Friday, December 30, 2016


Soros: Trump is a "Would Be Dictator" Who Threatens the New World Order
 Billionaire globalist pens panicked rant
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Billionaire globalist George Soros has penned a panicked rant in which he decries President-elect Donald Trump as a “would be dictator” who threatens the future of the new world order.
In an article for Project Syndicate, Soros begins by mentioning how he lived under both Nazi and then Soviet rule in Hungary before asserting that “various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise.”

This claim is confounded by the facts, which show that, “The share of the world population living in democracies (has) increased continuously.”
Soros writes that in voting for Trump, Americans “elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president,” and that his defeat of Hillary Clinton means America will be “unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world” (because that policy worked so well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya).
Soros also slams Trump’s new cabinet as containing nothing other than “incompetent extremists” and “retired generals.”
Explaining how he supports the European Union because it is a successful attempt at “social engineering,” Soros laments the fact that the body has become “increasingly dysfunctional” and its disintegration has been accelerated, “first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.”
Soros also bemoans Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged undue influence during the presidential election.
“At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected,” writes Soros.
Soros says Putin “felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere,” without mentioning that Soros himself played a key role in bankrolling these contrived uprisings, as well as the color revolution being fomented against Trump.
The irony of an ultra-rich elitist who has bankrolled the overthrow of innumerable governments insisting he cares about “democracy” and the will of the people is particularly rich.
The whole tone of the piece is clearly fraught with concern that the populist movement sweeping the west poses a direct threat to the plutocratic new world order that Soros has spent his entire life helping to build.
He concludes by warning that “the EU is on the verge of breakdown” due to stagnant economic growth and the out of control refugee crisis (that Soros himself again helped create in the first place as a way to obtain political power).

Soros Calls For Armageddon To Stop Trump

Obama/Soros Launch Plan To Destroy Israel

Soros Is A Giant Pentagram

Soros Panics


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 The new masters of Germany are impatient with those who do not recognize
 their preeminence. But a few more lessons about how it’s “racist” to 
resist, and all will no doubt be well.
“Rampaging Syrian migrants KICK BABY on bus, then attack paramedics trying to treat child,” by Rehema Figueiredo, Express, December 28, 2016 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):
MIGRANTS kicked a one-year-old baby on a bus then attacked paramedics with BELTS as they tried to treat the infant.
The shocking attack happened at approximately 9pm on Sunday night in Augsburg, one of Germany’s oldest cities.
Residents were being evacuated following the discovery of a bomb from the Second World War and some had boarded a replacement night bus when a fight broke out.
Several Syrian migrants erupted with anger because of a pram taking up space on the bus.
Migrants hurled abuse at other passengers before a fight broke out, with four of the Syrian men using the handles on the bus to hoist themselves up and attack women and old people to try and drag them into the fighting, according to an eyewitness.
The migrants paid no attention to anyone in their way, at one point kicking a one-year-old in the face.
Paramedics were called and arrived on the scene to help the injured but the men began attacking them with belts – not letting up until the police were called….


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

An eight-year-old girl in Secaucus, N.J., says Boy Scout officials should treat her as a transgender boy, and let her join a boys’ Cub Scout pack.

The child, who is a biological girl but has been living as a “transgender boy” for more than a year, was asked to leave the pack following reported protests from parents.
Kristie Maldonado said her child, Joe, had been a member of Cub Scout Pack 87 for about a month, when a Boy Scout official notified her that the girl could not remain in the boys’ Cub Scout group. “Not one of the kids said, ‘You don’t belong here,’” the mother said of the boys in the pack, according to
“I’m a girl. I just don’t want to be a girl,” the girl told “My identity is a boy.”
Gay political groups say the federal government should force Americans and their many civic society groups — including kids in K-12 schools’ biology classrooms and bathrooms — to accept the groups’ ideological claim that each person’s changeable “gender identity” should determine that person’s legal sex. In contrast, Americans prefer to rely on science and biology when gauging the sex of people who are seeking entry into single-sex sports leagues, bathrooms, showers, social groups and other civic institutions.
Transgender behavior is rare. A recent study of the 2010 census showed that only one-in-2,400 Americans adults had changed their name from one sex to the other.
According to the news report:
The Scouts declined to say whether they have a written transgender policy. Effie Delimarkos, the communications director for the Boy Scouts of America, said in a statement that the organization’s Cub Scouts programs are for boys age 7 to 10 and that “the classification on the participant’s birth certificate” would be used to “confirm legal status.” She did not provide additional details and did not specify whether the Boy Scouts have ever examined gender statuses on birth certificates.
“No youth may be removed from any of our programs on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. Gender identity isn’t related to sexual orientation.”
Effie Delimarkos, communications director, Boy Scouts of America
The controversy over a transgender child comes following the recent uproar over the Boy Scouts’ decision to end its bans against gay Scouts and Scout leaders.
In May of 2015, the Boy Scouts caved to pressure from corporate donors, the media, and government officials to accept gay Scouts, even though the organization is private and voluntary.
Former U.S. Secretary of Defense and then-Boy Scouts of America president Robert Gates warned a national annual gathering of Boy Scout attendees that failing to accept gay Scout leaders would open the organization up to legal challenges and a decline in membership.
“We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it would be,” said Gates, reported the Washington Post. “The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained.”
The Boy Scouts, however, had only addressed gay Scouts, and not children confused about their gender.
In July, Delimarkos told the Associated Press that transgender children would be permitted to participate in co-ed Boy Scouts programs, but not in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programs for boys only.
But the pro-gay pressure groups are beginning to pressure the scouting movement.
“The Boy Scouts as a national organization have a decision to make,” said Justin Wilson, executive director of Scouts for Equality. “Are they going to exclude a transgender boy for the first time, or welcome transgender boys?”
Wilson added that the use of birth certificates to determine gender would be “a new, unfair arbitrary standard” for membership in the Boy Scouts.
The mother said she thought her daughter was a tomboy because she enjoyed tree-climbing and other typically male activities. She said that when the girl was five years old, the child began to read about transgenderism. Last year, the mother allowed the girl to live as a boy, and now says the girl is “much happier.”
The American College of Pediatricians states that gender ideology is harmful to children and that transgendered children are psychologically confused and at risk for mental health disorders. The College says:
No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one…
A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V)…
“According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty,” the College asserts. “Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”
Similarly, Youth Trans Critical Professionals, a group of self-described “left-leaning, open-minded, and pro-gay rights” professionals, say it is risky to affirm young people who claim to be transgender and provide them with hormonal and surgical treatments to change their bodies.
“Our concern is with medical transition for children and youth,” states the group. “We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people.”
“Policies that encourage — either directly or indirectly — such medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion,” says the organization, which is composed of psychologists, social workers, doctors, and other professionals.
The professionals express “alarm” that, because of the current trendiness of being transgendered, many young people have decided they are a member of the opposite sex simply as a result of “binges” on social media sites. They describe a process of transgender activists recruiting these young people for their “cult.”
“There is evidence that vulnerable young people are being actively recruited and coached on such sites to believe that they are trans,” the professionals say.
Despite such potential mental health problems associated with gender confusion, children who claim to be the opposite sex are no longer legally permitted to see a therapist to get stabilizing “conversion therapy” in some states. Youth Trans Critical Professionals sees such state prohibitions as dangerous since they may block the process of critical thinking and evaluation of the young person regarding the reasons why he or she desires to become a transgender member of the opposite sex.
“While the sentiment behind this legislation is laudable, in some cases, it is being interpreted to mean that therapists cannot explore gender identity with a youth who is professing to be trans,” argue the professionals. “This would mean we can’t ask why; we can’t explore underlying mental health issues; we can’t consider the symbolic nature of the gender dysphoria; and we can’t look at possible confounding issues such as social media use or social contagion.”


 Facebook’s Snopes Fact-checkers: A Prostitute, a Dominatrix, an Accused Embezzler
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
CLAIM: “Facebook 'fact checker' who will arbitrate on 'fake news' is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes — and its staff includes an escort-porn star and 'Vice Vixen dome.'”
Although the above is the form used to introduce topics at “fact-checking” website, don’t hold your breath waiting for this particular claim to appear there anytime soon. This isn’t because the quoted sentence, a Daily Mail headline, is true or untrue. It’s because it’s all too revealing about Snopes’ CEO — in a “the emperor has no clothes” kind of way.
The claim of embezzlement was made by Snopes founder Barbara Mikkelson against co-founder and ex-husband David Mikkelson; the pair are locked in a bitter legal dispute in which they accuse each other of financial impropriety.

This he-said/she-said story takes on importance because of what Facebook recently said: that Snopes will be one of the fact-checking outlets it will use to determine if news is “fake” and should, therefore, be discredited and sent to Internet Siberia. Other Facebook fact-checkers are media organs such as ABC, the Associated Press, and Politifact — left-leaning entities all.
Not surprisingly, the Snopes fact-checking couple can’t agree on the facts surrounding their own decoupling. As the Daily Mail reports:
Legal filings seen by detail a lengthy financial and corporate dispute which stretches long after their divorce, and which one lawyer describes as 'contentious' in court documents.
In the filings, Barbara, 57, has accused her former husband, 56, of ‘raiding the corporate business Bardav bank account for his personal use and attorney fees’ without consulting her.
She also claimed he embezzled $98,000 from the company over the course of four years ‘which he expended upon himself and the prostitutes he hired’.
... In court records, Barbara alleged that her ex-husband removed thousands from their business accounts between April and June of 2016 to pay for trips for him and his ‘girlfriend’.
She claimed he spent nearly $10,000 on a 24-day ‘personal vacation’ in India this year and expensed his girlfriend’s plane ticket to Buenos Aires.
‘He’s been depleting the corporate account by spending monies from it on his personal expenses,’ said Barbara in a filing last June.
Of course, David disputes the above. He says the India trip was business-related — he was getting a sense of the culture because he’s considering establishing a fact-checking website on the subcontinent — and that he went to Buenos Aires for a fact-checking conference. The Mail doesn’t indicate that he disputed the allegations about company funds used for prostitutes.
What is not in dispute is that Snopes smacks of a den of iniquity. Having divorced Barbara last year, David married 47-year-old Elyssa Young, a longtime escort and porn actress whose working name is “Erin O'Bryn.” Note, David had previously hired Young to be an “administrative assistant” at Snopes.
Young has an “escort”-oriented Twitter page and website, which the Mail states appear to still be active, and has described herself as “a mature and experienced courtesan [what the less sophisticated call a ‘hooker’], idealist, activist & dreamer.”
The fees she dreams of, and presumably received, are $1,200 for four hours and $5,000 for a full 24. For that you can have “‘an elite and discreet companion’ who ‘understands that while pleasure and passion may be explored in the bedroom, it is hardly the only place,’” wrote Young.
It’s not known if David Mikkelson advertises for hires in a red-light district, but Young is perhaps not the strangest Snopes fact maven. As Breitbart informs, “Writing under the pseudonym Vice Vixen, Snopes fact-checker Kim LaCapria regularly wrote about sex and fetish gear on her own blog, which was described as a lifestyle blog ‘with a specific focus on naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and general hedonism and bonne vivante-ery.’ LaCapria’s blog often featured reviews of sex toys.... On another blog, LaCapria once described what she did on her day off, writing that she ‘played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.’ She then added, ‘That’s what I did on my day ‘on,’ too.’”
In other words, she admitted she has done her Snopes work while stoned.
LaCapria also revealed that she has strong dominatrix instincts and, more bizarrely still, said she was “addicted to smutty HP [Harry Potter] fanfic,” according to the Mail.
Why does this Enquirer-worthy story matter? Well, would you buy a used “fact” from these people? "The eye altering alters all,” observed poet William Blake. People enthusiastically indulging vice and unapologetically proclaiming it are called vice-ridden, and it’s risky to assume that amidst a pattern of vice a person would exhibit the virtue of honesty. Moreover, this quality and another virtue, diligence, are prerequisites for competence. Just ask yourself if you would retain the services of an auto mechanic, a baby-sitter, or a brain surgeon you knew had a LaCapria-like altered eye. Would you want to elect a politician who did?
Losing sight of the virtue/vice character yardstick creates an altered eye resulting in altered judgment. Just consider the Duke University rape frame-up case in 2006. Media and social activists formed a life-rending lynch mob against three white Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape by black stripper Crystal Mangum (now incarcerated for murder in an unrelated incident). As New York Times public editor Dan Okrent put it, alluding to the prejudices coloring judgment, “It was white over black, it was male over female, it was rich over poor, educated over uneducated.”
In fact, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was so corrupt in his prosecutorial efforts of the Duke trio that he was forced to resign and was disbarred. Yet common sense should have informed that strippers aren’t exactly reliable sources. Mind you, I’m not saying a rush to judgment should blithely dismiss such a person’s claims — only that a bigotry-born rush to misjudgment caused them to be blithely labeled gospel.
As for Young and LaCapria, a discerning eye can easily judge their politics. Young ran for “U.S. congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004, during which she handed out ‘Re-Defeat Bush’ cards and condoms stamped with the slogan ‘Don’t get sc[****]d again’,” reports the Mail. And the Daily Caller informs that LaCapria “describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans ‘regressive’ and afraid of ‘female agency’”; she also labeled the Tea Party “teahadists.”
Unsurprisingly, this is a bias that fancies fallacies and falsehoods fact. Here are a few examples, according to the Caller:
• “TheDC exposed a Snopes lie about the lack of American flags at the Democratic convention, trying to pass off a picture from day two of the convention as though it were from day one.”
• “[A] Snopes attempt at discrediting a news story from The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier this month was riddled with factual errors and omissions.”
• “Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as ‘rumors.’”
Of course, LaCapria did state that a “special focus” of her blog was “sin.” So maybe it’s no surprise that this would include the sin of lying — and that it wouldn’t be confined to only her more perverted pursuits.


 Calif. Governor Jerry Brown Vows to Resist Trump Climate Policies
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, who has a record as a strong environmentalist and who has attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris and the Climate Summit of the Americas in Toronto, has said that he will take California in a different direction if the incoming Trump administration relaxes environmental regulations or measures to fight against so-called “climate change.”
Brown gave an interview to the New York Times, which reported that he pledged to bypass Washington and work directly with other nations and states to defend and strengthen California’s environmental policies, which are already the most aggressive in the nation. Following the line prevailing among those who insist that carbon emissions contribute to climate change and global warming, Brown maintains that strict regulations are necessary to prevent such environmental calamities — a theory that has been disputed by many scientists.
“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in Washington,” said Brown in the Times interview. “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”
“Climate denial” is a term coined by supporters of the theory that climate change and so-called global warming are anthropogenic (caused by human activity) to dismiss those — including many respected environmental scientists — who have offered evidence to the contrary.

During the interview, Brown described Trump’s election as a setback for the climate movement, but predicted that it would be a temporary setback.
“In a paradoxical way, it could speed up the efforts of leaders in the world to take climate change seriously,” he said. “The shock of official congressional and presidential denial will reverberate through the world.”
Brown is not the first governor of California to buy into the global warming theory and to impose strict regulations on the state’s industrial segment. His predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005 that set so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for California as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Brown followed up by signing Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015, adding the intermediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Even the Times, which might be expected to be supportive of Brown’s liberal agenda, pointed out the pitfalls of the path the Golden State has taken, observing:
The environmental effort poses decided risks for this state. For one thing, Mr. Trump and Republicans have the power to undercut California’s climate policies. The Trump administration could reduce funds for the state’s vast research community — including two national laboratories — which has contributed a great deal to climate science and energy innovation, or effectively nullify state regulations on clean air emissions and automobile fuel standards.
“They could basically stop enforcement of the Clean Air Act and CO2 emissions,” said Hal Harvey, president of Energy Innovation, a policy research group in San Francisco. “That would affect California because it would constrain markets. It would make them fight political and legal battles rather than scientific and technological ones.”
The Times also quoted a statement from Rob Lapsley, the president of the California Business Roundtable, who warned that California’s aggressive regulatory agenda would make it difficult for the state to attract companies that might prefer to locate to states that are more business friendly. Said Lapsley:
If the other states pursue no-climate-change policies, and we continue to go it on our own with our climate change policies, then we would be at a competitive disadvantage for either relocating companies or growing companies here, particularly manufacturing factories.
Considering the dire economic consequences of imposing strict carbon emissions regulations on industry, it would seem prudent before putting them into effect to first weigh both their environmental and economic consequences to determine if they are necessary, or even desirable. As The New American’s writers have pointed out in numerous articles over the past several years, there is no unanimous consensus on climate change and global warming among the scientific community. Those articles have quoted many respected scientists offering evidence that not only are periods of global warming more likely to be the result of natural cyclical changes than human (anthropogenic) activity, but that the warming process has reversed itself and our Earth may actually have entered a cooling period!
As we noted in a recent article, climate blogger Tony Heller reported on November 13 that over the last eight months, global temperatures over land have cooled a record 1.2°C. Heller’s findings were charted on a graph posted on the website Heller was one of the speakers at the ninth International Conference on Climate Change held on July 9, 2014 in Las Vegas, delivering a talk titled “The Emperor’s New Climate.”
While this latest report may come as a surprise to many people, longtime readers of The New American will not be among them. In an article published by this magazine in 2013, foreign correspondent Alex Newman observed:
So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more.
While we could cite dozens of articles debunking both the theory that carbon emissions generated by humans are causing global warming, and the propaganda asserting that there is a consensus among scientists supporting that theory, space allows only one more reference. That is an article posted today titled: “Biggest Fake News Story: Global Warming and Phony Consensus.” The report cites a recent article in The Atlantic asking: “Are Climate Scientists Ready for Trump?” The article's writer, Robinson Meyer, posed several questions, including, “How should climate scientists react to a president-elect who calls global warming a ‘hoax'? How much should they prepare for his administration? And should they prepare for the worst?”
In The Atlantic article, Meyer notes that on the first day of the recent American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco, the thousands of assembled scientists heard from Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes, the politically motivated ideologue who is most responsible for perpetrating the “scientific consensus” fraud regarding anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, or AGW.
The New American’s Alex Newman pointed out that this magazine has repeatedly reported on the fraudulent methodology used by Oreskes and Australian global warming activist John Cook to arrive at their unsubstantiated claims of near-unanimous consensus for their global warming theory. The article notes that  Prof. Richard S. J. Tol and Dr. Benny Peiser are but two of the experts who have exposed Oreskes and Cook, showing that only one percent of climate research papers — not 97 percent — support the “consensus” view claimed by the AGW alarmists. (See herehere, and here.)
The article continues:
However, no amount of debunking, and no amount of evidence, will change the “crisis” mindset that grips many of the media commentators. CNN’s Chris Cuomo is a prime example of the arrogance of ignorance among the committed AGW media meisters. In a combative “interview” on December 12, CNN’s Chris Cuomo went after Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci, repeatedly citing the false claim that the science is settled and that “science” has declared we must accept vast new global governance and controls to avert planetary catastrophe.
Since the AGW is a major source of global warming disinformation, Newman offers this advice to the incoming Trump administration: “The new administration must move quickly and decisively to dismantle and defund the huge federally-funded AGW lobby and withdraw all U.S. support for the UN’s destructive Paris Agreement, which President Obama has illegally tried to bind the United States to through executive agreement.”

Related articles:
Biggest Fake News Story: Global Warming and Phony Consensus
Former Climate Chairman Calls Out Inaccuracies of Data and Models
Education Author Exposes Environmentalist Movement’s Agenda
Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory
Climate Scare Over: Top Experts Expose Scam at Freedom Confab
Media Blasted for “Fake News” on Trump's Climate Stance
With Obama Out, Communist China Takes Lead on UN “Climate” Scam
Skeptic to UN Climate Conference: Global Warming Is Bunk
Greenies, Lefties Protest Dakota Access Pipeline With Violence
Climate-change Report: Record Global COOLING Over Last Eight Months
Earth Is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say
Establishment Boasts Its Paris Climate Agreement Now a Done Deal
Multiple Studies Refute Claims of Rising Seas Due to Global Warming
Documentary “Climate Hustle” Exposes Global-warming Con Job
Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again — and Again, and Again


 Congress Planning to Defund UN as Critics Seek Full Withdrawal
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
U.S. lawmakers and pro-Israel activists are calling for an end to American taxpayer funding of the United Nations after a controversial UN Security Council vote declared some Israeli settlements to be illegal. Congress is already planning to cut the UN's funding in response to the UN scheme. The growing outrage also came from President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed that the UN situation would change once he is in the Oval Office. But other critics of the UN said defunding the “dictators club” would not be enough, and that it was past time for the U.S. government and other civilized member states to ditch the scandal-plagued global body altogether.
The most recent wave of outrage surrounding the UN came in response to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, a deeply controversial measure adopted on December 23 with 14 votes in favor and the Obama administration abstaining. Among other controversies, the measure purports to declare the Jewish presence in parts of Jerusalem and an area known to Jews as Judea and Samaria (“West Bank” to Arabs) to be a “flagrant violation” of what the UN likes to call “international law.” Basically, the UN and more than a few of its autocratic member regimes do not think Jews should be allowed to live in East Jerusalem and other areas. 
Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the UN and its “shameful” resolution, vowing to ignore it and curtail relations with the governments and regimes responsible for the scheme. “Israel rejects the anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement ridiculing the UN. “Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.” 
Trump, a longtime critic of the UN and globalism in general, was among those to speak out, albeit more mildly than on the campaign trail. “The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!,” said Trump on social media after having previously noted that the UN was not a friend of Israel, freedom, or the United States. Unfortunately, as explained by its own founders, the UN was always designed to be progressively strengthened. And it already does much more damage than it would if it were merely a place for people to talk and have a good time at taxpayer expense. Trump sent out another statement blasting Obama and the UN, urging Israel to “stay strong” because “January 20th is fast approaching!”
But the world may not have to wait until Trump is sworn in for concrete action. Leading Democrats and Republicans alike have fervently denounced the UN and slammed the Obama administration for failing to exercise the U.S. government's veto to stop the scheme. Even ultra-far-left U.S. lawmakers slammed the UN scheme, with Congressman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) blasting it as “a one-sided, biased resolution.” Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), another pro-UN globalist who also happens to be pro-Israel, blasted the UN as a “fervently anti-Israel body” that has been that way since it declared Zionism to be racism. Other Democrats also rushed to put out statements condemning the UN resolution.
Republicans — even of the globalist and neocon variety — were also furious at the UN vote. Perhaps most vocal was conservative Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is leading the charge to cut all U.S. funding to the UN. “The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final assault on Israel,” he was quoted as saying, reminding Obama that Congress reconvenes soon and that under the U.S. Constitution, Congress controls the money. On social media, he said: “No US $ for UN until reversed.” Other GOP lawmakers agreed.
Even neocon globalist and reliable establishment figure Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee for the State Department and foreign operations, vowed to push for Congress to stop funding the UN. “The UN has made it impossible for us to continue with business as usual,” Graham said. “Almost every Republican will feel like this is a betrayal of Israel and the only response that we have is the power of purse.”
“This is a road we haven’t gone down before,” Graham was quoted as saying in media reports, adding that the UN was increasingly being viewed as anti-Semitic. “If you can’t show the American people that international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to be a break. And I am going to lead that break.” A number of other GOP senators have already pledged their support, and media reports suggested that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would also be on board.
Senate aides quoted in a number of media reports said a variety of options were under consideration. Among them: defunding the UN, defunding certain UN programs and policies, withdrawing from UN agencies such as the communist-controlled UNESCO, and even passing legislation to protect any Jews targeted by the UN who may also be American citizens. Also being considered is cutting off funds for the U.S. taxpayer-funded Palestinian Authority, and even the possibility of expelling its diplomats in the United States.
While the situation is likely to get more dramatic after Trump is sworn in, congressional officials speaking to reporters off the record said action could begin as soon as next week when lawmakers reconvene. “We will make a very strong attempt to do something immediately,” one senior GOP senate aide told the pro-Obama, pro-Clinton, pro-UN Washington Post. “It is a real moment to re-examine the relationship with the United Nations and what it really does.”
Even Israel's most vehement American critics have realized that the UN's behavior is bizarre — the UN and its various agencies have condemned Israel more often than all other governments on earth, combined. The U.S. government, of course, pays more for the UN than 185 other member governments and dictators — combined. And yet the UN, when it is not demonizing Israel, spends much of its time haranguing Americans and others to surrender their God-given rights under various guises.
From free speech and religious freedom to gun rights and due process, the UN has become increasingly bold and vicious when it comes to attacking the unalienable rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. It is also increasingly threatening U.S. independence and self-government as it seeks to empower itself as what UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the “Parliament of Humanity.”
For those reasons and others, The John Birch Society, a constitutionalist group with chapters in all 50 states, has long worked to not just defund the UN, but to get the U.S. government out of the UN and the UN off U.S. soil. “For over 56 years, The John Birch Society has been warning and educating the American people of the danger called the United Nations,” JBS CEO Art Thompson said, a reference to the 56-year-old “Get US Out of the United Nations” campaign. “The recent brouhaha is only the tip of the iceberg relative to the harm that the UN has done since its very founding by those who wish to destroy the independence of the United States — indeed all nations — on the road to a one world government led by megalomaniacs.”
Other prominent commentators also referenced the JBS campaign amid the recent furor over the Israeli settlements resolution. Conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan picked up on comments by senators Schumer and Graham blasting and threatening the UN to illustrate the escalating fury over the global outfit. “If the folks over at the John Birch Society still have some of those bumper stickers — Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S.! — they might FedEx a batch over to Schumer and Graham,” Buchanan quipped in his latest column. “May have some converts here.”
More than a few other prominent conservative commentators said plans to defund the UN did not go far enough. David Greenfield at FrontPage Magazine went through a litany of UN crimes, abuses, and horrors before saying that “we and every sane country” should have defunded the UN decades ago. “If you give money to the U.N., it will end up anywhere and everywhere except where it’s supposed to go,” he continued. “But defunding the U.N. isn’t enough. There is no reason for us to remain there at all.”
He said the U.S. government should “defund and withdraw” from the scandal-plagued outfit. “The billions we waste on the U.N. will go toward taking care of our people,” he added. “And once we are free of the U.N., we will actually be able to promote real human rights instead of pandering to the dictators and Islamists of the United Nations.”
Former Senator and GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum, meanwhile, said the growing crisis in relations between the UN and the U.S. government was the perfect opportunity for those seeking to abolish the UN altogether. “This has opened up the opportunity for those of us who are very anti-U.N., who think that it has passed its prime, it’s not serving any really good purpose, it’s not helping legitimate governments around the world and it’s outlived its usefulness,” he was quoted as saying. “To the extent we can deconstruct it, the better.”
Santorum also suggested Trump's focus could now move from NATO, a UN subsidiary, to the UN itself. “The focus will come off NATO and will move squarely onto the U.N.,” Santorum explained to a pro-UN propagandist at the anti-Trump Washington Post, which claimed the U.S. was better off with a functioning UN in a propaganda piece about the upcoming "war" between Trump and the UN. “It’s going to be a very raucous time. Barack Obama, with this move, did more damage to the United Nations than he did to Israel.”
Conservative media outlet WND is circulating a petition slamming the UN and calling for a U.S. withdrawal. “It is outrageous an organization hosted on American soil, protected by American arms, funded by American tax dollars and built upon a global order sustained by the United States seemingly spends all its time attacking America and its ally Israel,” reads the petition, signed by thousands of people so far since it was published on December 27. “The United States should stand with its allies and in defense of its own principles rather than continuing to pay the bills of an organization which has all but openly declared itself an enemy both of our Republic and the besieged Jewish State.”
Writing in PJ Media, Roger Simon, co-founder of the conservative outlet, also said it was time to take on the UN. Ridiculing the UN as a “moribund center of international corruption and megaphone for tin-pot dictators,” Simon suggested that Trump could find savings to rebuild the military and U.S. infrastructure by ending funding of the “clowns” at the UN. “Although, in this case, it would be useful to negotiate the entire institution out of existence, or at least impoverish it to the degree it will have to decamp from Manhattan and leave that pricey Turtle Bay real estate for better purposes,” he said, adding that there is apparently lots of empty space in Yemen.
“I wouldn't doubt you would have all your deplorables solidly behind you in this negotiation/defunding and a lot more of the country as well, once they get full knowledge of exactly how much we're actually paying for this insanity,” Simon continued. “As with most things, they haven't been told by our media, who have no interest in informing the public on anything that might disrupt their narrative.” But the truth is getting out anyway, and the American people overwhelmingly think the UN is doing a bad job.
Even some neocons and establishment loyalists called for taking serious action against the rogue international body. Columnist and establishment talking head Charles Krauthammer, for example, a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations that has been instrumental in surrendering U.S. sovereignty for generations, suggested on Fox News’ “Special Report” that Trump should turn UN headquarters in New York City into condos.
“We’re paying an organization that spends half its time — more than half its time and energy and resources and bureaucracy trying to attack the only Jewish state on the planet, a tiny little spec, while genocide, mayhem, murder, terrorism is going on all over the world,” declared Krauthammer, a neocon. “It’s an obsession that to an outside a observer appears to be insane. And the rest of the time is spent undermining the United States and democracy [sic] and our allies around the world. It is an organization that exacerbates tensions, it does not assuage them.... It turned out to be a disaster.”
While stopping short of calling for an American exit (Amexit) from the UN, Krauthammer did suggest getting the UN out of the United States. “Any move to minimize our support for it, any move to get it out of the U.S. — imagine if [UN] headquarters were in Zimbabwe. The amount of weight and coverage it would get would be zero. I think that’s good real estate in downtown New York City, and Trump ought to find a way to put his name on it and turn it into condos.” Considering the UN’s three tributes to mass-murdering Cuban dictator Fidel Castro so far in the weeks after his death, Havana might make a good spot for UN headquarters as well.
With the UN, there is much more at stake than Israeli settlements. And there are plenty of reasons to support a U.S. government withdrawal, or an “Amexit,” from the UN beyond the recent resolution. Legislation to secure an Amexit, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, has been introduced in practically every Congress for decades. With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and large swaths of the American public in outrage mode over the latest anti-Israel vote, the time has never been better to Get US Out of the United Nations. Concerned Americans should contact their elected representatives to make their feelings known.

Related articles:
UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements Prompts Mixed Reactions
Barack Backhands Bibi
UN Seeks to Prosecute Israelis for "War Crimes" in Global Court
Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN
#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist
UN “Human Rights” Body, Run by Dictators, Ridiculed in Congress
UN "Human Rights" Boss Equates Trump, Farage With ISIS
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.
UN Schools Caught Teaching Arab Children to Wage Jihad on Jews
Deputy Knesset Speaker Feiglin on Iran, Arab Spring, U.S. Aid, and More


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand,” tweeted Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in reaction to President Barack Obama designating two national monuments Wednesday at sites in Nevada and in Lee’s home state of Utah.
Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, stated that the action will not allow any new mining or oil and gas development within the monument boundaries.
The Bears Ears National Monument in Utah designation adds even more land to the control of the federal government, covering 1.35 million acres in the Four Corners region. While Lee and many other residents of the states affected by Obama’s latest executive order reacted angrily, conservationists were ecstatic.
The proposed monument is located in between existing national parks and the Navajo Indian Reservation. Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye called it an exciting day for members of his tribe. “We have always looked to Bears Ears as a place of refuge, as a place where we can gather herbs and medicinal plants, and a place of prayer and sacredness,” he said. “The rocks, the winds, the land — they are living, breathing things that deserve timely and lasting protection.”
Today, the federal government owns two-third of the land in Utah. In the case of Bears Ears, the federal government will “co-manage” the land not with the state of Utah, but rather with five tribes: the Hopi, the Navajo Nation, the Uintah-Ouray Utes, the Ute Mountain Ute, and the Pueblo of Zuni.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called the action by Obama “an astonishing and egregious abuse of executive power," which indicated to him that “far-left special interest groups matter more to him than the people who have lived on and cared for Utah’s lands for generations.” Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) also expressed his disapproval of Obama's actions: "The midnight move is a slap in the face to the people of Utah, attempting to silence the voices of those who will bear the heavy burden it imposes. It does not have the support of the governor, a single member of the state’s congressional delegation, nor any local elected officials or state legislators who represent the area."
Such disrespect for the wishes of the population and its elected officials of the area affected is yet another indication of the low regard in which the Obama administration holds the principle of federalism. Utah's Attorney General Sean Reyes has promised to sue over the action.

In Nevada, the Gold Butte National Monument has been a site of controversy for more than 15 years. Environmentalists have worked feverishly to stop the expansion of Las Vegas in order to protect various indigenous species such as the desert tortoise. Local cattle rancher Cliven Bundy made national news when he refused to recognize the authority of the federal government over the land, eventually engaging in an armed standoff with officials of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2014.
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and U.S. Senator Dean Heller, both Republicans, contend that it is Congress that should make land designations, not the president. But Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the retiring Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate, actually pushed for the designation for the remote area northeast of Lake Mead, claiming it's "a wonderful capstone to [my] career of fighting to protect Nevada’s pristine landscapes.”
Obama said his action will “protect some of our country’s most important cultural treasures, including abundant rock art, archaeological sites, and lands considered sacred by Native American tribes. Today’s actions will help protect this cultural legacy and will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and appreciate these scenic and historic landscapes.”
He defended the legality of his designation of 1.35 million acres as now off-limits to new energy development and recreation by citing the 1906 Antiquities Act, a law passed during the Progressive Era in which Congress gave up power to the president to designate national monuments on his own, without approval from Congress. The Antiquities Act was passed at the urging of progressive Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, a strong believer not only in government taking over private land “to conserve it,” but also in increasing the power of the president. He argued that a president should be able to do anything that he is not forbidden to do under the Constitution, and is therefore generally regarded as the one most responsible for changing the office of president into what is now called “the Imperial Presidency.”
Interestingly, Homer Cummings, the U.S. attorney general for President Franklin Roosevelt, issued an opinion in 1938 that while presidents could remove land from private use under the 1906 law, they could not reverse such executive actions. Republicans in Congress, incensed at Obama’s repeated use of executive orders to circumvent the will of Congress, are threatening to change the law in January.

While Franklin Roosevelt used the law to limit use of land in the West the most during his 12 years in office, Obama has taken the most land: 554,590,000 acres. this latest action is the 29th time Obama has used the power to create national monuments.
Only William Howard Taft has reduced the amount of land taken by the federal government (only 500 acres). Only four presidents did not use the power at all — Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford added a mere 90 acres.
It appears that Obama is doing his best to take as many actions as he can to advance his progressive viewpoint in the little time he has left in office. For example, he has blocked additional mining outside of Yellowstone National Park, and has stopped new oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Donald Trump is slated to take the oath of office as the 45th president on January 20, 2017, and environmentalists have expressed deep concern that he will attempt to alter Obama’s land “protections.”
This is an opportunity for the Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress, and the White House to rein in both the excessive power of the Imperial Presidency, and the policy of the federal government controlling more and more land in the western states. Whether they will actually do so remains to be seen.


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

December 30, 2016
The Declaration of Independence was written to proclaim to the world the many reasons for seeking freedom from tyranny from England. The Declaration enumerates a detailed list of legal offenses that Great Britain had left unresolved, the awakening Founders saw them as more than isolated wrongs. Rather they saw them as a part of a predetermined plan to take away their religious liberties and reestablish the Church of England to rule over their hearts and souls, thus enslaving the colonies.
In that light one understands the amazing power of Patrick Henry’s volcanic words. Faced with such prospects, the Declaration stated that the American colonists were set to defend: the laws of nature and nature’s God” words that define the principles upon which the Founders stood. The laws of nature were understood to mean the will of God for man as revealed to man’s reason. However, because man is fallen and his reason does not always comprehend this law, God gave his law in the Bible to make it totally clear.
Therefore it was the CHURCHES that became the primary vehicle to stir the embers of Liberty, telling colonists that the English government was usurping their God given rights, and the King and Parliament were abusing the laws of God. Thus, the Founding Fathers were convinced that it was their sacred duty to start a revolution to uphold the laws of God. The Founding Fathers were convinced that it was their sacred duty to begin a revolution to uphold the law of God against the unjust and aggressive laws of men. The battle for political liberty was an unalienable right, according to God’s natural law.
As it is noted in the American Patriot’s Bible New England ministers, in particular were decisive in rallying the popular moral support for war against England. They pressed their congregations to overthrow King George because they believed that rebellion to tyrants was obedience to God. From numerous pulpits ministers recruited troops and strengthened them in battle with patriotic sermons. While the church leaders were well schooled in the fact that the Bible placed great emphasis on due submission to civil authorities (Romans 13), they noted there are also many passages that approve resistance to ungodly authority.
For example, when the apostles were commanded by the Sanhedrin to cease preaching that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, Peter boldly asserted, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (acts 5:29). To further explain, the early apostles were not about to allow the right to freely spread the gospel to be taken away. Therefor it is no coincidence that one of the watchwords of the American Revolution was “No King but King Jesus.”
For most of the patriots, their faith gave them the courage to stand on God’s word and risk their lives and properties to break the tyranny of an unjust human authority. It was many northern ministers and their engaged congregations that would later fight and pray against the scourge of slavery. When one researches the history of Christian involvement in our republic from it’s infancy it is easy to comprehend that Christians were aware of the issues of the day and cared about where and how they lived.
In more recent years, beginning after World War Two ministers began to preach against being involved in the issues of the day regarding our republic. The one major exception was during the civil rights era during the 1960s. But unfortunately, for the most part the church proudly gave up her seat of moral authority in society. One can blame the many years of indoctrination against the necessity of Christian involvement and providential guidance. 
 Even many mainline denominations are run by individuals who don’t even believe in the deity of Christ and have been watering down the teachings of God’s instructions. As a result of tossing God’s principles out of society and lessening the standard of education overall, our republic’s quality of life and stature in the world has been in steep decline.

The good news is as I have predicted for years on my syndicated radio commentary “The Edwards Notebook” that a large remnant of Christians would awaken from their moral and spiritual stupor and pray to God and seek His forgiveness for negligence and not caring about the condition of our nation. That movement of prayer grew to many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. But now Christians are starting to take their rightful place in society as participants, rather than just wimpy onlookers from the sidelines.
Instead of pointing fingers and proclaiming how dirty politics is we should be the best we can be, get involved and help drain the swamp. But without Providential guidance and actions in society, the progressives will reach their goal of seeing America become one nation gone under.




Don’t believe in Jesus’ virgin birth? 
Not a problem, says Andy Stanley
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Andy Stanley
Political Insider
AJC blog about Atlanta politics, Georgia politics, Georgia and metro Atlanta election campaigns. Because all politics is local.
December 27, 2016
| Filed in: Southern Baptists

December has apparently proven to be an interesting month for the Rev. Andy Stanley, son of a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and lead pastor of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta — one of the largest congregations in the country.
Though it is only now breaking in to the open, the Baptist world has been rocked by a Dec. 4 sermon in which the son of famed TV evangelist Charles Stanley discounted the importance of believing in the virgin birth of Jesus. His entry point:
“A lot of people just don’t believe it. And I understand that. Maybe the thought is, ‘Hey, maybe they had to come up with some myth about Jesus to give him street cred, you know, later on.’ Maybe that’s where that came from.

“It’s interesting, because Matthew gives us a version of the birth of Christ, Luke does, but Mark and John – they don’t even mention it. A lot has been made of that….

“You’ve heard me say some version of this a million times, so this will be old if you’ve been around for a while. But see, if somebody can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world.”
Many Baptists were aghast at what they saw as an unexpected new front opening up in the war on Christmas. From Baptist Global News:
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., took exception to Stanley’s view in a Dec. 16 podcast describing the Bible stories about Christ’s incarnation as “the central truth claim of Christmas.”

“Just in recent days, one Christian leader was quoted as saying that if Jesus predicted his death and then was raised from the dead, it doesn’t matter how he came into the world,” Mohler said. “But the Bible insists it really does matter and the answer given from Scripture very clear in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Luke is that Jesus was born to a virgin.”
We’ll let the religion desk of the Washington Post weigh in as well:
This is not the first time Stanley…has had to defend remarks from his sermons. Earlier this year, after critics accused him of downplaying the authority of scripture, the nondenominational pastor attributed the issue to his nontraditional preaching style.

“The real story is the handful of Southern Baptist professors and writers (not so much preachers) who seem to have nothing else to do but listen to bits and pieces of my messages,” he said in his statement to The Post. “Anyone who listens to all three [sermons in the series] will know that I stand firmly within the orthodox Christian tradition regarding the incarnation of Jesus — including the birth narratives as presented [in] Matthew and Luke.”

Stanley also said he believes people can become Christians without knowing the narratives around Jesus’ birth.
 (Friday Church News Notes, December 30, 2016,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is from Matt Costella,
 Fundamental Evangelistic Association, Dec. 23, 2016: 
Andy Stanley, pastor of North Pointe Ministries in the Atlanta area, is no 
stranger to controversy. Stanley has made numerous statements just this 
past year that have generated controversy and resulted in backlash from 
conservative evangelicals. But Stanley’s December 3, 2016, sermon may be
 the most controversial yet. In his sermon, Stanley minimized the 
importance—if not the reality—of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. ‘A 
lot of people don’t believe it, and I understand that,’ Stanley said. He
 added, ‘Maybe the thought is they had to come up with some kind of myth
 about the birth of Jesus to give him street cred later on. Maybe that’s
 where that came from’ (Baptist News Global,
 ‘Virgin Birth Debate Interrupts Regular ‘War on Christmas’ Program,’ 
12-21-16). Stanley then noted that it is interesting that only 2 of the 4
 gospels mention the virgin birth, and said ‘Christianity doesn’t hinge 
on the truth or even the stories around the birth of Jesus … It really 
hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.’ Earlier this year, Stanley 
minimized the importance of the role Scripture plays in the life of the 
believer, and minimizing the importance of the virgin birth of Christ is
 simply the next step in this downward trajectory. The virgin birth of 
Christ is vitally important, for without the virgin birth, mankind would
 not have a Savior (the God-man) and no resurrection could have 
occurred! Despite what Stanley says, Christianity does
 hinge on the truth surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ. Stanley’s 
statements are dangerous and his conclusions are completely 
unbiblical. Discerning believers must beware of those who minimize vital
 doctrinal truths in an attempt to relate to those who reject such 
truths in the first place.”

Andy Stanley: Virgin Birth and Bible are Not Important