LIBERAL DREAMLAND: DELAWARE SENATOR TOM CARPER’S REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING JEFF SESSIONS

 THIS LIBERAL “DELAWAREAN” THINKS HE CAN TWIST SCRIPTURE AND USE IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO JUSTIFY HIS OPPOSITION TO JEFF SESSIONS
HIS EMAIL RESPONSE DENIES THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS CRIMES BEING COMMITTED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ISLAMIC JIHADISTS, AND THE IMMORALITY OF THE LGBT AGENDA
PROMOTER OF MORAL DECAY ALLEGEDLY READS THE SAME BIBLE AS SESSIONS, BUT HAS A DIFFERENT SPIN?
HOW ABOUT UPHOLDING OUR LAWS & THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? 
http://www.delawareliberal.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Carper.png
“Thank
you
for
contacting
me
to
share
your
support
for
the
nomination
of
Senator
Jeff
Sessions
(R-AL)
to
serve
as
United
States
Attorney
General.
I
appreciate
hearing
from
you
about
this
important
matter.
Senator
Sessions
has
been
my
colleague
and
friend
for
sixteen
years.
The
two
of
us
read
the
same
Bible
 from
time
to
time
in
the
past,
we
have
read
it
together.
However,
I
have
ultimately
come
to
decide
that
I
cannot
support
his
nomination
to
serve
as
our
next
Attorney
General. 
When
Senator
Sessions
and
I
met
in
my
office
about
his
nomination,
we
talked
of
how
our
faith
guides
us
in
our
lives.
I
reminded
him
of
Matthew
25,
which
tells
us
of
our
moral
obligation
‘to
the
least
of
these’
in
our
society.
Among
other
things
it
asks
the
question,
‘When
I
was
a
stranger
in
your
land,
did
you
take
me
in?’
Sadly,
I
have
concluded
that
Senator
Sessions
 does
not
fully
share
the
 commitment to
that
passage
and
to
loving
our
neighbors
as
ourselves
 that
I
believe
our
nation’s
Attorney
General
should
hold.
While
we
agree
on
some
issues,
in
truth,
our
views
on
far
too
many
important
issues
diverge,
in
some
cases
markedly.
For
example,
Senator
Sessions
holds
the
same
hardline
views
on
immigration
as
President
Donald
Trump,
views
that
sow
fear
and
division
in
our
communities.
 He
has
a
lifetime
voting
record
that,
on
balance,
is
hostile
to
our
country’s
landmark
clean
water
and
clean
air
laws.
He
refuses
to
accept
the
science
on
climate
change
 and
has
opposed
 efforts
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
to
curb
harmful
carbon
pollution
from
our
nation’s
power
plants.
 
At
times,
he
has
demonstrated
hostility
to
landmark
civil
rights
laws
too,
such
as
the
Voting
Rights
Act,
and
he
has
opposed
legal
protections
for
LGBT
Americans.
I
believe
that
too
many
of
his
views
are
too
often
inconsistent
with
the
Golden
Rule

to
treat
others
as
they
would
wish
to
be
treated

for
him
to
lead
the
Department
of
Justice
at
this
critical
juncture.
Reaching
this
decision
does
not
bring
me
joy,
but
I
was
raised
by
my
parents
to
pray
in
church
for
the
wisdom
to
know
the
right
thing
to
do

and
I
have
done
this
when
faced
with
this
decision. 
In
closing,
thank
you
again
for
contacting
me,
and
please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
me
about
this
or
other
matters
of
concern.”
With
best
personal
regards,
I
am,

Sincerely,

Tom
Carper
United
States
Senator
http://carper.senate.gov/contact

TEXAS CAPITOL MUSLIM DAY?~MUSLIMS CLAIM SHARIA LAW JUST LIKE U.S. CONSTITUTION

 http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kera/files/styles/medium/public/201501/TexasMuslims3.jpg
 http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/muslim-0006.jpg
TEXAS CAPITOL MUSLIM DAY?
MUSLIMS CLAIM SHARIA LAW JUST LIKE 
U.S. CONSTITUTION
 Published on Jan 31, 2017

Infowars
Reporter Joe Biggs went to the Texas Capitol Muslim Day where muslims
talk legislative issues and prayed at First United Methodist church in downtown
liberal Austin. A few of the muslims believed that The U.S. Constitution
is just like Sharia Law and that’s where things get interesting!

SOCIAL SECURITY GUN BAN: JOHNSON, ABRAHAM & GRASSLEY MOVE TO OVERTURN OBAMA’S RULING

SOCIAL SECURITY GUN BAN: JOHNSON, ABRAHAM & GRASSLEY MOVE TO OVERTURN OBAMA’S RULING
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

USA – Congressmen Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Ralph
Abraham (R-LA) — and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the Senate — have
introduced resolutions to overturn Barack Obama’s Social Security Gun
Ban.
As a senior citizen myself … and as one who owns several
firearms that I want to pass on as an inheritance to my children one day
… this legislation is very important to me.
But first, a little background.

As he was going out the door, Barack Obama made one final obscene gesture to the Second Amendment community.

That
gesture consisted of a rule which would troll the Social Security rolls
and identify recipients whose checks were processed by a guardian.
Once these people were identified, their names would be inputted into the NICS system, and their guns would be taken away.
Ralph Abraham (R-LA)Ralph Abraham (R-LA)Kentucky
Republican Thomas Massie — who is chairman of the House Second
Amendment Task Force — minced no words in describing Obama’s rule. This
week, Rep. Massie told GOA that:
If you want to see how ruinous
this policy will be to seniors, look at the over one hundred thousand
veterans who have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights under a
similar procedure through the Department of Veterans Affairs. This
ruling is yet another attempt to hurt gun owners and bypass due process.
Our seniors deserve better than that.

In places like New York and
California, with their gun confiscation programs, SWAT teams could be
sent to the homes of Social Security recipients who were identified
under the Obama rule.

Our experience is that most gun owners don’t have $10-20,000 lying around to hire a lawyer and appeal the ruling.
This
process was promulgated pursuant to the “NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007” — which is also known as the “Veterans Disarmament Act”.

Gun
Owners of America opposed that bill because, as we predicted, it would
legitimize gun bans against veterans, and would soon be applied to
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients as well.

Tragically, that prediction has now come to pass.

But
the passage of the Johnson/Abraham resolution in the House (H.J.Res.
40) — and of the Grassley resolution in the Senate (S.J.Res 14) — will
obliterate that anti-gun rule from the law.

And, because it is
being passed under a special procedure (called the Congressional Review
Act), they will be considered under special parliamentary rules and
cannot be filibustered in the Senate.

Thus, they will need only a majority vote in the Senate and the House, and President Donald Trump is sure to sign.
So
please urge your Representative, Rep. Christopher Smith (R), to
cosponsor H.J.Res. 40. And urge your two Senators to cosponsor Sen.
Grassley’s identical effort, S.J.Res. 14.
It will send a strong message if we can get a large number of cosponsors on this resolution.
Sincerely,
Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus
About Gun Owners of America (GOA)
Gun
Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in
1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.
GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no compromise
gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.
Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.

CHRIS MURPHY, LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SENATOR OF CONNECTICUT: NO IMMIGRATION SCREENING, MORE GUN CONTROL

 Dem Senator: No Immigration Screening, More Gun Control

Dem Senator: No Immigration Screening, More Gun Control 

Anti-gun Dems suggest using flawed terror watch list to ban guns

 BY CLIFFORD CUNNINGHAM

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/dem-senator-no-immigration-screening-more-gun-control/; 

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

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut suggested he
would like the United States to move towards a system of “absolutely no
screening” for immigrants, while imposing additional gun control
measures.

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Senator Murphy suggested
having “a discussion about a pathway in which there is absolutely no
screening” for immigrants entering the United States, citing VISA waiver
agreements between the United States and Europe to demonstrate the
ability of people to enter the U.S. “without almost any security vet.”
“So,
I would go towards a sort of European bent in looking at screening,” he
added.
“And then maybe let’s just make sure that if folks get to this
country, and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism, that
they shouldn’t be able to get an assault weapon.”
“That’s a huge liability in our law today.”

Senator Murphy has made no secret of his support for more restrictive gun control measures, leading
a 15-hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate to protest a lack of
new gun control measures following the Pulse Nightclub shooting in
Orlando, Florida.

In the immediate aftermath of the Quebec City mosque shooting, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman joined CNN’s Chris Cuomo to argue in favor of banning those on the terror watch list from being able to purchase a firearm.

“You know what would actually make me feel more secure as an American
is if someone who is on our own terror watch list in America–so much so
that they cannot board an airplane in this country without being
checked–couldn’t buy an “assault weapon.” … That would actually make me
feel better,” he said.

Both Friedman and Murphy ignore the Obama administration’s expansion
of the terror watch list program, authorizing a process that requires
neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an
American or foreigner as a terrorist.
“Instead of a watchlist
limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast
system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a
person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” said Hina Shamsi,
head of the ACLU’s National Security Project.
“On that dangerous
theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected
terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves
innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.”
Even the liberal Huffington Post argued
the vague language and lack of concrete evidence required for an
individual to be placed on the terror watch list could allow innocent
people to find themselves on the list.

“While some individuals are
surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky
language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught
up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions
on travel and other forms of monitoring,” Nick Wing wrote for the Huffington Post in 2014.

 _______________________________________________________
 Chris Murphy
Open Letter To Immigration & Gun Control Radical: 
CT Senator Murphy
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Connecticut Citizens Defense League

Connecticut – Your recent call for increased infringements on the rights of Americans (more gun control) coupled with decreased vetting of foreign entities has now reached ‘the Lunatic Fringe’.
Our
organization (Connecticut Citizens Defense League) has no opinion on
immigration as a sole subject, but when you conjoin calls for gun
control along with mass immigration of foreigners, it is obvious what
you are attempting to do.
You are now prioritizing non-citizens
over legitimate citizens of the United States by calling for gun control
to accommodate those non-citizens.

The purpose of your idea is
simply to push fanatical gun restrictions any way that you can. This
reasoning is simply unacceptable to most Americans.

Let’s face it
Senator Murphy, the bottom line is that you very simply do not trust
your fellow Americans with firearms. The fact that you cling to this
position is clearly evidenced by your ceaseless calls for gun control.
What
is particularly troubling is the fact that you are doing so while
admitting that some immigrants from certain regions of the world may be
so dangerous that we need to ban legal firearms to reduce the ‘risks’ of
these people being here.
It is sheer lunacy that you would risk the lives of your fellow citizens in such a manner if given the opportunity.
Your
way would make all of us less safe if you eliminate the means for us to
protect our lives and our families. Therefore, you and your beliefs are
more dangerous to this nation than any immigrant from anywhere in the
world ever could be.
Scott Wilson President CCDL, Inc.

About the CCDL:
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League was formed in February 2009 by a
small group of concerned citizens as a non-partisan organization to
advocate for second amendment rights in the state of Connecticut. Since
their founding, the group has grown to more than 14,000 members. Thanks
to this large supportive base across the state the CCDL has become a
fixture of the capitol, and well recognized by committees that oversee
firearms related bills.
CCDL is also actively involved at the
state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. As the go-to organization in
the state they are consulted with regularly by lawmakers who have
questions and concerns about pending legislation or existing laws. For
more information regarding CCDL, please visit www.ccdl.us

 
 

LONDON’S MUSLIM MAYOR DEMANDS CANCELLATION OF TRUMP’S STATE VISIT TO U.K.

 http://peoplescharter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/khan.png
 http://monthlybrands.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Londons-mayor-Sadiq-Khan-condemns-Trumps-Muslim-ban.jpg
LONDON’S MUSLIM MAYOR DEMANDS CANCELLATION OF TRUMP’S STATE VISIT TO U.K.
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Sadiq Khan said: “I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is
shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the
red carpet for President Trump.”


Let’s put this in perspective. Britain has a steadily lengthening
record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation.
Syed
Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so
hard line that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. Sadiq Khan didn’t say anything.
The UK Home Office recently admitted
Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has
said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things.
One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest.
Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth –
tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination
of the above.” Sadiq Khan didn’t say a word.
May’s government also recently admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sadiq Khan didn’t protest.

Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. Sadiq Khan didn’t raise a fuss.

But the U.S. trying to defend itself from jihad terrorists? That’s over the line for Sadiq Khan!

“Sadiq Khan demands Donald Trump’s state visit is cancelled,” by Mikey Smith, Mirror, January 29, 2017:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan – the first Muslim mayor of a
major western city – has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK
is cancelled.

He told Sky News: “I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is
shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the
red carpet for President Trump.

“I don’t think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn’t be clearer.”

He said the ban “flies in the face of the values” the US was built on.

He added: “I’m pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and
the Government do not agree with President Trump’s policy, which will
affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including
Londoners born in countries affected by the ban.

Theresa May is under increasing pressure to send a clear and firm message to Trump that Britain condemns the ban.

A quarter of a million people have signed a Government petition calling for the visit to be cancelled.

And the Prime Minister was yesterday criticised for not condemning
the new rules but a spokesman later said she “does not agree” with the
so called Muslim ban.

But when asked if the invitation for Trump to visit would be
withdrawn, Number 10 said: “We extended the invitation and it was
accepted.”…

TRUMP APPOINTS ACTING DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

 Trump Appoints Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TRUMP APPOINTS ACTING DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 
 Replaces Obama holdover with deportation expert
 http://dailyentertainmentnews.com/wpgo/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/thomas-homan-ice-3.jpg
BY DAN LYMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

President Donald Trump has replaced the former director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement with Thomas D. Homan, who will serve
as acting director until a permanent candidate can be appointed.

Homan
is a veteran of law enforcement with over 33 years experience, and 30
years involvement in immigration capacities, most recently as executive
associate director of enforcement and removal operations – a position he
has held since 2013.

He succeeds Daniel Ragsdale, a holdover from the Obama administration.

Ragsdale’s dismissal comes under the radar, as the focus is on the
firing of insubordinate acting attorney general, Sally Yates, who
ordered attorneys at the Department of Justice to not defend President
Trump’s ban on refugees entering the United States.

The Washington Post profiled Homan in 2016 in a piece that began, “Thomas Homan deports people. And he’s really good at it.”
“Homan
is the Washington bureaucrat in charge of rounding up, detaining and
kicking illegal immigrants out of the country. As Americans fight over
whether the next president should build a wall on the Mexico border to
keep migrants out or protect millions of them from deportation, Homan is
actually hunting undocumented immigrants down right now, setting
strategy for 8,000 officers on the front lines.”

General John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, released the following statement on Homan’s appointment –
Today, the president appointed Mr. Thomas D. Homan acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Since
2013, Mr. Homan has served as the executive associate director of ICE
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). In this capacity, he led ICE’s
efforts to identify, arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens,
including those who present a danger to national security or are a risk
to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally
or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our
border control efforts.

Mr. Homan is a 33-year veteran of
law enforcement and has nearly 30 years of immigration enforcement
experience. He has served as a police officer in New York; a U.S. Border
Patrol agent; a special agent with the former U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service; as well as supervisory special agent and deputy
assistant director for investigations at ICE. In 1999, Mr. Homan became
the assistant district director for investigations (ADDI) in San
Antonio, Texas, and three years later transferred to the ADDI position
in Dallas, Texas.

Upon the creation of ICE, Mr. Homan was
named as the assistant agent in charge in Dallas. In March 2009, Mr.
Homan accepted the position of assistant director for enforcement within
ERO at ICE headquarters and was subsequently promoted to deputy
executive associate director of ERO.

Mr. Homan holds a
bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and received the Presidential Rank
Award in 2015 for his exemplary leadership and extensive
accomplishments in the area of immigration enforcement.

I
am confident that he will continue to serve as a strong, effective
leader for the men and women of ICE. I look forward to working alongside
him to ensure that we enforce our immigration laws in the interior of
the United States consistent with the national interest.

 

GOOGLE ATTEMPTS QUIET TAKEOVER OF TRUMP WHITE HOUSE

 https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5683ab9cdd0895374d8b4853-2400/gettyimages-476451960.jpg
GOOGLE ATTEMPTS QUIET TAKEOVER 
OF TRUMP WHITE HOUSE
 WH advisor cautions: “Google head Schmidt, a top Hillary advisor, cozies up to Trump”

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

NEW YORK – Eric Schmidt, the founder of the multinational
conglomerate Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, is making a
run to become a Trump insider, intending hopefully to reverse the
political damage done by the strong support he and Google gave to the
Obama administration for eight years and to Hillary Clinton in her 2016
presidential campaign.

On Dec. 14, 2016, Schmidt was included in a group of prominent tech industry executives that met with then President-elect Donald Trump in a much-publicized meeting.
Then on Jan. 17, 2017, Politico reported
that Schmidt was sited at an unannounced visit to Trump Tower, where he
lunched privately with Jared Kushner, Trump’s real estate magnate
son-in-law married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka in 2009, who has emerged
to be named a Senior Advisor to his father-in-law in the White House.

Schmidt’s charm offensive
Trump’s long-time
advisor Roger Stone expressed to INFOWARS.com concerns shared by many
close to the Trump administration that Schmidt is angling to create a
personal relationship with Trump so as to continue the business
advantages Google enjoyed when Barack Obama was president.
“Google’s
Eric Schmidt was among Hillary’s biggest donors and closest advisors,”
Stone told INFOWARS.com in an exclusive interview. “Schmidt enjoyed a
revolving-door relationship with the Obama administration that secured
for Google key role in writing regulations to Google’s advantage.”

Stone pointed out that Schmidt “bet on the wrong horse – big time” in supporting Hillary.
“Now, Schmidt is engaged in massive damage control, thinking he charm his way into Trump’s inner circle,” Stone continued.
“The
problem is that Schmidt and Google have a history of supporting
Democratic candidates and leftist causes,” he stressed. “The American
public has no idea how extensively Schmidt has used his influence with
Hillary and with Obama to wind Google tentacles into the heart and inner
workings of a federal bureaucracy staffed from the top-down by
left-leaning Hillary lovers.”
Stone emphasized those in key
positions in the Trump administration must be on the alert to a “Google
charm offensive” launched by Schmidt to cozy up to Trump in an effort to
re-establish with Trump some of the influence Google enjoyed with the
Democrats.
Google strategy to worm into Trump
“Google
was definitely trying to advance its policy agenda by cozying up to
Trump,” Daniel Stevens, the acting executive director of the
Washington-based non-profit 501(c)(3) watchdog Campaign for
Accountability told Infowars.  “It’s what Google did with Hillary.  As
Hillary’s campaign was kicking-off, Google cozied up to the Clinton
campaign.  Eric Schmidt sent off emails offering advice to Hillary’s top
campaign managers, in an effort to make himself indispensable to the
campaign.”

Stevens noted Eric Schmidt even created an under-the-radar startup technology company for Hillary’s Campaign, The Groundwork,
headquartered in Brooklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from Hillary’s campaign
office.  The Groundwork became a major vendor Hillary’s campaign,
implementing a policy designed to emulate Barack Obama’s highly
successful micro-targeting of voters in 2012, in a plan to feed this
data to activists working in the field through the Obama campaign’s
activist arm, Organizing for America.
As noted by Quartz.com in an article published Oct. 9, 2015,
Hillary’s decision to hire former Google executive Stephanie Hannon as
her 2016 presidential campaign’s chief technology officer, as well as
hiring “a host of ex-Googlers” as high-ranking technical staff at the
Obama White House evidenced the “shrinking distance between Google and
the Democratic Party.”
“It now appears that Schmidt is trying to
reach out to the Trump White House in a similar way,” Stevens
continued.  “It’s in Google’s interest to cozy up to Trump now that he
is president and that is what Schmidt is trying to do.”
That Google has already made inroads into the Trump camp was clear to the Campaign for Accountability in
that Joshua Wright, who co-wrote a Google-funded paper while on the
faculty of George Mason University and works at Google’s main antitrust
law firm, has been advising the Trump transition team on competition
issues, while Alex Pollock, of the Google-funded R Street Institute, has
also been named to oversee the transition at the FTC.
At the same time, it is not clear the Trump administration fully appreciates the extent to which Eric Schmidt and Google top executives have supported and advanced Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s far-left policy agenda.  Leaked emails released by Wikileaks revealed that John Podesta,
Hillary’s 2016 campaign chairman, had warned Neera Tanden, the
President of the Center for American Progress, “I hope Hillary truly
understands how batshit crazy David Brock is.”
Radical Democratic Party political operative David Brock is the chief architect behind promoting the leftist “Fake News” campaign
Brock’s advice was key to promoting Google to take steps to prohibit
some 340 “fake news” sites in November and December alone from using
Google ads for monetization.  Last week Google confirmed that since
November, some 550 sites have been reviewed, resulting in permanent bans
for nearly 200 and temporary bans for another 140, as reported by Variety on Jan. 25, 2017.
Google refuses to disclose the identity of the websites Google has targeted to block as “fake news.”
Trump
supporters should remain legitimately concerned that by buying into
Brock’s campaign against “fake news,” the ultimate goal of the far-left
is to ban sites like Infowars.com for exposing the far left agenda, wile
protecting mainstream media news organizations and websites like CNN,
despite proof CNN has reported anti-Trump stories proven to be false or
otherwise untruthful.
Trump has repeatedly attacked CNN as “not a legitimate news agency”
because of the extent to which CNN has engaged in one-sided, distorted
and intentionally misleading anti-trump “fake news” slanted to benefit
far-left candidates like Hillary Clinton, while striving to protect the
legacy of the Obama administration from criticism.
Google’s revolving door
“When
President Obama announced his support last week for a Federal
Communications Commission plan to open the market for cable set-top
boxes — a big win for consumers, but also for Google— the cable and
telecommunications giants who used to have a near-stranglehold on tech
policy were furious,” wrote David Dayen in the Intercept
on April 22, 2016, evidencing Schmidt’s ability to get Obama
administration regulations written to benefit Google.  “AT&T chief
lobbyist Jim Cicconi lashed out at what he called White House
intervention on behalf of ‘the Google proposal.’”
According to a report published by Campaign for Accountability on April 26, 2016, White House logs show Google had “unrivaled access” to the Obama administration
with Google representatives attending 427 meetings in the White House
from the time Obama took office, on Jan. 20, 2009, and October 2015 – a
meeting every 5.8 days – more than once a week – averaging one meeting
every 4.1 working days.

The Campaign for Accountability study further established a
“revolving door” with Google hiring an Obama administration government
official or a Google employee becoming an Obama administration employee.
“The dataset highlights the astonishing level of traffic between the
two in both directions: 251 people either moved from Google into
government or vice-versa, since Obama took office,” the Center for
Accountability noted.
“Over the course of just 15 years, Google
has grown into arguably the most powerful company on the globe by
becoming its biggest data-mining operation,” said Anne Weismann the
executive director for the Campaign for Accountability Executive when
the report on Google was released last year. “Google knows more about us
than we know about ourselves, but we know surprisingly little about
Google and how it actually operates.”
“The company’s business
practices and political influence, as well as how it uses our private
information, are disturbingly opaque.”
Among those benefiting from Google’s “revolving door” relationship with the Obama administration is Megan Smith, the former Google vice president of business development who served as the United States’ Chief Technology Officer in the Obama White House.
Another
is Johanna Shelton, Google’s director of public policy and top
lobbyist, Johanna Shelton, According to Watchdog.org, Johanna Shelton, visited White House officials 128 times,
including 4 times with President Obama himself, between the time Obama
took office in 2009 and October 2015, compared to lobbyists for other
companies in the telecommunications and cable industry that visited the
White House a combined 124 times in the same time span.  The Daily Mail
concluded that Shelton visited the Obama White House more than 18 of the
top 50 lobbyist spenders combined.
Eric Schmidt’s personal
familiarity with Obama stretches back at least to Nov. 14, 2007, when
then Sen. Barack Obama, a 2008 presidential hopeful, visited Google’s
headquarters in Mountain View, California, to meet with Schmidt and take
questions from Google employees, as part of the “Candidates at Google” series.

In his 2008 presentation at Google, Obama expressed his support for
net neutrality, a Google-sought policy decision that the Federal
Communications Commission finalized as “Net Neutrality Regulations” on April 13, 2015.
On June 23, 2011, ConsumerWatchdog.org wrote the White House legal counsel,
advising of the group’s concern about the Obama administration’s
“inappropriate relationship with Google while the company is under
criminal investigating,” insisting that Schmidt as Google’s executive
chairman, and Marissa Meyer, a Google vice president had been invited
unadvisedly to be guests at a then recent White House state dinner
honoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“Allowing such
executives to hobnob at a gala White House event inevitably sends a
message that the Administration supports them and undercuts the ability
of federal investigators to proceed with their case in a fair and
unbiased way,” ConsumerWatchdog.org president Jamie Court wrote in the
letter.
In an article published June 24, 2011, Politico documented the precise nature of the legal conflicts of interest involved in Schmidt and Meyer attending the White House state dinner.
“Google
is reportedly the subject of an antitrust investigation by the FTC, and
Justice is reviewing its $400 million purchase of online advertising
firm Admeld,” Politico noted.  “In addition, Justice, the FDA and the
Rhode Island U.S. attorney are reportedly looking into allegations that
Google profited from selling online ads to illegal online pharmacies.”
Politico
stressed that despite these on-going investigations, “Google’s
Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and Vice President Marissa Mayer were
guests at last month’s State Dinner to honor German Chancellor Angela
Merkel.”
All investigations ended without Google facing anti-trust charges or criminal prosecutions:

Schmidt’s role as Hillary’s “head outside advisor”
In an email dated April 2, 2014, released by Wikileaks,
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta
wrote Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook about a meeting he had just
completed with Google’s Eric Schmidt.
“I met with Eric Schmidt
tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent,
etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t
pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be
head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others
out,” Podesta wrote. “Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC
tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the
afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to
meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on the phone in the a.m.”
In another Wikileaks document, an attachment to a memo Mook wrote to Podesta
and Clinton aid and legal adviser Cheryl Mills, dated Oct. 26, 2014,
Mook detailed the extensive work “Eric Schmidt’s group” was undertaking
with the campaign.
As noted by the Daily Caller, the attachment
was a memo originally sent to Hillary by Teddy Goff, the former digital
director for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign who had
transitioned to Hillary’s 2016 campaign, in October 2014, six months
before Hillary announced her run to the White House.
In the memo,
Goff stressed the importance of Schmidt in constructing the back-end
infrastructure of the Clinton campaign website.  She wrote the
following:
“We have selected a team of developers, unaffiliated
with Eric [Schmidt], to build the front-end of your website — a
relatively simple process that does not need to have begun yet. These
are former employees of mine in whom I have the highest confidence. They
are apprised of what Eric is building but not dependent on it, having
identified commercially available products for all mission-critical
functions in the event Eric’s group is delayed or otherwise derailed.”
Goff
continued, noting she had “instructed Eric’s team” to build the
“back-end of the website, the ability to accept donations (along with
associated features, most importantly the ability to store credit card
information), and the ability to acquire email addresses.”  She noted
these were “core functionalities” that had contributed to Obama’s 2012
electoral success.  This appears to be the genesis of the thinking that
led Schmidt to create The Groundwork to create Hillary’s 2016 campaign
technological infrastructure.
According to leaked documents released by Guccifer 2.0, Eric Schmidt, valued by Forbes as having a net worth of $11.8 billion, has personally donated $118,866.34 to the Clinton Foundation.
There
is no doubt that Schmidt used that wealth to bet heavily that Hillary
Clinton would be president in 2017.  According to OpenSecrets.org, Alphabet Inc. employees contributed $1.5 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, making Google the second largest source of campaign contributions that Clinton received.
The
Campaign for Accountability’s “Google Transparency Project” found “at
least 57 people were affiliated with both Clinton—in her presidential
campaign, in her State Department, at her family foundation—and with Google or related entities.
In addition, 10 people who worked under Clinton at the State Department
later joined the New America Foundation, a Google-friendly think tank
where Google’s Eric Schmidt served as chairman and was one of its top
donors.”
The “Google Transparency Project” report made clear
Google executives and employees “bet heavily on a Clinton victory,
hoping to extend the company’s influence on the Obama White House.”  The
report continued to note that Google executives and employees “lost
that bet, and are left scrambling to find an entrée into the Trump
Administration.”

 

EX-OFFICIAL CALLS ON MEXICO TO UNLEASH DRUG CARTELS TO PUNISH TRUMP

EX-OFFICIAL CALLS ON MEXICO TO UNLEASH DRUG CARTELS TO PUNISH TRUMP 
 Suggests drugs should be allowed to flow into U.S.

 BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castañeda has called on
Mexico to punish President Trump for his actions on deporting illegal
immigrants and building a border wall by allowing criminal cartels to
run drugs into the United States.

During
an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Castañeda suggested that drug
cartels could be unleashed on the U.S. as retribution for Trump’s
aggressive stance towards Mexico.
“Mexico
has a lot of negotiating chips in this matter, Fareed, but it also has
measures we could take in other areas,” said Castañeda. “For example,
the drugs that come through Mexico from South America, or the drugs that
are produced here in Mexico all go to the United States. This is not
our problem. We have been cooperating with the United States for many
years on these issues because they’ve asked us to and because we have a
friendly, trustful relationship. If that relationship disappears, the
reasons for cooperation also disappear.”
Castañeda
is clearly suggesting that Mexican authorities could take a hands off
approach to stopping drug traffickers as part of a revenge attack
against Trump.
“The implications
are astoundingly clear – Mexico would consider exporting chaos and
violence into the United States as a form of payback for immigration
restrictions and controls against the instability that the southern
border has brought to the country for decades,” comments Mac Slavo.
The
irony of course is that any intensification of chaos on the border
would only serve to strengthen Trump’s hand when it came to building the
wall and deporting illegals.
From 2006-2010 alone, Mexican drug cartels killed around 34,000 people, and that’s just on the Mexican side. Those murders included gruesome ISIS-style beheadings and other grisly executions.

ADF FILES LAWSUIT FOR MICHIGAN STUDENTS JAILED FOR HANDING OUT POCKET CONSTITUTIONS ON CAMPUS

 ADF Files Lawsuit for Michigan Students Jailed for Handing Out Pocket Constitutions on Campus
ADF FILES LAWSUIT FOR MICHIGAN STUDENTS JAILED FOR HANDING OUT POCKET CONSTITUTIONS 
ON CAMPUS
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“Do you like freedom and liberty?”

Asking this question of some of their fellow students landed three college kids in jail.

Here’s the story.

Back in September, members of the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL)
were handing out pocket copies of the Constitution to their fellow
students at Kellogg Community College (KCC) in Michigan trying to build
up the club’s membership.


Later, campus police approached the kids, questioned them about their
activities, handcuffed them for “trespassing” and locked them up in the
county jail for seven hours!

On January 18, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit
on behalf of the three YAL members who were arrested and jailed by the
college’s law enforcement.

Here’s ADF’s account of the events that occurred that day and how the
kids ended up in jail for passing out copies of the Constitution:

Brandon and his group were outside on a
campus walkway talking to passing students and handing out copies of the
Constitution when two KCC officials approached them.  First an
administrator and then the Manager of Student Life told them that they
must have a permit from the Student Life Office in order to be
“soliciting.”  The Manager also said that they could not use this
walkway for their activities.


The group calmly explained that they had a
constitutional right to be there. While the administrator conceded, the
Manager of Student Life did not. He even went so far as to say that, by
asking questions and handing out Constitutions, they were “obstructing”
the education of the students with whom they spoke.


Later, members of KCC campus security,
including the police chief, ordered them to stop engaging in
“solicitation” or they would be arrested for trespassing. Brandon
complied with the order, leaving to wrap up some other items on campus,
while the other three members of the group reiterated their right to be
there.


That’s when the students were arrested and taken to jail.

Adding insult to ignorance, when asked what harm the three YAL
members were causing to their fellow students, a college administrator
identified as Drew Hutchinson, explained that students from “rural farm
areas … might not feel like they have the choice to ignore the
question.”

In other words, according to the administration of Kellogg Community
College, people who live on a farm are too backward to realize that when
someone asks them a question, they are free to answer the question or
ignore it.

Seriously.

Additionally, the YAL members who were arrested report that Hutchinson
told them that the question they were asking (“Do you like freedom and
liberty?”) was too “provocative.”

Hutchinson also allegedly told them that the rural kids “are growing
up on a farm, or they don’t have Wi-Fi, they don’t have internet, you
know it’s a very different situation, they were brought up in a very
different manner.”

Without Wi-Fi, farm kids are just “brought up” not knowing what to do
if someone offers them a pocket Constitution or asks them a question.

Now, in fairness to KCC, the school does have a Solicitation Policy that was in place prior to YAL’s activities.

The Solicitation Policy
reads: “Soliciting activities on campus are permitted only when the
activities support the mission of Kellogg Community College (KCC) or the
mission of a recognized college entity or activity. Non-College
organizations may conduct solicitation activities on campus only when
lawfully sponsored by a recognized College entity. All organizations
desiring to conduct soliciting activities on campus must adhere to
College policies and procedures.”

The policy then goes on to lay out the process a group must follow
before being allowed to distribute literature. The school claims that
the three YAL students violated the policy and thus were arrested and
jailed.

One of the arrested students recalls the activities of another
on-campus group that were not held to strict obedience to the
Solicitation Policy. Here’s the story as told by Brandon Withers, one of
the jailed YAL members:

Withers says in the lawsuit that he has
witnessed other students violating KCC’s free speech and solicitation
policies without incident.


He said that a year prior to his
encounter, he saw members of an LGBT student organization distributing
literature in the Student Center while freely walking around and not
confined to sitting quietly at a table. Withers also alleges he has seen
students asking for petition signatures around other areas of campus
without prior approval to do so.

The ADF sees several violations on the part of KCC of the YAL students’ constitutionally protected civil liberties.

First, they argue that the school’s solicitation policy affords
unconstitutionally broad discretion to school administrators, allowing
them to approve or reject petitions according to their own whims.

Next, the lawsuit claims: “KCC maintains an unwritten speech zone
policy limiting student expression to one location on campus. If
students express themselves on campus without a permit or in any other
location, KCC deems them to be violating the Code of Conduct for
Students, which exposes them to a variety of sanctions, including
expulsion.”

There is no doubt that that United States has become a land where
speech must be approved and when approved must be spoken only in
designated zones set aside for that activity.

Moreover, just because you have the “right” to speak, you must make
sure that the words you say are not offensive to anyone (even in the
slightest degree, the so-called “micro-aggressions”) or you may have such
“rights” taken from you and you may be subjected to severe punishment
for failing to remain safely and mutely inside your government-approved
speech zone.

“All public colleges—which are supposed to be the ‘marketplace of
ideas’—have the duty to protect and promote the First Amendment’s
guarantee of free speech,” declared ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham.

“Ignoring this duty, KCC arrested these club supporters for
exercising this freedom, and, ironically, for handing out copies of the
very document—the Constitution—that protects what they were doing,” he
added.

There is a specter of suppression of speech that is not completely in
concert with the upholding and obeying of the regime. One unable to
restrain himself from criticizing the central planners will be summarily
subjected to a denial of liberty, regardless of the erstwhile
protections offered by some musty old “parchment barrier.”

As so eloquently stated by Ron Paul, “In the empire of lies, truth is treason.”

 

UN BOSS DEMANDS YOUTH IMPOSE UN’S AGENDA 2030 “MASTER PLAN” ON HUMANITY~INDOCTRINATION & CONSCRIPTION TO BE REQUIRED

UN BOSS DEMANDS YOUTH IMPOSE UN’S AGENDA 2030 “MASTER PLAN” ON HUMANITY
BY ALEX NEWMAN
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Echoing the language used by critics of the controversial global scheme, the president of the United Nations General Assembly has started referring to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” or SDGs, as the “master plan for humanity.” Speaking to a UN summit for “youth” this week, top UN leaders all demanded that children worldwide be indoctrinated and conscripted to help impose the UN’s extreme vision on humanity. But as awareness of the UN plot grows, criticism is growing in tandem.

The totalitarian global plan, adopted by the governments and dictators of the world over a year ago, has also been referred
to by top UN officials as the world’s “Declaration of Interdependence,”
with the UN being touted as the (un-elected) “Parliament of Humanity
.” Dictators and even genocidal mass-murderers around the world continue to express delight
about the plot, expecting massive subsidies for their regimes from
Western taxpayers under the UN scheme. The mass-murdering Communist
Chinese dictatorship even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating Agenda 2030.

If President Donald Trump’s early efforts offer any indication of his plans,
however, the UN Agenda 2030, far from being a “master plan for
humanity,” may already be a failed scheme. And even without Trump, the
U.S. Senate has not ratified the proposed global regime, as required by
the U.S. Constitution for all treaties. The chances of it being approved
by the Senate for the foreseeable future are essentially zero. And
without all the wealth from U.S. taxpayers promised to Third World
dictators and regimes in exchange for their cooperation with UN Agenda
2030, the rest of the planet is also likely to be spared from the
totalitarian vision outlined in the UN document.

The first time UN General Assembly boss Peter Thomson publicly used
the phrase “master plan for humanity” in reference to the UN SDGs appears
to have been at a November, 2016, briefing for UN member states.
“The 2030 Agenda presents the world with what I have termed a
‘master plan for humanity’ to achieve a sustainable way of life on this
planet,” he explained, with “sustainable development” serving as code
language among establishment globalists, communists, and other tyrants
for planetary economic controls, population reduction, global
governance, pseudo-environmentalism, wealth redistribution, and
technocratic rule
.

The UN Agenda 2030 is composed of 17 separate “goals,” along with 169 specific “targets
to be imposed on humanity. Among other schemes, the document demands
national and international wealth redistribution, government and UN
control of production and consumption, the indoctrination of children to
not just believe in the UN’s agenda but to actually “promote” it, and
much more. Under the guise of solving everything from world poverty to
hunger and disease, the controversial UN documents demands massive
expansion of national, regional, and international governments’ coercive
powers. Virtually the entire document violates the limitations on
government power established by the U.S. Constitution, making it illegal
in America without changing the supreme law of the land.

Essentially, UN officials and the leaders of most of the UN’s largely
un-free member regimes are plotting to use Agenda 2030 as a blueprint
for advancing, among other goals, the globalist establishment’s agenda
of totalitarian control and centralization of power. Even a brief
perusal of the document itself makes that clear. In the same briefing on
November 8 of last year, Thompson made that clear as well, although he
used less than honest language to describe the effects that implementing
the “master plan for humanity” would have.

Speaking to representatives of the world’s governments and
dictatorships, Thomson said the theme for his mission would be “The
Sustainable Development Goals: A Universal Push to Transform our World.”
And by “transform our world,” he means exactly what he says, demanding
that “all actors — globally, regionally, nationally and at community
levels — view our world through the lens of sustainability.”
Specifically, he vowed to bring onboard “international financial
institutions, multilateral bodies, regulatory authorities, the private
sector, philanthropic foundations, civil society, women’s organizations,
academia, local authorities and people everywhere.” His team will also
“promote the inclusion of the SDGs on the school curricula of every
country.” UNESCO is working on that, too.

Thomson, who hails from Fiji, used the same rhetoric this week at a UN forum
aimed at bringing youth into the scheme and giving the impression of
support for the UN agenda among young people. Touting the importance of
the SDGs and the pseudo-treaty on “climate” known as the Paris Agreement,
which Trump has vowed to cancel, Thomson said the two UN schemes
provide a “universal master plan to place humanity on a  trajectory to a
safe, secure and prosperous future for all.” The event was held by the
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the Office of the Youth
Envoy of the Secretary-General, and the UN Inter-agency Network on Youth
Development.

“Implemented urgently, effectively and at scale, these agreements
will transform our world, to one in which extreme poverty is eliminated
and prosperity is increased and shared more equitably,” Thomson claimed,
as if tyranny and wealth redistribution resulted in prosperity, adding
that “bold ideas” and “urgent collaborative action” would be needed to
bring about the future outlined in the UN documents. “It will require
fundamental changes in the way we produce goods and consume them if our
world is to be sustainable. Youth will have to be at the forefront of
this transformation.”

So crucial is co-opting children, Thomson continued, that he has
already “written to all Heads of Government urging them to include the
SDGs on the education curricula of schools.” That way, young people can
learn about their non-existent “rights” and their “responsibilities”
under the so-called masterplan. “As those with the greatest stake in our
success, I call on all young people to bring your energy, passion,
idealism and ideas to the task of transforming our way of life on this
Planet to the one set out in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda,”
concluded Thomson, whose government is hoping to extort massive amounts
of wealth from more liberty-oriented (and therefore prosperous) Western
nations under the guise of “sustainability” and “climate change.”   

Far from being original, the rhetoric used by Thomson and other UN
bosses at the youth forum was lifted almost word for word from the UN
Agenda 2030 itself. “Children and young women and men are critical
agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel
their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better
world,” the document claims. In Goal 4, the document demands that “all
learners” — that means your children and grandchildren — become so
indoctrinated in the UN’s extreme ideology of “sustainability” that they
will be ready not just to accept the scheme, but to “promote
sustainable development
” as well. The plan also calls for mandatory indoctrination in “global citizenship,” which the UN’s “education” agency recently said
“aims to inculcate students with a notion of belonging not just to
their own country but to broader trans-national and global entities.”

“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills
needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others,
through education for sustainable development and sustainable
lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of
peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural
diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the
global plan for 2030 states. Read that one again, and consider what the
UN means when it pushes “sustainable development.” Even “human rights”
is misleading, referring to government-defined and easily revocable
privileges rather than the God-given rights America’s founders viewed as
self-evident.

Perhaps hoping nobody would notice, the UN itself has already spilled
the beans when it comes to the meaning of education for “sustainable
development,” a key tenet of the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
“Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes,
consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have
lower incomes,” a UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education
explains. “In this case, more education increases the threat to
sustainability.” In other words, people with real educations have higher
incomes and therefore threaten the whole “sustainability” agenda.

As this magazine has pointed out repeatedly, the SDGs really are a
“master plan for humanity,” a phrase this magazine has used on at least a
half-dozen occasions. But looking past the slick marketing slogans and self-serving gimmicks of the UN dictators club, its allies, and the mass-murdering tyrants responsible for drafting Agenda 2030,
it becomes clear that the master plan involves a surrender of freedom,
self-government, prosperity, national sovereignty, traditional values,
Western civilization, huge amounts of wealth, the Judeo-Christian
worldview, and much more. It is, in essence, a global plan for
totalitarian rule — a sort of neo-feudalism run by unelected and
unaccountable technocrats who lust for ever more power over their fellow
human beings.

The previous UN General Assembly boss, John Ashe, was also a major
booster of Agenda 2030. But just after it was adopted, he was arrested
by U.S. authorities and charged with corruption and receiving bribes to
influence policy from a known Communist Chinese operative masquerading
as a billionaire “businessman.” Ashe died under what analysts described
as suspicious circumstances before his testimony implicating powerful
individuals could be heard in a court of law. Whether other top UN
leaders will face justice for their schemes remains to be seen. But what
is clear is that, if liberty and self-government are to survive, UN
Agenda 2030 must die.

Congress and Trump are in the process of drastically curtailing funding for the UN dictators club and its totalitarian agenda.
But rather than playing defense against every new UN scheme that
threatens freedom and self-government, the American people should urge
their elected representatives to support a full U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193),
currently sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, would do
exactly that, making Agenda 2030 and all the rest of the dictator club’s
schemes irrelevant. All that is needed now is enough public pressure.

Related articles:  

UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

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

Former UN General Assembly Boss Arrested for Corruption

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

UN Demands More Globalist Propaganda in School Textbooks

Next on Trump’s List: Rein in the UN Dictators Club

UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism

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

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

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

Beijing Boasts of Its “Crucial Role” in UN Plan for Humanity

China, G77 Tyrants, and UN Boss Demand “New World Order”

TEACHER FORCED OUT FOR USING CONFEDERATE FLAG IN CIVIL WAR HISTORY LESSON~DEEMED A “SYMBOL OF HATE” BY SCHOOL DISTRICT

 
TEACHER FORCED OUT FOR USING CONFEDERATE FLAG IN CIVIL WAR HISTORY LESSON
BY STEVE BYAS
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“He’s personally my favorite teacher in the whole school,” Ana
Kneisely told CBS Sacramento, in reference to a middle school American
History teacher, Woody Hart, in Rancho Cordova, California, who was
forced to retire by the Board of Education.

Hart, a 70-year-old teacher at Suttle Middle School of the Folsom
Cordova United School District, was ousted after using a Confederate
battle flag, along with a period United States flag, as part of a lesson
on the U.S. Civil War. The school’s superintendent, Deborah
Bettencourt, released a statement late last week that the board of
education had “accepted this Sutter Middle School teacher’s retirement
… and he will not be returning to school this year.”

In an interview with the local CBS affiliate, KCRA, Ana Kneisely, one
of Hart’s students, explained what had happened. “We just came in and
we saw the Union Flag on one side of the room and the Confederate Flag
on the other side of the room.”

Apparently, this was typical of the way Hart taught. “I actually very
much appreciated the way he taught history,” Kneisely said. “I felt
that we were getting more involved than what our other classes did.”

For example, Hart used the two flags of the opposing sides in the
Civil War to create interest. The two hanging flags were part of Hart’s
lesson, as students were members of one of the two armies.

Kneisely added that she did not understand why Hart’s display of the
flag of one of the two sides involved in the war was controversial,
considering that the flags, including the Confederate flag, are also
used in the textbook for the same purpose.

Back in November, a black family filed a complaint against Hart for
his remarks, in which he explained the unfair way blacks were treated
during segregation. Hart told his students that, at one time, some
Southerners responded to calls for “black equality” with disdain, saying
terrible things such as, “We treat all black people equally. We hang
them all.”

The Sacramento chapter of a group calling itself Showing Up for
Racial Justice also weighed in, demanding a public apology from Hart.

Apparently, Hart was only relating historical incidents in which
people went to the South during those days to promote better treatment
and equal rights for blacks, only to be told that they do treat blacks
equally — they hang them if they are in-state African-Americans, and
they hang them if they are visiting African-Americans. Hart was simply
telling the students how terribly blacks were far-too-often treated
during that time.

And, with the Confederate battle flag, Hart was teaching his class
accurate history as to the use of the flag — in battles during the Civil
War.

But the school district argued that it did not really matter how the
flag was used during the Civil War; it should not be seen by students
today. “We recognize that regardless of context, to many of our
students, families, and staff, the Confederate flag is a racist symbol
of hate.
Although this matter is under investigation, it is important to
reiterate: Any employee who is found to engage in behavior that creates
an unsafe environment for students will face full consequences,
including the possibility of initiating termination proceedings.”

Bettencourt, the superintendent, said that the district’s action did
not mean that they were attempting to “limit the free speech of our
teachers.” Then, in an Orwellian addition, she stated that she expects
“teachers and staff will do this work using culturally appropriate
strategies
.”


The district statement added, “It is our schools’ responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all children.”

It is not clear how the display of a flag, which was actually used in
many battles during the American Civil War, creates an unsafe learning
environment for children. And, exactly what is meant by “culturally
appropriate strategies?”

The obvious meaning is that certain events and symbols in history are
to be censored — or as George Orwell described it in his classic
dystopian novel 1984, some things should be disposed of in the “memory hole.”

Among those things that should be relegated to the “memory hole,” and
not even shown to students (because it apparently would make them
“unsafe”), is a Confederate battle flag. Since the murders inside a
church in South Carolina, in which the killer posted photographs of
himself on Facebook along with the flag, there has been an intense
offensive against any public display of the historical flag.

Critics contend that the flag is nothing but a racist symbol in a war
allegedly fought over slavery, and in more recent times, as a symbol
used by racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. But champions of the
flag have countered that the flag is simply a symbol of Southern
culture, and that slavery was not the issue over which the Civil War was
fought.

Sometimes called the “Southern Cross,” the flag was a variation of
the flag of Scotland. It was actually a Christian symbol, a St. Andrew’s
cross, with white stars added to a red field. An extremely large number
of southerners were descended from Scottish and Scots-Irish families,
and the flag represented the warrior culture of Americans of that ethnic
strain. It was never the official flag of the Confederate States of
America (CSA), but rather a flag to be used on the battlefield. It was
made famous by the Army of Northern Virginia, under the command of
General Robert E. Lee.

The original national flag of the CSA was dubbed the “Stars and
Bars,” and was used until 1863. At the Battle of First Manassas, or Bull
Run, this flag caused confusion, because with the smoke and dust of
battle, the two opposing armies often confused each other’s flag.

Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard, who was in command of
Confederate forces at Manassas, the first great battle of the war,
suggested adopting a different flag, to be used in battle, to avoid such
confusion. While this was eventually done, the Confederate Congress
never formally adopted it for use, but used other flags for the
Confederate government.

But it was used — that is a historical fact. But some historical
facts, apparently, should be erased from the history books and history
classrooms of this country — at least according to this school district
in California.

The action by this school district raises the question of whether we
are to censor history and eliminate certain events and symbols from our
collective memory. True historians convey history as it was — the good,
the bad, and the ugly — because to do otherwise is simply telling a lie.
The very reason we study history is to learn lessons from the
collective memory of the human race, both the living and the dead. If
certain things are to be excluded from that collective memory, we have
crippled ourselves from using the study of history in its proper way.

Unfortunately, such censorship of historical facts is not unique to
this one school district in California (although one suspects that in
that state, it is probably more common than in most others).
Today, it
is the Confederate battle flag which is to be blotted out from the
historical record, because its detractors argue it has been used by
racists such as the KKK. Actually, if one examines photographs of Klan
rallies, more United States flags are used than Confederate battle
flags.

And what are we to do with the Klan practice of burning a cross on
someone’s lawn?
Should the Christian cross be consigned to oblivion, as
well? One suspects there are many who would like to do so, using
whatever excuse that they can.

While I teach history at a Christian liberal arts college (Randall
University in Moore, Oklahoma, run by the Free Will Baptist
denomination), I began my career many years ago in a small, rural school
district in Oklahoma. The principal sat in on my World History class
one day when I was covering the Medieval Church. (The church was a
powerful and important institution in the Europe of the Middle Ages, and
the textbook devoted a whole chapter to it).

Later, he cautioned me to “be careful.” He suggested it might be
better to not mention the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, as
that might offend someone.
At first I laughed, thinking he was joking.
But he was not. He was concerned that teaching what the Church taught
and did in the Middle Ages might even constitute government
establishment of religion.

It was a comment so odd that I was unsure what to say, but it would
be comparable to teaching the American Revolution without mentioning
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, or teaching about
Richard Nixon without mentioning the Watergate Scandal.

Can one imagine teaching about Adolf Hitler, and not mentioning the Holocaust?

Or, perhaps it would be like teaching a group of middle school
students about the battles of the Civil War, and refusing to use a
photograph of a Civil War battle because it happened to include a
soldier holding a Confederate battle flag. Horrors!


After all, they might feel unsafe.

Steve Byas is an instructor of history and government at Randall University, in Moore, Oklahoma. His book History’s Greatest Libels
is a challenge to some of the misrepresentations of history concerning
such individuals as Christopher Colombus, Marie Antoinette, and Joseph
McCarthy.

 

TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE PLACED UNDER STATE PROTECTION AFTER RECEIVING DEATH THREATS OVER PRO LIFE BILL

 
TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE PLACED UNDER STATE PROTECTION AFTER RECEIVING DEATH THREATS 
OVER PRO LIFE BILL 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas lawmaker has been
placed under state protection after receiving death threats over his
recently-introduced bill to protect the lives of unborn children.

The Texas Department of Public Safety is providing
security assistance to Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, who has
reportedly received multiple death threats, as well as his wife.

His political consultant, Luke Macias, told the Dallas News
that the Arlington Police Department and the Tarrant County Sheriff’s
Office has been involved due to the number of threats and an
investigation is underway.

“All involved have done an incredible job protecting his family during this stressful time,” Macias said.

He advised that Tinderholt’s “wife in particular” had been threatened.

Tinderholt’s chief of staff, Micah Cavanaugh, confirmed the situation.

“Representative Tinderholt and his family have received
multiple death threats leading to his family being placed under DPS
protection on multiple occasions,” he told the Texas Tribune.
“Specifics
to the threats cannot be discussed due to an ongoing investigation, and
we do not intend to speak on behalf of law enforcement.”

The threats surround Tinderholdt’s submission of H.B. 948 earlier this month, also known as the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act. As previously reported,
the bill declares that unborn children are entitled to human rights
from the moment of conception, and removes current exemptions under
state criminal homicide law relating to abortion.

“A living human child, from the moment of fertilization upon
the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum is entitled to the
same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the
laws of this state to any other human child,” it reads in part.

Abortions committed in cases when the mother’s life is at risk would not be prosecuted as murder.

“When you read and see how abortions are performed, and how
they end the life of an innocent child, it amazes me that we allow
that,” Tinderholdt told the Star-Telegram. “When we look back over
history and we see … the cultures that took the lives of children,
people are appalled by that. People are going to do that with America,
too, and look back one day and say they can’t believe we allowed this.”

He said that the bill is in response to language in the Texas Republican Party platform, which was passed in May, calling for the complete abolition of abortion in the state.

“We call upon the Texas legislature to enact legislation
stopping the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to
enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and
court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to
life,” the platform text reads.

Macais says that while Tinderholt and his wife, who identify
as Roman Catholic, have received death threats over the matter, there
has also been positive feedback from those supportive of defending life.

“Local law enforcement have been very protective of him and
his family,” he stated. “The truth is that he has received a tremendous
amount of feedback—both positive and negative—on the subject of his
legislation.”

 

BOY SCOUTS WILL ALLOW TRANSGENDERS

 

Boy Scouts, Reversing Century-Old Stance, 

Will Allow Transgender Boys

BY 


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Reversing its stance of more than a century, the Boy Scouts of America
said on Monday that the group would begin accepting members based on
the gender listed on their application, paving the way for transgender
boys to join the organization.
“For
more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America, along with schools,
youth sports and other youth organizations, have ultimately deferred to
the information on an individual’s birth certificate to determine
eligibility for our single-gender programs,” the group said in a statement
on its website. “However, that approach is no longer sufficient as
communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently,
and these laws vary widely from state to state.”
The announcement, reported on Monday night by The Associated Press, reverses a policy that drew controversy late last year when a transgender boy in New Jersey was kicked out of the organization about a month after joining.
“After
weeks of significant conversations at all levels of our organization,
we realized that referring to birth certificates as the reference point
is no longer sufficient,” Michael Surbaugh, the Scouts’ chief executive,
said in a recorded statement on Monday.
The
announcement came amid a national debate over transgender rights, with
cities and states across the nation struggling with whether and how to
regulate gender identity in the workplace, in restrooms and at schools.
In recent years, the Boy Scouts of America has expanded rights for gay people. In 2013, the group ended its ban on openly gay youths participating in its activities. Two years later, the organization ended its ban on openly gay adult leaders.
Advocates for gay and transgender people who had pushed for changes in Boy Scouts’ policy praised Monday’s announcement.
“From
our perspective, they clearly did the right thing,” said Zach Wahls,
who co-founded Scouts for Equality, a nonprofit group that advocates for
stronger protections in the organization for gays and transgender
people. “My team and I knew that they were considering a policy change,
but we are both heartened and surprised by how quickly they moved to
change the situation.”
Last
year, in response to parent complaints, the Boy Scouts of America
removed an 8-year-old transgender boy from the Secaucus, N.J., Cub Scout
pack he had joined just about a month earlier, according to The Record, a newspaper in northern New Jersey.
“It
made me mad,” Joe Maldonado, the boy, told the newspaper. “I had a sad
face, but I wasn’t crying. I’m way more angry than sad. My identity is a
boy. If I was them, I would let every person in the world go in. It’s
right to do.”
Joe’s
case may have been the first in which a transgender boy was ejected
from the program, Mr. Wahls, a former Eagle Scout, said.
When
Mr. Wahls helped found Scouts for Equality in 2012, the Boy Scouts of
America did not yet allow gay scouts or leaders, and “there was zero
conversation about transgender issues.”
While
he was encouraged by what appeared to be the group’s quick decision on
accepting transgender scouts, Scouts for Equality plans to push for a
more formal policy, Mr. Wahls said.
“We want to make sure that they work with experts who have experience with transgender youth and youth programs,” he said.
The
Boy Scouts of America claim nearly 2.3 million members between the ages
of 7 and 21, and the group counts many notable figures among its alumni
and volunteers.
One
of them, Rex W. Tillerson, President Trump’s nominee for secretary of
state, was involved in getting the organization to accept gay scouts and
leaders. He was the national president of the Boy Scouts of America
from 2010 to 2011 and served on its executive board in 2013 when it voted to lift the ban on gay scouts.
That
decision came after years of reluctance from the organization and a
wrenching internal debate that involved threats from some conservative
parents and volunteers that they would quit. When the ban on gay leaders
was reversed in 2015, the Mormon Church, the largest sponsor of
scouting units, briefly threatened to leave the group as well.
______________________________________________________

 Boy Scouts’ Moral Collapse: 
Will Allow “Trans” Girls in Ranks
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

It’s the Boy Scouts — or something like that, anyway.

There was a time when the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) spent money fighting a lawsuit brought by a girl
who wanted to be a “boy” scout. The organization won that battle. Now
it has lost its mind, deciding to let a girl join its ranks simply
because she claims to be a boy.


The BSA will now judge applicants based on their “gender identity”
and not, as had been the policy, based on the sex indicated on their
birth certificate. Because birth certificates are, as Barack Obama
proved, so yesterday.

As CNN reported,
the birth-certificate “‘approach is no longer sufficient as communities
and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these
laws vary widely from state to state,’ BSA spokeswoman Effie Delimarkos
said in a statement Monday.”
The Girl Scouts had already capitulated some years ago, allowing a boy masquerading as a girl to join their organization.

CNN further explains that the BSA’s collapse “comes a few months
after an 8-year-old Cub Scout in New Jersey accused the organization of
expelling him for being transgender. The Boy Scouts did not specifically
cite the New Jersey case in its statement. But Chief Scout Executive
Michael Surbaugh acknowledged the group recently had been ‘challenged by
a very complex topic … the issue of gender identity.’”
This brings to mind the apocryphal saying, “Moral issues are always
terribly complex for someone without principles.” Of course, the
psychology causing an individual to believe he’s a member of the
opposite sex, a different species (“species dysphoria”),
or Napoleon may be complex. The psychology causing CNN to, as is de
rigueur among mainstream media now, refer to children such as the
expelled N.J. Cub Scout as “him” may also be complex. But the simple
fact of the matter is that the child is a girl. There’s nothing complex
about that.
Meanwhile, girls who actually claim they’re girls again want to be Boy Scouts. One of them, 15-year-old Sydney Ireland, posted
a petition at Change.org stating, in part, “I cannot change my gender
to fit the Boy Scouts’ standards.” No? I guess poor Sydney didn’t get
the memo.
I don’t know if such rejection of the Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS —
“transgender”) agenda qualifies Ireland as a hater; she’s right in a
way, however, since by “gender” she means “sex.” As former “transsexual”
Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.”
Note that while most people identify the word “gender” with “sex,”
psychologists define it as a person’s “perception” of what he is and say
that this can be different from his “sex,” which is a biological
classification.
And what do people perceive? The list of “genders” grows like the national debt, with the literally scores of them including designations such as Agender, Bigender, Cis, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Pangender, and Neutrois.
Maybe this is why it sounds so “complex” to Chief Scout Executive
Michael Surbaugh, but let’s cut through the noise. The thesis behind the
MUSS (“transgender”) agenda states that, put simply, a person could be a
woman trapped in a man’s body, or vice versa.
The idea is that at issue is not a psychological problem, but a biological one. But is there any proof of this? As I wrote last year:

What physiological markers will the
physician look for to verify that I truly am, legitimately,
“transgender,” suffering with a supposed brain/body incongruence? Don’t
feel bad not knowing.
There isn’t a so-called expert alive who could answer the question.
There is no brain scan for gender dysphoria. There is no genetic test. There is no hormonal test. There are no physiological markers of any kind.
Yet on the basis of “strong and persistent feelings of cross-gender
identification” — and on that basis alone — psychiatrists can and do
refer patients for the mutilation known as “gender-reassignment surgery”
(GRS). And on that basis alone, doctors may recommend that a young
child be allowed to live as a member of the opposite sex. It’s no
different from telling a cardiologist you feel certain you have heart
disease and, without performing tests to confirm the diagnosis, his
saying, “Oh, have the feelings been strong, persistent and extant for
longer than six months? Okay, well, then I’ll cut open your chest and do
a bypass.”

But it’s a brave new world, where identity is reality. Thus, why draw
lines based on biology at all? Why can’t a man such as 54-year-old
“Stefonknee” Wolscht, who claims to be a six-year-old girl (video
below), join the Girl Scouts? Inclusiveness, right?

Really, the BSA should just get ahead of the curve and rename itself
the Gender Fluid Scouts. After all, the notion of a “boy” is so passé.
Why bother following the spirit of the age when you can lead it? Aren’t
the scouts about leadership?
The BSA development is instructive. First, it illustrates how
political revolutions (which Donald Trump may be ushering in) can do
little to restore the culture, whose moral decay continues apace.
Second, a beneficiary of the BSA’s collapse may be Trail Life USA, an alternative, Christian scouting group
launched three years ago after the BSA decided to admit openly
homosexual boys.
This is, of course, the market at work, but it also
underlines how fractured our civilization has become.
There was no need for such alternatives many decades ago because, by
and large, people’s sense of virtue was explicitly the same. Today,
however, with our emotion-guided decision-making causing millions of
people to march to the beat of a million different drummers, there’s
less and less we can unite around.
As for the BSA, along with its name, maybe its oath
needs some tweaking as well. Scouts could be told that you should keep
yourself “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight — or
whatever works for you.”
______________________________________________________

 Boy Scouts’ Rulings Put Boys at Risk (and “Letter to the Molester” and “What Being Molested Cost Me”) 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

LTRP Note:
For 15 years, Lighthouse Trails has had the motto “Bringing light to
areas of darkness.” One of those areas (which we call our Sensitive
Issues) is bringing to light the reality of child sexual abuse. We
believe that the sexual molestation of children is part of what we call
“the Death Religion,” which

includes evolution, pornography, abortion,
homosexuality, mysticism, pedophilia, and antisemitism. All of these
lead to one place – death, and the author of death is our adversary,
Satan. We have published three books thus far on this topic: The Color of Pain (by Gregory Reid), Laughter Calls Me (by Catherine Brown), and Seducers Among Our Children (by Sergeant Patrick Crough) and carry a number of other resources like these.

Over the past couple years, the Boy Scouts of
America have passed resolutions allowing practicing homosexuals (and
now transgenders) to actively lead and/or participate in the clubs.
What the organization has done is put countless young boys in harm’s
way. We believe it is just a matter of time before our society says it
is not a crime to engage in sexual activity with a child. With every
world empire in history that came to that resolution, it was the last
resolution they ever made. After that, their empire ended.

The following two excerpts by Greg Reid from his book The Color of Pain
illustrates what happens to a young boy when he is molested. Greg
writes from personal experience. While some may find it difficult to
read such an account, it is wrong to bury our heads in the sand and
pretend this is not really happening to boys and girls across this
nation. And the Boy Scouts have now made it possible for that epidemic
to grow bigger than ever.

As Patrick Crough says in his book, adults are
supposed to be the shepherd’s of children. We have a responsibility to
watch over and protect them.

“Letter to the Molester”
By Greg Reid


bigstockphoto.com

To Whoever You Are:

Your name doesn’t matter, for to me, you were
just a stranger in a Volkswagen who gave me a ride. And to you, I was
just a number, a cute fourteen-year-old anonymous kid, one of God
knows how many.

I think about it a lot. Even though you weren’t
the first to molest me, you probably did more damage than most. At
fourteen, I was just beginning to explore my sexuality, and I was
vulnerable. All my sexual antennas were active, but then you knew
that, didn’t you? That’s why you picked kids like me. We were easy
prey; we were little enough to feel scared and overpowered by you, old
enough to sexually respond to what you did.

I hated you, and I have forgiven you. Because
to not forgive you meant I always lived for you, thought about you,
lived in the darkness of what you did and longed for vengeance. Five
years after you raped me, I saw you while I was driving, and pressed
the accelerator to the floor to kill you. You were still driving the
same Volkswagen. Only God’s grace pulled back my foot and let you
live. And then I knew that you bound me still. And so I forgave not
because it was rational but because it was killing me, not because you
deserve it but because I needed to let it go. Forgive means “give
forth” and so I gave back the chains you put me in. I don’t hate you
anymore. I feel nothing at all, but sadness, for what you took from
me—that I can never reclaim my adolescence.

I do pray for you for repentance, if possible.
And if not, for imprisonment, not to punish you (for you must loath
your every breath) but to stop you. Because if you raped me, I wasn’t
the first, and certainly not the last.
I pray for all the kids you raped like me. You
cannot know what you took, what you destroyed. The walking wounded
see your face, feel your evil touch, and blame themselves.

I wish I could tell them it wasn’t them. You knew exactly how it’s done. They were powerless, and paralyzed, and afraid.

They probably still are.

“What Being Molested Cost Me”
By Greg Reid

The cost to a kid who gets molested is higher
than most people know. It’s too easy to minimize the damage by saying,
“It’s just one of those things,” or “Get over it.” Sexual violation
is a violent thing even when it’s not violent.

It takes so much inside. After many years, I’ve
taken notice of the losses (much of which has been healed and
restored), and I want to tell you about it so you’ll know.

It cost me my childhood. Repeated molestation
blocked my memories, and what I did remember was covered with a haze
of physical illness, stalking fear, repeat nightmares, and deep
loneliness.

It cost me my ability to trust. I resented
authority and feared adults so much I wouldn’t go anyplace like a
public rest room or swimming pool locker room because I’d get sick
from the fear of what might happen.

It cost me my ability to be spontaneous. I kept
such rigid control over my emotions, my body and my mind, that I
couldn’t laugh, I couldn’t play, and being around kids who could made
me feel sullen, angry, depressed, alone, left out.

It cost me my sanity. Shortly after the initial
abuses, I was in a complete emotional dead zone; and one night, as I
sat alone in a chair, my mind filled with filth and blasphemy, and
tears streamed down my face, because I loved God and I couldn’t stop
this mental rape, and I just snapped after several days of this, and I
started cursing, and smoking, and drinking, and I told God to give up
on me because I was evil.

I was eleven.

It cost me my education potential. I was a
brilliant child. Being molested cost me my ability to think without
confusion, trance outs, and frustration. I couldn’t concentrate. I
could have been a straight A Valedictorian. Instead, by the time I
finished High School, I was taking four basic classes and barely
passed.

It cost me my identity. Being molested created
such sexual and emotional confusion that I was an old man before I was
fifteen and still a boy at thirty. I felt numb and removed, like I
was not there, just a piece of property for others to use and discard.

It cost me my adolescence. Being molested made
me afraid of adults, men, women, crowds, public places, challenges,
fights and almost everything else including being scared to death I
was gay and scared of all my emotions including anger and joy. I
couldn’t date, I didn’t go to the prom, and alcohol was my only
“friend.” Being a kid is screwed up and scary enough, but I carried
enough guilt and fear to take down ten normal adults.

It cost me time. Being molested started me
running, and I ran and kept going until I crashed in my late twenties,
and then it cost me time in recovering, facing hard truth, and
healing.

It cost me family. Being molested crippled my heart enough to destroy any potential marriage or children.

God has restored most of what was taken, and
more. But you need to know being molested is not a “get over it”
thing. It’s an evil robber whose damage goes deep and keeps taking
until we can face it and start to heal.

 

THE “REGENERATION OF THE CHURCHES”-AN OCCULT DREAM COME TRUE

THE “REGENERATION OF THE CHURCHES”-
AN OCCULT DREAM COME TRUE 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

By Ray Yungen

The Bible says that in the last days, many will
come in Christ’s name. If one examines the “prophecies” of occulist 
Alice Bailey, one can gain insight into what the apostle Paul called
in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the falling away. Bailey eagerly foretold of
what she termed “the regeneration of the churches.”1 Her rationale for
this was obvious:

The Christian church in its many branches can
serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness,
and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be
accomplished.2

In other words, instead of opposing Christianity, the occult would capture and blend
itself with Christianity and then use it as its primary vehicle for
spreading and instilling New Age consciousness! The various churches
would still have their outer trappings of Christianity and still use
much of the same lingo. If asked certain questions about traditional
Christian doctrine, the same answers would be given. But it would all be
on the outside; on the inside a contemplative spirituality would be
drawing in those open to it.


In wide segments of Christianity, this has
indeed already occurred.
One Catholic priest alone taught 31,000
people mystical prayer in one year. People are responding to this in
large numbers because it has the external appearance of Christianity
but in truth is the diametric opposite­. This has all the indications
of the falling away of which the apostle Paul speaks.

Note this departure is tied in with the
revelation of the “man of sin.” If he is indeed Bailey’s “Coming One,”
then both Paul’s prophecy and Bailey’s prophecy fit together
perfectly—but indisputably from opposite camps and perspectives.

This is very logical when one sees, as Paul
proclaimed, that they will fall away to “the mystery of iniquity” (2
Thessalonians 2:7). The word mystery in Greek, when used in the
context of evil (iniquity), means hidden or occult!


Photo: Thomas Merton with the Dalai Lama (photo: Thomas Merton Center)

This revitalization of Christianity would fit
in with Bailey’s “new and vital world religion”3—a religion that would
be the cornerstone of the New Age. Such a religion would be the
spiritual platform for the “Coming One.” This unity of spiritual
thought would not be a single one-world denomination but would have a
unity-in-diversity, multicultural, interfaith, ecumenical agenda.
Thomas Merton made a direct reference to this at a spiritual summit
conference in Calcutta, India when he told Hindus and Buddhists, “We
are already one, but we imagine, we are not. What we have to recover
is our original unity.”4

One can easily find numerous such appeals like Merton’s in contemplative writings. Examine the following:

The Christian is not to become a Hindu or a
Buddhist, nor a Hindu or Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must
assimilate the spirit of the others.5 —Vivekananda

It is my sense, from having meditated with
persons from many different [non-Christian] traditions, that in the
silence we experience a deep unity. When we go beyond the portals of
the rational mind into the experience, there is only one God to be
experienced.6—Basil Pennington

The new ecumenism involved here is not
between Christian and Christian, but between Christians and the grace
of other intuitively deep religious traditions.7—Tilden Edwards

What is happening to mainstream Christianity is
the same thing that is happening to business, health, education,
counseling, and other areas of society. Christianity is being
cultivated for a role in the New Age.
A spirit guide named Raphael
explains this in the Starseed Transmissions:

We work with all who are vibrationally
sympathetic; simple and sincere people who feel our spirit moving, but
for the most part, only within the context of their current belief system.18 (emphasis mine)

He is saying that they “work,” or interact,
with people who open their minds to them in a way that fits in with
the person’s current beliefs. In the context of Christianity, this
means that those meditating will think they have contacted God, when
in reality they have connected up with Raphael’s kind (who are more
than willing to impersonate whomever they wish to reach so long as
these seductive spirits can link with them).

This ultimately points to a deluded global
religion based on meditation and mystical experience.
New Age writer
David Spangler explains it the following way:

There will be several religious and spiritual
disciplines as there are today, each serving different sensibilities
and affinities, each enriched by and enriching the particular cultural
soil in which it is rooted. However, there will also be a planetary
spirituality that will celebrate the sacredness of the whole humanity
in appropriate festivals, rituals, and sacraments. . . . Mysticism has
always overflowed the bounds of particular religious traditions, and
in the new world this would be even more true.9

What we are warning about is not some unprovable conspiracy theory. In fact, far from it. In March of 2016, Newsweek
magazine put out a special edition called “Spiritual Living.” This
glossy publication presented page after page of pure Alice Bailey
spirituality. The entire issue was devoted to the mystical perception
that man is divine:

The key to positive change—both internal and
external—is present in everyone, and it also exists all around us.
Whether through meditation, energy healing or a full-on spiritual
awakening, you can transcend the physical world to better your mind,
body and soul.10

That may sound kind of benign, but numerous
articles in the magazine promote the idea of spirits that can indwell
people. If this had been put out by the National Enquirer, then this could be dismissed as nothing more than sensationalistic or exaggerated. But Newsweek
is one of the oldest and most respected news magazines in the world.
When they make this kind of an effort, then we need to sit up and take
notice that Alice Bailey’s religion has now come to the forefront of
mainstream society. What this means according to those who are
sympathetic with this is that if we are to be “spiritual,” we need to
partake of Alice Bailey’s “new vital world religion.”  Sadly, more and
more churches are doing just that.

Related Information:

100 Top Contemplative Proponents Evangelical Christians Turn To Today

Endnotes:

1. Alice Bailey, Problems of Humanity (New York, NY: Lucis Publishing, 1993), p. 152.
2. Alice Bailey, The Externalization of the Hierarchy (New York, NY: Lucis Publishing, 1976), p. 510.
3. Alice Bailey, Problems of Humanity, op. cit., p. 152.
4. Joel Beversluis, Project Editor, A Source Book for Earth’s Community of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: CoNexus Press, 1995, Revised Edition), p. 151.
5. Swami Vivekananda’s “Addresses at the Parliament of Religions” (Chicago, September 27, 1893, http://www.interfaithstudies.org/interfaith/vivekparladdresses.html, accessed 12/2005).
6. M. Basil Pennington, Centered Living (New York, NY: Image Books, 1988), p. 192.
7. Tilden Edwards, Spiritual Friend (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1980), p. 172.
8. Ken Carey, The Starseed Transmissions (A Uni-Sun Book, 1985 4th printing), p. 33.
9. David Spangler, Emergence: The Rebirth of the Sacred (New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1984), p. 112.
10. Newsweek magazine, Special Edition: Spiritual Living, March 2016, p. 7.

BEFORE WATCHING THE “SHACK” MOVIE, READ THIS-THE “INSPIRATION” BEHIND THE MOVIE & EUGENE PETERSON’S CONNECTION

BEFORE WATCHING THE “SHACK” MOVIE, READ THIS-THE “INSPIRATION” BEHIND THE MOVIE & EUGENE PETERSON’S CONNECTION
BY LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

By Warren B. Smith


[The Shack Movie (Coming to Theaters in March 2017)]

I was drawn into the New Age Movement years ago by books and lectures containing parabolic stories that were not unlike The Shack.
They felt spiritually uplifting as they tackled tough issues and
talked about God’s love and forgiveness. They seemed to provide me
with what I spiritually needed as they gave me much needed hope and
promise. Building on the credibility they achieved through their
inspirational and emotive writings, my New Age authors and teachers
would then go on to tell me that “God” is “in” everyone and
everything.

I discovered that author William P. Young does exactly the same thing in The Shack.
He moves through his very engaging and emotional story to eventually
present this same New Age teaching that God is “in” everything.

But I am getting ahead of myself. Let me first
provide some background material concerning this key New Age doctrine
that “God is in everything.” A good place to start is with Eugene
Peterson, the author of the controversial Bible paraphrase The Message. After all, Peterson’s enthusiastic endorsement of The Shack is featured right under the author’s name on the front cover.

Ironically, it was Peterson’s endorsement that caused me to be immediately suspicious of The Shack.
Through his questionable paraphrasing of the Bible, Peterson had
already aligned himself in a number of areas with New Age/New
Spirituality teachings. One obvious example is where he translated a key
verse in the Lord’s Prayer to read “as above, so below” rather than
“in earth, as it is in heaven.” “As above, so below” is a term that I
was very familiar with from my previous involvement in the New Age
movement. This esoteric saying has been an occult centerpiece for
nearly five thousand years. It is alleged by New Age metaphysicians to
be the key to all magic and all mysteries. It means that God is not
only transcendent—“out there”— but He is also immanent—“in” everyone
and everything.

But, as I found out just before abandoning the
deceptive teachings of the New Age for the Truth of biblical
Christianity, God is not “in” everyone and everything. The Bible makes
it clear that man is not divine and that man is not God (Ezekiel
28:2, Hosea 11:9, John 2:24-25, etc.) In my book Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church, I quoted the editors of New Age Journal as they defined “as above, so below” in their book, As Above, So Below:

“As above, so below, as below, so above.” This
maxim implies that the transcendent God beyond the physical universe
and the immanent God within ourselves are one.2

My concern about Peterson’s undiscerning use of
“as above, so below” in the Lord’s Prayer was underscored when the
2006 bestseller, The Secret,
showcased this same occult/New Age phrase. In fact, it was the
introductory quote at the very beginning of the book. By immediately
featuring “as above, so below” the author Rhonda Byrne was telling her
readers in definite New Age language that “God is in everyone and
everything.” Towards the end of the book, The Secret puts into
more practical words what the author initially meant by introducing
the immanent concept of “as above, so below.” On page 164, The Secret tells its readers—“You are God in a physical body.”

Most significantly, in his book The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom,
New Age leader Benjamin Crème reveals that a New World Religion will
be based on this foundational “as above, so below” teaching of
immanence—this idea that God is “in” everyone and everything:

But eventually a new world religion will be
inaugurated which will be a fusion and synthesis of the approach of
the East and the approach of the West. The Christ will bring together,
not simply Christianity and Buddhism, but the concept of God
transcendent—outside of His creation—and also the concept of God
immanent in all creation—in man and all creation.3

New Age matriarch Alice Bailey, in her book The Reappearance of the Christ, wrote:

. . . a fresh orientation to divinity and to
the acceptance of the fact of God Transcendent and God Immanent within
every form of life. “These are foundational truths upon which the
world religion of the future will rest.4

In a November 9, 2003 Hour of Power sermon—just
two months before he was a featured speaker at the annual meeting of
the National Association of Evangelicals—Crystal Cathedral minister
Robert Schuller unabashedly aligned himself with this same New Age/New
World Religion teaching. The man who claims to have mentored
thousands of pastors, including Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, stated:

You know in theology—pardon me for using a
couple of big words—but in theology the God we believe in, this God of
Abraham, is a transcendent God. But He is also an immanent God.
Transcendent means up there, out there, above us all. But God is also
an immanent God—immanence of God and the transcendence of God—but then
you have a balanced perspective of God. The immanence of God means
here, in me, around me, in society, in the world, this God here, in
the humanities, in the science, in the arts, sociology, in
politics—the immanence of God. . . . Yes, God is alive and He is in
every single human being!5

But God is not in every single human being. God is not in everything. One of the many reasons I wrote Deceived on Purpose was because Rick Warren presented his readers with this same “God in everything” teaching. Quoting an obviously flawed New Century Bible
translation of Ephesians 4:6, Rick Warren—whether he meant to or
not—was teaching his millions of readers the foundational doctrine of
the New World Religion. Describing God in his book, The Purpose-Driven Life, he wrote:

He rules everything and is everywhere and is in everything.6

Compounding the matter further, “immanence” has
been taught as part of the Foundations class at Rick Warren’s
Saddleback Church. An ill-defined reference to immanence in the
Saddleback Foundations Participants Guide plays right into the hands
of the New Spirituality/New World Religion by stating:

The fact that God stands above and beyond his
creation does not mean he stands outside his creation. He is both
transcendent (above and beyond his creation) and immanent (within and
throughout his creation).7

All of this discussion I am giving about “God in everything” immanence is to explain why The Shack
is such a deceptive book. It teaches this same heresy. This book
ostensibly attempts to deal with the deeply sensitive issues surrounding
the murder of a young child. Because of the author’s intensely
personal story line, most readers become engaged with the book on a
deep emotional level. However, the author’s use of poetic license to
convey his highly subjective, and often unbiblical, spiritual views
becomes increasingly problematic as the story line develops. This is
most apparent when he uses the person of “Jesus” to suddenly introduce
the foundational teaching of the New Spirituality/New World
Religion—God is “in” everything. Using the New Age term “ground of
being” to describe “God,” the “Jesus” of The Shack states:

God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things.8

This false teaching about a “God” who “dwells
in, around, and through all things” is the kind of New Age leaven that
left unchallenged could leaven the church into the New Age/New
Spirituality of the proposed New World Religion. And while many people
have expressed a great deal of emotional attachment to The Shack and its characters—this leaven alone contaminates the whole book.

Clearly, the “Jesus” of The Shack is
not Jesus Christ of the Bible. The apostle Paul chided the Corinthians
and warned them that they were vulnerable and extremely susceptible
to “another Jesus” and “another gospel” and “another spirit” that were
not from God (2 Corinthians 11:4). In the Bible, the real Jesus
Christ warned that spiritual deception would be a sign before His
return. He further warned that there would be those who would even
come in His name, pretending to be Him (Matthew 24:3-5, 24).

Without ascribing any ill motive to William Young and his book The Shack,
the author’s use of spiritual creativity seems to give a “Christian”
assent to the New Age/New Spirituality of the proposed New World
Religion. His mixing of truth and error can become very confusing to
readers, and God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Dr. Harry Ironside, pastor of Chicago’s Moody
Memorial Church from 1930-1948, emphasizes the fact that truth mixed
with error results in “all error”—a direct refutation of the Emergent
Church teaching to find “truth” wherever it may be found—including
books like The Shack. Ironside wrote:

Error is like leaven, of which we read, “A
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Truth mixed with error is
equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking and,
therefore, more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any
truth-and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation.
To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word and
treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.9

The Shack has touched the hearts and
emotions of many people. While there are many other examples of the
author’s unbiblical liberality, introducing the heretical New Age
teaching that “God dwells in, and around, and through all things” is
in and by itself enough to completely undermine any value the book
might otherwise have for faithful believers. To allow yourself to get
carried away by this story, while disregarding the book’s New Age/New
Spirituality leaven, is to fall prey to the “truth-and-error” mixture
that pervades The Shack. And as Dr. Ironside warned—“God hates such a mixture!”

Before Christians buy one more copy of this
book, they need to come to terms with what this author is ultimately
teaching and what it is they are passing along to their friends and
fellow believers.

And they shall turn away their ears from the
truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:4) For footnotes
or to read this entire article about The Shack, click here.

DANGER: EMERGENT “‘IF’ GATHERING” CONFERENCE COMING FOR YOUR DAUGHTERS & GRANDDAUGHTERS IN A TOWN NEAR YOU!

ALL SMILES, BUT GREATLY DECEIVED
WARNING:
 Photo: Some of the IF women – photo used in accordance with the US
Fair Use Act for critical review and reporting. (source:
http://www.jennieallen.com/if-we-were-wild-and-full-of-faith-its-time/)
(Jen Hatmaker and Melissa Greene in photo)
DANGER: EMERGENT “‘IF’ GATHERING” CONFERENCE COMING FOR YOUR DAUGHTERS & GRANDDAUGHTERS IN A TOWN NEAR YOU, FEBRUARY 2-3, 2017
BY LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

[God] will take this hell on earth and someday show us how hell was building heaven.—Jennie Allen (founder of IF: Gathering)

Have you heard of the IF: Gathering? If you
haven’t, you most likely will soon enough. The women’s movement
started just a few years ago but is already making some big inroads
into the evangelical scene. On the outer appearance, this looks like a
legitimate Christian movement – the women who lead and speak at IF:
Gathering are young and vibrant; they talk about Jesus, they go to
church; some of them homeschool their kids—it all looks so Christian.
But underneath this outer thin Christian layer lies an emergent
atmosphere . . . and the target is your young evangelical daughters
and granddaughters.

In a few days (February 2-3), IF: Gathering
will be presenting their annual conference in Austin, Texas. The
conference, called IF:2017 will also be live-streamed to many churches
throughout America and Canada (and in some other countries as well).
Lighthouse Trails has received a number of phone calls and e-mails by
concerned parents and grandparents whose daughters and granddaughters
are attending the conference, either in Austin or one of the
sponsoring churches. Here is a link to the list of churches
that will be holding the IF:2017 conference next week via live-stream.
According to the IF website, there are over 2000 live-streamed events
for this year’s event. If you multiply that by even just 150, that is
nearly 300,000 women! 
When you go to the list, type in your
zip code, see if there is a conference being held in your city or
town, and if there is, start alerting those you know. Your friends may
have daughters who are attending.

This year’s event will apparently not include
IF speaker Jen Hatmaker who, we have learned, dropped out of IF last
year for undisclosed reasons (recently she came out promoting gay
marriage, and this got her into trouble with LifeWay Resources who dropped her books at that point). Speakers for this year’s event include Jennie Allen (IF’s founder), Ann VosKamp (author of One Thousand Gifts – see section in Cedric Fisher’s article below), Lysa Terkeurst, Jennie Yang, Jeanne Stevens (Co-Pastor with Husband of Soul City Church – http://jeannestevens.com/about/– former staff member of Willow Creek and associated with Erwin
McManus: ), and Jo Saxton.
You may not be familiar with these names, but
we encourage you to do your research and please read Cedric’s article
so you might come to understand the underlying agenda of IF. As
Cedric says, we don’t question the sincerity of these women, but we do
question the direction they are heading spiritually. While her name
doesn’t appear in this year’s line up, Melissa Greene is  involved
with IF as well (please see article below to learn about Greene’s
beliefs and this video of her). Greene, a pastor, resonates with emergent leader Brian McLaren, and her church made headlines when it came out promoting same-sex marriage.

In May of 2015, Lighthouse Trails author, Cedric Fisher, wrote a booklet titled “ IF it is of God—Answering the questions of IF:Gathering.”
We are posting that booklet in its entirety below. If you scroll to
the bottom of his article and hit the green Print button, it will
format a nice PDF copy for you (you can buy it in booklet format too,
but you’ll have to print it in order to have it in time before the
conference). If you know a woman who is planning to attend the
IF:Gathering conference next week, please print this article and give
her a copy to read. Because the emergent “theology” is deceptive and
spiritually dangerous, these young women need to be given a heads up.

Lest some say that Jennie Allen has cleaned up
IF by not having Jen Hatmaker and Melissa Greene at this year’s event,
keep in mind that Jennie Allen knew what these two friends believed
when she invited them to be part of IF just a few years ago. How can
we trust our daughters and granddaughters to someone who shows no
discernment and who very likely will continue connecting with and
inviting speakers who are of a similar emergent mindset.1 For example, Shauna Niequist (Bill and Lynn Hybels daughter) is involved with IF (they sell her book on their site, she contributes on the blog, and she is one of the speakers at IF:2017) and recently she gave her “blessing” to Jen Hatmaker’s acceptance of same-sex marriage and endorses Jesus Calling.

Once you read Cedric’s article below, we
believe you will understand why we are so concerned about this
movement. Writing this article reminds us of another article we wrote a
number of years ago in 2008. It was titled “Brian McLaren’s Hope for the Future – The Minds of Your Grandchildren.” 
Since then, the emergent church has continued growing and indeed
grabbing the minds of countless young people, many of them from
Christian homes. We hope and pray parents and grandparents will do all
they can to keep their own young people from going down that same path,
this time via IF.

Don’t forget to check the list of places IF:2017 will be livestreaming to see if your town or city is hosting an IF conference.

IF IT IS OF GOD—Answering the questions of IF:Gathering

By Cedric H. Fisher

IF:Gathering came in like a storm, one of those
winter events that seem to appear out of nowhere. No one saw it
coming. A team of highly popular women—authors, bloggers, and speakers
coming together—what a great idea. But it wasn’t novel. Professing
Christians have been making pilgrimages for decades to high-energy
conferences with a star list of speakers and singers. As with so many
of these other conferences, IF purported to do the work of God.
However, IF was unique in that it was mostly a digital event. It was
greatly effective.

The IF:Gathering held its second event in
February of 2015 and involved 1200 women at the physical location,
with a possible 100,000 or more watching by 40,000 live links in more
than 120 countries. The ongoing influence of IF after the
conference has the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of women
all while flying under the radar of pastors and church leaders who may
be accepting IF:Gathering at face value, not knowing anything about
this group of high energy talented women leaders.

After reading the list of IF speakers and
researching information about them, I have become convinced that IF
poses a significant risk to Christian women, who unwittingly are
submitting themselves to IF’s speakers and teachers. The danger? It
comes in the form of emergent ideology, spiritual formation,
and contemplative spirituality (contemplative prayer is a mantra-like
“prayer” practice that vitalizes the “progressive” “new” Christianity
(i.e., the emerging church).
Thus, I am compelled to report on my
findings regarding IF.

How did IF:Gathering come about and is it
ordained by God? These are questions every responsible Christian needs
to ask concerning anything claiming to be a new move or revelation
from God. Those questions are especially important during such a time
as this, a time when the church is suffering from great deception and
apostasy. Is IF influencing women to draw nearer to God or rather
leading them onto a spiritually dangerous path to heresy?

IF’s Beginning—A Whisper from the Sky
The 2015 IF:Gathering did not end when the
conference was over. It continues to function through the network
established before the conference occurred. Its influence continues
through local churches and individuals who hosted the event, through
social media, available videos of the event, and the “IF:Table,”* all
of which have the potential to reach countless more women and evolve
into a major women’s movement. If that occurs, it will help set the
agenda of how the future generation perceives and implements
Christianity.

The first statement on their website under “Who We Are” is:

We exist to gather, equip and unleash the next generation of women to live out their purpose.1

The founder of IF:Gathering, Jennie Allen, is a
bright and energetic, best-selling author, blogger, and popular
speaker. She appears sincere and dedicated to ministering to people.
She and her husband have been involved in ministry for a number of
years. However, since she is the founder, we must consider her
activity, her influences, and her statements about the birth of
IF:Gathering.

Allen is a Bible teacher who had been teaching
groups of girls and young women since high school. She studied at the
University of Arkansas for three years, completed her B.S. in
Communications at Carson Newman College in Tennessee, and graduated
from Dallas Theological Seminary with a Master’s in Biblical Studies
in 2005. It would be two years after her graduation from DTS when she
had an experience that birthed IF: Gathering.

Allen signed a multi-project contract in 2011
with Thomas Nelson, which included a series of seven DVD-based Bible
studies and two trade books. Her first study released in 2011,
followed by another one released in 2012. Her first trade book was
also released in 2012. Allen’s book Restless: Because You Were Made for More and the Restless video-based Bible study were released simultaneously in January 2014, a month before the first IF:Gathering.

Allen was also one of the speakers in the
neo-emergent Nines Conference in 2014, which hosted a speaker lineup
that included some of the main influences in the New Christianity
movement.

How did the IF:Gathering originate? There are
different and conflicting explanations given by Allen. The first
account was presented by Allen in the initial IF:Gathering in Austin,
Texas, 2014:



About 7 years ago, a voice from the sky—that
doesn’t often speak to me—but that day there was this whisper. It was
the middle of the night, actually. And it was “Gather and equip your
generation.”
And this was ridiculous, because honestly, I was a stay
at home Mom, I didn’t know anybody that could help me with that job.
And it was a completely ridiculous statement. So ridiculous that I
just, for two days my bones hurt, and I didn’t know what to do with
it. My bones hurt, for two days.

I thought, Okay God, what do you want me to do? Wisely my friend said, “Jennie, if
it’s God,” cause it may not be. All voices from the sky are not always
God, FYI. But, “if it’s God, then He’s going to give you everything
you need to accomplish His purposes. So just wait.” And so I waited,
and that was seven years ago, guys.2

Allen eventually came to believe it was God who
whispered.
She would wait several years for Him to put IF: Gathering
together. However, a year after the account of IF’s birth that she
gave in the 2014 conference, she posted another account on her blog:

Truth is, IF:Gathering began as more of a hunch than a vision.3

A month later, and one year after her first
account, Allen gave another account of how the IF came about during
the IF: Gathering February, 2015:

I mean, 7 years ago, 8 years ago now, I heard
a voice that . . . well, okay, I didn’t. This is like all different
theologies right now. Okay, just give me grace. I don’t know, but I’m
just telling you, in the night I woke up, and I was overcome with
these words, “Disciple a generation.”


But I sat on it. I put it in my back pocket
and said, “Okay God, if you want to do something crazy like that,
you’re gonna have to make it happen.”
4

I read Allen’s book, Anything: The Prayer that Unlocked my God and My Soul,
written a couple of years after her experience with the sky
whisperer. In her book, Allen describes deep intimacy with God and
willingness to obey Him completely. However, she does not mention
anything about Sky Whisperer or his commission to organize the IF:
Gathering. I find that puzzling. What better place to introduce and
expound on such a life-changing intimate experience and surrender than
in a book describing full surrender?

I’m willing to concede that there could be a
good reason for the inconsistencies of her accounts as to how IF came
about. But an individual whom God supernaturally calls to accomplish a
significant work should give a credible and unambiguous account of
that call. One could say, “I saw a need and did my best to meet it.”
However, when one says, “I heard a voice from God,” a different
standard is involved. The reason is because something that has a
supernatural event as an origin will have a much greater weight of
influence. It presents the individual as a special agent of God, just
as any of the figures in the Bible whom God used to accomplish
unprecedented purposes. It almost immunizes the revelation and the
individual from critical examination.

Therefore, I believe it is proper and
reasonable to examine Jennie Allen’s statements concerning the origin
of the IF: Gathering. The questions are: “Is Allen’s explanations of
the origin of IF:Gathering convincing and does she provide viable and
credible information that concludes IF: Gathering originated from God?
One should prayerfully consider those questions and ultimately should
ask: if it’s origin is in question and if it’s founder is involved in
emergent conferences, can IF:Gathering produce good fruit? The next
section concerning the speakers in IF:Gathering may help answer that
last question.

For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor
does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own
fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather
grapes from a bramble bush. (Luke 6:43-44)

IF, The Speakers: Ambassadors of God or Emergent Collaborators

If Jeannie Allen did indeed hear supernaturally
from God, and if God supernaturally equipped her to organize the
IF:Gathering, we would expect good fruit from the conference and the
speakers. We would not expect people who are influenced by emergent,
New Age, and other aberrant authors and teachers. It is logical to
expect that the speakers would be stellar Christian examples.

Space does not permit me to deal with all the
conference speakers, so I have chosen several whom I believe need to
be examined. They are listed in alphabetical order.

Sarah Bessey
After reading portions of her book, Jesus Feminist,
I get the impression Sarah Bessey believes that Christianity is stuck
with the Woman Suffrage movement somewhere in the 1920s. She
references radical feminist, social activist, and journalist Dorothy
Day in her book and seems to draw from secular feminism. From that
concept, she tries to invent a need for radical feminism in
Christianity, presenting bizarre commentary on the Scriptures to back
up her position.
The following quote illustrates her view:

Many of the seminal social issues of our
time—poverty, lack of education, human trafficking, war and torture,
domestic abuse—can track their way to our theology of, or beliefs
about, women, which has its roots in what we believe about the nature,
purposes, and character of God.5

In the back of Jesus Feminist under “Further Reading,” Bessey offers a book titled How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership, which includes essays from emerging church authors Tony Campolo, John Ortberg, and Bill and Lynne Hybels. Jesus Feminist also has endorsements in the book by Brian McLaren and Tony Jones. On her blog, she lists among her favorites A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren and Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning.6 She also promotes The Way of the Heart by Henri Nouwen.7 There’s no question that Bessey resonates with the views of these men.

With such emergent and contemplative influences, how can good fruit be produced by this speaker?

Christine Caine
Christine Caine claims Joyce Meyer as her
“spiritual mother” and lists Word of Faith preacher Sheryl Brady as a
dear friend calling her “flat out the best chick preacher of the
word.”8 Caine has “preached” in seeker/emergent Steven Furtick’s mega
church in Charlotte, North Carolina. The following is transcribed from
Caine’s opening statement in Furtick’s church:

This place is a little bit like God, take
this in context, in that like you are omnipresent. You are here. You
are across the room. You are down the street. You are all over the
worldwide web. It is like wherever you look, here we are and it is my
honor and privilege to be here, I couldn’t wait.9

Caine also declared that her heart was
“knitted” to Furtick.
One whose heart is surrendered to God could not
possibly be knitted to an individual such as Furtick. Journalist and
researcher Jim Fletcher says this about Furtick:

Steven Furtick . . . mentored as he is by
evangelical bigwigs like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, felt bold enough
to post a YouTube video in which he sneeringly challenged what I’d
call traditional Christians to basically get out of the way, because
their time is past. Presumably, to Furtick, it’s the “new
generation’s” time now, so step aside with your stodgy hymns and
expositional preaching style. . . . Masked a bit by a pious nod toward
humanitarian causes, the leadership of this group is quite nasty,
albeit in subtle ways.10

Further, according to the itinerary on
Christine Caine’s website, she will be speaking at NAR (New Apostolic
Reformation) leader Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church in Redding,
California in August 2015 in the Bethel Women’s Conference. Why does
this matter? It shows a pattern of being willing to associate with
people and “minister” in churches that are teaching and promoting
false and dangerous teachings.
11

Melissa Greene
Melissa Greene is the pastor of worship and arts
at GracePointe Church in Franklin, Tennessee. The church made national headlines in January of 2015 as senior
pastor, Stan Mitchell, declared his church now accepts homosexual
marriage.12

When I pull up Greene’s website, I immediately
notice the picture of her sitting in a Yoga position. In a May 25th,
2014 message on her website titled “Worth,” Greene admits to reading
emerging church pioneer Brian McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy
(and McLaren spoke at GracePointe in the fall of 2014). Greene
favorably quotes other prolific New Spirituality names: Phyllis
Tickle, Richard Rohr, Frederick Buechner, Rob Bell, Nicholas
Wolterstorff, Thomas Merton, Peter Gomes, Aldous Huxley—a list that
reads like a veritable who’s who in emergent and contemplative heresy.

In “Worth,” Greene declares that, “Christianity
is broad and diverse.”13 Considering that many of her influences
accept all religions as being of God, there is no doubt to what she
means when she states this. Greene also made the audacious statement:
“The most devastating fear in people’s lives is the fear of God.”14
She attempts to validate her statement by taking verses out of context
and misapplying them. What does God’s word declare?

And do not fear those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Therefore, having these promises, beloved,
let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,
perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1)

For thousands of young Christian-professing women to submit to someone like Melissa Greene could have a detrimental effect.

Jen Hatmaker
In Jen Hatmaker’s book, Interrupted: When Jesus Wreck Your Comfortable Christianity,
she makes it clear that she is influenced by a number of New Age/New
Spirituality individuals. She quotes Catholic priest and contemplative
activist Richard Rohr and emergent leader Shane Claiborne. On her
blog, she promotes the book, The Circle Maker, by Mark
Batterson, a book that encourages readers to draw circles around
specific things in order to have more answered prayers. Batterson was
inspired with this idea by an ancient sage.

In Hatmaker’s book, 7: An Experimental Mutiny Against Excess,
she reveals that her family takes part in a Roman Catholic ritual
with mystical origins, the “Seven Sacred Pauses.”15 Hatmaker got her
inspiration from Seven Sacred Pauses, a book by Macrina Wiederkehr who is a spiritual director
in the contemplative prayer movement. In Wiederkehr’s retreats, seekers
are guided through experiences of silence, contemplation and lectio divina
(a contemplative practice where words and phrases from the Bible are
repeated in mantra-like fashion). The “seven sacred pauses” are seven
times a day to pause and pray, which Wiederkehr describes as “breathing
spells for the soul.”

Consider Hatmaker’s statement concerning the preaching of God’s Word:

I have spent half my life listening to
someone else talk about God. Because of this history, I’ve developed
something of an immunity to sermons.16

This is eerily similar to the sentiment of Sue Monk Kidd (author of The Secret Life of Bees),
who once, as a conservative Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher,
expressed her dissatisfaction (and eventual rejection) of the preaching
of God’s Word. That led Monk Kidd down a path away from the Christian
faith and straight into the New Age. Today, she worships the goddess
Sophia.

This disgruntlement of God’s Word is so
prevalent among leaders of the emerging New Spirituality church. If
not preaching, then what? Is it emotionally charged conventions and
books with flowering, poetic phrases that open up to spit out a toxic
drop of heresy? If Hatmaker is immune to preaching, she has rejected
God’s method in favor of her own.

Ann VosKamp
Ann VosKamp’s highly popular book, One Thousand Gifts,
is peppered with favorable references to and quotes by various
mystics, pantheists, and universalists. The following is a list of
some of those influences:



Sarah Ban Breathnach, Teresa of Avila, Julian
of Norwich, Evelyn Underhill, Brennan Manning, Annie Dillard, Thomas
Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Walter Brueggemann, Francis de Sales, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Henri Nouwen, and Jean-Pierre de Caussade. She
also quotes mystic Catholic nun Kathleen Norris on her blog.17

You may not have heard of all these names, but
in my research, I have found that they all embrace a panentheistic
mystical-based spirituality. For VosKamp to quote and reference so
many authors in this category shows she is embracing and absorbing the
spirituality of these figures.

In the last chapter of One Thousand Gifts, “The Joy of Intimacy,” Voskamp writes:

Mystical union. This, the highest degree of
importance. God as Husband in sacred wedlock, bound together, body and
soul, fed by His body, quenched by His blood . . . God, He has
blessed—caressed. I could bless God—caress with thanks. It’s our
making love. God makes love with grace upon grace, every moment a
making of His love for us . . . couldn’t I make love to God, making
every moment love for Him? To know Him the way Adam knew Eve. Spirit
skin to spirit skin . . . The intercourse of soul with God is the very
climax of joy . . . To enter into Christ and Christ enter into us—to
cohabit.18

This is what contemplatives consider “intimacy”
with God, as if God is more a lover or a boyfriend than the Creator
of the Universe, the King of Kings, and our beloved Savior. This is
what millions of young Christian women are being introduced to.

The question is, are Sarah Bessey, Christine
Cane, Melissa Greene, Jen Hatmaker, and Ann VosKamp really called from
God as they profess to be? While I won’t question their sincerity, I
must ask the questions: How can the IF:Gathering be ordained by God?
How can Jennie Allen have supernaturally heard from God concerning her
conference? And how could righteous God Almighty have sanctioned a
movement that is so influenced by diabolical sources?

The IF:Gatherings promise great solutions, but
in practice, they covertly chip away at biblical concepts of God, the
Holy Spirit, and biblical Christianity. They are based on flawed
concepts masked by alluring phrases. Like all other emerging church
“coaches” and mentors, the IF leaders intend to solve the problem of
what they insist is failed Christianity. They believe a
replacement—New Christianity—is the solution.

Considering the influences of the speakers, the
IF:Gatherings will lead to dangerous, alternate spirituality. The
Conference overwhelms susceptible women with music, visuals, and
emotional camaraderie. When their hearts are prepped and open,
provocative questions are presented, and  answers that conflict with
God’s word are offered.

IF the Fruit is Good
When I was a worldling, I visited the notorious
Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Fresh from the Oklahoma hills, I had
never witnessed anything remotely like it. One thing that fascinated
me most were the barkers. The barkers were men who stood outside of
the many establishments attempting to coax passersby to enter them.
They were so convincing. Their skills had been honed by trial and
error. Bending to the persuasive and captivating power of their words,
I entered one of those establishments. Once inside, I was shocked at
the total absences of morals. Although it made my cheeks blush, and my
moral upbringing urged me to leave, I was with a couple of friends
and didn’t want to be considered a prude. So I stayed. The longer I
stayed, the more I got used to the immorality. The more I got used to
it, the more I wanted of it.

The speakers at the IF:Gathering are barkers.
They are luring many professing Christian women with persuasive and
captivating words. A repetitive error I noticed in the Conference was
that a speaker would set up a straw man, and then mix the answer to it
with Scripture. She would then insist that the conclusion was a valid
point. An example was when Jen Hatmaker argued that we cannot
possibly know all of God. She quoted a Scripture from Romans 11:33.
Her conclusion was that because we cannot know God fully, it is not
detrimental to faith to have doubt. However, faith does not depend on
knowledge, but trust. Lack of knowledge should not make us doubt, but
rather a lack of trust. This was a prevailing theme at IF.

Hatmaker also insisted that God set us free
simply to set us free; that He set us free for us. Again, this does
not agree with God’s Word:

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:20)

We were created for God’s purpose, to worship
and serve Him. He set us free so we could belong to Him to honor and
serve Him with all our hearts, mind, bodies, and spirits.

One constant thing that made me cringe was the
cavalier attitude that some of the speakers, especially Jennie Allen,
exhibited toward God. At one point, Allen, says, “Darn it, darn it,”
and goes off on a rant implying that God is stupid, mean, and that His
plan is absurd. The rant came only minutes after she declared she was
nearly overcome with reverential fear of God.19

In Melissa Greene’s “Worth” sermon, one comes away with the following conclusions:

Certainty is bad; Questions (and no answers) is good.

The old-fashioned faith of our parents and grandparents is outdated and irrelevant.

References to numerous mystics and emergents

The “text” (the Bible) is OK, but there is so much more to be grasped.

In the end, everyone is saved.20

As I mentioned earlier, Greene admits to
reading Brian McLaren, and from the content of the “Worth” video,
McLaren’s spirituality has become her own. The IF leaders hope to lead
as many women as possible into the same direction as Jennie Allen
declares:

While I wish I were a more confident,
rebellious pioneer, God had to nearly force me to the wild, new path
He had for IF. I am however compelled to call as many of you as
possible to the roads less traveled because there are many wandering
who may never make it up to the highway.21

IF Conclusion

[God] will take this hell on earth and someday show us how hell was building heaven.22—Jennie Allen

The IF conferences are full of emotional
manipulation with videos of heartbreaking stories and impassioned
pleas to do something; draw near to God, have more faith, win the
lost, help the less fortunate, etc. At various points in the 2015
conference, a speaker would burst out in an impassioned plea to do
something about the plight of humanity as if it were the fallback
position when passion was otherwise lacking.

IF’s leaders insist that biblical Christianity has failed as a viable work of God and that God and they are bringing forth a cure—New Christianity.

I fear that IF’s excellent adventure
is advertisement for a mass departure from God’s Word. Rather than
having their faith built up, participants are encouraged to question
“traditional” Christianity. And those who are giving the answers—the
IF women—are unfortunately getting their information from emergents and mystics who present a different gospel and another Jesus.

It is addictive, this linguistic confection.
The mind is overcome with giddiness. But is it of God? Or is it rather
a “beautiful” seduction? I believe the latter is true.

To order copies of IF it is of God—Answering the questions of IF:Gathering, click here.

* IF:Table is a dinner hosted by one person on
the second Sunday of each month. It is described as six women, four
questions, two hours (https://ifgathering.com/new-to-the-table/)

Endnotes:
1. IF:Gathering website, “Who We Are”: https://ifgathering.com/who-we-are.
2. Jennie Allen, 2014 IF:Gathering: https://ifgathering.com/if-gathering-2014.
3. Jennie Allen’s blog, “How to Leave Normal”:
https://ifgathering.com/2015/01/how-to-leave-normal, January 21, 2015.
4. Jennie Allen, IF: Gathering: https://ifgathering.com/2014/09/ifgathering-2015, February 2015.
5. Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist: An Invitation to Revisit the Bible’s View of Women (New York, NY: Howard Books), p. 169.
6. Sarah Bessey’s blog: http://sarahbessey.com, December 30, 2008.
7. Ibid., July 17, 2008.
8. http://instagram.mislav.net/users/christinecaine?max_id=216035535549657297_2724891.
9. Christine Caine, Elevation Church, Code
Orange Revival 2012,
http://elevationchurch.org/sermons/codeorangerevival (some of her sermon
can be watched at:
http://www.god.tv/code-orange-revival/night-4-anything-is-possible-with-god).
10. Jim Fletcher, “‘Hip’ church gives biblical
Christians new label: ‘Hater’” (WorldNetDaily,
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/12/hip-church-gives-biblical-christians-new-label-hater/#JEfipOHtSOZJfZeD.99).
11. Read John Lanagan’s article/booklet titled The New Age Implications of Bethel Church’s Bill Johnson where it discusses Johnson’s propensity toward “quantum spirituality” (the belief that God is in everyone).
12. Elizabeth Dias, “Nashville Evangelical Church Comes Out for Marriage Equality” (Time Magazine, January 29, 2015; http://time.com/3687368/gracepointe-church-nashville-marriage-equality).
13. Melissa Greene, “Worth”
(http://melissagreenemusic.com/tag/worth, May 25, 2014, watch video
at: https://vimeo.com/97252399, 22:40 minutes to 22:47 minutes).
14. Ibid, 24:18 minutes to 24:25 minutes.
15. Jen Hatmaker, 7: An Experimental Mutiny Against Excess (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2012, Digital Edition), Kindle location 3266.
16. Ibid., Kindle location 435.
17. Ann VosKamp, (http://www.aholyexperience.com/2006/11/memorizing-word).
18. Ann VosKamp, One Thousand Gifts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), pp. 213, 216-217.
19. Jennie Allen, IF:Gathering; Session 1- 03.
20. Melissa Greene, “Worth,” op. cit.
21. Jennie Allen, “How to Leave Normal,” op. cit.
22. Jennie Allen, Restless: Because You Were Made for More (Nashville, TN: W Publishing, 2013), p. 74.

To order copies of IF it is of God—Answering the questions of IF:Gathering, click here.

“YOU’RE FIRED”: TRUMP JUST SACKED OBAMA’S ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR BETRAYING AMERICA

FAREWELL OBAMA PUPPET & HACK!
SHE WAS NOT CONVINCED TRUMP'S ORDERS 
ARE LAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE 
NOT "WISE OR JUST" IN HER OPINION
 On January 30, 2017, Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend 
Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry 
into the United States", saying "At present, I am not convinced that the 
defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the 
Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is 
lawful".
 https://cmgajcpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/sallyyates.jpg
Acting attorney general tells DOJ 
not to defend 
Pres. Trump's travel ban
 Published on Jan 30, 2017
Acting
Attorney General Sally Yates
told the Justice Department not to defend
President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court. CBS News
justice reporter Paula Reid joined CBSN to break down what could happen
next.
 WASHINGTON IN SHOCK! TRUMP JUST FIRED 

THE 1 PERSON 



OBAMA DIDN’T WANT HIM TO 



FOR BETRAYING AMERICA
 Published on Jan 30, 2017

Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media
| This is HUGE! Trump just fired the acting attorney General! In a
statement released by the White house moments ago regarding the
Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General they declared,
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department
of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the
citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and
legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”

 JEFF SESSIONS INTERVIEW WHERE SHE FORETOLD DEFYING A PRESIDENT

BACKLASH AGAINST TRUMP’S DIRECTIVES ON IMMIGRATION~ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL FIRED~FEMINISTS CONVERT TO ISLAM~ANTI TRUMP RIOTER KNOCKS OUT TRUMP SUPPORTER AT PORTLAND AIRPORT

VIDEO: ANTI TRUMP RIOTER KNOCKS OUT TRUMP SUPPORTER AT PORTLAND AIRPORT 
 Video footage shows an anti-Trump agitator punching and knocking out a
Trump supporter during a mini-riot at Portland Airport over the weekend.
The incident took place on Sunday during demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban on individuals from terror-linked countries.
The clip shows anti-Trump protesters pushing and shoving their way into the airport aggressively as they yell “peace! peace!”
A confrontation then quickly arises
before one of the anti-Trump radicals punches a man from behind,
knocking him out cold. The footage appears to show two anti-Trump protesters taking a swing at the same victim.

It
subsequently emerged that the victim, 39-year-old Grant Chisholm, a
member of the Bible Believers group, was hit with “something metallic”.

“They almost killed me tonight,” Chisholm told the Oregonian.

While
some of the anti-Trump protesters appear shocked at the violence and
denounce it, others are heard quite clearly celebrating the attack.
“That’s how you talk to a Nazi! That’s right!” screams one, before gloating, “Your boy got knocked out!”
“Don’t lose the propaganda war!” shouts another, presumably aware that the attack makes anti-Trump demonstrators look bad.
“Wooo! Hunt the Nazis!” screams another man in celebration of the vicious assault.
“That’s right Nazi boy! Where’s your f***ing fuhrer now bitch!” yells another.
To
add insult to injury, the demonstrators then began chanting “peaceful
protest!” as the victim lay prostrate on the floor of the airport.
It
seems probable that the legitimization of the attack was fueled by the
mainstream media’s veneration of the violent attack on alt-right leader
RIchard Spencer, who was punched in the face during an unprovoked attack
at the inauguration.
Outlets like Newsweek and The Nation
lauded the idea that punching people in the face was acceptable and to
be encouraged, so long as you claim they’re a “Nazi”. Using violence to
advance a political cause is otherwise known as terrorism.
The incident follows similar violence
at Trump’s inauguration earlier this month when numerous Trump
supporters were viciously attacked by self-proclaimed anarchists and
far-left anti-Trump rioters.
Having
been radicalized by the mainstream media’s legitimization of hysteria
and violence, so long as it is directed towards Trump supporters,
anti-Trump radicals are becoming more and more unhinged.
How long before these individuals adopt Weathermen-style tactics and replace fists and bricks with guns and bombs?
 Flashback: Anti-Trump Dems Opposed 
Vietnamese Refugees
 Dems said refugees shown more compassion than Americans, questioned lack of vetting
BY CLIFFORD CUNNINGHAM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Despite their outrage over President Donald Trump’s executive
order barring refugees from seven primarily Muslim countries, numerous
far-left Democrats once opposed admitting refugees fleeing the collapse
of South Vietnam.

While citizens of South Vietnam sought
refuge in the United States following their country’s defeat by
communist forces from North Vietnam, many liberal Democrats opposed efforts by Republican President Gerald Ford to admit them.
The
group of Democrats included then-Governor of California Jerry Brown
(who currently serves as the state’s governor), then-Delaware Senator
Joe Biden, former Presidential candidate and South Dakota Senator George
McGovern, and New York Representative Elizabeth Holtzman.

“As a rookie governor when Saigon fell in 1975 and the U.S. was
flying Vietnamese refugees to America, Brown was outspokenly opposed,” reported the Los Angeles Times in 2015.
In
particular, Brown said in 1975: “There is something a little strange
about saying, ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more people’ when we can’t take
care of the 1 million [Californians] out of work.”
His
administration even attempted to block planes carrying Vietnamese
refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base near San Francisco.
Julia Taft, who directed Ford’s Task Force on Indochinese refugee resettlement, told author Larry Engelmann in his book, Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History of the Fall of South Vietnam, “The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, was very concerned about refugees settling in his state.”
“Our biggest problem came from California,” Taft said during an interview
with NPR in 2007.”They didn’t want any of these refugees, because they
had also unemployment. They had already a large number of foreign-born
people there.”
“They had – they said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didn’t want these people.”
In
his attempt to settle Vietnamese refugees, President Ford also met
resistance from many liberal Democratic members of Congress.
Liberal
New York Representative Elizabeth Holtzman opposed helping the
refugees, arguing “some of her constituents felt that the same
assistance and compassion was not being shown to the elderly, unemployed
and poor in this country.”
Delaware Senator (and, most recently,
Vice President of the United States) Joe Biden tried to stall passage
of the refugee bill in the Senate, complaining
that he needed more details about the refugee situation because the
Ford administration “had not informed Congress adequately about the
number of refugees.”
Pennsylvania Representative Joshua Eilberg,
the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and
International Law, accused President Ford of acting “with unnecessary
haste” in organizing the airlift of orphans from collapsing South
Vietnam.
South Dakota Senator George McGovern, who was decisively
defeated by Richard Nixon in the 1972 Presidential election, went so far
as to introduce a bill to assist refugees who wished to return to the
country, despite its occupation by North Vietnamese Communist forces,
suggesting most of the refugees “would be better off going back to their
own land.” 

_______________________________________________________

 Trump Defends Refugee Order: 
“Nothing Nice About Searching For Terrorists”
BY STEVE WATSON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

President Trump took to Twitter Monday to defend his
temporary migrant ban from 7 countries known to host radical Islamic
terrorists who have stated their intention to use the refugee crisis to
gain entry to the US.

Trump noted that the problems with
the travel chaos at some airports are not because of fallout from the
ban, but rather due to a Delta computer outage:

Trump
added that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has informed the
President that “all is going well with very few problems”
Trump rounded off the second tweet with the words “MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN.”

The
President issued a third announcement declaring that there is “nothing
nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country.”
Trump stated that he was carrying out policies he had promised during his campaign and urged detractors to “Study the world!”

The
President also defended the fact that the 90 day ban was not announced
ahead of time, saying it would have provided advance warning to
terrorists.

Trump’s
aides have praised the restraining order, which bars the admission of
Syrian refugees and suspends travel to the United States from Syria,
Iraq, Iran and four other countries.
One official told reporters “It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level.”
During
a press briefing, the official who asked to remain anonymous, urged the
media to stop “false, misleading, inaccurate, hyperventilating”
coverage of the “fractional, marginal, minuscule percentage” of
travelers who were “set aside for further questioning”.

 While Democrats and former Obama administration officials have decried the policy, it has been noted that Trump is using an Obama administration law, the same Obama DHS policy, and has identified the same 7 countries for a 90-day visa suspension that were picked out by The Obama administration under the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
________________________________________________________
 'Fake tears': Trump Mocks Chuck Schumer's Crying
‘Fake tears’: Trump Mocks Chuck Schumer’s Crying 
‘There’s about a five percent chance that it was real…’
BY ADAN SALAZAR
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Senator Chuck Schumer cried crocodile tears when he publicly 
criticized the Trump administration’s travel ban, President Donald Trump
 alleged Monday.
 

“I noticed Chuck Schumer yesterday with fake tears,” Trump said. “I’m
gonna ask him who is his acting coach. Cause I know him very well. I
don’t see him as a crier. If he is, he’s a different man. There’s about a
five percent chance that it was real, but I think they were fake
tears.”

At a Sunday press conference, the New York senator
surrounded himself with children and delivered a watery-eyed testimony
calling the travel ban “mean-spirited,” and “un-American.”

“It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country,” he stated.
“This is one of the most backward and nasty executive orders that the president has issued.”
“Tears
are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand
tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since
America was founded, has been stomped upon,” Schumer said.
On
Friday, the Trump administration enacted a travel ban halting flights
from seven nations which the Obama administration had identified as
terror-prone countries.

 SCHUMER’S TEAR FILLED PLEA, SURROUNDED BY “IMMIGRANTS”:
 _________________________________________________________
 THE BACKLASH AGAINST TRUMP FOR 
HIS IMMIGRATION DIRECTIVES: 
Sean Spicer Interview: Trump Won't 
'Apologize For Putting Safety of This Country First'
 Trump Copy’s Obama Muslim Ban, Media Flips
  
Why People are Protesting the Travel Ban
  
Feminists Chant Allahu Akbar, Call For Trump 
to Open Borders; Converting to Islam
  
Acting attorney general tells DOJ not to defend 
Pres. Trump's travel ban
 Published on Jan 30, 2017
Acting
Attorney General Sally Yates
told the Justice Department not to defend
President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court. CBS News
justice reporter Paula Reid joined CBSN to break down what could happen
next.

  
WASHINGTON IN SHOCK! TRUMP JUST FIRED 
THE 1 PERSON 
OBAMA DIDN’T WANT HIM TO 
FOR BETRAYING AMERICA
 Published on Jan 30, 2017

Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media
| This is HUGE! Trump just fired the acting attorney General! In a
statement released by the White house moments ago regarding the
Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General they declared,
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department
of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the
citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and
legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”


  
 
 

UK: NO MORE WEEKEND “CHANGING OF THE GUARD” CEREMONIES DUE TO FEARS OF JIHAD ATTACKS

 
UK: NO MORE WEEKEND “CHANGING OF THE GUARD” CEREMONIES DUE TO FEARS OF JIHAD ATTACKS
BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“Windsor Castle has cancelled Changing the Guard
ceremonies amid fears of a terror attack after devastating incidents in
Berlin and Nice last year.

The longstanding tradition will no longer take place on Saturdays due
to concerns over the possibility that jihadists could target the
thousands of tourists who gather to enjoy the show.

A tragic example of civilizational jihad: the weekend ceremony that
draws the most tourists, a ceremony representative of British culture
and history, is nixed because of the terror that was cast into the
hearts of the disbelievers by jihadists within. The Changing of the
Guard is said to be “one of the highlights of a visit to Windsor Castle.”

“Changing the Guard weekend ceremonies AXED amid fears of a Berlin-style TERROR ATTACK”, by Harry Walker, Express, January 29, 2017:

Two major truck attacks have shaken Europe over the past year.

In December, 12 people were murdered and 50 injured after a terrorist
ploughed a truck through a busy Christmas market in Berlin at high
speed.

And in July, 86 people were brutally killed and hundreds more hurt
after a cowardly jihadi drove a lorry into a crowd celebrating Bastille
Day in Nice.

Thames Valley Police ordered top military officials to alter the
ceremonial timetable avoid the busiest times in the week in the wake of
the Berlin attack.

Troops will now only perform the ceremony on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Security has also been ramped up, with armed police checkpoints and road closures.

But the precautions have been blasted by local residents and traders
over concerns they will lose money if the ceremonies are scrapped
entirely.

Mother-of-two Polly Miller, 37, said: “Families won’t be able to go during the week because of school and work commitments.

“I think you are going to get a generation of disengaged British people……

 

OPPOSITION GROWS TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS TAKEOVER

OPPOSITION GROWS TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS TAKEOVER
BY KURT HYDE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The Obama administration’s DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced on
January 6 that he had determined that U.S. elections “should be
designated as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector.” Johnson’s statement went on to say:


By “election infrastructure,” we mean
storage facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulations
locations used to support the election process, and information and
communications technology to include voter registration databases,
voting machines, and other systems to manage the election process and
report and display results on behalf of state and local governments.


In other words, DHS would assert its authority over virtually all
aspects of elections.
The memo also had assurances that this would not
be a federal takeover, but the cosmetic assurances contradict the memo’s
wording, particularly the self-declared, open-ended definition of what
would comprise the election infrastructure. Also fueling the fires of
concern is the history of federal takeovers. Federal takeovers in the
past have been replete with soothing statements saying they are not
takeovers during the initial phases.

Within days, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) issued a statement
describing DHS’s announcement as “legally and historically
unprecedented, raising many questions and concerns.” NASS’s statement
went on to say:


State and local autonomy over elections
is our greatest asset against malicious cyberattacks and manipulation.

Our decentralized, low-connectivity electoral process is inherently
designed to withstand such threats.

Further reaction by state election officials has been overwhelmingly in opposition to this federal takeover. Numerous posts on the website electionline.org indicate widespread opposition by Secretaries of State and other voting officials, both Republican and Democrat.

The opposition to this attempted federal power grab is gratifying to
those who oppose encroachment by the federal government into what is
clearly the domain of the states. Particularly gratifying is the
statement explaining that decentralization of the electoral processes
and low levels of electronic connectivity are actually security
strengths in our elections. These statements by NASS are a welcome dose
of electoral sanity compared to recent advocacies for Internet voting
and secure transmission of precinct vote counts, both of which increase
centralization and electronic connectivity.

The New American has published numerous articles with
criticisms of Internet voting and, in reporting from Iowa at last year’s
Republican presidential caucuses, questioned the wisdom of secure transmission of precinct results:

While no one should be upset with quick
and accurate reporting, there is no reason given why this app should
work “securely.” Why should publicly disseminated information be
transmitted securely? If everyone has a right to know this information,
why should it be secured? The answer is, it shouldn’t.

There is a possibility that this growing opposition may lead to a
resolution against the power grab at next month’s NASS Winter Conference
in Washington, D.C.

But one argument that is missing from the debate is
constitutionality. This attempted federal action is blatantly
unconstitutional. Apologists for federal intervention in state elections
have quoted Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by
law make or alter such Regulations except for the Place of Chusing
Senators.

Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 59, addressed the
intent of this provision in the U.S. Constitution. It does allow for
Congress to alter state election laws, but as Hamilton explained, this
was primarily to ensure the states would hold elections for federal
offices thereby ensuring there would not be a coalition of states
over-powering the Congress by failing to elect Congressmen :

But with regard to the federal House of
Representatives, there is intended to be a general election of members
once in two years. If the State legislatures were to be invested with an
exclusive power of regulating these elections, every period of making
them would be a delicate crisis in the national situation, which might
issue in a dissolution of the Union, if the leaders of a few of the most
important States should have entered into a previous conspiracy to
prevent an election.

Hamilton further explained that the power to alter state election
laws was not intended to allow the federal government to stretch it so
far as to allow Congress to pass laws making the federal government the
regulator of state elections:

Suppose an article had been introduced
into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the
elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to
condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a
premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?

Hopefully, the opposition to this attempted federal takeover of
elections will not only be stopped, but will lead to eventually
dismantling such unconstitutional federal bureaucracies as the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC), which are currently assuming regulatory authority over state
elections.

CATHOLICS TURN AGAINST SATANIC POPE FRANCIS~ASK TRUMP TO PROBE SOROS-OBAMA-CLINTON CONSPIRACY AT VATICAN

CATHOLICS TURN AGAINST SATANIC POPE FRANCIS 
CATHOLICS ASK TRUMP TO PROBE 
SOROS-OBAMA-CLINTON CONSPIRACY AT VATICAN 
BY WILLIAM F. JASPER 
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Did billionaire speculator George Soros, President Barack Obama,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and
Obama/Clinton adviser John Podesta conspire to overthrow the
conservative Pope Benedict XVI and replace him with a radical, Pope
Francis? Did they use America’s intelligence agencies, and our nation’s
diplomatic machinery, political muscle, and financial power to coerce
and blackmail “regime change” in the Roman Catholic Church?

Far from being some wild conspiracy theory, there is sound prima
facie evidence to indicate that this is a serious effort to expose a
political scandal of the highest order, involving flagrant, criminal
abuse of power at the top levels of the U.S. government.
A group of
respected Catholic lay leaders have sent a letter to President Donald
Trump urging him to launch an official investigation into the activities
of the above mentioned individuals (and others) who appear to have been
involved in this alleged Vatican coup. They cite eight specific
questions they seek to have answered concerning suspect events that led
to the resignation of Pope Benedict, the first such papal abdication in
700 years.

“Specifically, we have reason to believe that a Vatican ‘regime
change’ was engineered by the Obama administration,” say the
petitioners, in their January 20 letter to President Trump. The five
signatories to the letter, first published in the Catholic newspaper/weblog, The Remnant, are: Lieutenant Colonel David L. Sonnier, US Army (Retired); Michael J. Matt, editor of The Remnant:
Christopher A. Ferrara, author, attorney, and president of the American
Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.; Chris Jackson, Catholics4Trump.com;
and, Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren.

“We were alarmed to discover,” their letter notes, “that, during the
third year of the first term of the Obama administration your previous
opponent, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other government
officials with whom she associated proposed a Catholic ‘revolution’ in
which the final demise of what was left of the Catholic Church in
America would be realized.” The letter includes footnote links that take
the reader to documents and news stories underscoring their charges and
pointed questions. It first directs attention to the
Soros-Clinton-Podesta e-mails disclosed last year by WikiLeaks, in which
Podesta and other “progressives” discussed ending the “middle ages
dictatorship” in the Catholic Church. Regarding the e-mails in question,
The New American reported last October:

Podesta, a longtime Clinton
adviser/confidante and hand-picked top activist for left-wing funder
George Soros, revealed in a 2011 e-mail that he and other activists were
working to effect a “Catholic Spring” revolution within the Catholic
Church, an obvious reference to the disastrous “Arab Spring” coups
organized that same year by the Obama-Clinton-Soros team that
destabilized the Middle East and brought radical Islamist regimes and
terrorist groups to power in the region. The Podesta e-mail is a
response to another Soros-funded radical — Sandy Newman, founder of the
“progressive” Voices for Progress. Newman had written to Podesta seeking
advice on the best way to “plant the seeds of the revolution” in the
Catholic Church, which he described as a “middle ages [sic]
dictatorship.” The issue that appeared to be the cause of Newman’s
e-mail was opposition by U.S. Catholic Bishops to the federally mandated
contraceptive coverage in ObamaCare.

In their letter to President Trump, the concerned Catholics write:
“Approximately a year after this e-mail discussion, which was never
intended to be made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated
under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose
apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical
ideological agenda of the international left.  The Pontificate of Pope
Francis has subsequently called into question its own legitimacy on a
multitude of occasions.”

“We remain puzzled by the behavior of this ideologically charged
Pope, whose mission seems to be one of advancing secular agendas of the
left rather than guiding the Catholic Church in Her sacred mission,”
they say, expressing the thoughts, undoubtedly, of innumerable Catholics
worldwide. “It is simply not the proper role of a Pope to be involved
in politics to the point that he is considered to be the leader of the
international left.”

The Catholic quintet began their missive to President Trump with the
famous quote attributed to French historian Alexis de Tocqueville:
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good,
America will cease to be great.”

“While we share your stated goal for America,” they write, “we
believe that the path to ‘greatness’ is for America to be ‘good’ again,
to paraphrase de Tocqueville. We understand that good character cannot
be forced on people, but the opportunity to live our lives as good
Catholics has been made increasingly difficult by what appears to be a
collusion between a hostile United States government and a pope who
seems to hold as much ill will towards followers of perennial Catholic
teachings as he seems to hold toward yourself.”

They continue:

With all of this in mind, and wishing the
best for our country as well as for Catholics worldwide, we believe it
to be the responsibility of loyal and informed United States Catholics
to petition you to authorize an investigation into the following
questions:
– To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
– What other covert operations were
carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of
Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
– Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?
– International monetary transactions
with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the
resignation of Pope Benedict. Were any U.S. Government agencies involved
in this?
– Why were international monetary
transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI
announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence?
– What actions, if any, were actually
taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama
administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the
fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?
– What was the purpose and nature of the
secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI
at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?
– What roles were played by George Soros
and other international financiers who may be currently residing in
United States territory?

It is likely that very few Americans, including American Catholics,
are aware of these matters, in the slightest degree. Although the
WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Snowden revelations have made most of this
planet’s inhabitants aware that the NSA routinely (and illegally) has
scooped up billions of phone calls, e-mails, and text messages, very
little media coverage has focused on the revelations concerning the NSA
spying on Pope Benedict and the cardinals of the conclave that elected
Pope Francis in 2013 (see here and here).

Architects of Subversion

What about the secret “Cardinal Danneels Mafia” referred to above? According to the Catholic blogspot Rorate Caeli,
“The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the fruit of secret meetings that
cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years
at St. Gall in Switzerland.” That is the claim of
Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, the authors of a recently
published authorized biography of the Belgian
Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who refer to the group of cardinals and
bishops as the “Mafia-club.”

Cardinal Danneels himself, in a video recorded for the book, admits
to taking part in the secret club of cardinals that were in opposition
to Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict). He refers to it as “a Mafia club
whose name was St. Gall.” In addition to Danneels, this “Mafia club”
reportedly included Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, Dutch
bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, German cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman,
the Italian cardinal Achille Silvestrini, Britain’s Cardinal Basil
Hume, and other liberal-left churchmen. Cardinal Danneels, a Belgian,
has long been viewed as a key subversive in the Church prelature for
undermining traditional Catholic teaching against abortion,
homosexuality, and “gay marriage,” as well as for his efforts to protect
pedophiles in the clergy.

One name not mentioned in the recent letter of concerned Catholics to
President Trump, but certain to surface as a key culprit in any
substantive investigation, is former chairman of Goldman Sachs
International Peter Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland, an Insider’s Insider
among the globalist banking establishment, was brought in to help
“reform” the Vatican Bank, which was akin to putting Dracula in charge
of the blood bank.

Like Joseph Biden, Jerry Brown, and Nancy Pelosi, Sutherland is a
prominent political figure who is regularly described in media accounts
as a “practicing Catholic,” which means he wears his religion when it is
expedient to do so. As attorney general of Ireland, Sutherland helped
to scuttle that Catholic country’s legal restrictions on abortion and
favored the “LGBT rights” movement. He has served as a commissioner of
the European Union and  headed the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Here are some of his other globalist credentials, as previously in The New American:

• He is a regular attendee and former Steering Committee member of the ultra-secretive, ultra-elite Bilderberg Group;
• he was European chairman of the Trilateral Commission;
• he is past chairman of British Petroleum (BP);
• he is honorary president of the
Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN), one of the principal corporatist
insider organizations promoting EU-U.S. merger through the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP);
• as a top Eurocrat, he played a lead
role in destroying national sovereignty by replacing national currencies
(and national monetary control) with the euro, as well as engineering
the “borderless Europe,” which the current migrant crisis is now proving
to have been so destructive.

For the past decade, as the United Nations special representative for International Migration, Sutherland has been a key architect,
along with with George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other
globalists of the global scheme that has flooded Europe with the
disastrous tsunami of Muslim migrants. (Their plans, which called for a
similar migration deluge for the United States, got started under
President Obama, but have been scuttled by the election of President
Trump.)

The investigation that the concerned Catholics are requesting of
President Trump should be of interest to more than just Catholics. Peter
Sutherland, George Soros, and the world government movement they
represent will, if successful, wreak unimaginable havoc and devastation
upon the entire planet. The investigation — and prosecutions — cannot
begin too soon.

Related articles:

George Soros: The “God” Who Should Be Jailed

Democracy Alliance: Soros Billionaires Club for Revolution

Foundations: Cutting Off the Toxic Funding Flow

Clinton Campaign’s anti-Catholic E-mails: Will Catholic Voters React?

Hacked Docs Expose Soros-Obama-UN Refugee Invasion Network

Insider: EU-U.S. Must Take More Refugees, Get Rid of Sovereignty

Soros and CFR Exploit Refugee Crisis for New World Order

Refugee Crisis: Using Chaos to Build Power

Trading Away Their Oaths (TPN Transatlantic Policy Network)

TRUMP READIES PEN TO REVERSE OBAMA’S ANTI GUN EXECUTIVE ORDERS

TRUMP READIES PEN TO REVERSE OBAMA’S 
ANTI GUN EXECUTIVE ORDERS 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

President Trump Readies Pen to Reverse Anti-gun Executive Orders Gun Owners of America   Gun Owners of AmericaWashington, DC -(Ammoland.com)-
In one of the first pro-gun actions of his administration, President
Donald Trump is expected to shortly move to revoke Barack Obama’s
illegal actions to effectively outlaw gun collecting.

Obama’s anti-gun “executive action”
was announced on January 6, 2016 — in the wake of Obama’s unsuccessful
attempt to scapegoat law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a Muslim
terrorist in San Bernardino.

Obama’s action was implemented as a “clarification
because he knew that his lawless moves could never pass muster under
the rule-making procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Under Obama’s now-moribund “clarification,” a gun owner could have been imprisoned for up to five years and fined $250,000 for “only one or two [firearms] transactions,” according to a White House fact sheet.
Note that, under Clinton, tens of thousands of licensees lost their licenses because they didn’t have “brick-or-mortar” stores.

Now,
in a Clinton/Obama Mutt-and-Jeff routine, Obama proposed to imprison
hobbyists who didn’t have licenses because the government refused to
issue licenses to them.

Hence, a hobbyist who bought
a firearm one day and sold it the next day at a profit could go to
prison for five years. Obviously, the intent was to create such a cloud
of ambiguity that gun owners would refrain from constitutionally
protected activity (private firearms sales), for fear that they would run afoul of Obama’s amorphous rules.
Tragically, in some cases, Obama’s unlawful actions had exactly the intended effect.
But,
thanks to President Donald Trump, Obama’s unlawful action will soon be
repealed — as one of the priority actions of the incoming
administration.
Gun Owners of America is optimistic that this is only the first in a series of Trump actions overturning illegal Obama actions.

We are also asking for Trump administration action:

  • Removing the U.S. from the Anti-Gun UN Arms Trade Treaty;
  • Repealing bullet and gun import bans going from Obama back to George H. W. Bush’s semi-auto import ban;
  • Repealing the suspension of health privacy laws with respect to gun owners;
  • Repealing
    executive actions encouraging doctors to inquire about gun ownership
    and to enter this information into a federal health database;
  • Restoring gun rights for 257,000 law-abiding veterans;
  • Repealing Obama’s efforts to strip Social Security recipients of their guns, merely because a guardian processes their checks.

There is an old joke that goes: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? Answer: A good start.”

The work of restoring the Second Amendment to its God-given status has only just begun.
But the important thing is that it has begun.
Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Chairman
About Gun Owners of America (GOA)
Gun
Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in
1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.
GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no compromise
gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.
Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.

1 629 630 631 632 633 795