THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By
Kelleigh Nelson
March 1, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
PRO-TRUMP
SPIRIT OF AMERICA RALLY
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.
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 byAndre 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 NewsWithViews.com 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.]
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.
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.
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.”
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.
FannieFreddieSecrets.org, 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.”
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.”
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 pic.twitter.com/tU0CBS36Fe
NeverTrumper Louise Mensch even insinuated the behavior was racist.
No class @KellyannePolls – mutton dressed as lamb, feet on the couch, don’t look at African-American leaders, your momma must be ashamed https://t.co/iOPjJSf4Nl
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 media is more upset about Trump putting ketchup on steak than Hillary putting missiles in the hands of ISIS
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.
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?
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.
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.
KILLING OF THE UNBORN 12 MILES OFFSHORE
IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS
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.
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.
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
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 NVIC.org, 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. 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
March 1, 2017
Take the First Step: Explore Our Webpages that Inform and Empower