Translate

Sunday, March 13, 2016

HARD PUSH TO INCREASE NATURALIZATIONS AND DEFEAT TRUMP WITH THE HELP OF WEALTHY GEORGE SOROS, SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST

HARD PUSH TO INCREASE NATURALIZATIONS AND DEFEAT TRUMP 
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH

Reports indicate that the Obama administration, labor unions, and George-Soros linked non-governmental organizations are encouraging legal aliens to become naturalized citizens ahead of the elections. The agenda behind the push appears to be to defeat Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
“I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win,” Hortensia Villegas, a Mexican immigrant, told the New York Times earlier this week after attending a naturalization workshop in Colorado. “He doesn’t like us,” she told the Times, adding that she felt compelled to register after a decade of living in the country illegally.
According to the New York Times, the Obama administration has been working with labor unions and organizations, such as the George Soros-linked National Partnership for New Americans, to motivate immigrants to seek naturalization in an effort to register over one million more voters before November. “People who are eligible are really feeling the urgency to get out there,” said Tara Raghuveer, deputy director of the National Partnership for New Americans, a coalition that helped put on the workshop in Denver. “They are worried by the prospect that someone who is running for president has said hateful things.”
It does not come as a surprise that Soros would be behind the drive to defeat a presidential candidate who is adamant about enforcing the borders. As a notorious globalist, Soros has made no qualms about his resentment toward national borders, as they present an obstacle to a New World Order.
And Soros has been outspoken about his contempt for some of the Republican presidential contenders who have advocated for stronger borders and enforcement of immigration laws. In a 2015 opinion piece written by Soros that appeared in The Guardian, Soros opined, “As 2016 gets underway, we must reaffirm our commitment to the principles of open society and resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, however hard that may be.”
At the Soros-funded, pro-open borders Migration Policy Institute, the White House announced last year it would contribute $10 million in federal grants, aka taxpayer dollars, to assist immigrants through the naturalization process, prompting criticism that the president is simply using taxpayer funds to expand the Democratic Party’s voter base.
Following the White House’s announcement, the online Daily Caller reported that the “true motivation” of the President’s plan was quite clear because it has been done by the Democrats before. The Daily Caller wrote, “In August 1995, Vice President Al Gore along with then-White House Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel created the Citizenship USA program: a plan that, in the words of a former White House aide, sought to ‘produce 1-million new citizens before Election Day.’”
Despite assertions that the Citizenship USA program was intended simply to fix the broken immigration system, the Daily Caller asks, “Why did the program only apply to key swing states, why did it last only for one year, and why were the naturalization ceremonies accompanied by voter registration drives in venues the size of Soldier Field?”
Twenty years later, not much has changed. The Obama administration has recruited Fernando Valenzuela, a Mexican-born pitcher who naturalized last year, and Jose Andres, a Spanish-American chef, to create marketing advertisements and appear at swearing-in ceremonies to encourage others to naturalize.
Naturalization drives have been planned in 15 states, including key states like Nevada and Florida. The New Americans Campaign, a non-profit group funded by organizations such as the Ford Foundation and partnered with groups such as the radical La Raza, plans to complete 1,500 naturalizations at a session being hosted at the Marlins Park baseball stadium on March 19.
And the naturalization campaign has already seen some success according to the Times.
“Naturalization applications increased by 11 percent in the 2015 fiscal year over the year before, and jumped 14 percent during the six months ending in January, according to federal figures. The pace is picking up by the week, advocates say, and they estimate applications could approach one million in 2016, about 200,000 more than the average in recent years,” the Times writes.
The Times adds that there have been “naturalization rush[es]” in the past that have been triggered by threats of fee increases, but this one is clearly linked to the upcoming election. “There is no hard deadline for immigrants hoping to vote in November, but with the agency currently approving naturalizations in about five months, immigrant groups are pressing to get applications in before May 1 to allow new citizens time to register to vote,” the New York Times reports.
And The Guardian reports that unions are attempting to capitalize on comments made by Donald Trump to galvanize Latinos into getting out to vote.
Maria Ponce of iAmerica Action, an immigrant rights campaign sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), told The Guardian, “Our messaging will be very sharply tied to the political moment, urging immigrants and Latinos to respond to hate with political action and power.”
But InfoWars.com observes that despite the mainstream media’s attempts at portraying Trump as anti-Hispanic, he has been successful in primaries where the population was largely Hispanic, such as Webb County, Texas, “America’s most Hispanic city,” as observed by The Guardian. There, Trump won approximately 35 percent of the Republican primary vote.
Trump’s victory in Webb County compelled The Guardian to write that the outcome “provided harder evidence that Trump has not been shunned by conservative Latinos,” and “may have even inspired them into action,” as he earned more votes in Webb County this primary than were cast in its 2012 primary in total.
Trump has attempted to shake the image the media is painting of a disgruntled racist, instead continually asserting that he does “well with Hispanics,” and some polls seem to support that. In fact, Trump did significantly better in a January New York Post poll of Hispanic Republican voters than his Latino-American counterparts, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
According to that poll, conducted by the Beck Research for the American Federation for Children, 38 percent of the voters favor Trump, while 15 percent supported Cuban American Ted Cruz and 8 percent preferred Cuban American Marco Rubio.
The Trump campaign asserts that there is a reason he remains fairly popular amongst Hispanic voters. Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, said, “No one will benefit more from Mr. Trump’s pro-worker immigration reforms than the millions of immigrants who already call America home.” Hicks notes that the Trump platform includes “limiting the ability of corporations to replace them with new, lower-wage workers brought in from abroad.”
Hicks adds that the “core moral principle” guiding Trump’s immigration policy is his preference for increased wages over importing foreign workers, and that is a stance that is highly popular amongst Hispanic voters, as seen in polls.

CLINTON RAMPS UP HER RHETORIC AGAINST THE NRA

CLINTON RAMPS UP HER RHETORIC 
AGAINST THE NRA 
BY BOB ADELMANN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22743-clinton-ramps-up-her-rhetoric-against-the-nrarepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In attempts to differentiate herself from her Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton is ramping up her rhetoric against the National Rifle Association (NRA). During a town hall meeting in Durham, North Carolina, on Thursday, Clinton said, “I will take on the gun lobby.… It is time, my friends, [to] stand together and say enough.”
On stage with her was a recently formed group called Mothers of the Movement including the mothers of victims of gun violence, such as the mother of Trayvon Martin, Sybrina Fulton. The group first popped up four days before the Democratic primary in Columbia, South Carolina, in February to voice their support for Clinton’s anti-gun agenda. At that meeting each of the mothers shed crocodile tears over the loss of their sons who, they said, were killed not because they were committing a crime but instead because they were “racially profiled” and “mistreated” because of their skin color.
This was red meat for Clinton, who outlined an updated and refined agenda that she promised to enact if elected president. She said she would move ahead by executive order if Congress didn’t go along. Her agenda includes:
• Reinstate her husband’s ban on assault weapons, enacted in 1994 but allowed to expire 10 years later because of its ineffectiveness;
• Provide more federal aid (and strings) to “support” local police departments;
• Expand domestic violence to include not just married people, but also anyone dating someone, as well;
• Pass a bill repealing the ban on suing gun manufacturers over illegal use of their products by criminals;
• Turn gun hobbyists into gun dealers by redefining just how many guns a hobbyist is allowed to sell privately before having to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and
• Close the “Charleston loophole,” referring to the current rule that if a background check hasn’t been completed within three days, that the purchase is allowed to be completed. The criminal who gunned down churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, was allowed to purchase his weapon after three days when the FBI hadn’t blocked the purchase within the three-day period.
Clinton continues to promote her anti-gun agenda in the face of increasing public support not only of private ownership of firearms, in accordance with rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but for the NRA itself. A Rasmussen poll in December last year asked those polled if they agreed, or disagreed, that “the NRA supports gun policies that make all Americans safer.” Sixty-one percent of those polled agreed, with 35 percent indicating that they agreed strongly.
Previously a poll conducted by Gallup last October asked those polled if they held a “favorable” or “unfavorable” view of the NRA itself. Fifty-eight percent held a “favorable” view, with 26 percent holding a “very favorable” view of the group. An indication of just how much the culture has shifted in favor not only of the NRA, but gun ownership in general, can be shown: When Gallup asked that same question in 1995, just 42 percent of those polled held a favorable view, a 16-percentage point improvement in just 20 years. As Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist noted: “These poll results are even more striking given the negative attacks leveled at our organization during the last several months by President Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, [Hillary] Clinton, and other anti-gun elites who leverage vast media conglomerates to do their bidding. That a majority of Americans are able to see through the propaganda shows how much anti-gunners continue to underestimate the NRA.”
And not just the NRA, either. Support for Clinton’s reinstatement of her husband’s assault-weapons ban continues to diminish, as well. A poll conducted by the anti-gun establishment ABC/Washington Post following the shooting in San Bernardino, California, showed a majority opposed to reinstatement of the ban. Back in 1994, support for the ban touched 80 percent. Now it’s just 45 percent.
Clinton is speaking into the wind. Her message is not resonating in an increasingly pro-gun culture, but it does serve as reminder that the attack on the Second Amendment continues despite that cultural shift.

REPUBLICAN BIBLE BELT GOVERNOR DEAL BASHES BILL PROTECTING OBJECTORS TO "GAY MARRIAGE" AS UN-CHRISTIAN

SOUTHERN BAPTIST APOSTATE SEES NO THREAT FROM GAY "MARRIAGE"

TRAITOR TO CHRIST & HIS FOLLOWERS, TWISTS THE BIBLE
SO AS NOT TO "DISCRIMINATE"

Nathan Deal

Republican Bible Belt Governor Bashes 

Bill Protecting Objectors to ‘Gay Marriage’ 

as UnChristian

BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/03/10/republican-bible-belt-governor-bashes-bill-protecting-objectors-to-gay-marriage-as-unchristian/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

ATLANTA, Ga. — The Republican, Southern Baptist-identifying governor of Georgia recently cited the Bible in denouncing a proposed bill to protect objectors to same-sex “marriage,” as he asserts that the move is not Christlike.
In speaking to reporters following a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Atlanta on March 3, Gov. Nathan Deal said that he would reject any bill that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith.”
He was referring to a recent legislative move to combine H.B. 757,  also known as the Pastor Protection Act, with S.B. 284, the First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia. As previously reported, the Pastor Protection Act unanimously passed the Georgia House, finding support among Democrats and Republicans alike.
“No minister of the gospel or cleric or religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination … in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or the United States,” it reads in part.
The First Amendment Act of Georgia mandates that “[g]overnment shall not take any discriminatory action against wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes, speaks or acts in accordance with a sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
On Thursday, Gov. Deal cited the Bible in asserting that the proposed laws were somehow unChristian.
“I think what the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world and said to those of belief, ‘This is what I want you to do,'” he said. “We do not have a belief—in my way of looking at religion—that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”
Deal then pointed to the biblical account of the woman at the well to further his point. The woman had been married five times and was living with a man who was not her husband. Jesus called upon the woman to turn to His truth to find Living Water.
“What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs,” he said.
Deal, who personally believes in marriage as being defined as the union of one man and one woman, said that he does not see those who disagree as being a “threat” to Christians. Deal attends First Baptist Church of Gainesville, which has several female pastors on its team.
“We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us,” he asserted. “We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route.”
“I hope that we can all just take a deep breath, recognize that the world is changing around us, and recognize that it is important that we protect fundamental religious beliefs,” Deal continued. “But we don’t have to discriminate against other people in order to do that. And that’s the compromise that I’m looking for.”
The office of Georgia House Speaker David Ralston issued a statement in response to the governor’s comments, outlining that Ralston is open to working out a compromise on the proposals.
“Speaker Ralston appreciates and shares Governor Deal’s sincere commitment to protecting religious liberties while ensuring that Georgia continues to welcome everyone with genuine southern hospitality,” it said. “Productive conversations continue with the governor’s staff as well as other members of House leadership regarding HB 757 and the Speaker is confident that we can find a way to move forward together.”
__________________________________________________________

Why does God hate sin?

"God hates sin because it is contrary to His perfect and holy nature. It is impossible for God to do anything wrong. He cannot lie. He cannot cheat us. He cannot misrepresent the truth. Therefore, we can see that holiness, which is the opposite of sin, is the standard as set by God Himself.
Sin causes separation between ourselves and God (Isaiah 59:2). Such separation has a horrible consequence: damnation. Therefore, God would hate anything that separates us from His perfect love and perfect standard of holiness.
Sin takes many forms. It can be aggressive as in rape and murder. It can be passive as when we do not do what is right and let others suffer. Sin can take the form of misrepresentation so that such things as adultery is called "an affair," homosexuality is called "an alternative lifestyle," and abortion is called "the right to choose."
God must punish the sinner. If He did not, God would be approving of that which is contrary to His Holiness. God must deal with sin and, unfortunately for unbelievers, they will face the consequences of their sin if they do not trust in the person of Jesus Christ who removes the wrath of God from all who would believe and trust in Him."


FLORIDA LEGISLATURE DEFUNDS ABORTION GIANT PLANNED PARENTHOOD

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE DEFUNDS 
ABORTION GIANT PLANNED PARENTHOOD 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/03/11/florida-legislature-defunds-abortion-giant-planned-parenthood/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Lawmakers in Florida have voted to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, as well as to place new requirements on abortion facilities that mirror those currently being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.
House Bill 1411 reallocates funds that abortion providers had been receiving as Medicaid reimbursement, and prohibits the government from contracting with organizations that offer abortion services—with the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Abortion facilities receive approximately $200,0000 a year in Medicaid funds.
“A state agency, a local governmental entity, or a managed care plan … may not expend funds for the benefit of, pay funds to, or initiate or renew a contract with an organization that owns, operates, or is affiliated with one or more clinics,” the bill reads.
Current state and federal law prohibits funds from being used toward abortion, but Florida lawmakers believe that the state shouldn’t help keep abortion facilities in business either.
“We pay their light bill, we pay their salaries, we pay all kinds of things when the state contracts with these clinics,” Sen. Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach, outlined on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “Let’s get Florida out of the abortion business. That’s what this bill does.”
The bill also requires abortionists to obtain admitting privileges or transfer agreement with a local hospital and mandates stricter inspections at abortion facilities. In Texas and Mississippi, where admitting privilege laws have been passed, some abortion facilities have faced possible closure as they have been unable to find hospitals that willing to work with them.
“If an any owner, operator, or employee of an abortion clinic fails to dispose of fetal remains and tissue in a sanitary manner … consistent with the disposal of other human tissue in a competent professional manner, the license of such clinic may be suspended or revoked, and such person commits is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree,” the legislation additionally outlines.
H.B. 1411 passed the Senate by a vote of 25-15 on Wednesday after being approved by the House Senate 25-15. It now will be sent to the desk of Gov. Rick Scott, who has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the legislation.
Cecile Richard, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claimed that the law will leave some women with no place to go to obtain health care.
“This bill would strip many women of their access to basic health care, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and abortion. As a health care provider, Planned Parenthood knows how laws like this leave women devastated,” she said in a statement. “Women in Texas have been forced to drive hundreds of miles to access abortion, or self-induce abortion without medical supervision.”
However, others note that the funds will be reallocated to other women’s health organizations in the state—as long as they do not end the lives of unborn children.
As previously reported, in its annual report released in late December, the national office of Planned Parenthood outlined that the organization performed 323,999 abortions nationwide during the 2014-2015 fiscal year.
However, while the organization also claimed that it is “stronger than ever,” its figures showed that the number of women visiting Planned Parenthood is the lowest in almost a decade. The report totals its services provided as being 9,455,582, with business being down by nearly a million persons from the year before, when figures totaled 10,590,333.

U.S. SENDS 3 NUCLEAR BOMBERS TO PACIFIC, AFTER SENDING A CARRIER STRIKE GROUP TO CONFRONT CHINA

After Sending A Carrier Strike Group 
To Confront China, US Sends 
3 Nuclear Bombers To The Pacific
BY MATT AGORIST
SEE: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/after-sending-a-carrier-strike-group-to-confront-china-us-sends-3-nuclear-bombers-to-the-pacific.htmlrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Last week, the U.S. Navy announced they dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea. Consisting of the John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, two cruisers, two destroyers, and the 7th Fleet flagship, the US is making their mission clear — we are not scared of kicking off World War III.
Now, only a week later, they are flexing even more military might, announcing they have deployed three B-2 Spirit nuclear stealth bombers to support the U.S. Pacific Command. U.S. forces in the Pacific have been saber rattling with China for months.
According to Stars and Stripes,
On Tuesday, North Korea announced it has developed the capability to put a miniaturized nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile, the same day that the Air Force deployed the B-2s. The Air Force did not specify where the B-2s would be based.
“Recent events demonstrate the continued need to provide consistent and credible air power throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific region,” said Gen. Lori J. Robinson, Pacific Air Forces commander. “Our ability to demonstrate credible combat power while training and inter-operating with our network of like-minded partner nations is vitally important.”
Not only is the military deploying nuclear bombers to the region, but they are also flexing their might by conducting the largest combined amphibious exercise of its kind to date.

The exercise, known as Ssang Yong, which means ‘Twin Dragons,’ consists of approximately 9,200 U.S. Marines and 3,100 U.S. Navy personnel who will work alongside 4,500 ROK Marine Corps, 3,000 ROK Navy, 100 Australian Army and 60 Royal New Zealand Army forces.
“The sheer number of personnel involved is extremely impressive,” said Capt. Ed Thompson, commander, Amphibious Squadron 11. “There are a lot of moving parts and things that need to align for a successful exercise. When they do, it is truly amazing to see how we operate together.”
The area where Ssang Yong is taking place is only a stone’s throw away from the disputed region in the South China Sea, where, according to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the Chinese are militarizing the region and the U.S. is being forced to act.
However, as Fu Ying, a spokeswoman for China’s National People’s Congress said,
The accusation [that China is militarizing the region] can lead to a miscalculation of the situation. If you take a look at the matter closely, it’s the US sending the most advanced aircraft and military vessels to the South China Sea.
But the US seems unconcerned with the facts and more intent on provoking a fight.
“China must not pursue militarization in the South China Sea,” Carter said in a speech in San Francisco earlier this month. “Specific actions will have specific consequences.”
The region in question is known as Xisha in Chinese and Hoàng Sa in Vietnamese, and is a group of islands, reefs, banks and other maritime features in the South China Sea. It is controlled (and occupied) by the People’s Republic of China and also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.
This dispute over who lays claim to the region dates back decades, and physical violence has erupted between the disputing parties on multiple occasions as recently as 1974. However, since then, the dispute has remained peaceful — until now.
The U.S. is attempting to claim that the Chinese presence in the region is some new conflict and are touting straw men such as closed trade routes as a reason for flexing their military sway. But there is no evidence that trade will be affected at all.
No country in their right mind would hinder its ability to export, and China shows no signs of halting exports any time soon.
In October, an anonymous defense source told Foreign Policy that the U.S. was determined to put on a“show of military might.”
“It’s not a question of if, but when,” the official was quoted as saying.
Well, it appears that the ‘when’ is now.
The U.S. is already engaged in proxy wars with Russia in Ukraine and Syria, which have the potential to devolve into an open conflict between the superpowers. Attempting to intimidate the Chinese in their own backyard seems like an incredibly ill-conceived move at this time.
American actions will inevitably only serve to bring the Russo-Sino strategic military alliance into closer consultation with one another in an attempt to stem U.S. global imperialism.
While this may be splendid news for defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, it’s extremely dangerous news for the rest of the world. One strategic miscalculation could result in events spiraling drastically out of control.

CELLPHONE FOOTAGE: FBI MURDER OF LAVOY FINICUM & SHOTS FIRED AT VEHICLE PASSENGERS CAUGHT ON VIDEO!!!

FBI MURDER OF LAVOY FINICUM 
& SHOTS FIRED AT VEHICLE PASSENGERS 
CAUGHT ON VIDEO!!!
FINICUM RAN FROM VEHICLE 
TO TAKE FIRE AWAY FROM FRIENDS
Published on Mar 9, 2016
New cellphone footage from inside the car that LaVoy Finicum was driving moments before he was shot shows what really happened after he was forced off the road.

INDOCTRINATION INTO GLOBALIST SOCIALISM: NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO AN "INTERNATIONAL" FLAG

NYC School Kids Pledge Allegiance to “International” Flag
NYC School Kids Pledge Allegiance to “International” Flag
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/22698-nyc-school-kids-pledge-allegiance-to-international-flagrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Young New York City schoolchildren were forced to produce and then pledge allegiance to an “international flag,” sparking a sometimes fierce nationwide outcry among parents and taxpayers outraged about indoctrination and globalism. The controversial symbol, which included a desecrated American flag overlaid with small flags of Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and more, featured the words “We Pledge Allegiance to an International Flag” underneath. It was supposed to be auctioned off to raise money, but was removed from the Internet following the national backlash that, according to school officials, has included threats. Critics have argued that the law defines defacing a U.S. flag as a crime and that school officials should be held accountable.  
The scandal first erupted when a brief article about the scheme was posted, along with an image of the “international flag,” by Fox News host Sean Hannity's website www.Hannity.com. “It is widely accepted that American public schools are controlled by liberals,” noted Hannity's staff in the post, calling the incident an "outrage." “It seems like every day, we see new examples of American schoolchildren being indoctrinated with left-wing ideas.... This is the type of globalist indoctrination we have come to expect from the public school system, but telling impressionable young American children that their loyalty should lie with some nebulous idea of a global community rather than their own nation is a new low.”  
Hannity's website reported that it learned of the bizarre flag from a concerned parent. According to its report, subsequently confirmed by other media outlets, the incident took place at “Public School” 75, or P.S. 75, a government school in New York City that teaches students in English and Spanish. The offending “art project” was reportedly produced by kindergarten children, who are about five years old in most cases, under guidance from school officials. “The fun quote on the bottom is about unity and creating an environment in which everyone is welcome! 'We pledge allegiance to an International Flag!'” read a description of the flag and slogan on the auction site it was posted on, which has since been removed. “Our dual language classroom strives to be a place that everyone feels welcome!”
Also in the text advertising the flag to prospective buyers, which was reportedly taken down by the principal following the parental uproar, was information on how it was made. “The students made a beautifully painted stretched canvas American Flag and then applied flags from all the Spanish speaking countries onto the stripes of the American flag,” the description claimed, without elaborating on why Russia, where Russian is the primary language, would be included. “All the children chose a flag to color using colored pencils and they were glued onto the larger American flag. The stars are cut canvas which are painted and decorated with REAL Swarovski Crystals (gold and crystal colored)!”  
After being picked up by conservative-leaning media outlets across America and spreading like wildfire on social media, an outcry of massive proportions ensued. Among those speaking out was actor and conservative commentator Chuck Norris. “Rather than defacing the American flag and pledging to a new international one, the teacher should have been instructing the students about the proper treatment of a flag and what desecrates it, as well as the penalties for the latter,” explained Norris in his WND column, noting that it is a serious crime to knowingly deface a U.S. flag. Unfortunately, he continued, it is not the first time that tax-funded “educators” have been caught promoting the desecration of the American flag, pledging allegiance to foreign flags, and more.
Also seizing on the story was Infowars, BizPac Review, and other non-establishment media outlets. Writing on BizPac Review, Frieda Powers said the “liberal indoctrination” of American schoolchildren had “reached a new low.” “It’s a pretty safe bet that this kind of globalist, left-wing indoctrination of school children will be seen again,” added Powers. In the comments section of articles, commenters urged parents to yank their children out of the government's “indoctrination camps” and slammed globalist “educators” for brainwashing American children.   
Illustrating the massive and growing chasm between government “education” officials and the American public forced to finance government education through their taxes, school officials sounded bewildered by the controversy. And instead of apologizing to offended parents, taxpayers, and citizens, they went on offense, complaining to the media about alleged threats made by outraged citizens. Various Twitter images of people calling for the school to be “blown up” or for the mastermind of the international flag to be “shot” were highlighted, though they were not independently verified and, if true, were presumably not intended to be taken literally. Some critics also reportedly used article comment sections to accuse the so-called educators of “treason.” Others merely called for the officials responsible to be fired immediately. But under ultra-leftist NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio, who has a history of defending mass-murdering communist regimes, accountability is unlikely.  
Patricia Frisbie, “donation chair and V.P. of fundraising” for the Parent Teacher Association's executive board, told a media outlet dubbed “Mic” that emergency meetings were going to be held. “It's definitely ongoing and it's happening as we speak,” she said, adding that the school had contacted police for additional security. Again, instead of apologizing, she went on offense, claiming critics of the globalist propaganda against impressionable young children were “really blowing this out of context.” It was not clear if she meant the critics were taking the project out of context, or were blowing the scandal out of proportion. Either way, furious parents were further outraged by the dismissive attitude.  
“These are a bunch of 5-year olds getting together and making artwork expressing how they feel about school,” she claimed, as if the five-year-olds had just spontaneously decided to desecrate the flag and pledge allegiance to an “intentional” one. Sounding oblivious and unsympathetic to parental concerns, she also blamed the “harsh tone of national politics” for the outrage. “It definitely touched a nerve.”
Of course, the latest scandal is hardly the first U.S. flag-related scandal at a government school to spark nationwide outrage. As The New American reported in March of 2014, a government school in San Jose, California, banned the wearing of T-shirts with U.S. flags on the Mexican holiday known as Cinco de Mayo. Incredibly, courts agreed that censoring the American flag was needed to prevent “racial tension” from exploding into violence, and that infringing on free-speech rights was justified in the case.
The controversial pledge of allegiance to the “international flag” by kindergartners in New York also comes less than six months after United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared the UN, often ridiculed as the dictators club, to be “the Parliament of Humanity.” Speaking in New York City at a celebration of UN Day on the 70th anniversary of the global outfit's founding, the top global bureaucrat even went perilously close to deifying the scandal-plagued organization he leads, claiming it brings hope, peace, security, and even sustenance to the world. He claimed humanity had a duty to unite behind the UN and its blue flag, too.
Even before the UN boss was calling on the world to rally around the UN's world flag, Obama was urging American officials to celebrate UN Day with “appropriate ceremonies and activities.” Before Obama even took office, some especially radical city councils in America had started raising the UN flag on the flag poles normally reserved for the U.S., state, and city flags. UN flags and pro-UN propaganda have become increasingly common across the country and worldwide.
Indeed, at government schools across America today, impressionable young children are being indoctrinated into what is known as “multiculturalism” — the notion that all cultures, even those that engaged in human sacrifice, are equally valid, and a radical agenda that, in practice, tends to demonize Western culture and American culture in particular. None of this is a secret. In fact, recently retired Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan often boasted of using government schools to create “global citizens” in partnership with UNESCO. The UN, meanwhile, regularly brags about its programs to transform children around the world into “global citizens” loyal to the UN. It even has a program known as “Global Citizenship Education.”
The American people must urgently demand an end to the globalist indoctrination of young children masquerading as “education” in the government's schools. Not only are they destroying children mentally and spiritually, they are putting the future of America, its independence, and its constitutionally protected liberties at grave risk.   


TRUMP "CELEBRATED" ELTON JOHN'S SAME SEX "MARRIAGE" TO DAVID FURNISH~TRUMP: "THEY DIG EACH OTHER"

‘They Dig Each Other’: Donald Trump ‘Celebrated’ Elton John’s Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/03/08/they-dig-each-other-donald-trump-celebrated-elton-johns-same-sex-marriage/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wrote in celebration of the same-sex “marriage” of famed pop singer Elton John in 2005, a link to his Trump University website shows.
“There’s a lot to celebrate this holiday season. Elton John married his long-time partner David Furnish on December 21,” Trump wrote on December 22, 2005 (click here to view). “That’s the first day that civil partnerships between gay couples became legal in England under the new Civil Partnership Act.”
He said that he knew both men and opined that their “marriage” should last.
“Elton credits David with helping him kick drug and alcohol addictions that nearly killed him,” Trump said. “The pair has been together for 12 years. I know both of them and they get along wonderfully. It’s a marriage that’s going to work.”
He sent well wishes to the two men, saying, “If two people dig each other, they dig each other.”
“In any event, I’m very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other,” Trump stated. “Good luck, Elton. Good luck, David. Have a great life.”
“But because I wasn’t invited, do I still have to send them a toaster?” he added.
As previously reported, in 2012, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $20,000 to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) according to a form 990 posted online and available for public review, as well as $10,000 to the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.
Trump has also acknowledged that he himself has attended a homosexual “wedding,” telling the Hollywood Reporter last year that he attended the ceremony of Broadway theater owner Jordan Roth.
“You say you would have liked the states, rather than the Supreme Court, to decide on gay marriage. Have you been to a gay wedding?” the outlet asked.
“Yes, I have,” Trump replied. “Jordan Roth. You know Jordan, right? Great guy.”
However, last year, Trump stated that he does not support same-sex “marriage,” although the does believe that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is “the law of the land.”
“You have to go with it. I mean, you have to go with it. The decision has been made, and that is the law of the land,” he told MCNBC last September when asked about the controversy surrounding Kentucky clerk Kim Davis.
As previously reported, last month, Trump was interviewed by lesbian publisher Susan O’Connell of the homosexual publication Bay Windows, who asked, “When President Trump is in office can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?”
“Well, you can,” Trump, who personally opposes “gay marriage,” replied. “And look, again, we’re going to bring people together. And that’s your thing (homosexuality) and other people have their thing. We have to bring all people together, and if we don’t we’re not going to have a country anymore.”
_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: 

BERNIE SANDERS EXPRESSES SUPPORT FOR ALLOWING ABORTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION UNTIL BIRTH~CLINTON HAS SAME POSITION

BERNIE SANDERS EXPRESSES SUPPORT FOR ALLOWING ABORTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION UNTIL BIRTH 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/03/09/bernie-sanders-expresses-support-for-allowing-abortion-without-restriction-until-birth/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

DETROIT, Mich. — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders expressed his support for allowing abortion without restriction until birth during a televised town hall event on Monday.
Sanders, a socialist, attended the event in Detroit to push for votes ahead of Tuesday’s primary.
“Can you name a single circumstance at any point in a pregnancy in which you would be okay with abortion being illegal?” Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked.
“It’s not a question of being okay,” Sanders replied. “I believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.”
He said that he found it ironic that many who support limited government also believe that the government should get involved in regard to the issue of abortion.
“There are a whole lot of people out there who tell me that government is terrible, government is awful, get government off our backs,” Sanders stated. “But somehow on this issue they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.”
Baier then reiterated his initial question asking if Sanders supports any restrictions at all.
“I guess the genesis of the question is that, you know, there are some Democrats who say after five months, with the exception of the life of the mother or the health of the baby, that perhaps that’s something to look at,” he said. “You’re saying no.”
“I am very strongly pro-choice,” Sanders replied. “That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That’s my view.”
Last month, the Democratic presidential candidate stated that there is dismay as to why organizations such as Planned Parenthood have endorsed Hillary Clinton over himself as he has long been in favor of abortion on demand.
“If you have 100 percent Planned Parenthood voting record—100 percent pro-choice voting record—there are people who are asking, ‘Why is the leadership not either supporting Bernie Sanders or why are they, you know, opposing him?” he said.
“We are not going back to the days when women had to risk their lives to end an unwanted pregnancy. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman and her doctor to make, not the government,” Sander’s campaign website outlines. “We are not going to allow the extreme right-wing to defund Planned Parenthood; we are going to expand it.”
“As president, Sen. Sanders will only nominate Supreme Court justices who understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and recognize the rights of women to have access to family planning services,” it further explains.
Hillary Clinton was also interviewed during the Town Hall and likewise expressed her support for abortion, but said, “I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother. I object to Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, no such exceptions.”
When asked if she believes an unborn child should have any protections in the womb, she pointed to Roe v. Wade, claiming that abortion is a mother’s right.
“It’s not much of a right if it’s totally limited and constrained, so we’ve got to continue to stand up for a woman’s right to make these decisions and to defend Planned Parenthood, which has done an enormous amount of good work across our country,” she asserted.
Nearly 60 million children have been murdered in the womb since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973.
________________________________________________________________

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton

Clinton, Sanders Draw Fire for No-Limits Abortion Positions

SBA List: voters now ‘know the truth about Clinton’s extreme views on abortion’
BY BILL MCMORRIS
SEE: http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-sanders-draw-fire-for-no-limits-abortion-positions/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A prominent pro-life organization is going on the offensive against the “extreme” pro-abortion positions held by Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which recruits and funds female pro-life politicians, said that the Democrats’ support for late-term abortion “is a liability” in the general election.
“Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were finally asked about abortion last night, and we now know why it’s been avoided up until this point,” Dannenfelser said in a release. “Both oppose legislation that would protect unborn children from brutally painful late-term abortions after five months of pregnancy.”
Sanders and Clinton were grilled about abortion at a town hall hosted by Fox News on Monday. Both candidates responded to questions from anchor Brett Baier by highlighting their commitment to abortion.
“Women have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor,” Clinton said. “It’s not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained. So I think we have to continue to stand up for a woman’s right to make these decisions, and to defend Planned Parenthood.”
Clinton became the first Democrat to receive Planned Parenthood’s endorsement in a presidential primary. Employees of the nation’s top abortionist have pumped more than $20,000 to her campaign, which has in turn paid Planned Parenthood about $5,000 for volunteer hours and “staff time.”
Sanders, who has only received a handful of small-dollar contributions from abortionists, echoed his opposition to legislation that would limit late-term abortions.
“I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body,” Sanders said. “I am very strongly pro-choice. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician, and her family. That’s my view.”
Late term abortion bans starting at 20 weeks have passed in several states, as well as the House of Representatives. Dannenfelser said the Democrats could meet resistance from voters in the general election.
“Clinton knows her support for late-term abortion is a liability, and is desperately trying to hide it,” she said in the release.
Multiple polls have shown that about 60 percent of Americans support bans on abortions after 20 weeks—roughly five months—into a pregnancy, and 80 percent oppose third trimester abortions. Sanders and Clinton enjoy 100 percent ratings from abortion lobbyist NARAL, which opposes any restrictions on late-term abortion. Both opposed the partial birth abortion ban signed by George W. Bush that eliminated a process in which doctors deliver a baby feet-first, in order to stab him in the head before it fully from the womb.
The Fox News town hall was the first time that Democrats were questioned about their views on abortion.
Planned Parenthood has been a topic of conversation at nearly every Republican debate in light of congressional efforts to cease the $500 million taxpayers send to the abortionist every year. Front runner Donald Trump is the only candidate who supports continuing to send taxpayer dollars to the group. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio criticized the media for refusing to ask “extremists” in the Democratic Party about the issue at a February debate.
“There have been five Democratic debates. The media has not asked them a single question on abortion, and on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortions should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child?” Rubio said. “Why don’t they ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that partial-birth abortion, which is a gruesome procedure that has been outlawed in this country, she thinks that’s a fundamental right. They are the extremists when it comes to the issue of abortion, and I can’t wait to expose them in a general election.”
Clinton has walked back her support for late-term abortion on the campaign trail, telling MSNBC in September that she supported “restrictions in the very end of the third trimester.”
She reiterated to Baier that she is “in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.” Dannenfelser said that the “health” exception would be so elastic as to “render such a regulation meaningless.” She said that the debate has provided ammunition from pro-lifers in this effort.
“SBA List already has hundreds of paid field staff on the ground in key battleground states ensuring voters know the truth about Clinton’s extreme views on abortion,” Dannenfelser said.
Planned Parenthood is currently being investigated by several states, federal agencies, and congressional committees after the emergence of undercover videos showing top executives candidly discussing the sale of aborted baby body parts.