to the actual
bound book. We add or take away by failing to comprehend the Book we
already have. We can do it by our professed theology, but, more often,
we do it by our behavior. (Bethel does both, btw.) We
naturally – or, as Paul would say it, “in the flesh” – want to avoid the
difficult truths of Scripture while embracing the ones that comfort,
console, and encourage us. This neglect of Scripture, though, is taking
away from it. But, by falsely validating our desired behavior with
favorite verses we’ve twisted to fit our ends, we are adding to that
Word.
But your comment above is very reminiscent of what the “apostle” Bill Johnson wrote in his Scripture-twisting book, isn’t it? (No, though C. Peter Wagner referred to Johnson as an apostle,
be assured of this: there are NO apostles on the planet today. If you
want to hear from one, read their inspired New Testament works. They’re
still talking today … in the Bible.)

“Those who feel safe because of their intellectual grasp
of Scriptures enjoy a false sense of security. None of us has a full
grasp of Scripture, but we all have the Holy Spirit. He is our common
denominator who will always lead us into truth. But to follow Him, we
must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know.” Bill
Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth

It’s the mixture of truth with error that serves a lethal cone to the
undiscerning Bethel ice-cream buyer. Johnson is correct that “none of
us has a full grasp of Scripture.” And he is correct that for those who
are authentically regenerated by Him – and false teachers are NOT among them – “we all have the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit will lead us into truth.
However, the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is NEVER found by
following “off the map” of His inspired Word as Johnson claims. It is
precisely because we have not grasped the fullness of Truth in Scripture
that the Holy Spirit drives us deeper into that Word. The Holy Spirit
never, ever, ever takes you off the path of Scripture.
The explicit point of God’s revelation in Scripture is so that we may
KNOW Him and His redemptive Truth in Christ. The Holy Spirit does not
lead us “beyond what we know” through ecstatic experiences but, instead,
always leads us to more and deeper knowledge and continually growing
understanding of His Truth so long as we “abide in my word.” (John 8:31).
But this knowledge – this understanding- based on Truth, is divinely
given as objective and propositional, not subjective and emotional.
Unlike the off-roading Bethel ice-cream truck, the Holy Spirit will
only drive you down the narrow path bounded by the guard rails of His
inspired Word. (Matthew 7:13-14)
(For some worthwhile verses on the importance of “knowing” from Scripture, consider Colossians 1:9-10, Galatians 4:8-9, Colossians 2:2, Proverbs 2:1-6, Ephesians 4:17-24, Philippians 1:9-11, 1 Peter 1:13, John 17:3)
Sharon, it’s very much worth your study to consider another place where “the Bible itself says”
that altering God’s word, adding to it, deleting from it, or seeking
for “more” beyond it, brings condemnation, not the life-promising “more”
offered warmly by the subtle deceiver of souls. In Mark 7:9-13, “the Bible itself says” that Jesus was engaged in dialogue with some Pharisees. Jesus chided them in Mark 7:9
by saying, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in
order to establish your tradition!” This had to be a shock to the
Pharisees. They were the experts in the Law. They were the religious
elite of the day.
But what did Jesus say about them? Look at Mark 7:13
… they were “making void the word of God” by their “tradition.” The
handed-down tradition of the Pharisees missed the intent of the Law of
God and made His Word void. The “tradition,” Sharon, was their behavior.
It was how they acted by adding “more” to God’s Word. They demanded
behavior and practices un-endorsed by God for the people of God that
promised – by adherence to them – righteousness. The Pharisees were
driving an ice-cream truck of legalism that promised “more.” But, if
you’ll look over at what “the Bible itself says” in Matthew 23:15, you’ll find that the “more” of the Pharisees was not positively affirmed by the Lord. Rather, it was condemned.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single
proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a
child of hell as yourselves.”

Sharon, it’s the “more” that you encourage and seek that is the
precise problem with Bethel. There is no “more” that we need, have been
given, or are to seek. In John 8:31, “the Bible itself says”
that a disciple of Jesus would be known by one preeminent thing: they
would “abide in my word.” It is by abiding in that Word that such
wonderful – and authentic – fruit of the Holy Spirit is generated. As
He guides us to grasp more understanding of His biblically-revealed
Truth, the more we grow in legitimate spiritual fruit. That fruit is
never found outside the boundaries of that “Word.”
The “more” traditions of the Pharisees, born outside the Word, are no
different than the behaviors of Bethel which are also clearly outside
the Word. Both bring condemnation – despite how good, spiritual,
righteous or ecstatic those behaviors make you feel.
Regardless of how enticingly soul-soothing the melodies of Bethel’s
attractions are, its intentional willingness to “go beyond” what God has
revealed in His Word will result in a Pharisee-like condemnation by the
Lord.
Sharon, when I read your line about the “more of God,” I hear someone
who has been deceived by the subtlety of an enemy doing the very same
thing he did with Eve in the Garden. It’s the same sin-inducing query of
“Hath God said?” He’s appealing to you that there is “more” to be had
and that God is holding out. Sadly, Sharon, for you – and others at
Bethel – the subtle echoes of an Eden serpent’s suggestive appeal “What else hath God said and how can you get ‘more?” is being heard – and you are following that voice at your peril.
But Sharon, from the fall of man onward, the deceit of the enemy has
always been the subtle suggestion promising “more.” If he’s not trying
to persuade that there is no God, he’s trying to suggest there are many
ways to Him and that He is instinctively holding back the good until
you get it right. But “the Bible itself says” that God has
given us, by His divine power in the revealed Truth of His Word, “all
things that pertain to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:3) In fact, the Apostle Peter, a few verses later, in 2 Peter 1:19, said that “we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed” – the “prophetic word” is, by the way, the Bible. But Peter adds a sobering reminder that “you will do well to pay attention” to that Word.
And that “Word,” Sharon, must always be the “Word” in your hands,
consumed by your study, and comprehended by your mind. It is not a voice
in your head, an impression in your soul, or a sensation in your
emotions. By studying it, we may be “approved unto God,” as the KJV puts
2 Timothy 2:15.
We are not approved to – or by – going beyond it in a destruction-sure
pursuit of “more.” The lure of an Eden-esque “more” always leads away
from the “rightly handled word of truth.” So Sharon, when someone
suggests an extra-biblical detour, you should take note and be warned.
The Holy Spirit will NEVER abandon His holy, inspired Word.
We are to “know the truth,” (John 8:32)
so that we may be set free; not “feel” the truth. Jesus said, “I am
the way, the truth, and the life.” He didn’t say “I am the experience.
Go beyond my word to find “more.” We do not know Jesus outside His
Word. The presence of His Word, the Bible, is more than a mere clue
about how He intends to reveal Himself and His Truth.
The ultimate end of our Christian life is holiness. Though we will
only be fully sanctified when finally in His eternal presence, the
process goes on here by the illuminating and convicting work of the Holy
Spirit. But sanctification – this process of becoming “holy as I am
holy” (1 Peter 1:16)– is also not driven by experience nor confirmed by emotions, regardless of how ecstatic. Sanctification is through His Word. “The Bible itself says,”
in perhaps the most epic chapter of the entire Bible, that Jesus prayed
to the Father for our sanctification. Note the mechanism highlighted
by our Lord for that sanctification. “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
Truth is not experientially apprehended, it is objectively
comprehended. Truth comes not from feelings, but from understanding.
It is found exclusively in “your word.”
It is not the “Holy Ghost gold dust” blowing from Bethel’s air ducts
that indicate the presence of God. The evidence of God’s presence in a
believer isn’t experientially spiritual. Rather, it is propositionally
spiritual. We understand Truth, apprehend it, comprehend it – and that
Truth develops within us a renewed mind (Romans 12:2) and authentic fruit of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23) We think differently and, as a result, we act differently, in accordance to the Word, not in addition to the Word. Spiritual fruit is never grown in an off-the-narrow-path orchard that is beyond the rightly handled Word of God.
Sharon, I’m not trying to win an argument here. But you have much to
lose. Bethel, by its practice and by its proclamations, goes beyond
the explicit, evident, and perspicuous Truth of God’s Word, twisting it
to validate its appealing, though illicit, endeavors.
For the sake of your soul, Sharon, please consider that you are being
deceived by an appeal from the wide path. And you can be absolutely
sure it is from the wide path because it goes far beyond the boundaries
of God’s Word. And once you fail to heed precisely what “God hath
said,” you open yourself up to deception in this life and destruction in
the next. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Sharon, once you are willing to go beyond what “the Bible itself says,”
you have opened yourself up to certain deception, for you have nothing
against which to compare truth from error. Outside the known revealed
Truth of Scripture, you will be deceived by an enemy bent on
your destruction. Warm-fuzzies and ecstatic spiritual “highs” don’t
validate truth and those experiences quickly become our goal. Only
knowing what “the Bible itself says” can you, or I, be
absolutely certain about our faith, our practice, and our feelings.
Emotional experiences can often deceive; God’s Word never does. Please
don’t sell your soul in exchange for such temporal charms.
But, again, thank you for commenting, Sharon. I will pray for you,
and the others caught in the deceptive trap of Bethel. To body-tackle
the blind man approaching the cliff may appear unloving and cruel to one
who cannot see the approaching precipice, but for those who see the
danger, it’s the most loving thing that could be done. Such is this,
Sharon. Such is this.
God bless you.
Bud Ahlheim
______________________________________________________

Bethel “Church”, Redding, California / Bill Johnson /

Kris Vallotton / Etc.

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/information-database/bethel-redding-bill-johnson-kris-vallotton-etc/;

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

Pulpit & Pen Resources

Other Resources

______________________________________________________
ALSO SEE OUR NUMEROUS POSTS ABOUT BILL JOHNSON, BETHEL CHURCH, & NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION

Uncategorized

THERE’S A WOLF IN THE HOUSE: 18 SIGNS OF APOSTASY

THERE’S A WOLF IN THE HOUSE:

18 SIGNS OF APOSTASY

BY MATT SHERRO

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/02/02/theres-a-wolf-in-the-house-18-signs-of-apostasy/;

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

There is a danger that has come into the sheepfold; apostates have
come in and they probably have always been here. However, with the
prevalence of social media, their influence has spread and it is more
important than ever before to recognize the marks of an apostate, a
person who at one time knew and maybe even taught the truths of the
Bible but walked away or a person who consistently teaches false
doctrines to the Church. Jude, the Lord’s youngest human brother, points
out several signs of an apostate and I want to draw your attention to
them.

(This may be a different post than what you are used to from Pulpit
& Pen but I write from a primarily pastoral approach so I hope it
will be helpful to you.)

Book of Jude (HCSB),

1 Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James:
To those who are the called, loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.

2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.

3 Dear friends, although I was
eager to write you about the salvation we share, I found it necessary to
write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the
saints once for all. 4 For some men, who were
designated for this judgment long ago, have come in by stealth; they are
ungodly, turning the grace of our God into promiscuity and denying
Jesus Christ, our only Master and Lord.

Right away we begin to see the characteristics of the Apostates that Jude warns about…

1.) Apostates are ungodly (v. 4)

When the New Testament writers say that a person is ungodly, it does
not simply mean that the person does not know God, it also means that he
does not have a character that is consistent with the revealed Person
and Nature of God.

2.) They are morally perverted (v. 4)

In the NIV, promiscuity is translated as “license to commit
immorality.” Among other things, these apostates teach that there is no
need to struggle to overcome sin. The Greek word rendered as contend, or
contend earnestly (NKV, NASB) is agonizomai from which we derive
the word agonize. Because our sinful nature will not easily be
transformed into Christlikeness, it can seem agonizing, at times to give
up that sin in order to be more like Christ.

Many, many apostates teach instead that God will give you all the
things you want: health, wealth, possessions, influence, etc and all you
have to do is “sow the best offering that you can” without any call to
true repentance or humility. Examples of such teachers include but are
not limited to Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Jesse
Duplantis, Rod Parsley, Joyce Meyer, TD Jakes, Mark Chironna and scads
of others. One has even gone so far as to say that anyone who tells you
to deny yourself is from Satan. These ignore the command of Jesus to
deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24).

In truth, you do not even have to teach grace as a license to sin
however you please to turn grace into license, all you have to do is
refuse to teach the truth of God’s grace, that it saves you from sin and
its power not simply that it saves you from hell. And just in case you
were going to object and say that such things are not perverted, the
definition of perverse is something that is contrary to the generally
accepted standard or practice. Since the Bible is our standard, anything
contradicting the Bible or anything taught in the pulpit that does not
match Scripture is, by definition, perverted.

3.) Apostates Deny Christ (v. 4)

Ultimately, this leads to a denial of Christ; the Jesus taught and
embraced by the apostates simply is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Apostates: Past and Present

5 Now I want to
remind you, though you know all these things: The Lord first saved a
people out of Egypt and later destroyed those who did not believe; 6 and
He has kept, with eternal chains in darkness for the judgment of the
great day, the angels who did not keep their own position but deserted
their proper dwelling. 7 In the same way, Sodom and
Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and
practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by
undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Nevertheless, these dreamers likewise defile their flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme glorious ones.

4.) They defile the flesh (v.7& 8)

As we are seeing today, apostates defile the flesh in ungodly and
unbiblical ways. Some of my evangelical brethren will immediately point
to homosexuality but what about other sins: drunkenness, gluttony (I
think I have only heard one sermon on gluttony in 25 years),
fornication, domestic violence (yes the Bible actually addresses this
topic which I have never in my life heard addressed in the pulpit).

Defiling the flesh refers primarily to sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:18)
which is a sin against one’s own body, but this is not exclusive.
Remember that Jude’s oldest half-brother, the Lord Jesus Himself, even
went so far as to equate contemplating the sin with the actual sin
itself (Matthew 5:27-28).
When is the last time you heard a sermon about sexual lust (lust of the
flesh), greed (lust of the eyes), or counteracting the boastful pride
of life by being poor in spirit?

5.)Apostates are Rebellious (v. 8)

By not teaching what the Bible actually says, these apostates live in
and encourage rebellion in others. A pastor once told me that 1% out of
submission is equal to being 100% in rebellion against God. To deny a
doctrine, the reality of hell for example (Rob Bell) and to teach that
denial to others is absolute rebellion against God. To refuse to yield
to the Authority of Scripture is to refuse to yield to the Author. They
go hand in hand; authority entails submission.

6.) Apostates Revile holy angels (v. 8)

This is a mark against Pentecostals if I ever saw one. Growing up
Pentecostal, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen pastors “bind”
satan or command him to do this or that; both of which are patently
absurd. If Michael, the highest angel (archangel means chief angel)
dares not to speak against the devil, what in the world possesses a
“Christian” to do so? There is no biblical justification to think you
can command an angel to do anything. Even fallen angels serve at the
pleasure of God Almighty and Him alone. They advance His agenda and they
fulfill His sovereign decrees and so, not matter how much your favorite
teacher might tell you otherwise, you cannot command them to do
anything and it is ridiculous to think the opposite.

7.) Essentially, Apostates are ignorant (v. 8)

The behavior we have discussed so far demonstrates and absolute
willful ignorance of both the Things of God and of His Person. To know
Him as He is demands that one is to submit to Him. Look to Revelation
chapter one and see the reaction of John when he saw just a picture of
the Resurrected Christ and you will see what kind of response a true
knowledge of God the Son results in.

9 Yet Michael the
archangel, when he was disputing with the Devil in a debate about Moses’
body, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him but said,
“The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these people blaspheme
anything they don’t understand. What they know by instinct like
unreasoning animals—they destroy themselves with these things.

8.) Apostates are continually having vain ideas (vs. 8-10)

Continuing with the idea of ignorance, apostates have vain/foolish
ideas. Word of Faith teachers, for example, tell you that you can name
and claim your promise from Scripture and activate a response from God
based on your faith. This is hubris and is no different than the idea of
“binding satan.” I have heard them justify this nonsense by saying all
the promises of God are yea and amen. That is only half the truth and is
therefore not the truth. All of God’s promises are yea
and amen but only in so far as to the person(s) they apply to. I will
bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you is a very true
promise but it only applies to the Nation of Israel for that is whom God
made the promise to.

It is utter vanity and foolishness to presume anything upon Him Who
sits upon the Throne. Do not allow yourself to mistake God’s patience
for tolerance. Every person living will have their appointed time before
the Throne; the Righteous will see the Bema (the Judgment Seat for
rewards) and the wicked and apostates will see the Great White Throne as
Heaven’s court dispenses eternal justice.

9.) Apostasy leads to self-destruction (v. 10)

What is the natural end result of apostasy? Self-destruction. God
does not have to directly do anything to these, all He has to do is say
to them, “thy will be done” and step aside. How many ministries have
been damaged and even destroyed by ministers who thought they could get
away with this or that? I would list names but that is impractical.

I can say from personal experience, getting your own way can be
deadly, to your soul as well as your body. After all, there is a way
which seemeth right unto a man and the end thereof is destruction. (Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25)

11 Woe to them! For
they have traveled in the way of Cain, have abandoned themselves to the
error of Balaam for profit, and have perished in Korah’s rebellion.

The Apostates’ Doom

12 These are the
ones who are like dangerous reefs[e] at your love feasts. They feast
with you, nurturing only themselves without fear. They are waterless
clouds carried along by winds; trees in late autumn—fruitless, twice
dead, pulled out by the roots; 13 wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shameful deeds; wandering stars for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever! 14 And Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about them: Look! The Lord comes[f] with thousands of His holy ones 15 to
execute judgment on all and to convict them[g] of all their ungodly
acts that they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things
ungodly sinners have said against Him. 16 These people
are discontented grumblers, walking according to their desires; their
mouths utter arrogant words, flattering people for their own advantage.

Apostates are…

10.) Grumblers (v. 16)
11.) Fault finders (v. 16)
12.) Self-seeking (v. 16)
13.) Arrogant speakers (v. 16)
14.) Flatterers (v. 16)

I will deal with all of these together: they are person centric and
reflect the oldest sin in the book, pride. Pride is that sin which
caused Lucifer to lose his place in heaven and it will do you the same
favor. Pride looks at another, finds his/her deficiency and then exalts
self because you don’t have that particular deficiency. It causes one to
puff up and think of oneself more than he/she really is. Pride, the
oldest known sin, is the truest and surest mark of the apostate. No
matter what other signs you see, the Christian that demonstrates pride
is on treacherous ground and in real danger of going where one does not
want to be, apostasy.

17 But you, dear friends, remember what was predicted by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 they told you, “In the end time there will be scoffers walking according to their own ungodly desires.”

15.) In a sense, apostates are mockers (v. 18)

2 Peter 3:4,
They will say where is the promise of His coming. I would add to that,
they will say things like no serious Christian believes in Hell or, no
loving, tolerant Christian rejects gays, or they will dismiss the
creation account as a myth/a metaphor.

Mark it out, every single apostate has some passage or doctrine that
he does not like and by dismissing it, they make a mockery of God…for
now.

19 These people create divisions and are unbelievers, not having the Spirit.

16.) Cause division (v. 19)
17.) Worldly-minded
18.) Without the Spirit(v. 19)

Apostates cause division in the church because they are worldly
minded and they are worldly minded because they do not have the Holy
Spirit and they do not have the Holy Spirit because they are worldly
minded.

It’s a vicious cycle once you walk away from the truth of Scripture and only the Holy Spirit can bring you back.

Exhortation and Benediction

20 But you, dear friends, as you build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life. 22 Have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; have mercy on others but with fear, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. 24 Now
to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling and to make you stand
in the presence of His glory, blameless and with great joy, 25 to
the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory,
majesty, power, and authority before all time, now and forever. Amen.

Beloved, you may be reading this and say that you have seen some of
these signs in your own life. That is both good and bad news. It is bad
in that a propensity toward apostasy may exist but it is good in that
the Holy Spirit is doing His work of convicting sin. What should you do
if you see signs of apostasy in your life or if you are following a
False Teacher? Repent right away. If the Holy Spirit is convicting you,
agree with Him immediately and confess that sin. He will restore to
communion with Him and you can continue to grow in grace.

Until next time, ahava v’shalom (love and peace)

Uncategorized

RUSSELL MOORE IMPLIES SOUTHERN BAPTISTS DISAGREE WITH TRUMP’S TEMPORARY IMMIGRATION ORDER

http://urbanchristiannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/russell-moore-donald-trump.jpg

RUSSELL MOORE IMPLIES SOUTHERN BAPTISTS DISAGREE WITH TRUMP’S

TEMPORARY IMMIGRATION ORDER

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/01/31/russell-moore-claims-southern-baptists-disagree-with-trumps-temporary-immigration-order/;

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

Invoking fellow Southern Baptists in his rebuke of Donald Trump a
total of seven times, Russell Moore strongly sent the message that those
in his denomination agree with his assessment that the president’s
executive order temporarily halting immigration from hostile nations is
morally objectionable.

In a letter to Donald Trump, which he also sent to majority leaders
in both the House and Senate and published in the Washington Post this
morning, Moore used his position as president of the SBC’s Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission to imply that Southern Baptists
monolithically condemn the recent executive order.

First invoking a June 2016 resolution by SBC messengers that calls for compassion toward Refugees, Moore writes, “Southern Baptist churches throughout the United States lead the way in carrying out this calling.” The
resolution in question, however, does not explicitly condemn applying
common sense to the vetting process for Muslims hailing from nations
prone to terrorism, who have used refugee status to carry out actions
against citizens of the United States.

After tacitly comparing the President’s decision to not allowing Jews
refugee status while fleeing the Third Reich, Moore reluctantly points
out that the aforementioned resolution, calls for the government to
“implement the strictest security measures possible in the refugee
screening and selection process,” but doesn’t affirm the executive
branch for doing precisely that last Friday. Instead, Moore claims that
“refugees are already the most vetted category of immigrants,” implying
that no further scrutiny or evaluation of our immigration policy is
needed.

Moore continues to speaks for Southern Baptists, writing “…we
have concerns about the Executive Order’s consequences,” citing a
Southern Baptist lawmaker who opposed the President’s decision, before
citing Ed Stetzer’s socially progressive article also lamenting the
enforcement of United States immigration law. Rather than citing
statistics regarding the potential harm posed to American citizens (and
crimes already committed against Americans) by those of refugee status,
Moore invokes the concern for Southern Baptist missionaries living in
majority-Muslim nations who might face reprisals.

Moore, who has come under fire for signing an amicus brief demanding
the federal government usurp a New Jersey township’s local authority
and force them to allow the building of a Mosque despite their standard
and non-prejudicial zoning ordinances, closed his rebuke of Trump by
asking him that his policies not discriminate against Muslims, but
rather, “affirm your administration’s commitment to religious freedom
and the inalienable human dignity of persecuted people whether
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Yazidi or other.”

Moore, who serves on George Soros’ Evangelical Immigration Table, has
called a border wall a “golden calf” and called Jesus an “illegal
immigrant,” did not speak of his concern for Christians in America, who
may be put at risk by radicalized Muslims who are not being properly
vetted, and ended by again invoking as moral authority the will of
Southern Baptists, writing “Southern Baptists know that our
responsibility is to care for and serve refugees here in the United
States and around the world, and we remain committed to that mission.”

If you are a Southern Baptist, do you agree with Russell Moore
invoking your name in his rebuke of President Trump’s immigration
policy?

Uncategorized

ACTIVIST JUDGE JAMES ROBART STOPS TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY

JUDICIAL TYRANNY

http://www.munichinternationalpatentlawconference.de/wsp_images/dsc03493.jpg

ACTIVIST JUDGE JAMES ROBART STOPS

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY

SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news565.htm;

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

 By 
        NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri

Legislating From The Bench and putting America in danger

The
federal
judge — who on Friday issued a restraining order on President Donald
Trump’s program to prevent Muslim refugees and visitors from a number
of terrorist hotbeds from entering the United States until they can be
vetted and certified as no threat to American citizens — is an activist
who believes his job is to provide social justice rather than interpreting
the U.S. Constitution. www.judicialselectionstrikeforce.org

Ironically
he is the same judge who made national headlines in 2016 when he ruled
that “Black Lives Matter” in a federal courtroom, thus giving
a radical, violence-prone group legitimacy.

U.S.
District Court Judge James Robart made his Black
Lives Matter declaration while hearing a case against the Seattle
(Washington) Police Department that opposed the implementation of new
police procedures that city. According to Lt. Stuart Larkingwicz of the
American Federation of Police, Robart’s actions and statements amounted
to a federal judge officially supported the activist group from the bench.

A check
of Robart’s overall career reveals he once represented Southeast Asian
immigrants attempting to “jump in front of the immigration line”
prior to his judicial work for the federal court system. His biggest case
involved police and black citizens in Seattle:

The
Seattle Police Department was accused of using excessive force against
non-whites in the city. The police chief and other officials promised
to make changes in order to avoid federal civil prosecution. But Robart
insisted the police union had been dragging its feet implementing changes.

Robart
then scolded the police officers’ union during an August 2016 hearing.
“The court and the citizens of Seattle will not be held hostage
for increased payments and benefits,” he said. “I’m
sure the entire city of Seattle would march behind me.”

“This
decision was all politics and no substance. It’s not based on anything
in the U.S. Constitution, either. When Obama had a ban on Iraqis and others
coming into the country, where was Judge Robart? He was on the bench then,
as well. He’s a part of the RINO [Republican in name only] wing of the
GOP and sees his job as being someone who will mete out ‘social justice’
to the downtrodden,” said former military officer, police commander
and political strategist Michael Baker.

Also,
on Saturday, veteran watchdog Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial
Watch and now Freedom
Watch and a former Justice Department prosecutor, issued a statement
in the wake of the what he calls an illegal decision by a federal judge
in Seattle to place a temporary restraining order on the recent executive
action by President Donald Trump to put a 90-day hold on immigration from
7 Middle Eastern countries, all of which harbor huge numbers of Muslim
terrorists bent on harming the United States. www.freedomwatchusa.org.

Klayman
had this to say:

“The
ruling is regrettably not surprising, as this judge not only disobeyed
and flouted the law but apparently was more intent on making a name for
himself in a very leftist state, Washington, and around the nation. While
he was nominated by former President George W. Bush, this means little
to nothing. The Bush family and many of its Republican establishment officials,
after the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Jeb Bush, not only harbor
an animus against President Trump, but W.’s appointed federal judges
during his failed administration were generally not strict constructionists
of the Constitution, or the rule of law. In addition to this renegade
Seattle judge, James Robart, who also has taken over control of the Seattle
Police Department, I am reminded of another W. appointee, federal judge
Murray Snow who presides in the federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, who
not only also has taken control of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office, but unethically persecuted former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, boasting
to his wife that he was bent on destroying Arpaio while presiding over
a contempt trial sparked by the ultra-leftist and itself unethical ACLU.

“The
bottom line is this: Judge Robart has illegally and unconstitutionally
blocked executive power to curtail immigration of non-citizens and non-permanent
residents, all of which have no rights to enter this country at will.
Here, there was not even a bar put in place by President Trump, but simply
a temporary hold on issuing visas to allow time to put in place an extreme
vetting process to weed out terrorists.

Thus,
President Trump’s reaction to this outrageous grab of judicial power
was mild. Judge Robart should be impeached for his blatant political act
and illegal grandstanding, obviously designed to make a name for himself.
www.freedomwatchusa.org.

“Finally,
this underscores why Freedom Watch’s Judicial Selection Strike Force
Coalition is so important an endeavor. There currently are about 100 judicial
vacancies on the federal lower courts and we intend to vet and recommend
judges to President Trump for appointment who adhere to the Constitution
and the rule of law in general, like Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Currently, by and large what we have on the federal bench, with some exceptions,
are ‘politicians in robes.’ This is very dangerous, as federal
judges are our most important public servants, as they were intended by
the framers of the Constitution to be independent and free of politics
to protect We the People from the tyranny of the other two branches of
government. What we see with Judge Robart’s illegal ruling ironically
is ‘judicial tyranny’!”

_______________________________________________________

Is Judge Blocking Trump Travel Ban

Committing Treason?

________________________________________________________

Soros Puppet Judge Aids ISIS by Blocking Trump

Published on Feb 5, 2017

_______________________________________________________

DOJ to defend Trump’s executive order on immigration

BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/doj-to-defend-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration;

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

The showdown over President Trump’s executive order on immigration
continues. District Senior Judge James Robart of Seattle has issued “a
nationwide restraining order” to block Trump’s order, which restricts
immigration from seven Muslim countries – countries selected by the
Obama administration — suspends refugee admission for 120 days, and ban
Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Lee Gelernt, the lawyer who successfully argued for a restraining
order against Trump’s so-called “ban” in federal court in Brooklyn, New
York, stated:

The courts have and will continue to recognize that this
executive order favors Christians and disfavors Muslims and that is
antithetical to American values and flatly inconsistent with the United
States Constitution.

This erroneous comparison between Christians and Muslims aims to stir
up division and once again reveals the myopia of leftists and the the
anti-Trump camp. The reason for the Trump immigration policy is solely
national security. How many Christians have been infiltrating
the refugee stream for the purpose of murdering Westerners? How many
Christians have been raping and sexually assaulting non-Christian
Western women and girls all across Europe? How many Christian migrants
have been committing crimes and wreaking havoc to the tune of the 46
billion dollars that German and European taxpayers now have to fork over to fix?
There is no discriminatory intent about the Trump order. At worst, it
can be described as a drastic measure in a crisis. This obvious point
was addressed by White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who said in a
statement:

The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland
and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect
the American people.

“White House: DOJ plans to defend Trump’s immigration ban”, by Melanie Eversley, USA Today, February 3, 2017:

U.S. District Senior Judge James Robart of Seattle on
Friday issued a nationwide restraining order blocking the travel ban put
in place by President Trump last week.
Trump’s ban, created through an executive order, sought to block
people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United
States.
In issuing his decision, Robart was siding with Washington Attorney
General Bob Ferguson, who filed a suit to block key provisions of the
president’s executive order, which also bars Syrian refugees from
entering the country.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer released a statement Friday
night saying the Department of Justice would seek an emergency stay of
this “outrageous order.”
“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has
the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American
people,” Spicer said in the statement.
Statement by the Press Secretary:
At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file
an emergency stay of this order and defend the executive order of the
President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The president’s
order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional
authority and responsibility to protect the American people.
As the law states, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of
any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend
the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or
non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may
deem to be appropriate.”
Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, hailed Ferguson and applauded the decision.
“We should feel heartened by today’s victory and more resolute than
ever that we are fighting on the right side of history,” the governor
said in a statement. “Thank you to (Attorney General Bob Ferguson) and
his team for making the case that no person – not even the president –
is above the law.”
Amnesty International also applauded the development.
“This decision is a short-term relief for thousands of people whose
lives have been upended, but Congress must step in and block this
unlawful ban for good,” organization spokesman Eric Ferrero said in a
statement. “Trump’s Muslim ban is in humane, unlawful, and
discriminatory, which is why the courts and the public want it to be
stopped.”
Ferguson said his team has been working around-the-clock for the last week on reversing the executive order.
“It’s obviously an historic decision and an important one for the
rule of law and for the people of the state of Washington and the people
of our country. I have said from the beginning: it is not the loudest
voice that prevails in the courtroom, it is the Constitution, and that’s
what we heard from Judge Robart today.”
The decision is effective immediately nationwide, Ferguson said.
A lawyer with the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union said the decision was significant.
“The decision in Washington reaffirms that the courts will stand up
to the president,” said Lee Gelernt, the lawyer who successfully argued
for a restraining order against Trump’s ban in federal court in
Brooklyn, N.Y.
“The courts have and will continue to recognize that this executive
order favors Christians and disfavors Muslims and that is antithetical
to American values and flatly inconsistent with the United States
Constitution.”….

Uncategorized

GRAPHIC: NEW TV SERIES GLORIFIES CANNIBALISM~”SPIRIT COOKING” TARGETING CONSERVATIVES

February 4, 2017 John

GRAPHIC:

NEW TV SERIES GLORIFIES CANNIBALISM~

“SPIRIT COOKING” TARGETING CONSERVATIVES

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT “SPIRIT COOKING” & HILLARY CLINTON:

https://ratherexposethem.org/2016/11/hillary-clintons-disgusting-spirit.html

https://ratherexposethem.org/2016/11/hillarys-real-connection-to-satanic.html

https://ratherexposethem.org/2016/11/citizen-journalists-crack.html

https://ratherexposethem.org/2016/11/satanism-hillary-clintons-darkest.html

Uncategorized

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S WEEKLY ADDRESS TO THE NATION FEBRUARY 3, 2017

February 4, 2017 John

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S WEEKLY ADDRESS

TO THE NATION~FEBRUARY 3, 2017

Uncategorized

LEFTIST TERROR AT U.C. BERKELEY: TRUMP SUPPORTERS BEATEN, PEPPER SPRAYED; FIRES STARTED; VANDALISM OF PROPERTY

Infowars Reporter Destroys Cowardly Anti-Trump Berkeley Terrorists

Published on Feb 2, 2017 Millie Weaver ( @Millie__Weaver ) destroys the narrative that the
leftist anti-Trump protestors are peaceful law abiding citizens.

Berserkeley RIOTS

Psychotic Rioters Brutalize Trump Supporters And Destroy Free Speech

Trump Riot Victim Attacked At Berkeley

Gives Infowars Exclusive

Prominent Leftists Defend, Justify Violent Riot

at UC Berkeley

Women beaten, pepper sprayed by crazed thugs before Milo event

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/prominent-leftists-defend-justify-violent-riot-at-uc-berkeley/;

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

 Prominent left-wing journalists and celebrities responded to the violent
 riot and beatings of Trump supporters outside a Milo Yiannopoulos event
 at UC Berkeley by encouraging, defending or justifying the attacks.

Trump supporters were beaten with flag poles, punched and stomped
during the chaos, with another woman being pepper sprayed during a TV
interview.

My friend was giving an interview when some coward peppersprayed her #Berkeley pic.twitter.com/CDpEqDsw2A

— janey (@janeygak) February 2, 2017

Others were chased and stomped as the baying mob chanted “beat his ass!”

“Beat his ass! Beast his ass!”

Trump needs to list Antifa as a domestic terror group.
This has no place in a civil society. pic.twitter.com/XFhU3xc7eF
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 2, 2017

Rioters shot fireworks at the building in an effort to shut down the event.

A group of antifa are shooting fireworks at the building where Milo is set to speak at Berkeley pic.twitter.com/7Mtcer9ejO

— Julia Carrie Wong (@juliacarriew) February 2, 2017

The
behavior perfectly fits the definition of domestic terrorism, and
Antifa should now be officially designated as a domestic terrorist
group.

Antifa is a terrorist organization. pic.twitter.com/KxqKQupCcC

— Kassy Dillon (@KassyDillon) February 2, 2017

President Trump responded to the mayhem by threatening to cut off federal funds to UC Berkeley.

If
U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on
innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017

However, instead of decrying the violence, prominent leftists across the spectrum justified and even applauded it.

Hollywood
director Judd Apatow threatened Trump supporters with a since deleted
tweet in which he stated, “This is just the beginning. When will all the
fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?”

The Mayor of Berkeley Jesse Arreguin also legitimized the riots by calling them a reaction to “hate speech”.

Using
speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is
unacceptable. Hate speech isn’t welcome in our community.

— Jesse Arreguin (@JesseArreguin) February 2, 2017

After the riots, Google engineer Adrienne Porter Felt called on people to donate to UC Berkeley.

last
night i got a call from the UC Berkeley alum association asking for
donations. wonder if they’re psychic? time to donate, i think https://t.co/SRj8TlhtY2

— Adrienne Porter Felt (@__apf__) February 2, 2017

Buzzfeed’s Hannah Jewell apparently thought the beating and pepper spraying of women was funny.

lmao berkeley https://t.co/hFt21Z7jqf

— Hannah Jewell (@hcjewell) February 2, 2017

MSNBC
producer Kyle Griffin slammed Trump for being “upset….over a Breitbart
editor,” presumably unaware of the fact that innocent people were beaten
by the rioters.

Trump is considering pulling federal funds from U.C. Berkeley because he’s upset about protests… over a Breitbart editor. https://t.co/7yukSzedlN

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 2, 2017

VICE columnist Hussein Kesvani’s main gripe was that Milo Yiannopoulos was made to appear “reasonable”.

Listening
to Milo on Fox, in light of all the stuff happening on Berkeley- and
how he’s been allowed to appear reasonable in all this

— Hussein Kesvani (@HKesvani) February 2, 2017

This
is the violence that the mainstream media and the left has legitimized
for the last 18 months. This process intensified after news outlets like
the Nation and Newsweek celebrated alt-right leader Richard Spencer being punched in the face during the inauguration last month.

This is what happens when leftists openly call for Trump’s assassination and argue that violent attacks on his supporters should not be condemned.

It
is also important to note that Antifa radicals do not care if they are
loathed and hated by the vast majority of Americans. They don’t care how
bad the optics look of masked thugs violently shutting down free
speech. They will always resort to violence because they can safely rely
on the media to report the as a “protest” and not what it actually was –
a violent riot laced with instances of domestic terrorism.

The
media will never acknowledge that this was a violent riot because they
want to maintain the “chaos narrative” that the Trump administration is
illegitimate, permanently in crisis and unstable.

In
reality, the only thing that is “illegitimate” is these “protests,”
because they are not protests, they are violent riots and have no place
in a civil society.

__________________________________________________

http://i2.wp.com/www.dailycal.org/assets/uploads/2014/10/cropped-Jesse-Arreguin_MDrummond.jpg?resize=210%2C300

Berkeley Mayor Blasts “Ultra-Nationalist Far Right”

in Response to Anti-Milo Riot

Mayor downplays terrorism in his city

BY KIT DANIELS

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/berkeley-mayor-blasts-ultra-nationalist-far-right-in-response-to-anti-milo-riot/;

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

In response to the anti-Milo riot at UC Berkeley, the city’s
mayor blasted the “ultra-nationalist far right” despite the exhaustive
news coverage showing socialists attacking Trump supporters.

Statement on last night’s #Berkeley protests. pic.twitter.com/Vesda0cYF2

— Jesse Arreguin (@JesseArreguin) February 2, 2017

“Last
night, a small minority of the protestors who had assembled in
opposition to a speaking engagement featuring a prominent white
nationalist engaged in violence and property damage,”
Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a press release. “They also
provided the ultra-nationalist far right exactly the images they want to
use to try to discredit the vast majority of peaceful protestors in
Berkeley…”
But 1) Milo Yiannopoulos is not a “white nationalist,”
he constantly brags about sleeping with African-American men, and 2) all
the videos and photos of the riot – and there’s thousands – show it was
Trump voters who were violently attacked by leftist mobs flying
anarcho-communist flags and street thugs from nearby Oakland, so why not
point that out instead?
Arreguín’s response may trigger a federal
investigation into his city’s handling of the riot, especially after
some suggested the police didn’t do enough to stop the violence.
Would
Arreguín’s handling of the situation been different if it were Trump
supporters – who he calls the “ultra-nationalist far right” – attacking
socialists instead? Based on his politicized tweet, in which he
personally attacked Milo, it certainly appears so.
This brings to mind the city in Arizona where city officials were successfully sued after they denied prompt police service and constitutional rights to residents who were “non-believers” of the Mormon cult in control of the town.
That
begs the question: were pro-Trump victims at the Milo riot denied
better police protection and the right to peacefully assemble because
they were “non-believers” of the socialist cult in control of Berkeley?
___________________________________________________

Moscow Trains Anti-Trump US Radicals - CNN's Putin/Trump Link Debunked

Conway: Media Is “Emboldening” Violent Rioters

“I don’t even know if they know what they’re protesting. Really, what is it, the free speech?”

BY STEVE WATSON

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/conway-media-is-emboldening-violent-rioters/;

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

Senior Trump aide Kellyanne Conway has blasted the mainstream
media for “emboldening” rioting anarchists, in the wake of the unrest
at the University of California in Berkeley.
Appearing on Fox & Friends, Conway accused the media of implicitly supporting violence and non-peaceful protest.

“What’s going on out there is what’s going on all across the country,” Conway urged.
“You have protesters who feel very emboldened. They’ve got media cameras following them, they give interviews.”she added.

“I don’t even know if they know what they’re protesting. Really, what
is it, the free speech? Having someone on your campus who has a
dissenting point of view or wants to present an alternative point of
view?” Conway said, referring to Breitbart News editor, Milo
Yiannopoulos, who was forced to cancel an appearance at Berkley due to
the reaction.
Conway noted that when the rioters ‘grow up’ they are in for a shock.
“In
the real world, when these kids grow up and try to find jobs – which
they will in the Trump economy – [they’ll see] life doesn’t work that
way, folks.” Conway said.
The rioters took on police after
smashing private property, attacking motorists, and setting fires, as a
demonstration of their opposition to Yiannopoulos.

UC Berkeley anti-Milo protests right now. pic.twitter.com/d4nVVKU3gS

— Shane Bauer (@shane_bauer) February 2, 2017

Yiannopoulos
blamed the cancellation of his appearance on “violent left-wing
protestors,” and said that they are “absolutely terrified of free speech
and will do literally anything to shut it down.”

MILO: What’s scary is this riot happened on an American campus where you should be able to have differing opinions (via #Tucker) pic.twitter.com/cT8Jgzkegz

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) February 2, 2017

video has emerged of the rioters attacking bystanders and Trump supporters:

@jwhitey_13 @TuckerCarlson @MMFlint Pro-Trump person attending Milo event attacked by Blk Rock fascist anachist protesters at UC Berkeley. pic.twitter.com/YpJiTDgyJJ

— Tommy Morrison (@tonyromano1000) February 2, 2017

My friend was giving an interview when some coward peppersprayed her #Berkeley pic.twitter.com/CDpEqDsw2A

— janey (@janeygak) February 2, 2017

President Trump responded to the unrest by threatening to cut funding for the University:

If
U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on
innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017

________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
http://www.infowars.com/moscow-trains-anti-trump-us-radicals-cnns-putintrump-link-debunked/

Uncategorized

SAN FRANCISCO SUES TRUMP TO STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT SANCTUARY CITIES

California Advances Bills to Become Sanctuary State

SAN FRANCISCO SUES TRUMP TO STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT SANCTUARY CITIES

BY WARREN MASS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/25284-san-francisco-sues-trump-to-stop-exec-order-about-sanctuary-cities;

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

A group of attorneys led by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis
Herrera filed a lawsuit on January 31 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against President Trump, Secretary of
Homeland Security John Kelly, and Acting Attorney General Dana Boente,
claiming that the “President of the United States seeks to coerce local
authorities into abandoning what are known as ‘Sanctuary City’ laws and
policies.”

The lawsuit objects to an executive order signed by Trump on January
25 (“Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”)
proclaiming that “Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States
willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from
removal from the United States.”

The order continues by stating: “It is the policy of the executive
branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.”

Title 8, Section 1373 of the U.S. Code pertains to “Communication
between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.” It states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government
entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any
government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the
citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any
individual.

The Trump executive order goes on to put some teeth into its enforcement by stating:

In furtherance of this policy, the
Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the
extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that
willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions)
are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary
for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.
The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to
the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary
jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement
action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in
effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the
enforcement of Federal law.

Herrera and his co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit (including Chief
Assistant City Attorney Jesse Smith, and Chief Deputy City Attorney
Ronald Flynn) take issue with the Trump administration order, however.
In a statement quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle, Herrera
questioned the constitutionality of the executive order. “Not only is it
unconstitutional, it’s un-American,” Herrera said at a January 31 City
Hall news conference. “It is necessary to defend the people of this
city, this state and this country from the wild overreach of a president
whose words and actions have thus far shown little respect for our
Constitution or the rule of law.”

“The fabric of our communities and billions of dollars are at stake,” said Herrera, who the Chronicle
reported was joined by Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco Supervisor Hillary
Ronen, and several deputy city attorneys at the conference. “President
Trump does not appear to understand the Constitution and the limits it
imposes on executive power.”

The Chronicle noted that San Francisco receives
approximately $1 billion annually from the federal government, which
accounts for a little more than 10 percent of the city’s budget and that
federal aid is in jeopardy if the Trump administration enforces the
order.

The report quoted Bill Ong Hing, a professor of immigration law at
the University of San Francisco as saying, “I think there is a clear
violation of the 10th Amendment here. The federal government cannot
commandeer nonfederal officials to do its work.”

The language of the lawsuit also argued along those lines, stating:
“The City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States of America
and the above-named federal officials for violating the Tenth Amendment,
U.S. Const. amend. X.”

Interestingly, one portion of the suit employs language commonly used by strict constitutionalists:

The Constitution establishes a balance of
power between the state and Federal governments, as well as among the
coordinate branches of Federal government, to prevent the excessive
accumulation of power in any single entity and reduce the risk of
tyranny and abuse from any government office. In so doing, the Tenth
Amendment provides that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States

That argument made in the above statement is unimpeachable, but does
it apply to the case of “sanctuary cities” — or to the Trump executive
order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”?
If the San Francisco attorneys want to challenge the executive order on
constitutional grounds, shouldn’t they first challenge the federal law
(8 U.S.C. 1373) it attempts to enforce? If 8 U.S.C. 1373 is
constitutional, then the executive order demanding its enforcement
should also be constitutional. If the San Francisco attorneys think 8
U.S.C. 1373 is unconstitutional, then their fight should be with those
who passed that section of the U.S. code, which was part of Public Law
104-208 (H.R. 3610 and S. 1894), passed by the 104th Congress and signed
by President Bill Clinton on September 30, 1996.

The lawsuit complains: “The Executive Branch may not commandeer state
and local officials to enforce federal law”; however, the Trump
executive order attempts to do no such thing. It does not propose to
“commandeer” local officials, but merely have them comply with 8 U.S.C.
1373 (which, as noted, was signed into law by President Clinton) which
specifies that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official
may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or
official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Expecting a local government official to send information to (or
receive information from) the INS about the lawful or unlawful
immigration status of an individual hardly constitutes “commandeering”
that official — it merely expects him or her to perform as a good
citizen.

As we noted in a recent article
about an illegal alien from El Salvador who filed a lawsuit on January
17 against the city and county of San Francisco for violating San
Francisco’s sanctuary city law by arresting and detaining him, sharing
information with federal immigration authorities is not the same as
taking personal responsibility for enforcing federal immigration
statutes.

In that article, we stated that a law passed by San Francisco in
1989, and signed by then-mayor Art Agnos, the City of Refuge Ordinance,
also known as the “Sanctuary Ordinance,” included a prohibition on San
Francisco employees assisting or cooperating with any investigation,
detention, or arrest conducted by the federal agency charged with
enforcement of federal immigration law. However, we wrote:

Therein lies the crux of the matter. In
most circumstances, even an ordinary citizen, not to mention a city
official, can be charged under federal law with “misprision of felony”
for failing to inform authorities about the commission of a crime.
Therefore, so-called sanctuary city laws create a dilemma for city
officials, who must decide which of two conflicting laws they will obey.
However, this point has not, to our knowledge, been addressed by any
court, probably because “misprision of felony” charges are difficult to
prove and are rarely brought.

The Trump executive order does not go so far as to attempt to bring
“misprision of felony” charges against local officials who fail to
comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373, probably because that would be a difficult
legal case to make. Instead, it relies on a tool that is based on more
solid constitutional grounds — the “carrot and stick” approach. A
municipality that insists on being a “sanctuary city” and refuses to
cooperate with federal immigration authorities is not eligible to
receive federal grants.

This also raises an interesting constitutional point. The strict
constitutionalist would say that most federal grants are not
constitutional anyway, because according to the 10th Amendment that the
city attorneys for San Francisco so nicely quoted for us, they provide
funding for areas not delegated to the United States (federal
government) by the Constitution.

However, the San Francisco city attorneys cannot have it both ways.
They cannot logically cite the 10th Amendment to stop the federal
government from withholding billions for dollars from the city on the
grounds that the Trump administration is intruding into areas not
authorized by the Constitution when the funds they so jealously covet
are going to pay for programs not authorized by the Constitution,
either.

And as we noted, if the San Francisco city officials have a problem
with the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, which merely
serves to enforce existing law, then they should ask their
representatives in Congress to introduce legislation to change that law,
which was passed by the 104th Congress and signed into law by President
Bill Clinton. In the 20 years since that law was passed, no federal
court has ruled that it is unconstitutional.

Illegal Alien Sues San Francisco for Violating Sanctuary City Law

“Sanctuary Cities” Make a Mockery of Our Laws

Uncategorized

NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO SEEKS TO ENSHRINE ABORTION IN STATE CONSTITUTION IN CASE ROE V. WADE IS OVERTURNED

http://media.vogue.com/r/pass/2017/01/31/social-still-andrew-cuomo-cecile-richards-planned-parenthood.jpg

NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO SEEKS TO ENSHRINE ABORTION IN STATE CONSTITUTION

IN CASE ROE V. WADE IS OVERTURNED

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/02/01/new-york-gov-seeks-to-enshrine-abortion-in-state-constitution-in-case-roe-v-wade-overturned/;

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

 ALBANY, N.Y. — The Democratic governor of New York 
is calling for lawmakers to pass a bill enshrining abortion as a right 
in the state Constitution in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court ever 
overturns Roe v. Wade.

“As they threaten this nation with a potential Supreme Court
nomination that will reverse Roe v. Wade, I want them to know today: If
that’s what they do, we’re going to protect Roe v. Wade in the state of
New York,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared at a “I Stand With Planned
Parenthood” rally on Monday.

“I propose today a constitutional amendment to write Roe v. Wade in
to the New York State Constitution so that nobody can change it—no
Supreme Court nominee [can undo it],” he proclaimed to cheers and
applause. “We will not allow the progress of the women’s movement to be
stopped, and we must seize this opportunity to bring the state and the
nation forward and stand up for women’s health.”

Cuomo had been introduced by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.

“Let’s put it out on the ballot and let the people decide,” he said. “New Yorkers want to protect a woman’s right to choose.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 119,940 abortions
in New York in 2014, the latest statistics on file. There are 218
facilities in the state that provide abortions.

“Abortions in New York represent 12.9% of all abortions in the United States,” it outlines.

Figures released last month from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) also show that there were 69,840 abortions in New York
City alone, as compared to 116,777 registered births—equating to
abortion being 60 percent of the birth rate.

New York legalized abortion in 1970, and only allows late-term
abortion in instances when the woman’s life is deemed to be in danger.

Amendments to the state Constitution can only be made by passage in
the legislature for two consecutive years, along with statewide approval
by voters. Therefore, the earliest such a proposal could be passed is
in 2019.

It is unclear if the Cuomo plans to defy the U.S. Supreme Court by
pointing to the state Constitution should it be declared that the unborn
are persons, and that none have a right to kill an unborn child. Many
had said during the trial of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy
Moore that the marriage amendment enshrined in the Alabama Constitution
was automatically voided due to the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell
v. Hodges.

As previously reported, the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade centered on a
Texas woman named Norma McCorvey who sought an abortion over an alleged
rape. McCorvey later admitted that she had lied, writing in her book “I
Am Roe” that she made up the rape story at the advice of her feminist
attorneys to make her case more convincing.

She also never obtained an abortion, but placed her child up for
adoption and went on to become a vocal pro-life advocate, even going to
court in an effort to overturn the ruling.

“My decisions were wrong and I am fighting with every breath to
change what has occurred,” McCorvey, a Roman Catholic, said in 2008.

Uncategorized

SCREAMERS, SNOWFLAKES AND MS. SARSOUR

SCREAMERS,
SNOWFLAKES AND MS. SARSOUR

SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/Herne/ronnie107.htm;

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

By Ronnie Herne

February 2, 2017
NewsWithViews.com

I have
often wondered if the major university campuses have a special course
for University Women to teach them the “F” word. Females seem
so proficient at that once they graduate. Call the course, “Give
Me an ‘F’ and I’ll give you an ‘A’!” Have it taught by a finger-gesticulating
(wink-wink) burly, short cropped PhD female, of course, to get the full
effect……. But I digress….

To the
point: I have witnessed many things much more horrific than the Women’s
March in D.C. this past January 21st. However, I do not believe I have
ever seen anything more revoltingly disgusting done in the name of women.

Ladies.
Girls. The gentler sex. Peaches and cream. Sugar and spice. Mom/Mommy.
Granny/Grandma. Aunt/Sister. Oh, and Pro-Life.

ALL
THROWN UNDER THE BUS!!

And
in the name of what? Let me just tell you “what”. And those
“sisters” out there aren’t going to like it one bit, too bad.

What
the whole wide world saw on display was a raging torrent of hate. At Trump,
you assume? Oh sure, he was in the mix. But he was used more for venting
rather than the being the full object. What actually was on display in
full living pink technicolor was an unkempt force of shrieking, foul females
literally and loudly hating their womanhood and all things associated
with being a woman.

THAT
is what we saw in that march – a bunch of females screaming about
their genitalia and the functions thereof, hating themselves and their
womanliness. Then crudely, vilely, viciously letting the world know all
about it, – and how rough they have it in comparison to men. (Shed
a tear here.)

Well,
“sisters”, there are surgical options opened to you to remedy
all of those complaints. Just don’t do it on my tax dollars.

And
“sisters”, I’ll tell you something else you’ll like even less.
Back in the day your disgusting vitriolic diatribe was called Penis Envy.
Put that in your little pink bonnets, huh?

SENDING
OUT THE SNOWFLAKES….

Sean
Hannity had some ditsy female guest on his radio show on Friday, January
27th. She was all PRO the march; and Madonna’s threat about blowing up
the White House was just artistic free speech. He asked her (several times)
about partial birth abortion which she said she was good with because
there is no such thing… I could not make this up. She told Sean that
partial birth abortion did not create infanticide (the killing of a baby).

Apparently
in her safe space no one had bothered her with the Planned Parenthood
videos of selling baby body parts and suggesting different ways of performing
partial birth abortions, done in the very last days of the pregnancy,
ie, at or near term, so as to make better, more mature organ parts available
for sale.

Clearly
she had also not bothered herself with details of abortionist Kermit Gosnell,
now serving time for multiple infanticides. These truly gruesome details
are available in a book called “Gosnell”.

She
explained to Sean Hannity – very patiently – that partial birth abortion
was when the child was surgically removed by Caesarean Section. The baby
was NOT killed. And if there was just more sex education then there would
be less of an issue with abortion…

Wouldst
that were true! It would be so easy to birth the baby and hand it over
to an adoption agency. But killing the baby is just more feminine, you
think?

And
did you all catch Hillary when she said that the baby shouldn’t be considered
a baby until it’s mother took it home? In case Mom changed her mind about
having the baby? In fact if I recall correctly Hillary also mentioned
that the baby shouldn’t be considered a baby for two weeks after the birth……..
I don’t believe she ever indicated what should be done with the gurgling,
fist-waving little thingie there in the newborn nursery…..

SEEDS
OF SHARIA

How
could any good (?), progressive, sex pontificating, Me-First, pro-abortionist,
wear-what-I-want (or not), LGBT-hugging, social justice, open borders,
smoking/drinking/drugging angry socialist feminist ever trip into the
waiting arms of Sharia Law? (Hey, it worked for Hillary & Huma!)

How
in the name of Allah did they have a Brooklyn-born Palestinian Muslim
female social worker as one of their Women’s March co-chairs? Linda Sarsour.
The pictures I’ve seen show her in a full hijab, a nun-like head covering,
though in her case they are quite gaily colored. And her eyes are heavily
made up. Very Western.

Maybe
that’s it: she wears makeup so she must be okay. Forget the mandates against
women in the Qu-ran (Koran): rape, honor killings, beatings, mutilation,
subjugation, and lots of motherhood. And I guess it would never occur
to Linda Sarsour to throw some of the gay boys off a high roof.

ABORTION

Not
to worry! While you’re hugging Linda Sarsour like a comfortable little
pink teddy bear, Islam has it all figured out for you, dear “sisters”
and snowflakes. According to the Muslim site zawaj.com they teach that
the soul enters the fetus at 120 days, or 4 months. With the fewest possible
exceptions it is unlawful under Islam to abort the fetus before 120 days.
With absolutely no exceptions, it is also unlawful to abort the fetus
on or after 120 days. Rape and incest are not reasons.

Like
Climate Change/Global Warming, clearly we have settled science by consensus
here… Male Muslim consensus you understand. And devout Muslim agent
Linda Sarsour is a poster girl for this Women’s March? Talk about a serious
disconnect.

HITLER,
AND TOUPEES……

While
a “NAAAA-STEEEEE” woman was bemoaning the feel of Hitler in
the streets of D.C. – a moustache exchanged for a toupee – she was apparently
coincidentally mindlessly embracing devout Muslim Palestinian Linda Sarsour.

I know
I mentioned this before but let’s draw out a new and uncomfortable –
for them – observation. In the 1940s, when Hitler’s Field Marshall
Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was romping victoriously with his North
Afrika Korps, just who was Hitler’s talented general aligning himself
with? Why, the Muslim Arabs, of course. He was going to liberate them
from British rule. Hitler, Rommel, Arab Muslims. Got it? Muslims, Rommel,
Hitler: Friends.

So,
when we want to talk about Hitler, let’s keep it straight who was holding
hands with whom.

((Speaking
of the Brits, Teresa May, PM, is distressed with Trump’s temporary ban
on Mid-East immigration. 80 years ago the Brits were a dominant force
in North Africa. Now, the most prevalent male name for newborns inside
Britain is Mohammad. (Talk about the sun setting on the empire…))

THE
OTHER MARCH

I don’t
have a number on the tens of thousands that Marched for Life on January
27th in Washington, D.C. How thrilling it must have been for them to have
the Vice-President come and speak, how hopeful that some of this will
be rolled back.

But
I’ll make a bet that just like the Tea Party versus the Occupiers, the
Right-to-Lifers left one heck of a lot less trash than did the sisters,
snowflakes, and the beta boys. And no broken windows, torched cars, injured
cops, graffiti…? Anyone want to take me up on that…?

Hey
God! Thanks for your blessings!

GO
TRUMP!!

PS:
Given what President Trump has already done so far, what’s he going to
do with the last 3½ years of this first term of his presidency?

PS2:
Just in. Thanks to JT. Reba sings of God. Video. Guaranteed to make the
Left crazier than they already are. Enjoy and share.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!
GOD BLESS DONALD TRUMP!
AND GOD BLESS YOU AND ALL YOUR DREAMS!

Uncategorized

AFTER REFUSING TRUMP’S ORDER, STARBUCKS JUST GOT TERRIBLE NEWS THAT’LL RUIN THEM