PRESIDENT TRUMP WEEKLY ADDRESS

PRESIDENT TRUMP WEEKLY ADDRESS 

 

ABORTION DOCTORS ADMIT THEY ARE CONDUCTING SATANIC CEREMONIES

ABORTION DOCTORS ADMIT THEY ARE CONDUCTING SATANIC CEREMONIES

 Alex Jones reveals how abortion doctors are abusing their power over the helpless and using babies, abandoned by their mothers, to conduct satanic ceremonies behind the scenes.

 

ATHEIST GROUP LODGES COMPLAINT AFTER MUSIC TEACHER PLAYS "HALLELUJAH CHORUS" DURING ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

ATHEIST GROUP LODGES COMPLAINT AFTER MUSIC TEACHER PLAYS "HALLELUJAH CHORUS" 

DURING ANNOUNCEMENTS

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/09/14/atheist-group-lodges-complaint-after-music-teacher-plays-hallelujah-chorus-during-announcements/;

 

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

 OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — A chapter of one of the 
nation’s most conspicuous professing atheist groups has lodged a 
complaint after being notified by concerned parents that a music teacher
 at a Tennessee elementary school played Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” 
during the morning announcements.

The East Tennessee chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently emailed Linden Elementary School Principal Roger Ward to ask that the song not be used again.
“While this music may be beautiful and even inspirational for Christians, it is not acceptable for broadcasting to the entire student body at Linden Elementary,” wrote Aleta Ledendecker. “In consideration of all the possible choices of music, this piece with its distinctly religious content can be interpreted as proselytizing. Such actions are clearly prohibited by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

ADVERTISING

“Please see that the music director makes appropriate choices for broadcasting to your student body beginning immediately,” she continued. “Furthermore, please reply with a report of the actions you have taken to assure that there will be no future music choices with even a hint of religious overtones.”

However, the school says that the teacher only used the song because the class was studying George Frederic Handel that week, and only 20-30 seconds of the composition was aired. A different composer is studied each week.
“The passage was selected to correspond with the school’s overall music curriculum that, for that particular week, featured the musical works of George Handel,” an unidentified school district representative told conservative commentator Todd Starnes.
“The criticisms articulated by Ms. Ledendecker appear to have been based upon insufficient information taken entirely out of context, incorrect assumptions about the school’s music curriculum and a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment’s relationship with historically sacred classical music compositions being taught in a public school music curriculum,” they said.

The attorney for the district has since responded to FFRF to state that the teacher had not done anything inappropriate.
Ledendecker has acknowledged that she is unsure “if there actually is a legal issue at this time.” She has submitted a records request to review the school curriculum further.
“This is the litmus test I use: If I were a Christian parent walking in the school, and I heard over the PA system during morning announcements music with the words ‘Praise Allah. Allah is the king on high. Bow down to Allah,’ how would I feel as a Christian parent with that being broadcast to all the children in the schools? If I would find that somewhat unsettling, then it is equally unsettling for secular parents,” she told the Oak Ridger.
As previously reported, in 1828, just 52 years after the nation’s founding, Noah Webster, known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, wrote, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

EX CATHOLIC MIKE GENDRON: "REMEMBER THE REFORMATION"~PAPAL ECUMENISM & JESUIT SUBTERFUGE SEEKS TO UNDERMINE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

EX CATHOLIC MIKE GENDRON: 

"REMEMBER THE REFORMATION"

SPEECH AT DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

NOVEMBER 2016 

 Mike Gendron, Founder of Proclaiming the Gospel in Plano, TX, remembers the gospel message the Reformers defended on the advent of the 499th anniversary of the 95 Theses.

CANADA: ROBERT SPENCER'S LETTER TO MELANIE JOLY, HERITAGE MINISTER IN THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT ABOUT TREATMENT OF CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

 

 ABOVE: MELANIE JOLY

BELOW: ROBERT SPENCER

 

 BELOW: CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

 

CANADA: ROBERT SPENCER'S LETTER TO MELANIE JOLY, HERITAGE MINISTER IN THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/robert-spencers-letter-melanie-joly-heritage-minister-trudeau-government; 

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

 The freedom of speech is under severe attack all over the world, and the 

controversy that has erupted in Canada over Christine Douglass-Williams, a 

board member with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, writing for Jihad 

Watch, is ongoing. The Canadian Press reported: “With concerns about the post 

circulating among her fellow board members, it came to the attention of 

Heritage Minister Melanie Joly, whose department is responsible for the 

foundation.” So I sent this letter to Joly:

 Honorable Minister Joly:

I am writing in support of Christine Douglass-Williams, a member of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, who I understand has come under scrutiny for writing for my web publication, Jihad Watch.
The Canadian Press has identified as questionable one specific piece that Ms. Douglass-Williams published at Jihad Watch (among other places), in which she refers to deceptive Islamic supremacists. However, neither the Canadian Press nor anyone else has offered any evidence for why what Ms. Douglass-Williams wrote was wrong or hateful.
In the piece, she referred to Muslims who posture as moderate when they actually aren’t. Do such people actually exist? Consider the imam Fawaz Damra, who according to contemporary media reports was known in the Cleveland area “as a voice of moderate, mainstream Islam.” He “was often seen at public events with politicians and leaders of other faiths, including several prayer services after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” Meanwhile, he was “disparaging Jews in Arabic as ‘pigs and monkeys’ and raising money for the killing of Jews by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”
This is just one example of many that confirm the correctness of Ms. Douglass-Williams’ observations. Yet despite the reasonableness of her statement, the Canadian Press reports that “there are concerns that Douglass-Williams’s views are a hindrance to her work with the foundation and an affront to its legally defined mandate, which is to help eliminate racism and racial discrimination in Canada.”
There is in reality no racial issue involved here. Jihad terror and the deceptions of some terror-aligned leaders is not race. Islamic jihadists are people of all races. Ms. Douglass-Williams, in standing against jihad terror and Sharia oppression, is not only not jeopardizing the work of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, but enhancing it, but standing against the spread of an ideology that is frankly and unapologetically supremacist and violent, and set against the survival of Canadian pluralist principles.
Meanwhile, I am deeply concerned that Ms. Douglass-Williams is being smeared by association with me and Jihad Watch. I have been writing against jihad terror and Sharia-justified denial of human rights for many years, and I’ve found over the years that one tactic that the allies of jihad terror and Sharia supremacist groups frequently resort to in Canada, the U.S., and Western Europe is to smear those who expose their activities as “hatemongers,” “racists,” and “bigots.” But a false charge does not become true for being often repeated. I invite you to read any of my 17 published books (which I am happy to send you free of charge), thousands of articles, and 45,000+ posts at Jihad Watch, and am confident that you find not a trace of “hatred,” “racism,” or “bigotry” in them. All my work has been and is in defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. More to the point, I invite you to read all of Ms. Douglass-Williams’ published writings at Jihad Watch, and you will see that there is no reason for anyone who is concerned about racism and about preserving pluralistic societies to be concerned.
If I can answer any questions or be of any possible service to you in your further consideration of this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kindest regards
Robert Spencer
director, Jihad Watch

WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER HEAVY ASSAULT, HILLARY CLINTON SAYS MESSAGE OF 1984 IS "TRUST BIG BROTHER"

 

WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER HEAVY ASSAULT, HILLARY CLINTON SAYS MESSAGE OF 1984 

IS "TRUST BIG BROTHER" 

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/freedom-speech-heavy-assault-hillary-says-message-1984-trust-big-brother; 

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

“Nineteen Eighty-Four is famous for the term ‘doublespeak’ — a powerful form of propaganda that deliberately obscures, disguises, or reverses the meaning of words. In the book, the government destroys the very purpose of language by insisting that ‘War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.'”
Nowadays the Orwellian line is “Islam is a religion of peace.” And then there’s “hate speech is not free speech.”
“Orwell’s point in 1984 was that the very kind of technocratic progressivism which Hillary Clinton praises as the solution to all social ills is itself the deep and abiding threat.”
Yes, and it’s coming down fast, and unless large numbers of people wake up quickly to what is happening, it will very soon be upon us.

“Has Hillary Lost Her Grip on Reality? ‘Rely on Big Brother’ Was NOT the Message of Orwell’s 1984,” by Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media, September 13, 2017:

In her new book What Happened, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a shot at literary interpretation — and twisted George Orwell’s book 1984 to mean the exact opposite of what it really means.

“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism,” Clinton wrote. “This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered.”

So far, so good. Then Clinton draws the exact wrong message from Orwell’s classic. “The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves,” she bizarrely added.

But Clinton wasn’t done. “For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance,” she concluded.

Writer and lecturer James Heartfield noted that Clinton’s interpretation is a “bizarre misreading.”

One Twitter user cleverly pointed out how Clinton’s own interpretation of 1984 uses “doublespeak” to subvert the very message of the classic work.

This literary analysis of Clinton’s paragraph hit the nail on the head. The former secretary of State started out by correctly explaining Orwell’s point — authoritarianism does indeed try to redefine reality.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is famous for the term “doublespeak” — a powerful form of propaganda that deliberately obscures, disguises, or reverses the meaning of words. In the book, the government destroys the very purpose of language by insisting that “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”

Both the Left and the Right have pushed narratives that dismiss and demonize the other side, but Clinton’s use of propaganda here was rather obvious. Again, she wrote, “The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.”

In 1984, every single one of those groups besides “ourselves” is in on the propaganda game. The political leaders are controlling the narrative, erasing history and even words from existence. The press is an arm of the state, pushing the big government’s propaganda (sound familiar?). A powerful group of “experts” use their position to oppress the people, and Orwell reveals this system directly, as the main character works in the administration.

Orwell’s point in 1984 was that the very kind of technocratic progressivism which Hillary Clinton praises as the solution to all social ills is itself the deep and abiding threat. Since the late 1890s onward, progressivism has placed tremendous faith in scientific “experts” to reshape society, and the governing administrative state is a direct result of this movement.

Clinton, as leader of the party of big government, is infamous for pushing the all-consuming liberal narrative of political correctness, which brooks no opposition or question. She unequivocally embraced “intersectionality” during the campaign, championing “oppressed” groups which actually exert political power and dismissing those who would dare to disagree as “deplorables.”…

This is why Hillary Clinton’s misreading of Orwell is so dangerous. So many liberals see themselves as being on the side of the angels, and they cannot come to grips with the fact that millions of Americans disagree with them, for rational reasons that have nothing to do with racism or “hate.”…

______________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: 

“Allowing government to censor speech of unpopular groups will lead to suppression of views not approved by government”

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/allowing-government-censor-speech-unpopular-groups-will-lead-suppression-views-not-approved-government

EXCERPTS:

"Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States and the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, repeatedly affirmed the rights of conscience as embodied in the First Amendment’s protection of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. To quote him:
“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.”
What was Jefferson referring to as “conscience”? Prior to the American Revolution, particularly in the early 1700s and late 1600s, Americans were forced to support churches not of their choosing. In some colonies, ministers of non-approved denominations were imprisoned and even hanged. From the memory of this intolerance came insistence upon a Bill of Rights being included in the newly ratified Constitution."

VACCINES' SACRIFICIAL VIRGINS: NOT FOR THE "GREATER GOOD"

VACCINES' SACRIFICIAL VIRGINS: 

NOT FOR THE "GREATER GOOD"

SEE: http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/09/sacrificial-virgins-not-for-the-greater-good/; 

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

 Ruby is 16. She’s almost totally paralyzed. Well, the only limb that
 works is this one… my left arm. I still go out and I see friends and 
stuff. It’s just more of a pain and with the fatigue it’s harder. Nobody
 knows exactly what why Ruby has developed this serious neurological 
damage after a healthy and active life. But it all started after she had
 her first of three injections of the HPV human papillomavirus 
vaccine—injections that are given in the hope that they’ll prevent 
cervical cancer. But is there proof that the HPV vaccine does prevent 
cervical cancer? And is there any proof that HPV actually causes it?

AMASH'S AMENDMENT REBUKES JEFF SESSIONS ON ASSET FORFEITURE

 

 

AMASH'S AMENDMENT REBUKES JEFF SESSIONS 

ON ASSET FORFEITURE 

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/26911-amash-s-amendment-rebukes-sessions-on-asset-forfeiture; 

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

In July, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the National District Attorneys Association in Minneapolis that he was not only opposed to the national effort to rein in civil asset forfeiture (CAF), but that he was issuing a new directive to increase the number of police seizures of cash and property from individuals not convicted of any crime.
But earlier this week, Sessions was dealt a strong rebuke from the U.S. House of Representatives. In a voice vote, indicating overwhelming support, the House approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act by Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that will, if likewise passed by the Senate, nix Sessions’ plan.
Under CAF, a person does not have to be convicted of any crime before his or her property can be taken. It is used by both federal government officials and local law-enforcement officers to seize property that they simply suspect has been used in wrongdoing — without even having to charge the person with any crime. In cases of criminal asset forfeiture, however, the accused is afforded all the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards available under criminal law. With criminal forfeiture, the accused must actually be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before property is forfeited.
Civil asset forfeiture is an assault upon the very concept of private property and the legal position that an accused person is innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Writing in National Review, Tiana Lowe called civil asset forfeiture “essentially government-sanctioned stealing from citizens.”
Sessions had reinstated the Equitable Sharing Program of the Department of Justice, which allowed state and local police agencies to take assets of persons not convicted of any crime, give them to the federal government, and be rewarded with part of the “take” in return. This allowed law-enforcement agencies in states that have limited CAF to continue the practice anyway, despite state law.
Amash’s effort drew strong bipartisan support, from Democrats such as Pramila Jayapal of Washington State, a staunch progressive, and from Republicans such as Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a committed conservative.
In what Lowe called “one of the few conservative legacies of the Obama Administration,” the Justice Department under Eric Holder had actually reined in the so-called Equitable Sharing scheme. “Unfortunately, these restrictions were revoked in June of this year,” Amash lamented. “My amendment would restore them by prohibiting the use of funds to do adoptive forfeitures that were banned under the 2015 rules.”
Representative Don Byer (D-Va.) supported Amash’s amendment, declaring, “Civil asset forfeiture without limits presents one of the strongest threats to our civil, property, and constitutional rights. It creates a perverse incentive to seek profits over justice.”
CAF has become so common now that in 2014 federal law-enforcement officers actually seized more property of citizens than did burglars. A few years ago, a Michigan woman who was suspected of not complying with the state’s medical marijuana law lost tools, a bicycle, and even her daughter’s birthday money to civil asset forfeiture.
Sessions told the district attorneys in July that he wanted them to get tough on drug offenders, because “drug offenses are not nonviolent crimes, as most of you all know.”
This is typical of CAF supporters: the contention that they are fighting illegal drugs, and that those who oppose CAF are just favoring drug kingpins over law enforcement. The drug problem is so severe, they argue, that law enforcement simply must have the “tools” to combat the drug lords. But it is unfair to charge those who wish to rein in CAF abuse as favoring criminals, just as it would be unfair to charge those who argue for due process for accused murderers as supporting homicide.
Doing wrong to “do right” is still wrong. Even in horrific murder, rape, and armed robbery cases, the accused is still afforded the due process of law. One provision of the English Bill of Rights, adopted in 1689, was crystal clear: “Forfeitures before conviction are void.”
The late Congressman Henry Hyde contended that CAF also violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “excessive fines.” He wrote, “There is no proportionality between the crimes alleged and the punishments imposed” in most cases, citing examples of entire hotels being seized simply because a single room was used, without the knowledge of the owners, for a drug transaction.
One would think that Sessions would respect the English Bill of Rights, due process of law, private property, and the prohibition of “excessive fines.” But if none of that matters to him, he should at least heed the Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.”
Amash has struck a blow for liberty in this case; however, it remains to be seen if the Senate will attempt to remove his commonsense amendment. CAF without conviction of a crime needs to be completely abolished. As Lowe wrote in her National Review article, “The party of small government and individual liberty must act as such and condemn the Justice Department’s foray back into the murky, abusive, and authoritarian waters of asset forfeiture.”