Wednesday, February 1, 2017


 Published on Feb 1, 2017
Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks the story that President Donald Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 President Trump has announced that he 
has nominated 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve 
on the U.S. Supreme Court as the replacement for the late Justice 
Antonin Scalia.
“Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support,” Trump stated in introducing his pick to the public Tuesday night.
“Mr. President, I am honored and I am humbled. Thank you very much,” Gorsuch, an Episcopalian, said to applause in accepting the nomination.
Gorsuch, now 49, had been nominated to the 10th Circuit in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush. He was a graduate of Harvard Law School and has a PhD. from Oxford. He served as a clerk under current Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Gorsuch is known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his ruling.
“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. “Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”
Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.

While it is not known where Gorsuch himself stands on abortion, he is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”
However, some have questioned whether or not Gorsuch would seek to end abortion if the matter came before him on the bench. Andy Schlafly, an attorney and the son of the late Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum—who had supported Trump prior to her death—recently stated that Gorsuch “has never said or written anything pro-life.” He also said that Gorsuch is a “big supporter [of] granting special rights to men who say they have a female … identity.”
But Ed Whelan, who disagrees with both of Schlafly’s assertions, notes for the National Review that Gorsuch had dissented from the majority opinion when his colleagues ruled in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert that that state of Utah could not defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
“Respectfully, the panel in this case not only conducted its own de novo review of the record, it relaxed PPAU’s burden of proof and even seemed to reverse it,” Gorsuch wrote.
“Respectfully, this case warrants rehearing,” he opined. “As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke
arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with principles of comity.”
Gorsuch has also seemed to indicate that he believes the government should be permitted to erect religious displays on public property, disagreeing with his colleagues who rejected a rehearing in the 2007 case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which involved a Ten Commandments display.
Gorsuch is stated by others as being much like Scalia, including being an “originalist,” that is, seeking to interpret the Constitution in the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers. He cited the high court justice in his acceptance speech as Scalia’s wife sat in the audience.
In an article for the Case Western Reserve Law Review, Gorsuch recalled being overcome with sorrow upon hearing of Scalia’s death. He had been taking a skiing trip when his phone rang with the news.
“I immediately lost what breath I had left, and I am not embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t see the rest of the way down the mountain for the tears,” Gorsuch wrote.
He praised Scalia as being a “lion of the law.”
“He really was a lion of the law: docile in private life but a ferocious fighter when at work, with a roar that could echo for miles,” Gorsuch stated. “Volumes rightly will be written about his contributions to American law, on the bench and off.”
As previously reported, Trump had outlined even before the election that he intended on appointing a Supreme Court justice like the late Antonin Scalia.
“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”
“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 60 Minutes interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”
He also noted that religion has very little to do with his decisions.
“I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the laws, which is what my job is about,” he stated. “They can make me leave the bench if I find that I’m enmeshed in an immoral operation, but the only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment—thou shalt not lie. I try to observe that faithfully, but other than that I don’t think any of my religious views have anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.”
As previously reported, Trump originally had 21 judges on his Supreme Court list, with Judges William Pryor, Thomas Hardiman and Gorsuch stated to be on his shortlist. Pryor was especially controversial as he had prosecuted “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore and had vowed to uphold Roe v. Wade while serving in the 11th Circuit.
Diane Sykes, likewise on the list, was also controversial as she had written in a Planned Parenthood ruling that abortion is a woman’s “right.”
Trump advisor Leonard Leo is stated to have helped the president with narrowing down the list and making a selection.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Kelleigh Nelson
January 25, 2017
One of the reasons I changed — one of the primary reasons — a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story,” Trump told Brody. “He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life. —Donald J. Trump
Our 45th President told us he would put pro-life judges on our Supreme Court. However, those who helped him with the list of conservative judges were both the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation (called Heretic Foundation by many of my well-educated friends).
Neil Gorsuch is Not Pro-Life
The latest choice we’re now hearing is at the top of the list is Neil Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch is NOT pro-life. His selection would violate Trump's pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade would not be overturned for 40 years if the 49-year-old Gorsuch is picked. Forty million more babies would be murdered in their mothers’ wombs with this choice.
The pro-life movement has only a few hours or days to object, protest, criticize, and veto the nomination of this pro-choice candidate. Trump floats these trial balloons to see if people object. We must strongly object, and please speak out loudly now.
Gorsuch has never said or written anything pro-life. Andy Schlafly knew him in law school and afterwards, and has reviewed his opinions and his book. He's written multiple opinions that demonstrate he is not pro-life.
For example, in the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade.
More information, including how Gorsuch opposes overturning precedent even when it is wrong, is here. He supports special rights for transgenders, too. And he is no Scalia, as Gorsuch was not even on the Law Review in law school.
We've been down this road before, and it doesn't work for Republican presidents. Andy Schlafly recently spoke at a large conservative conference in Michigan, a state Trump carried by barely 10,000 votes based on immense efforts by pro-lifers there. That margin disappears if Trump is misled to break his pro-life pledge for the Supreme Court.
Evangelicals spoke out and vetoed the previous top choice, Bill Pryor. Now it is urgent that pro-lifers speak out immediately and veto Neil Gorsuch.
These choices are coming from the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. The Federalist Society is attempting to get a pro-Roe judge chosen instead of another Scalia.
Who is the Federalist Society?
The Federalist Society, is allegedly an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualistic or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations, masquerading as something they are not.
The Federalist Society began at Yale Law School, (home of Skull and Bones), Harvard Law School (that bastion of higher liberal learning), and the University of Chicago Law School, (home of Bill Ayers and where protestors disallowed Trump rally). It originally started as a student organization which challenged what its members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. Doesn’t this actually make you laugh when these three Ivy league schools are known as having a Marxist agenda?
Pro-Lifers Need to Respond
There are ways to respond, and as my friend Devvy Kidd said, “We have to flood the White House with calls, tweets, emails. This has worked in the past if enough people do it.”
The comment phone number is: 202-456-1111.
The caller simply needs to say:
I strenuously object to Neil Gorsuch as a supreme court justice nominee. He is not pro-life. I urge President Trump to nominate:
Justice Charles Canady - number one choice, or:
Judge Jennifer Elrod or Judge Edith Jones
You can also tweet Donald Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer, etc. Simply tweet, “Gorsuch is not pro-life. Choose true pro-lifers…Charles Canady, Judge Elrod or Edith Jones.”
You can email the White House here.

You can comment on Face Book here.
Another option is to send a fax signed by as many people as possible. If people belong to a church or some group, just do a short letter with all the signatures and fax it. Phone calls can be ignored, but a pile of 50,000 faxes can't. Time is of the essence.
WH fax: 202-456-7890
It is up to the American people to let our President know where we stand. Life is God given, and the Lord said in Deuteronomy, CHOOSE LIFE! Let President Trump know we want Pro-Life Justices!

Get in Touch with The White House |





 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!


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.
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: to Join.


 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



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


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 and Customs Enforcement
 Replaces Obama holdover with deportation expert
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.


 WH advisor cautions: “Google head Schmidt, a top Hillary advisor, cozies up to Trump”
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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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,” 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, 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.”



 Suggests drugs should be allowed to flow into U.S.

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
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.
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.”


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”