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

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

BY HEATHER CLARK

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

 

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

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

Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and James Lankford, R-Okla., recently introduced the “Protect Funding for Women’s Health Care Act” with the support of 127 co-sponsors.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no federal funds may be made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors or clinics,” the bill reads in part. “All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women’s health care services.”
The Act notes that community health centers, local health departments, physicians’ offices and others provide a variety of women’s services and pregnancy care—minus the killing. Reports state that there are over 13,500 community health centers alone that assist with women’s health.

“Such health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postpartum care, immunization, family planning services such as contraception, sexually transmitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and referrals,” the bill outlines. “Many such entities provide services to all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and provide services in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved populations.”
As previously reported, the organization Live Action found in an investigation that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood locations do not offer prenatal care, and ultrasounds are only conducted in order to perform a guided abortion.
Sen. Lankford opined in a statement that the federal government should not be distributing millions in taxpayer funds to a controversial organization such as Planned Parenthood.

“For years, our nation has debated life and abortion, but at least we should agree that no taxpayer should be forced to fund the largest provider of abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars,” he said. “There is no reason for a private non-governmental organization, like Planned Parenthood, to receive $500 million a year in taxpayer money.”
Lankford also noted that “[r]edirecting taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood to other entities that provide women’s health care won’t put Planned Parenthood out of business; it will just ensure that taxpayers don’t fund their activities.”
As previously reported, according to Planned Parenthood’s annual report, during the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the organization received $553 million in taxpayer funding/grants in 2014, up from $528 million the year prior, which equated to 43 percent of its total income. $48 million of Planned Parenthood’s income was used for sex education, and $39 million was used for public policy, or to influence legislation, up from $33 million in 2013. Despite its expenditures, it still garnered a $61 million dollar profit.
It aborted 323,999 babies nationwide during that fiscal year, equating to approximately one-third of the more than 900,000 annual abortions in America.
Planned Parenthood has not yet released its 2015-2016 report for unknown reasons.

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

 

Ted Malloch: America’s Nigel Farage Takes on EU

 Published on Feb 7, 2017

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

 "'DAVOS MAN' Is Dead" Says Trump EU Ambassador

 Published on Feb 6, 2017

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

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

BY BOB ADELMANN

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

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

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

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

Malloch said, “Trump won’t cow down to the powers that be. He’ll speak his mind even if it gets him in trouble or held in disregard for others. It used to be called honesty but in the age of baby talk and political correctness, and mostly bullshit, it’s now regarded as dishonesty.”
EU leaders and media supporters have seen this coming since November. Patrick Wintour, the diplomatic editor for the liberal British paper The Guardian, spelled it out last Friday:

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

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

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

Previous pronouncements from Malloch have confirmed that intent. In January Malloch told BBC News, “I had a previous career in a diplomatic post where I helped bring down the Soviet Union. So maybe there’s another union that needs a little taming.” Malloch was a vocal supporter of Brexit, and has predicted that the euro would collapse. He expressed his hope that all members of the European Union would hold similar referendums.
In January Malloch, in an interview on BBC One’s This Week, said that Donald Trump doesn’t like the idea of EU’s “integration”: “[He] doesn’t like an organization that is supranational, that is unelected, where the bureaucrats run amok, and is not frankly a proper democracy.”
Malloch can be best described as the insiders’ “maverick,” supporting various efforts but not buying into the ideology. He has served — he calls himself a Sherpa — on the executive board of the World Economic Forum, which hosts the Davos meeting of elites in Switzerland every year. He has held an ambassadorial position in the UN. He headed up the consulting division of Wharton-Chase Econometrics. He worked at the international banking firm Salomon Brothers. He served in senior policy positions with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, as well as in the U.S. State Department. He is a research professor at Yale.
He’s even expressed support for the EU in the past, but usually with a qualifying disclaimer: The EU is a “very important arrangement that was largely brought about by American contributions.… For some long decades it’s been absolutely critical to the trans-Atlantic alliance and to US-Europe relations.” But he added, “I do believe it has more and more become a supranational organization with political ambitions that probably don’t fit with all of its member states’ ambitions.”
He has spoken critically of some of the EU’s top people, including European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. Juncker, said Malloch, “was a very adequate mayor, I think, of some city in Luxembourg, and maybe he should go back and do that again.”
This has not surprisingly generated genuine concern among those top people. The liberal leader of the European Parliament, Guy Verofstadt, and the head of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, sent a letter to Juncker last week demanding that the EU not grant “credentials” to Malloch if Trump does in fact name him as his ambassador to the organization. The letter cited Malloch’s “outrageous malevolence against the values that define this European Union. We are strongly convinced that people seeing as their mission to disrupt or dissolve the European Union should not be accredited as official representatives to the EU.”
Nervousness bordering on panic has forced the New York Times to weigh in against Trump as Malloch’s potential employer. Steven Erlanger of the Times launched a broadside against the president: “Mr. Trump has expressed disdain for other multilateral institutions such as the European Union, His praise has been reserved for populists and strongmen, like Nigel Farage, the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and, of course, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.” Erlanger added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN LESSON PLANS TEACH KIDS TO GET CIVILIANS TO "TURN IN GUNS"

UN LESSON PLANS TEACH KIDS TO GET CIVILIANS TO "TURN IN GUNS" 

BY  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

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

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

The United Nations (UN) is offering lesson plans for teaching American and Canadian children about the benefits of civilian disarmament and to familarize them with “the process by which the international community, regional organizations, and the UN encourage the practice of disarmament.”
Over the course of six lessons, teachers using the “Disarmament Education Programme” prepared by the United Nations Association in Canada will indoctrinate students to accept the UN as a global government and an engine of peace with the goal of creating a “world without weapons.”
The lesson titles should be enough to enrage every person who recognizes that the first act of any would-be autocrat is to disarm the people they intend to command. 
Lesson One serves as an introduction to the topic, informing North American schoolchildren that weapons lead to violence and that this gun-related violence leads to “human and environmental destruction” (there they go again surreptitiously packaging the Agenda 21 agenda into another program), and this destruction “affects everyone regardless of race, age, nationality, or gender.”

During the second class period devoted to Lesson One, kids are instructed that in order to end the violence, they must cooperate in “creating a culture of change at local, national, and global levels.” They must begin immediately to “analyze cultural messages and the prevalence of armament in our society” so that they may begin to identify allies who will join them in “working toward disarmament.”
In Lesson Two, the drilling on the glory of disarmament gets so much worse.
The lesson plan for this section challenges the students to “analyze the rationale for gun ownership.” Once they’ve investigated this issue, they are to identify “successes and challenges in the campaign to ban small arms and light weapons.”
Yes, it really says that, and that’s not nearly the end.
Next, the kids are tasked with learning their nation’s gun control laws and proposing ways that “individuals, groups, and institutions” can change those laws in ways that advance the aim of complete civilian disarmament.
Students are told that “one person dies per minute” as a victim of gun violence.
The types of weapons that must be seized in order to secure global peace are then listed for the students: revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and light machine guns.
Why, the UN asks the students, must the listed weapons be outlawed for civilian ownership?
“Guns wound and kill individuals and serve as devices to frighten and terrorize; it is very difficult to build and sustain progress when people are fearful for their lives. As a result, countries that suffer from gun violence are often stunted in development.”
Students, instructed as to the urgent need of ending the ability of individuals to own small arms, are then informed as to “the reason[s] for a person’s desire to own small arms":

Exert power over others

Accepted cultural norms of civilian owning guns

For vengeance, if past violence has been suffered

To be seen as a person of great status

That list of reasons is taken verbatim from the UN’s disarmament lesson plans.
Since the desire to own guns is often complex, the kids must realize that the solutions they propose “should address not only the guns themselves, but the economic and social development of the country, as well.”
In other words, disarm the people, make them dependent upon the government for every aspect of human existence, and then the world will be peaceful.
The final lesson, Lesson Five, is entitled “Road to Disarmament and Non-Proliferation: A Human Security Approach,” and it is designed to convince students that “human security” is the key to peace, and that “human security” will only be achieved when they “put in place laws and procedures to control ... the production of small arms and light weapons” and when they “ensure that good records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding, and transfer of these weapons.”
Should national governments fail to enact these disarmament solutions, then it may become necessary for the UN to “separate people from their states.”
Finally, Lesson Five challenges the kids to come up with “ideas to convince locals to turn in their weapons” and to “encourage the civilian population to hand in … weapons, explosives, and ammunition.”
These lesson plans are no doubt to be implemented by teachers sympathetic to the disarmament agenda, likely without the knowledge or approval of local school boards. The students in these classes will be unaware that they are being brainwashed, and their proclivity to put faith in the words of their teachers will incline them to imbibe deeply the draughts of disarmament being pumped into their classrooms.

SOROS PUPPET JUDGE AIDS ISIS BY BLOCKING TRUMP

Soros Puppet Judge Aids ISIS by Blocking Trump 

Published on Feb 5, 2017

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

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

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

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

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