Wednesday, May 10, 2017


 UC Berkeley Engaging In Modern Day Book Burning 

Published on May 10, 2017
Digitized books altered, original sources destroyed: Just like 1984.

 College Destroys Books After Digitization, Sparking Fears of 1984-Style Censorship

Digitized books altered, original sources destroyed: Just like 1984



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
California universities were caught removing and even destroying library books after digitizing them, a process critics warn leads to 1984-style censorship in which only “corrected” copies of books remain.
UC Berkeley in particular recently removed 135,000 books from its school library, claiming that by digitizing the books, library space can be reused for meeting rooms and “nap pods.”
But libraries have existed since the Middle Ages as vaults of knowledge safe from tampering; in comparison, the way universities are disappearing books after digitizing them allows anyone with a “politically correct” agenda a way to alter books during digitization – including important texts on history, science and humanities – without anyone ever knowing.

“The removal of 60% of the physical collection at the science library of the University of California, Santa Cruz, for instance, caused an uproar after it was reported that many of the books removed had been destroyed,” reported the Christian Science Monitor. “A campus spokesman said that nothing had been lost from the scholarly record, since duplicates were retained in other libraries or available online.”
“Given the short timeframe and seeming lack of consultation of the faculty, however, many critics expressed doubts that this was actually the case.”
This, of course, draws parallels to the novel 1984, in which the protagonist, Winston, works at the Ministry of Truth altering books and important texts while sequentially destroying the original sources to hide the evidence of tampering.
In reality, it’s certainly plausible that SJW student-workers digitizing books at a university could “correct for history” by altering or downright removing passages from books that don’t conform to their world view.
Remember, these are the same activists who demand restrictions on free speech if it “offends others” and demand the removal of historical war memorials if they trigger “micro-aggressions” – and college campuses are now breeding grounds for this ideology.
“Suppose they do scan or digitize entire libraries.  What then?  Will it not be far, far easier for systems of authority to control or manipulate access to historical information?” Asked attorney Quintus Curtius. “How can we be sure that the University of California will not one day decide to prevent access to all works written before 1950 as being ‘offensive’ or not in tune with political correctness?”
“When it comes to our precious cultural heritage, we cannot place our faith in the same institutions that have been betraying that same heritage for the past 40 years.”
On a similar note, Google’s Vint Cerf warned we are heading into a “digital dark age” because digitalized documents will eventually be lost or lack compatibility with new formats.
The latter is already more-or-less the case with eBooks which suffer problems converting between different formatting standards.
“Old formats of documents that we’ve created or presentations may not be readable by the latest version of the software because backwards compatibility is not always guaranteed,” said Cerf. “And so what can happen over time is that even if we accumulate vast archives of digital content, we may not actually know what it is.”


 Published on May 9, 2017
In a letter effective immediately, President Donald Trump has fired FBI Director Comey. According to the letter, Trump consulted with his Attorney General and Justice Department, and this is the course of action that was decided upon. This is breaking news and more information will be added as it becomes available.
 Trump Fires Comey, Leftists Rage 
 Published on May 10, 2017
Even though leftists demanded Obama fire Comey before he left the White House, inexplicably, they are now screaming about his termination by Trump.

Your leftist friends may try throwing around some anti-government conspiracy theories about the firing, such as, "Comey's FBI was investigating President Trump's alleged Russia collusion, so he fired him!" but again, even Comey reasserted under oath there was no evidence of such.

 Why Trump Fired Comey

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On May 7 Texas governor Greg Abbott signed a bill banning sanctuary cities. The law, Senate Bill 4, makes sheriffs, constables, police chiefs, and other local law-enforcement officials subject to Class A misdemeanor charges if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities and honor “detainer” requests from immigration agents to hold non-citizen inmates who are subject to deportation. It also provides civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begins at $1,000 for a first offense and climbs to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction. The bill also applies to police at public colleges.
Abbott caught Democratic legislators and others who had opposed the measure off guard when he signed the bill four days after both chambers of the legislature had approved it. The signing took place on Sunday night during a Facebook Live event with no advance public warning.
The new law goes into effect September 1.
“Texas has now banned sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State,” Abbott said in a video posted on Facebook. The governor signed the bill during a five-minute live broadcast on Facebook, thereby avoiding the protests that a public signing ceremony inevitably would have invited.

“Let’s face it, the reason why so many people come to America is because we are a nation of laws and Texas is doing its part to keep it that way,” Abbott said.
Democratic state Representative Cesar Blanco asserted that it looked as if Abbott “wanted to get ahead” of any protests surrounding the bill signing. However, Abbott spokesman John Wittman explained that the governor chose to sign the bill on a Facebook livestream because that’s “where most people are getting their news nowadays.”
Texas Senator Ted Cruz posted the following message on Facebook after the signing:
Governor Greg Abbott yesterday sent a clear message that defiance of our laws in Texas will no longer be tolerated.
I commend the Governor for signing into law this ban on sanctuary cities and the members of the Texas Legislature — especially Reps. Charlie Geren and Paul Workman and Senator Charles Perry — for their leadership in sponsoring this measure.
The Texas Tribune reported back on April 27 that when S.B. 4 was passed by the Texas House of Representatives, it had its original language restored to bring it into conformity with the Senate-passed version. Representatives had added back a previously deleted provision that allows local peace officers to question the immigration status of people they legally detain. The original House version of the bill had allowed officers to inquire about status only during a lawful arrest.
Abbott defended the constitutionality of the law after signing it, reported the Tribune, saying key parts of it have “already been tested at the United States Supreme Court and approved there.”
The Dallas Morning News reported that opponents of the law were quick to condemn the signing and quoted Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), who charged that the law was a “colossal blunder” and that the lawmakers who championed it were “small-hearted.”
“MALDEF will do its level best, in court and out, to restore Texas, the state where MALDEF was founded, to its greater glory, and to help Texas to overcome ‘Abbott's Folly,’” Saenz said in a written statement.
Saenz asserted that the law would alienate “nearly half the state population” and make people subject to widespread racial profiling. He claimed the law would undermine voters’ rights to choose elected officials who set local policy, make the job of local law enforcement more difficult by straining relationships with immigrant communities, and would cost Texas in trade and tourism, as well as legal challenges.
The News also quoted Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, who said in a prepared statement: “This racist and wrongheaded piece of legislation ignores our values, imperils our communities and sullies our reputation as a free and welcoming state. We will fight this assault in the courts, at the ballot box, and in the streets if we have to.”
Neither Saenz nor Burke explained exactly which races would be profiled by the new law, since aliens entering our country illegally — even those coming from Latin America — can belong to one of several races. For example, an article in the Christian Science Monitor on April 6, 2010, written by Raul Reyes, who identifies himself as a third-generation Mexican-American, noted that a questionnaire accompanying the 2010 Census asked whether a person is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, and then lists possible answers ranging from Mexican-American to Cuban to Spaniard. He wrote:
According to the Pew Center, 54 percent of Hispanics identify as white, while only 1.5 percent identify as black. A full 40 percent do not identify with any race. So perhaps the Census Bureau might want to reconsider their categories for “race” in the future.
With “race” being such a subjective factor, it is difficult to make a case that a law attempting to identify illegal aliens is “racist.”
A CBS News report on May 7 observed that the term “sanctuary cities” has no legal definition, but Republicans want local police to help federal immigration agents crack down on criminal suspects who are in the United States illegally.
That report noted:
Sally Hernandez, the sheriff of Travis County, which includes liberal Austin, enraged conservatives by refusing to honor federal detainer requests if the suspects weren't arrested for immigration offenses or serious crimes such as murder. Hernandez softened her policy after Abbott cut funding to the county, saying decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis. She has said she will conform to the state's ban if it becomes law.
While there may not be a legal definition of a sanctuary city, one of the main supporters of SB 4, Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), provided this description in a statement quoted by KVUE TV in Austin last February:
When they have policy, implied or implicit, formal or informal, or, if you will, just kind of soft throughout their system that says you cannot enforce the ICE detainers or you cannot enforce the inquiry provisions that have been held constitutional, you can’t enforce these laws, then you have a sanctuary city.
It will be interesting to see if this new legislation is the end of the matter, or (as has often been the case with similar laws and orders) it faces legal challenges in lawsuits from activist organizations such as MALDEF or rulings by liberal judges.

Related articles:
Texas: Gov. Abbott Bans Funds for Sanctuary Cities; Senate Bill to Demand Compliance with ICE
Judge Blocks “Sanctuary Cities” Defunding Order; Trump May Take Case to Supreme Court
Seattle Files Suit Against Trump Admin. to Preserve Sanctuary City Status
San Francisco Sues Trump to Stop Executive Order About Sanctuary Cities
California Advances Bills to Become Sanctuary State
 Illegal Alien Sues San Francisco for Violating Sanctuary City Law
“Sanctuary Cities” Make a Mockery of Our Laws
DHS Issues Report Listing Jurisdictions Failing to Cooperate With ICE Detainers
 Texas governor signs bill banning ‘sanctuary cities’ 
 Published on May 9, 2017
Gov. Greg Abbott made an unannounced appearance on Facebook live on May 7 to sign a bill banning “sanctuary cities” in the state.BREAKING! Governor Greg Abbott signs TOUGHEST Anti-Sanctuary City Bill 
In The U.S.

 Texas Senators Praise Gov Abbott's Ban 
on Sanctuary Cities
 Published on May 9, 2017
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill Sunday prohibiting the state’s cities and counties from enacting so-called “sanctuary” laws that prevent local law enforcement officers from inquiring about the immigration status of anyone they detain.

 Criminals Masquerading As Mayors In Sanctuary Cities
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” -John Locke
It was reported by Aamer Madhani, a White House reporter under Barack Hussein Obama’s criminal administration, that big city mayors have vowed to defy the law and President Donald Trump regarding sanctuary cities harboring illegal aliens.

Aamer reported, “As you may know, back in Jan 26, 2017 several big city mayors across the U.S. vowed to defy President Trump’s executive order that threatens to cut off federal funding to cities that offer some sort of protection to illegal immigrants in their communities.”
The question is, how did they approve the funding in the first place?

Furthermore, the Law does not protect illegal aliens. It prosecutes them.
Aamer continued, “The pushback came from these mayors came as Trump signed a long-anticipated executive order that directs the government to identify federal money it can withhold to punish so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’”
Since when did the federal government receive delegated authority from the American people to take their tax money and reallocate it to cities that are harboring illegal aliens?

Aamer added, “If you remember, Trump had pledged to take action against sanctuary cities on the campaign trail.”
“But as Trump announced the order — as well as action to build a wall along the U.S-Mexico border and hire thousands of new border patrol agents and immigration officers — leaders of some of the nation’s biggest cities flatly stated they would not cooperate with the president,” Aamer wrote.
And you need to ask why. This is not Trump against the mayors. This is the mayors working against American Law! And the law exposes the criminal (Romans 3:20).

Aamer reported “In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed that the action ‘won’t change how we enforce the law in New York City.’”
“De Blasio said that the city has been able to dramatically reduce the crime rate in the nation’s largest city, in part, because relationships the police department has managed to build in immigrant communities,” the report continued. “He added that if Trump follows through with the plan it would mean he’s effectively cutting funding from the New York Police Department.”
In other words, through totalitarian methods, Mayor de Blasio is attempting to use the law against the law. Here, you have the criminal blaming the law for his crimes (1 John 3:12).
“Here in New York City and in cities across the nation, this executive order could in fact undermine public safety and make our neighborhoods less safe,” de Blasio said.
What De Blasio said was that the enforcement of law could undermine public safety. He is the one personally responsible for the undermining of the public’s safety. Was America told that they were under an Islamic threat after September 11, 2001? How does his statement line up with the facts?

Take a look at Muslims from the east who are plundering countries that they are entering.
Denmark: 450% more crimes committed by Muslims then non-Muslims.
Germany: Muslim migrants committed 142, 500 crimes in 6 months. This is 780 every day.
Sweden: 480,000 sexual assaults in one year. 77% of all rapes by less than 2% Muslim.
England and Wales: Over 56% of Syrian refugee’s committed severe crimes in less than 1 year etc.
Belgium: 35% of Prison population is Muslim who make up only 6% of the population.
UK: Muslims fill 44%of high security prisons, out of a 5% population.
USA: 91.4 % Muslim refugees are on food stamps, 68.3 % on cash welfare.
Muslim migration has doubled in the decade since 9/11 and 60% migrants to America favor sharia law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68).
More illegals are coming across from the southern border.
There were 68.57 illegal aliens imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Arizona, compared to 54.06 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned for every 100,000 citizens and legal noncitizens.
There were 97.2 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in California, compared to 74.1 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned per 100,000 citizen and legal noncitizens.
There were 54.85 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Florida, compared to 67.8 legal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants.
There were 168.75 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in New York, compared to 48.12 legal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants.
There were 54.54 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Texas, compared to 65.43 legal immigrants.
“After President Donald Trump signed an executive order exploring cutting off funding to so-called sanctuary cities, mayors on both coasts of the U.S. say their cities will not be bullied,” Aamer reported.
These mayors are the ones that are bullying anyone who does not go along with their lawless objectives. These are Saul Alinsky tactics at their best. They play the victim while perpetuating the crime.

In Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh called the executive order an attack on “Boston’s people, Boston’s strength and Boston’s values.”
“If people want to live here, they’ll live here,” Walsh told reporters at a news conference. “They can use my office. They can use any office in this building.”
Americans should put these criminal actors that masquerade as mayors in jail where they belong, and remind each and every one of them that these buildings belong to “We the people.”
Furthermore no one has the right to desecrate the blood of those who fought, bled and died enforcing the very laws that they are violating.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who has been accused and investigated for sexually molesting minors, said, “We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side.”
The opposite is true as I am about to show you.

Mayor of Chicago Rham Emanuel said, “I want to be clear. We’re gonna stay a sanctuary city. There is no stranger among us. We welcome people, whether you’re from Poland or Pakistan, whether you’re from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you’re from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream.”
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee told reporters nothing has changed for his city following Trump’s executive order.
“I am here today to say we are still a sanctuary city,” Lee said. “We stand by our sanctuary city because we want everybody to feel safe and utilize the services they deserve, including education and health care.”
Ed wants you to do your best to forget about Kate Steinle and her family. Kate was shot randomly by Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who is an illegal immigrant and a repeat felon who was deported back to Mexico 5 times.
Have Americans been inundated by the media’s narrative that there are threats constantly against “We the people”? Who has attacked the rights of Americans more than those who call themselves representatives? No one has.
Here, we have mayors that are committing treason (Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution) by opening the doors to those who are sworn enemies to America (Jeremiah 11:9).
A top aide to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan questioned whether the city even qualified as a sanctuary city.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed concern that the executive order is overly vague.
“That order does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “Instead, it gives undefined discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate sanctuary jurisdictions and the Attorney General to take action against them.” (Homeland security was found to be illegally transporting criminal aliens into the United States under the criminal Barack Hussein Obama’s administration.)
“We call upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to document and promulgate a lawful definition before further actions are taken, so the cities across the Nation may determine how to proceed,” the organization added.
You cannot make this stuff up.
What the law states concerning these criminals masquerading as “mayors” in “sanctuary cities” is very clear and simple to understand.
(a)Criminal penalties
(A) Any person who—
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.