Wednesday, March 1, 2017



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

March 1, 2017
Stop the Fight, Let’s Unite
On Saturday, March 4th, Spirit of America rallies will take place all over the country. The events are being heralded as Pro-Trump rallies, intended to unite and counter the divisional protest marches being held in opposition to our President.
Main Street Patriots has a list of events, by State, with times and locations available HERE. There is also a Facebook Page HEREMarch for Trump is HERE.
Vincent Harvey, an Air Force veteran felt it was time to do something positive for President Trump. Haney said, “The idea for the event came out of the blue. I was inspired to do something supportive to offset the wave of negativity and lies.” Haney was inspired after seeing multiple protests, including the debased Women’s March, and the violence and destruction by Soros paid protestors.
What first started out as a single march in Washington D.C. has grown into a nationwide movement. The grassroots formed March4Trump is receiving increased sponsorship for its nationwide event. The goal of these marches and rallies is to peacefully unite all people. March4Trump is seeking only individuals who wish to spread love rather than hate, unite rather than divide, and support rather than resistance.
Joy Villa DC Keynote Speaker
March4Trump is pleased to announce, Singer Joy Villa , has accepted our invitation to be a keynote speaker at the March 4th event in Washington DC. She, along with the March4Trump Organization, are seeking to unite the Nation together in support of our newly elected President.
Joy Villa gained national attention by attending the Grammy’s in a Make America Great Again gown designed by Andre Soriano. Ms. Villa was one of a select few among the Hollywood elite to publicly show support for President Donald J. Trump. “I support our country and our president, I’m proud to be an American woman supporting March4Trump,” said Villa in a statement.

 This bold statement brought other celebrity’s out who were silent about their support. Her support of Trump increased her record sales, and boosted Ms. Villa’s self-released five song E.P. “I Make the Static” to number one on both iTunes and Amazon’s Best Sellers Lists, and gave her hit number 12 on the Billboard charts.

Other well-known celebrities will attend marches across the country. This is a peaceful assembly. The promoters are asking that marchers do not impede traffic, litter, vandalize, or do anything else unbefitting to Americans supporting our President. Any violators will be asked to leave and turned over to authorities when appropriate. If your intentions are other than peaceful this event is not for you.
[P.S. In order to wake up the population, we need to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh) and mention on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]
 Patriot Of The Day: YOU! 
 Noon - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - 
Washington Monument to the 
 March 4 Trump T Shirt, Hoodie, Tank 2017 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
One of the organizers for the next women’s anti-Trump march is an illegal immigrant who was convicted of terrorism. According to the Daily Mail, Rasmea Yousef Odeh (shown), 69, is a former member of the Marxist-Leninist group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) who was convicted of killing two men in a bombing at an Israeli supermarket and is facing deportation for lying about her involvement in it in her citizenship application. Odeh and her fellow organizers are calling on women to take part in an anti-capitalist, feminist march next month to oppose President Trump and his “aggressively misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and racist policies.”
In an open letter to the British newspaper The Guardian, Odeh, along with eight other women, claim that the women's marches on January 21 marked the beginning of a new age of feminism. The letter's co-authors encourage women to take part in an “international strike against male violence and in defense of reproductive rights” on March 8. The letter calls upon women to “mobilize” and oppose capitalism and usher in a new and more “militant’ feminism, stating:
The kind of feminism we seek is already emerging internationally, in struggles across the globe: from the women’s strike in Poland against the abortion ban to the women’s strikes and marches in Latin America against male violence; from the vast women’s demonstration of last November in Italy to the protests and the women’s strike in defense of reproductive rights in South Korea and Ireland.
What is striking about these mobilizations is that several of them combined struggles against male violence with opposition to the casualization of labor and wage inequality, while also opposing homophobia, transphobia and xenophobic immigration policies. Together, they herald a new international feminist movement with an expanded agenda: at once anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-heterosexist and anti-neoliberal.
The letter states that the organizers are taking their inspiration from the Argentinian coalition Ni Una Menos, which defines violence against women as physical, such as domestic violence, but also metaphysical, as in “violence of the market, of debt, of capitalist property relations, and of the state; the violence of discriminatory policies against lesbian, trans and queer women; the violence of state criminalization of migratory movements; the violence of mass incarceration; and the institutional violence against women’s bodies through abortion bans and lack of access to free healthcare and free abortion.”
The solution to this, according to the authors, is to do away with what they dub “lean-in feminism” and create in its stead a feminism that is militantly anti-capitalist and pro-abortion.
It makes sense that these organizers are asking women to shirk the old feminism since the original feminists were vehemently pro-life and therefore unwelcome in today’s Marxist feminist ideology. CNS News writes, “The suffragettes — Susan B. Anthony in particular — were fiercely pro-life, calling abortion a ‘crime against humanity,’ ‘feticide,’ and ‘child murder.’” But today’s feminist movement is so adamantly pro-abortion that Women’s March co-chairwoman Linda Sarsour told the New York Times that any group that wished to participate in the Women’s March had to be pro-choice.
Though the letter credits Trump’s election as the catalyst that mobilized this new feminist movement, it claims that capitalism has forged the need for such a movement, as women’s conditions of life have deteriorated in the last 30 years as a result of corporate globalization and financialization.
Yet the letter makes no such claims regarding women’s conditions in Muslim-majority nations. The writers purport to oppose “institutional, political, cultural and economic attacks on Muslim and migrant women,” but take no issue with the misogyny that is at the center of the Muslim culture and sharia law. Even the left-leaning Salon wrote a piece last October in which it noted that liberals have been largely silent on the misogyny in the Muslim world, in which women are subject to genital mutilation, arranged marriages, acid attacks, and many more horrors.
Meanwhile, while the letter claims to oppose violence, Odeh’s terroristic actions show otherwise, as she was convicted in 1970 of planting four bombs in Israel, two of which detonated. One of the bombs killed two men at an Israeli supermarket and another detonated at the British Consulate in Israel, though no one was injured.
She served 10 years in prison before being freed in an exchange program for Israeli prisoners. She came to the United States in 1995, and received her American citizenship in 2004; however, in 2013 she was indicted on immigration fraud charges for failing to disclose her criminal record on her citizenship application.
“An individual convicted of a terrorist bombing would not be admitted to the United States if that information was known at the time of arrival,” the Michigan attorney general told ABC at the time.
She has won the right to a new trial, which is set for this spring, according to the New York Post.
As noted by the Daily Mail, Odeh has become “leftist cause célèbre.” In 2013, for example, Odeh was given the Outstanding Community Leader Award by the Chicago Cultural Alliance. And protesters have pleaded for justice on her behalf throughout her immigration trial.  
The New York Post also notes that two other signees on the letter are heroes of the far Left. Angela Davis is a former leader of the Communist Party USA and a long-time supporter of the Black Panthers, who was acquitted in 1972 after three guns she bought were used by a 17-year-old to shoot up a courtroom, killing a judge. And Tithi Bhattacharya defended Maoism in the Global South as offering “real protection to the oppressed” in an article for the International Socialist Review.
Clearly, not one of these women is opposed to violence as long as it is in the name of their pet causes. And yet they somehow feel they have a right to speak out against violence. The letter itself calls for disruptive behavior, encouraging women to block roads, bridges, and squares, and, true to the feminist belief system, asks women to abstain “from domestic care and sex work.”
It makes one wonder whether the feminist movement is about women’s rights at all, or if the true intent of the movement is to push a radical, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-male agenda. No better proof is needed than that someone such as Odeh is the movement’s leader.
 Who are the People Leading these Women's Marches?
 Published on Feb 27, 2017
In addition to not being an American citizen, Rasmea Yousef Odeh is a convicted Palestinian terrorist murderer.
 TERRORIST Leading New Women's March-
Rasmea Yousef Odeh | Feminism | Anti-Trump
 Published on Feb 27, 2017
Just when you thought Liberals couldn't get any dumber, now they have a CONVICTED TERRORIST organizing the next women's march. Rasmea Yousef Odeh is a Palestinian terrorist guilty of killing two students with a bomb. Now she's the face of feminism.

Guardian article -

 Rasmea Odeh Sentencing for Immigration Fraud
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome,"PTSS", 
Caused Her to Lie
 Spinning a Terrorist Into a Victim-5 Part Video Series
Who Is Rasmieh Odeh 

Published on Oct 27, 2014
Starting Nov. 4, federal prosecutors in Detroit present their case against a Palestinian woman who slipped through the cracks. Rasmieh Odeh, 67, has been in the United States since at least 1995.

To her advocates, she's a peaceful community activist living in Chicago and an asset to her community.

Yet, she has a bloody, dark side that she has kept hidden all these years.

Odeh is a convicted terrorist who spent 10 years in an Israeli prison. She led a 1969 bombing that killed two college students in a Jerusalem supermarket. Odeh confessed. She says that confession only came after she was tortured. She was sentenced to life in prison, but was released unexpectedly as part of a prisoner exchange in 1979.

Her torture claim has never been substantiated—even by the United Nations, to which she reported the alleged torture after her release—and she has yet to deny her involvement in the murders or even her ultimate imprisonment.

Odeh could have discussed the particulars of her situation when she applied for her visa and citizenship—how her sentence was even commuted—if she felt her alleged torture merited special consideration. Instead, she simply told U.S. authorities she had a spotless record.

Prosecutors say that constitutes immigration fraud. A terrorist conviction for an attack causing two deaths is something immigration officials would want to consider before granting an immigrant a visa or welcoming her into American citizenship.

Still, her supporters have launched an aggressive campaign aimed at getting the fraud charges dropped. Odeh, they say, is the real victim here. They claim this case is really about a government conspiracy to attack Palestinian advocates in America.

The campaign is led by Odeh's colleagues from the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), but has attracted support from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and even a group of 124 feminist academics.

In the video above, the first installment of a five-part Investigative Project on Terrorism video series on Odeh's case and the campaign to thwart it, we provide an overview of the case and a look at Rasmieh Odeh and those supporting her.

New installments will be released each day this week. Tomorrow we examine the 1969 Jerusalem bombing Odeh helped orchestrate and learn more about her victims.


 Geert Wilders determined to save Netherlands 
from Islamization
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Geert Wilders, the leading candidate in the Netherlands’ prime minister race, is warning that Europe is on the brink of obliteration in the coming decades as up to one billion third-world Islamicists flood the continent.
In an interview with Rebel Media, the ‘Dutch Donald Trump’ discussed his platform, his outlook for the Netherlands and Europe and what he sees unfolding in the final weeks leading up to the pivotal March 15 elections, where his Party For Freedom is expected to win the most seats in parliament.

“These are historical elections – go and vote, and get our Netherlands back,” he said, paraphrasing a message to his supporters – many of whom are traditionally non-participants in a political process in which they have lost faith, much like the disenfranchised independents who were key to Trump’s win.
When asked if he felt his supporters are inspired by the success of both Brexit and Trump, Wilders said the Dutch realize the hysterical fear-mongering by leftists and the mainstream media leading up to both globalism-shattering decisions was baseless propaganda.

“Right now, it’s what I call the ‘Patriotic Spring,’” he explained. “People feel misrepresented by the current political parties, by the current elite, who [advocate] multiculturalism, mass immigration, Islamization – or the fact that we transferred our national sovereignty to this institution called the European Union in Brussels, and we don’t even have the key to our own front door and cannot decide who we let enter into our country, or when people should leave.”
“People are fed up with the arrogance of the political elite.”
Wilders, well known as an anti-Islamization crusader, explained that the biggest issues facing Europe and the Netherlands center on immigration, and why they are particularly unique due to the continent’s geographical orientation.
“It is our mere existence that is at stake,” he said. “Our continent is bordering Africa, the Middle East – and the African inhabitants, the African people, will explode in this century. They have one billion people living in Africa today.”
“According to the United Nations, at the end of the century it will be quadrupled to four billion people, where at the same time, the amount of European people will diminish.”
“So, four billion people – one-third of them, even today, are planning to emigrate to Europe, which means that what we saw happening with the asylum crisis, with people from Syria, and Libya, coming to Europe – we haven’t seen anything yet,” he added. “One billion people, mostly from Islamic backgrounds, will come to Europe in this century.”
“Islam, once again, is not there to assimilate, or to integrate. That is the biggest mistake we’ve made – open borders, and no demands on new immigrants to assimilate or to integrate. We will cease to exist.”
He placed the blame fully on the establishment elite, who he says created the concepts of multiculturalism and open borders.
“They are fighting against our mere existence.”



 Private investments seized to save Obamacare
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two lawsuits proceeding through the federal courts threaten to expose and disrupt a scheme the Obama administration concocted in 2012 to confiscate all the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac – the government’s two mortgage giants – with a plan to divert billions of dollars to pay essential Obamacare insurance subsidies that Congress had refused to fund.

On July 9, 2013, Fairholme Funds, Inc., a mutual fund that held preferred stock issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac,” filed suit against the U.S. government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment for their property when the Obama administration, in the so-called “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, confiscated all Fannie and Freddie profits.
In 2008, when the economy went into recession over the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, HERA, to save Fannie and Freddie by a federal bailout that placed the two Government Sponsored Entities, GSEs, into government conservatorship, with the U.S. Treasury recapitalizing Fannie and Freddie by issuing to the GSEs $187.5 billion in senior preferred stock with a 10% dividend designed to repay the U.S. Treasury over time.

But in 2012, when Fannie and Freddie became profitable, as the mortgage market returned with rigorous credit underwriting and a zero-interest rate environment maintained by the Federal Reserve, the Obama administration initiated a “Net Worth Sweep,” designed to confiscate 100% of the profits generated by Fannie and Freddie.
The result was that private shareholders like Fairholme Funds were paid nothing on their Fannie and Freddie stock.
In August 2012, the Obama administration engineered an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements creating a variable dividend that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab all Fannie and Freddie profits, regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.
In 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, ruled the Department of Health and Human Services could not use taxpayer dollars to pay Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress refused to fund.
To solve this problem, the Obama administration defied the District Court by diverting profits confiscated from Fannie and Freddie to pay the Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress had refused to fund.
To block the progress of the Fairholme lawsuit, the Obama administration asserted executive privilege, seeking to withhold some 77,945 documents from the public view, including some 12,251 documents the government wanted completely withheld (even from the federal court).
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit asserted the government’s purpose in seeking to keep the documents secret was to conceal the government’s motives in seizing from private and institutional shareholders their stock dividends in Fannie and Freddie the government wanted to seize.
“The government has asserted the information could be ‘disruptive to markets.’ However, it is difficult to imagine how discussions by officials as far back as eight years ago and emails on matters as mundane as daily press clips could impact today’s markets, which, by definition operate on the very latest information,” wrote constitutional law scholar John Yoo. “Executive privilege is available for presidents to use in highly sensitive matters, and its use is constrained by specific procedures.”
“In the pending litigation on the Net Worth Sweep, the government has applied this privilege in an overly broad and unjustified manner,” Yoo continued. “Either federal officials are trying to cover up something they know is illegal, or we are witnessing an unprecedented and disturbing obsession with secrecy.”
On Oct. 4, 2016, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., gave her first order demanding the release of some of the documents that the government sought to withhold – documents the New York Times reported reached “the highest levels of the Obama administration.”
The New York Times further reported the government initially had argued that in seizing Fannie and Freddie, it had acted to protect taxpayers from future losses because the companies were in “a death spiral” and taxpayers needed protection from future losses.
But documents Judge Sweeney forced to be released made clear the government moved to seize all earnings of Fannie and Freddie just before the two mortgage giants were about to become profitable.
Fairholme and the other plaintiffs in the case had asked Judge Sweeney to review a sample of 56 documents in the case to determine if the government had a legitimate argument to seal the documents.
After her review, Judge Sweeney ruled that the documents should be released because Fairholme had an “overwhelming” need for the documents and no other source of available evidence “would similarly inform their understanding” of the events surrounding the profit sweep.
On Jan. 30, 2017  a three-judge panel for of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit ruled unanimously that 48 of the 56 documents were not privileged, but should be released to the plaintiffs.
In writing their order, the three-judge panel expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs’ argument that the documents the government sought to seal would reveal (if made public) that Fannie and Freddie were not in a threat of a “death spiral” to insolvency when the Net Worth Sweep was ordered by the government in 2012.
Instead, the three-judge panel suggested the respondents should have access to the 48 documents in their attempt to prove the GSEs were reporting substantial profits at the time that were more than sufficient to cover the Treasury’s original 10% dividend guarantee and potentially to pay dividends to the other shareholders as well.
At issue was the plaintiff’s argument the Treasury appropriated the stock held by private investors to generate what the Treasury knew would be a massive return on the investment to the government., a website created to make easily readable the documents Judge Sweeney through a series of rulings starting in October 2016, has revealed public archives and a deposition from Susan McFarland, Fannie’s former chief financial officer, from July 2015.
In her deposition, McFarland refuted projections made by Grant Thornton, the accounting firm the government had hired to do a financial analysis on Fannie and Freddie, speculating that Fannie Mae was going to lose $13 billion in 2012, the year in which the Obama administration decided to start confiscating Fannie and Freddie earnings.
McFarland revealed in the deposition that she had told high-level officials at the Treasury on Aug. 8, 2012, that the company (Fannie Mae) was “now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time.”  McFarland added that while Fannie was “not there yet,” she as financial officer “could see positive things occurring.”
A letter from then Secretary of the Treasury Jacob L. Lew, addressed to then House Speaker John Boehner dated May 17, 2013, also rejects the government contention the Fannie and Freddy were in “a death spiral” at the time of government confiscation.
In the letter, written at a time when the Treasury was preparing to engage in “extraordinary measures” because Congress had not yet authorized an increase in the statutory debt limit, Lew explained to then-House Speaker Boehner that Treasury had just learned “last week” that it was anticipating a payment of $60 billion from Fannie Mae to be delivered on June 28, 2013.
In another document unsealed by Judge Sweeney, a Grant Thornton, purportedly showing Freddie Mac’s deteriorating financial condition, contained a marginal note handwritten by an unidentified Grant Thornton employee, saying: “3 yrs. of cum. profits, you start to think about releasing the valuation allow. The valuation allow. When probably 2013, 2014.”
In the second case, originally filed as Perry Capital LLC vs. Lew (now, Perry Capital LLC, for and on behalf of Investment Funds for which it acts as investment manager, Appellant v. Steven T. Mncuhin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Et Al., Appellees) the investment manager Perry Capital LLC sued the Treasury Department over the decision made in the “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, and specifically the decision made on August 17, 2012, through which the Obama administration succeeded in engineering an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that resulted in the private and institutional shareholders of Fannie and Freddie being shut off from receiving future dividends on their Fannie and Freddie stock.
On Feb. 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the Obama administration had acted within its authority under HERA.
While this decision was widely viewed as a victory for the government, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals was very narrow, arguing only that the statutory claims of Perry Capital LLC were barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review.
Instead of dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the Circuit Court remanded the case to the lower District Court to litigate contract-based claims regarding their rights as shareholders to have received Fannie and Freddie dividends.
Translated into ordinary English, the Circuit Court punted, sending the case back to the District Court where the Perry’s contractual claims regarding the rights of shareholders to receive dividends could be properly litigated at trial.
In what has become a complicated case, legal analysts still maintain that at the District Court level, Perry LLC stands an excellent chance to force the Treasury “to return the money, which it had no right to receive in the first place.”


 La Raza Declares War on Border Wall, Demands "Reconquista" of Southwest
 Organization has documented history 
of promoting racism
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The National Council of La Raza, an organization that promotes the Reconquista of the southwest United States, called President Trump’s Executive Order a “declaration of war” on the Hispanic community equivalent to the slave trade.
Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, claimed the president’s plan to build a wall on the southern border and deport violent illegal immigrants will “tarnish our nation’s character.”
“Some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history have involved forcibly relocating minority populations: the slave trade, the Trail of Tears, Operation Wetback and the internment of citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II,” she said in the Washington Post. “Each was considered legal and justified in its time.”

“Now they are condemned as assaults on the values that define our nation.”
The Executive Order amounts to a declaration of war against the Hispanic community, according to Murguía.
“For Latinos, this is an existential moment. Our government has declared war on our community. Think I exaggerate? Imagine scores of ICE agents sweeping through your neighborhoods, stalking people leaving church or going to the movies. People will be afraid to visit doctors; children will be afraid to go to school; crimes will go unreported,” she claimed.
“For Latinos, including those who are citizens, stepping outside without papers could be cause for arrest.”
Murguía suggested the rationale behind Trump’s order is based on “falsehoods about the threat and costs of undocumented immigrants.”
Despite her assertion, the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) released a report claiming illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $113 billion.
Another report from the Center for Immigration Studies suggested the construction of a wall along the southern border could save taxpayers approximately $64 billion over the next ten years.
La Raza, which translates to “the race,” has a well-documented history of promoting anti-white racism and the “Reconquista” of the southwest United States (an area they refer to as Aztlan).

Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), a radical subsidiary student organization based on college campuses across the country, released “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan) claiming rightful ownership over the southwestern United States following the “brutal gringo invasion of our territories.”
“Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada,” it said.
The final two sentences translate as “for the race, everything. Outside the race, nothing.”

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Fresh off their collective hissy fit over Donald Trump putting ketchup on his steak, anti-Trump leftists have now been triggered by pictures that show Kellyanne Conway putting her feet on a couch in the Oval Office.
The photos caused a liberal freak out across the board, with Keith Olbermann leading the charge, tweeting, “Get your fucking feet off the furniture, @KellyannePolls. This isn’t your home.”
Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke demanded answers, tweeting, “I have so many questions about this photo, but chief among them is why nobody is telling Kellyanne Conway to get her damn feet off the couch.”
NeverTrumper Louise Mensch even insinuated the behavior was racist.
“Shoes on the couch in the Oval Office,” scorned Buzzfeed deputy news director Jon Passantino.
“Trying to imagine the reaction if any Obama admin. official sat on a couch in the Oval like that,” wondered MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin.
Well, wonder no more.
Barack Obama himself was pictured literally hundreds if not thousands of times putting his feet up on furniture in the Oval Office, but intellectual consistency isn’t a characteristic of liberals.
Journalists chose to make the entire story about where Conway put her feet rather than talk about Trump’s meeting with leaders of black universities and colleges.
This is yet another example of Trump derangement syndrome, where every single tiny behavior or action by Trump or any of his administration gets inflated into a giant talking point.
The outrage over Conway’s couch faux pas follows a collective leftist hissy fit over Donald Trump’s hate crime of ordering his steak well done and putting ketchup on it.
Jezebel summed up the response, sniping that Trump had behaved “like a damn child” by asking for the tomato-based condiment with his meat. OK, calm down triggly puff, it’s not the end of the world.
This so enraged many that when I made a joke about anyone ordering their steak less than medium rare being a hipster, hundreds of mainstream hacks took it seriously and bombarded me with snarky messages on Twitter. Yes, really.
Jack Posobiec summed up the contrived outrage perfectly, tweeting, “The media is more upset about Trump putting ketchup on steak than Hillary putting missiles in the hands of ISIS.”


 The Globalists Are Planning For Something Big!
 Bill Gates, Chelsea Clinton predict global bio-terrorist pandemic
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 On January 18th, in an article titled, “Bill Gates is Teaming Up
 with World Leaders to Stop the Next Deadly Pandemic,” Business Insider 
reported that “Governments from Germany, Japan, and Norway have pooled 
funds along with the Gates Foundation to raise a total of $490 million 
so far. The target is $1 billion, which Coalition for Epidemic 
Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) says will help finance the first five 
years of research and development.”
Gates appeared at January 2017’s Davos World Economic Forum, flaunting his CEPI program.
One CBS News headline read, “Bill Gates on How to Outsmart Global Epidemics.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is listed as a member of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Remember, as outlined in Bill Clinton’s book, his foundation and others like it are the ones calling for better obedience from organizations like WHO.
If the chips fall, it’s the foundations and trust funds that want to be the ones sitting on top.
In fact, an out-of-control pandemic might be the crisis of choice for the global elite.
Beyond a large death count, an out-of-control virus spreading worldwide could trigger the U.N. to impose their International Health Regulations, or IHR, which intends to manage the world’s response to a global outbreak of a deadly pathogen.
In early 2017, the Oxford Press released, “Governing Global Health: Who Runs The World and Why” by – who would have guessed it – Chelsea Clinton and co-authored by Devi Sridhar.
The book discusses the current global model of principal/agent theory, or Public Private Partnerships funding and managing a coordinated response of a worldwide pandemic and what is needed to improve this model.
The “Governing Global Health” description reads, “One of the more important recent trends in global health governance, though, has been the rise of public-private partnerships (PPPs) where private non-governmental organizations, for-profit enterprises, and various other social entrepreneurs work hand-in-hand with governments to combat specific maladies.”
Basically, the moneymen (the banks and trust funds) that fund international health bureaucracies like the U.N., the WHO and The World Bank, are not doing a good enough job managing their money, or not following through with some actions these money-groups hoped would happen.
The case made in this book suggests ways the requests of the those financing these plans are heard loud and clear and acted upon appropriately.
In the case of a world pandemic, make no bones about it, it’s the mega-banks and trusts who will remain the ones “Who Run The World.”
Co-author Devi Sridhar is not only an academic research professor; she is also the director of the World Health Governance Program.
Of course, Chelsea Clinton is also a member.
This group, which is funded by the World Bank, is attempting to steer the management and distribution of health funds contributors like the Gates Foundation or The Global Fund to fight AIDS using U.N. rules like the IHR.
An article from the U.N. Chronicle titled, “National Security and Pandemics,” says of the IHR, “IHR compliance needs to be understood through a regional lens and supported by global institutions…” it continues, “regions and individual states cannot do this on their own and WHO has a major role to play in assisting its regional offices and cooperating with its member States. The wider United Nations system, especially bodies such as the Peace-building Commission and agencies such as the United Nations Development Program and United Nations Children’s Fund, have a supporting role to play in helping states build the technical capacities needed to deliver the IHRs.”
In other words, if a global pandemic happens, bodies like the WHO will be there alongside national and local governments all they way down the line to insure that their “IHRs” are carried out exactly as designed.
Naturally, groups like the WHO, the World Bank, the U.N. and others consider themselves “International Governing Bodies,” so they assume their rule not only within nations and states, but as the grand rulers of the planet as well.
The New York Times reported that they obtained a draft of an upcoming Trump administration executive order to reduce the United States’ contribution to the U.N. by at least 40%.
The first of the two draft orders titled, “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations,” names criteria within certain U.N. agencies and other international bodies that will forfeit American support.
The New York Times reports, “Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, or support programs that fund abortion or any activity that circumvents sanctions against Iran or North Korea.”
What was not mentioned in this report is if, or how this order will deal with WHO and other international health agencies that the U.N. will rely on if a deadly global outbreak occurs.
When finalizing this order we urge Mr. Trump to consider the ramifications of such an event and how U.S. funding to the WHO will bolster their legitimacy.
Beyond the disastrous death count that this event will cause, the push by an international body to put the United States government second place to a global management system is also at risk.
In the case of such an event, the United States must remain in ultimate control of all of its resources.
This new executive order, if the New York Times is reporting accurately, would make a great opportunity to disable this threat before it takes flight.





Women on Waves
P.O. Box 15683
1001 ND
The Netherlands
tel: +31 20 465 0004
Guatemala blocks entry of ‘abortion boat’
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
GUATEMALA CITY, Guatemala — The army of Guatemala has expelled the crew of a Dutch boat that had docked on its shores in an effort to transport abortion-minded mothers out to sea, where it would provide drugs to end their child’s life.
According to reports, the non-profit organization Women on Waves had docked at the Port of San Jose last week to offer medicinal abortions to mothers in the country. The group proffers abortions to women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant, as it transports them out to international waters to provide mifepristone and misoprostol.
As abortion is illegal in Guatemala, except in cases where the mother’s life is deemed to be in danger, Women on Waves thought it could get around the prohibition by offering the abortions out at sea.
“Guatemala has been chosen because the laws are very restrictive on the subject of abortion,” Quetzali Cerezo of the group Women in Equity, which partners with the organization, told reporters.

However, President Jimmy Morales would have nothing of it.
“The military will not permit this group to carry out its activities in the country,” read a complaint from the Guatemalan army, according to the Dutch News outlet Deutsche Wells.
It said that must adhere “to the Constitution regarding the preservation of human life and the laws in effect in our country.”

But Women on Waves decried the denial, stating the government was “obstructing a lawful protest against the state’s restrictions on the Guatemalan women’s right to safe abortion.”
“Here we have all required licenses to enter, stay and sail in Guatemala. Detainment of the abortion ship is a violation!” the group also Tweeted.
It said that “[e]specially at the dawn of the Zika crisis, access to safe abortion is fundamentally an issue of social justice.”
Four of the seven crew members on the ship were U.S. citizens, according to La Prensa Libre. Those aboard the boat include Rebecca Gomperts, Daniel Evans, Merilee Nyland, Alicia Ott and Seth Bearden.
Deutsche Wells reports that a crowd of protesters was ready to push back against the abortion organization, to physically block those from Women on Waves who came ashore.
“Why don’t you go to the Netherlands to kill children?” called out Marleny Arias, 50.
While Roman Catholicism is prominent in Guatemala, it is also stated to be the most Evangelical country in Latin America, with 40 percent of the population identifying as Evangelical and 47 percent identifying as Roman Catholic.

Published on Feb 24, 2017
Crew members of the non-profit organization, 'Women on Waves' which offers free abortions, are being expelled from Guatemala, at Quetzal port, in the city of San Jose, Friday.

The Dutch organization provides abortions in countries where it is illegal. They planned to stay in Guatemala for five days, however were intercepted by the military and are being prevented from disembarking, as according to authorities they did not comply with migration policy, as well as the fact abortion is illegal in the country.

HARDtalk Rebecca Gomperts Women on Waves 1of2:
Published on Oct 29, 2013
HARDtalk - Rebecca Gomperts - Women on Waves Prt 1
Is access to abortion a human right for women everywhere in the world? Women on Waves has for more than ten years provided abortions and contraception to women who live in countries where terminating pregnancy is illegal or restricted. The organisation was set up by the Dutch doctor Rebecca Gomperts who hires a ship registered under Dutch law and sails into international waters to provide abortion. How does she justify helping women ignore the social, religious and political climate in their own countries?
 PART 2 OF 2: 
Rebecca Gomperts, MD, MPP, PhD
Founder and Director of Women on Waves and Women on Web Rebecca Gomperts studied medicine and visual arts in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. After graduating Gomperts became an abortion doctor and sailed with the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, as its doctor and as an environmental activist. While sailing in South America she encountered many women who suffered greatly due to lack of access to reproductive heath services and safe, legal abortions. These women and their stories inspired Rebecca Gomperts to start Women on Waves.
Rebecca Gomperts
In response to a growing number of help emails from women around the world, Rebecca founded Women on Web, an online medical abortion service in 2005. The service supports women living in countries where safe abortion is not available, to obtain information and access abortion pills. Every year Women on Web helpdesk members answer more than 100.000 emails from women all over the world.

In 2011 Rebecca completed a Masters Public Policy at Princeton University and in 2014 she completed her PhD at Karolinska Institutet.
Rebecca Gomperts also wrote a novel “Zeedrift” and published articles and essays. Rebecca Gomperts received the MS Women on the Year 2001 award, the Women making History award by Planned Parenthood of New York City (2002), the Clara Meijer-Wichmann Penning of 2002 by the Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens, the Margaret Sanger Woman of Valor award (2004) and the Global Women’s Rights Awards, Feminist Majority Foundation (2007) and Women deliver 100: the most inspiring people delivering for girls and women (2011). Allan Rosenfield Award for Lifetime Contributions to International Family Planning (2012). She was named as one of the global thinkers 2015 by Foreign Policy.

The Abortion drone flies abortion pills from one country to women in another country. Using the different legislations and regulations it makes the reality of women in countries where abortion is restricted visible by creating access to the abortion pills.
Photo abortion drone Ireland

Women on Waves is an organization that uses multiple strategies to promote the message that women have fundamental autonomy over their own bodies. One of the ways that it communicates this belief is through artistic expression. Over the years we have engaged in various art projects, collaborating with artists, designers, filmmakers, and curators.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
To activate and view hyperlinked references, please click here once and then click any superscripted number below to access a hyperlinked reference, or scroll down to the bottom of the article to view all hyperlinked references.
Like a lot of people, in January when I suddenly developed a high fever (101 F), body aches, fatigue, nasal congestion and cough, I thought for sure it was influenza, which I had not experienced for decades. Turns out, according to a recently released CDC report, in the 2016-2017 flu season the odds are only about one in 10 that flu like illness symptoms are, in fact, caused by type A or B influenza.
On February 17, 2017, the Centers for Disease Control published an update on influenza activity in the U.S. for four months between Oct. 2, 2016 and Feb. 4, 2017.1 The new news is the CDC found that over the past four months:
  • Influenza A (H3N2) viruses accounted for the vast majority of all public health lab confirmed influenza cases;
  • Out of nearly 393,000 respiratory illness lab specimens tested in the U.S., only about 38,000 cases – or 10 percent - were positive for type A or B influenza;
  • Persons over age 65 accounted for more than 60 percent of lab confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations;
  • About 6,800 hospitalized cases of lab confirmed influenza have been reported so far and it is estimated that about 95 percent had at least one high risk medical condition, such as heart disease; metabolic disorder or obesity, with more than half of the children hospitalized also suffering with asthma, chronic lung disease or a neurological disorder;
  • About 5 to 8 percent of all U.S. deaths reported over the past four months have been attributed to pneumonia or influenza, with 20 reported pediatric deaths associated with type A or B influenza;
  • The influenza strains included in this year’s flu vaccine are closely matched to the most prevalent influenza strains reported to be circulating in the U.S. Out of 484 different influenza viruses the CDC tested, 96 to 100 percent of influenza A viruses and 91 to 100 percent of influenza B viruses were antigenically similar to components of the 2016/2017 influenza vaccine.
flu vaccine syringe

CDC: This Year’s Flu Shot Only 43 Percent Effective Against Most Prevalent Strain

The old news is that, even when this year’s seasonal flu shot contains the same influenza strains that are circulating - like in most years2 - it is less than 50 percent effective across all age groups in preventing a trip to the doctor’s office for lab confirmed influenza. The vaccine is only 43 percent effective in preventing influenza A (H3N2), the most prevalent strain this year.
How many people following doctors’ orders and rolling up their sleeves to get an annual flu shot this year understand it has a 57 percent failure rate for the most common influenza strain circulating? That is like telling someone to buy a car with seat belts that fail 57 percent of the time!
But, beyond that, how many people understand that only 10 percent of all flu-like illness out there this year is actually influenza?
There are no guarantees in life. That goes for vaccination, too.

Vaccines Often Fail to Prevent Infection and Transmission

While many people believe that getting vaccinated guarantees you won’t get sick or make anyone else sick, vaccines do not always work as well as we have been taught to believe they do.3
Take influenza vaccines, for example. Influenza is a viral infection that causes type A or B influenza, which can have serious pneumonia complications for some people, like the elderly.4
flu masks
Doctors routinely give annual flu shots to children and adults, including pregnant women.5 6 7 And in many states, health care and day care workers are required to get an annual flu shot or they are fired from their jobs.8 9 10
But public health officials admit that influenza vaccines fail to prevent influenza more than half the time.11 And in some years, flu shots do not prevent influenza at all because they don’t contain the influenza strains that are making people sick.12
Plus, you can get a flu shot and still get infected with influenza but only have minor symptoms or no symptoms at all.13 Even if you have been vaccinated, you can be a silent carrier of influenza and infect other people without even knowing it.
This is something to keep in mind when you are in a doctor’s office or hospital, where all employees have been vaccinated and assume they are protected, but where influenza could still be circulating among the staff.

Most Flu Like Illness Not Influenza

But perhaps the biggest misconception of all is that during the flu season, every time you get a fever, headache, sore throat, cough, and a tired, achy feeling all over, you probably have influenza that could have been prevented with a flu shot.
The truth is that, when doctors get suspected cases of influenza tested in labs, more than 70 percent of the time it is not type A or B influenza but another virus or bacteria causing a respiratory flu-like illness that is mistaken for influenza.14 15
When beliefs about vaccine effectiveness are not grounded in truth, they can put you, your family and people you know at risk.
Whether you have been vaccinated or not, if you have even mild symptoms of being sick, stay away from close contact with infants, pregnant women and people who are immune compromised until you are well.

Learn More About Vaccines and Diseases

At, learn more about vaccines, diseases and the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking.
Empower yourself today with well-referenced information that can help you make educated decisions about vaccination.
It’s your health. Your family. Your choice.

donate to nvic Take the First Step: Explore Our Webpages that Inform and Empower
We hope you will explore our Ask 8 Questions webpage, which is a good first step in the vaccine decision-making process. As you begin to ask these questions, please continue to empower yourself by visiting Diseases and Vaccines and Know the Risks & Failures webpages.
Continue to Ask 8 Questions

Visit Our Ask 8 Information Kiosk for Free Resources
This section of our website will direct you to referenced information and a variety of materials designed to educate you about vaccines, diseases and how to make informed vaccination choices. You can download posters and brochures to share with others or send an ecard to family and friends.
Continue to Kiosk