Sunday, July 17, 2016


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

Translated from the French, an editorial of Alexis Br├ęzet, Editor of Le Figaro:
Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville, and now Nice…How many more times until we recognize what is staring us in the face? How many more savage attacks, how many more maddened massacres, before our leaders become willing to admit that Islamic fanaticism is waging a war to the death against our country and our civilization? How many innocent victims – men, women, children – before our rulers finally decide to take the ruthless measures necessary that the barbarism of Allah’s madmen demands?
Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville, and now Nice….More than two hundred names etched into the memory of our country, and still we have the same granitic chins, the same solemn declarations, the same tremolos in the voices. And then what? A few more soldiers in the streets, a few touch-ups to the laws, a few bombings in far-away lands, and then…nothing.
“We are at war.” There, it’s said. After so much procrastination, the phrase is now on everyone’s lips. But does anyone really believe it? “Aux armes, citoyens” [from la Marseillaise], we exclaim full-throatedly, but our arms are those of peace, of candles and hashtags and funeral processions and the procedural subtleties of our criminal code.
In truth, a phony war! We leave our borders (what soldiers call our lines) wide open to our enemies. The recruiting agents for the jihad preach their doctrine of hate with impunity, in the very mosques financed by the enemy. Those we call “traitors” who went off to fight in Syria [for the Islamic State] upon returning undergo nothing more than a simple course of “deradicalization.” As for those flagged as a “threat to national security,” who might constitute a fifth column, they roam freely because “they haven’t yet committed any crime.”
War? What war? We live as if we are at peace! The state of emergency doesn’t prevent the unions from demonstrating, nor the festive gatherings that some claim – and they are not joking – “are the best response to the Islamic State.” The president of the Republic himself appeared not to believe that there’s a war on: he calmly announced, on the fourteenth of July, the end of the state of emergency and the lifting of some security measures, before having to backtrack throughout the night, when the tragic reality brought him back to his senses…
These soldiers of the caliphate don’t wage war by halves. They come right up to us to “slit the throats of our sons and our women” [from La Marseillaise: “egorger nos fils et nos compagnes”], and in return we offer them the protection of our laws — to the very people who want to destroy us! Never before in history has an enemy benefited so much from the willingness of those he fights to accommodate him.
This willful blindness has lasted far too long. To win the war, it has to be conducted without half-measures and pusillanimity. And to give those who are fighting a chance to win, we must rearm in every sense. Rearmament for our soldiers and police, of course. Rearmament, by strengthening our laws, everywhere it proves necessary. Rearmament, by strengthening our conviction that we are in the right, to overcome collectively the perverse logic clothed in the mental rags of “living together,” which in France is used to block any serious measures being taken against the root of radical Islam, with the refrain that “that would be playing into the hands of the terrorists.” As if to say that we would fight more effectively if we presented our necks to their knives. As if the surest path to communal violence was not precisely the failure to act of the State, the only legitimate holder of power, the only real guarantor of civil peace…
Obviously, there is no miracle weapon that will do away with the hydra-headed Islamic beast. We should not minimize the risk of attacks. But is that a reason to avoid attempting anything? Certainly this war that has been declared on us will be long and difficult. We will undoubtedly suffer further defeats, which is one more reason not to lose still more time. Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville, Nice… Now is the time to act if we want to someday bring that sinister litany to an end.



Facebook Censoring Term "Muslim Terrorist" After Nice Attack
Published on Jul 14, 2016
Facebook is actively censoring terms associated Muslim and Terrorism when placed together, just as Facebook CEO promised Angela Merkel he would do.

Facebook Caught Censoring Basic Normality
Published on Jul 14, 2016
Infowars reporters Rob Jacobson and Darrin McBreen talk about how Facebook would not let then use the terms Muslim Terror or Terrorist when describing a video about the Paris truck attacks.

Facebook Censoring Posts on Turkey Coup


Facebook Censoring Term "Muslim Terrorist" After Nice Attack
Published on Jul 14, 2016
Facebook is actively censoring terms associated Muslim and Terrorism when placed together, just as Facebook CEO promised Angela Merkel he would do.

Facebook Caught Censoring Basic Normality
Published on Jul 14, 2016
Infowars reporters Rob Jacobson and Darrin McBreen talk about how Facebook would not let then use the terms Muslim Terror or Terrorist when describing a video about the Paris truck attacks.

Facebook Censoring Posts on Turkey Coup


Published on Jul 14, 2016
One year ago, The Center for Medical Progress released the first in its groundbreaking series of undercover videos catching senior-level Planned Parenthood leadership negotiating the sale and haggling over the price of aborted baby body parts. Today, Planned Parenthood remains under investigation by multiple states and the Select Investigative Panel in Congress, which has determined that Planned Parenthood profited from the sale of fetal body parts, exposed patients’ private medical records, and pressured patient consent with fraudulent paperwork.

CMP’s undercover videos featured multiple top-level executives and medical directors at Planned Parenthood, including:

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, PPFA
Dr. Mary Gatter, Medical Directors’ Council President, PPFA
Dr. Savita Ginde, VP & Medical Director, PPRM
Melissa Farrell, Director of Research, PPGC
Dr. Katharine Sheehan, Medical Director emerita, PPPS
Dr. Amna Dermish, Associate Medical Director, PPGT
Dr. Jennefer Russo, Medical Director, PPOSBC
Deborah VanDerhei, Consortium of Abortion Providers (CAPS) National Director, PPFA

At a business lunch meeting with CMP investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, Dr. Nucatola remarked over wine and salad: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” Nucatola also said of Planned Parenthood affiliates’ payments for fetal organs: “If they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that, you know, seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.”

Dr. Gatter haggled over the price per fetal specimen with the undercover investigators, insisting, “You know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?” and laughing, “I want a Lamborghini.”

Dr. Ginde suggested ways to maximize payments for fetal tissue: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” Melissa Farrell in Texas promised, “If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”

The first video, with Dr. Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, received over 1 million views on YouTube in the 24 hours after it was posted. Two days later, PPFA president and CEO Cecile Richards posted her own video apologizing for Nucatola’s “tone and statements.” But to date, none of these representatives of Planned Parenthood have come forward to correct their remarks on the videos or disavow them. Planned Parenthood has not divulged whether or not these representatives continue to work in the same leadership capacities.

The CMP videos now have more than 12 million views on YouTube, including over 3.2 million views of the first video. The videos prompted several Congressional committees and state agencies to open preliminary inquiries, but the only dedicated, nationwide, and in-depth official investigation is the Energy & Commerce Committee’s Select Investigative Panel, chaired by Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Less than a week after the Panel was chartered, Planned Parenthood announced a “policy” change to no longer receive payments for supplying fetal tissue–after 3 months of insisting that these payments were completely legal and acceptable.

In the first half of 2016, the Panel has documented the for-profit business model for fetal body parts harvesting at some of the largest Planned Parenthood affiliates in the country and the company StemExpress. Last month, the Panel filed formal complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services on account of “systematic” HIPAA violations at multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates in their relationship with StemExpress, as well as the use of invalid consent forms with false representations to pregnant women.

“As more details and evidence continue to emerge in the ongoing investigation of Planned Parenthood’s aborted baby parts business, it’s clear Planned Parenthood is guilty of far more wrongdoing in their fetal harvesting scheme than anyone initially realized,” notes David Daleiden, CMP project lead. “Planned Parenthood has claimed for one year that they made no money from baby body parts, but faced with an ever-growing body of evidence to the contrary, they have yet to produce anything other than press releases to back up their lies to the public.”

Daleiden concludes, “The rule of law means that there cannot be one special set of rules for Planned Parenthood, and another for everybody else. Planned Parenthood is not above the law and must be held accountable for their callous and careless treatment of vulnerable patients and their barbaric profiteering on baby body parts.”



Trump Announces Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, 

Who Backed Down on Religious Freedom Act, 

as Running Mate

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

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced that he has selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate, and is set to formally introduce Pence during a news conference on Saturday.
“I am pleased to announce that I have chosen Governor Mike Pence as my vice presidential running mate,” Trump posted to social media on Friday morning.
On Thursday night, Trump told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren that he hadn’t yet decided for sure who he would select after she noted that reports revealed Pence had been chosen.
“I haven’t made my final, final decision,” he stated. “I mean, I’ve got three people [in mind] that are fantastic. I think Newt (Gingrich) is a fantastic person. I think Chris Christie is a fantastic person. [He’s] been a friend of mine for 15 years; just a fantastic person. And there’s Mike, and Mike has done a great job as governor of Indiana. You look at the numbers, and it’s been great—he’s done really a fantastic job. But I haven’t made a final, final decision.”
He advised soon after at a fundraiser that same evening that he was “ready to announce,” according to an event attendee. Trump has postponed his formal press conference due to the terror attack in France.
Pence is known for being at the center of controversy last year when he signed into law the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bill was meant to mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law in the 1990’s by then-President Bill Clinton.
However, homosexual activists and advocates soon rose up against Pence, asserting that the bill made provision for Christians and others to discriminate against homosexuals.
While Pence said that the bill had been “grossly misconstrued” by homosexual activists and the media and made to be an issue about homosexuality rather than a response to the Hobby Lobby contraceptive decision, he said that the “mischaracterization” now “might make it necessary … to clarify the law through legislation.”
Therefore, lawmakers proposed a clarification to the bill that banned business owners from declining to fulfill orders for homosexual ceremonies, which Pence promptly signed. His signature disappointed evangelicals, especially since Pence professes to be a Christian.
“Christian bakers, florists and photographers … no longer have the benefit of Indiana law to help protect them from being forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding,” lamented Eric Miller, founder and executive director of Advance America.
“It gives the government a new weapon against individual citizens who are merely exercising freedoms that Americans were guaranteed from the founding of this country,” said Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. “Surrendering to deception and economic blackmail never results in good policy.”
“If a Christian vendor can be forced to collaborate with an unmitigated evil, like assisting with a homosexual marriage, then the law and religious freedom has no meaning,” Red State commented. “In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court acknowledged that even a closely held corporation cannot be compelled to violate its religious beliefs. Why private citizens should not have the same rights, and be able to enforce those rights when harassed and bullied … is a mystery.”
Pence, who grew up Roman Catholic and now identifies as evangelical, has been considered to have a pro-life record, recently signing into law a bill that bans aborting children with disabilities, but allows abortions for other reasons.
In December, Pence posted to social media that he disagreed with Trump’s plan to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants.
“Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional,” he wrote.
However, Pence shrugged off his differences with Trump on Tuesday, remarking that he doesn’t align perfectly with any politician.
“Look, I served in Congress for 12 years. I’ve been a governor for three and a half years. I haven’t agreed with every one of my Republican colleagues or Democrat colleagues on every issue,” he told reporters. “But I’m supporting Donald Trump because we need change in this country, and I believe he represents the kind of strong leadership at home and abroad that will, to borrow a phrase, make America great again.”





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

Territorial disputes are a delicate thing… and potentially deadly as well.
That’s why the U.S. is backing up its positions with an ever-increasing presence of warships  in the South China Sea.
China is very touchy about these territories, and unwilling to give up what they perceive as their waters, even as a UN tribunal just denied their claims and strengthened the U.S. hand.
Indeed, the entire situation is combustible and very dangerous.
In a congressional hearing on Wednesday, former Director of National Intelligence and retired Navy admiral Dennis Blair told the panel that the United States should be prepared to use military force to oppose Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.
“I think we need to have some specific lines and then encourage China to compromise on some of its objectives,” Blair, who headed the U.S. Pacific Command while in the Navy, said at the hearing.
The admiral’s recommendation came the day after a United Nations tribunal invalidated China’s claim of territorial rights to nearly all of the waters in the South China Sea.
The U.S., citing the territorial dispute and security concerns raised by its allies in the region, have for months been sending warships into the South China Sea as a check against Chinese hostility.
Beijing, acutely aware of the military buildup off its coast, has publicly warned the U.S. it’s more than ready to defend against provocations. “China hopes disputes can be resolved by talks… but it must be prepared for any military confrontation.”
It seems that the situation is being deliberately stoked into conflict, and that tensions are programmed to reach a boiling over point. If true, there is no indication of where the point of no return would be.
The U.S. has the excuse of protecting its ally, and former territory, the Philippines, and thus has a pretext to play policeman in the region.
But in turn, that is only a thinly-veiled ruse to amplify the military pressure, and let bloated speech and menacing saber-rattling episodes set the tone for ‘diplomacy’ with the Red Dragon.
Now, there is not only an escalation, but an acknowledgement on both sides of the Pacific that things are headed towards war – and it is being openly discussed in those stark terms:
“If our security is being threatened, of course we have the right to demarcate a zone,” Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said Wednesday at a briefing in Beijing. “We hope that other countries will not take this opportunity to threaten China and work with China to protect the peace and stability of the South China Sea, and not let it become the origin of a war.”
And war, it appears, is becoming increasingly likely by the day — with other countries in Southeast Asia beginning to take sides.
So, with the U.S. demanding compromise from a China who refuses to bow down — and forcing local powers to choose sides in the process — it seems the stage is being set for a potential military conflict in the South China Sea that could engulf the entire region.
Are we really to expect a looming world war from China, who has played the parts of villain, ally, trade partner and rival all at the same time?
No one can say, but there is plenty of worry that war could really happen. Even billionaire George Soros warned that the potential danger of WWIII breaking out with China was ‘not an exaggeration’:
The US government has little to gain and much to lose by treating the relationship with China as a zero-sum game. In other words it has little bargaining power. It could, of course, obstruct China’s progress, but that would be very dangerous. President Xi Jinping has taken personal responsibility for the economy and national security. If his market-oriented reforms fail, he may foster some external conflicts to keep the country united and maintain himself in power. This could lead China to align itself with Russia not only financially but also politically and militarily. In that case, should the external conflict escalate into a military confrontation with an ally of the United States such as Japan, it is not an exaggeration to say that we would be on the threshold of a third world war.
And yet, President Obama and numerous other U.S. officials have been deliberately stoking the tension and adding fuel to the fire with provocation in the disputed waters.
As Michael Snyder wrote several months ago:
Barack Obama sent a guided missile destroyer into disputed waters in the South China Sea to see if the Chinese would start shooting at it. Yes, this is what he actually did. Fortunately for us, the Chinese backed down and did not follow through on their threats to take military action. Instead, the Chinese have chosen to respond with very angry words. The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, says that what Obama did was “a very serious provocation, politically and militarily.” And as you will see below, a state-run newspaper stated that China “is not frightened to fight a war with the US in the region”. So why in the world would Obama provoke the Chinese like this? Yes, the Chinese claims in the South China Sea are questionable. But there are other ways to resolve things like this.
Most Americans assume that an actual shooting war between the United States and China is not even within the realm of possibility, but many of our leaders see things very differently. For instance, just check out what CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell thinks…
The current posturing in the area has led to heightened tensions between the world’s preeminent military powers, and in May Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN that the confrontation indicates there is “absolutely” a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future.
Not long ago, the U.S. also demonstrated ballistic missiles – armed with nuclear warheads – over the coast of California in an apparent demonstration towards China regarding the readiness and seriousness of their clash.
Though it isn’t on the front burner right now amid other sensational headlines, keep an eye to the fact that World War III is slowly being brewed on the back burner. Someday, it could ignite into a full blown nightmare.Stay vigilant. Hope for peace, prepare for war.