republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
During his speech April 26 to the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, President Donald Trump revealed that he will end the participation of the United States in the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).“Today, I’m proud to announce another historic step to protect your Second Amendment rights,” the president told those gathered to discuss the future of the right to keep and bear arms.Then, after informing the audience that he had not informed the NRA-ILA leadership in advance that he intended to make this praiseworthy parting of ways with the UN, President Trump spelled out his motivation for abandoning the ATT:So, in the last administration, President Obama signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. And in his waning days in office, he sent the treaty to the Senate to begin the ratification process.This treaty threatened to subjugate — and you know exactly what’s going on here — your rights and your constitutional and international rules and restrictions and regulations.Under my administration, we will never surrender American sovereignty to anyone. We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom. And that is why my administration will never ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I hope you’re happy.Just in case anyone didn’t hear the president clearly, or for those who were worried that he would do the tyranny two-step after he wasn’t surrounded by hundreds of card-carrying NRA members, President Trump put a fine point on his policy and his philosophy:I am officially announcing today that the United States will be revoking the effect of America’s signature from this badly misguided agreement. We’re taking our signature back. The United Nations will soon receive a formal notice that America is rejecting this treaty.As part of this decision, I will sign right now, in front of a lot of witnesses — a lot — it’s a lot of witnesses — a message asking the Senate to discontinue the treaty ratification process and to return the now-rejected treaty right back to me, in the Oval Office, where I will dispose of it. [The photo above shows the president holding up the message after he signed it.]Here’s hoping that as soon as the motorcade pulled into the White House, the call went out from the Oval Office to the UN and the U.S. Secretary of State’s office, informing them that the UN would have to come up with a new plan for disarming American civilians and for using a treaty to repeal the Second Amendment.I am especially pleased by the president’s announcement, as I was there in the United Nations — speaking in favor of the Second Amendment — when the call came from then-President Obama ordering the U.S. delegation to vote in favor of the Arms Trade Treaty.Later, on September 25, 2013, then-Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Arms Trade Treaty "on behalf of the president and the people of the United States."For readers requiring a little refresher, here are a few provisions in the now-futile Arms Trade Treaty.Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” In fact, a “voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.With that brief sketch of the agreement’s provisions, it is obvious why the government of the United States should never have signed on to that clear and present threat to the natural right of the people to protect their persons, their property, and — should the government take a tyrannical bent — to alter and abolish it, by force of arms, if necessary.“By taking these actions, we are reaffirming that American liberty is sacred and that American citizens live by American laws, not the laws of foreign countries,” President Trump told those attending the conference.In the coming days, Americans determined to defend their right to keep and bear arms should pay close attention to the news, hoping to hear that the president has taken the necessary steps to fulfill his promise and to withdraw completely and permanently from the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty and from any and all agreements that would infringe on the rights protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/what-unsigning-the-arms-trade-treaty-means-for-american-gun-owners-video/
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On this new Jamie Glazov Moment, I focus on The Pope’s Recent Statement: “Let’s Accuse Ourselves.” — and I ask: So then who will stand for the innocent victims, Pope Francis?Don’t miss it!Order my new book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.Please donate through our Pay Pal account.______________________________________________________________SEE ALSO:______________________________________________________________NUMBER OF THE BEAST: POPE PLEDGES $500,000 TO 75,000 MIGRANTS – THAT’S $6.66 PER MIGRANT!
Eerie coincidence, or lesser magic?
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/number-of-the-beast-pope-pledges-500000-to-75000-migrants-thats-6-66-per-migrant/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:Over the weekend the Vatican announced it would donate $500,000 to migrants traveling to Mexico to reach the US.“The money is specifically meant to aid the 75,000 migrants who arrived in Mexico in 2018 as part of six caravans, according to a press release from Peter’s Pence,” reported ABC News.While the money will be spread among various projects and congregations, one can’t help notice the math ($500,000 divided by 75 thousand migrants) derives the number $6.66 – a number associated with Satan in the bible and Christianity.The number was also adopted by satanic pervert Aleister Crowley, who called himself “The Great Beast 666.”Pope Francis has donated $500,000 to assist 75,000 Mexican migrants in their attempt to enter the US illegally.Are you kidding me?500,000 / 75,000 = 6.66There are no coincidences.#WWG1WGA 🇺🇸— Educating Liberals (@Education4Libs) April 29, 2019Speaking exclusively to Infowars, Vatican researcher and Illuminati insider Leo Zagami commented the number’s emergence may not be coincidental.“I believe it could also be a case of diabolical synchronicity not of this world and possibly articulated by the divine to send us a clear message,” Zagami noted. “The alternative instead is a totally evil move by the Holy See that confirms once again the diabolical nature of Pope Francis.”“I denounced the matter in an article I published a couple of days ago also as a complete propaganda stunt crafted by the Vatican:Considering the pope’s support of mass migration threatening to undermine Western civilization, what could the Vatican have meant by this?THE POPE IS BROW BEATING THE U.S.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
This compilation video highlights mainstream media’s outrage over the Democratic Party’s overwhelming masculine whiteness, as four of the top seven 2020 Democrat presidential candidates are white males.“Women have become somewhat overshadowed by white, male candidates,” said one MSNBC anchor.Another MSNBC host added, “It bothers me a little bit that those are three white males, we need to talk about more diversity.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The decision comes following word that Attorney General Dana Nessel had reached a settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), agreeing to enforce current terms that prohibit State-contracted foster care and adoption agencies from discriminating against prospective parents, which includes turning down same-sex households.While Bethany Christian Services says that it was not pleased with the outcome, it will comply in order to continue participating in the state program.“We are disappointed with how this settlement agreement has been implemented by the state government. Nonetheless, Bethany will continue operations in Michigan, in compliance with our legal contract requirements,” it said in a statement.The organization added that the “mission and beliefs of Bethany Christian Services have not changed.”According to the Detroit Free Press, Bethany’s national board of directors voted on April 11 to adjust the policy for its Michigan office. The change will not apply to private adoptions.As previously reported, on a corporate level, Bethany Christian Services is led by Chris Palusky, who formerly served in a leadership capacity at World Vision, and also has been involved with Samaritan’s Purse, CARE and World Relief.Palusky began serving as president of Bethany Christian Services in January 2018, a position that according to a 990 form posted online, paid his predecessor over $230,000 a year. He lists Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Coldplay, The Police, Sting and U2 among his likes on social media. Under his “religious views” section, he provides a link to a message from Rob Bell. Palusky also characterizes his political views as being in the “center.”The organization similarly agreed last year to allow placements with homosexuals in order to retain its contract with the City of Philadelphia.Attorney General Nessel applauded the latest move, writing on Twitter, “Having more adoption agencies which don’t discriminate =s more children adopted into loving, nurturing “forever” homes. Thank you to Bethany Christian Services!”As previously reported, in 2017, the ACLU filed suit against the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Children’s Services Agency on behalf of four lesbian women who contacted St. Vincent’s Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services in an effort to adopt a child.Because both organizations operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, they do not place children in homes where there is not both a mother and a father.“When somebody calls in with interest to become a foster parent or adoptive parent … if they let us know they’re unmarried, or if they’re gay or lesbian, we immediately recommend, make a referral to another agency … for other agencies that provide that service,” Jose Carrera, director of clinical services for St. Vincent Catholic Charities, told legislators in 2015.Representatives therefore told the women that the agencies could not be of assistance, or that “same-sex couples aren’t our area of expertise.”The lesbian women stated in their lawsuit that they “object to the use of taxpayer funds to underwrite and endorse religious beliefs to which they do not subscribe.” They also contended that allowing State-hired religious adoption agencies to decline to place children with homosexuals deprives homosexuals “of their rights protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”“There is no legitimate government interest served by denying children access to potentially qualified families based on a religious exclusion,” the complaint asserted.The ACLU consequently sought an injunction to prevent the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Children’s Services Agency from contracting with, or providing taxpayer funding to, any child placement agency that “employ religious criteria in decisions regarding the screening of prospective foster and adoptive parents.”After Nessel, a lesbian, took office in January, she reviewed the case and determined that the agency could be held legally liable. She decided to reach a settlement with the ACLU, which resulted in a voluntary dismissal of the case.“Discrimination in the provision of foster care case management and adoption services is illegal, no matter the rationale,” Nessel said in a statement. “Limiting the opportunity for a child to be adopted or fostered by a loving home not only goes against the state’s goal of finding a home for every child, it is a direct violation of the contract every child placing agency enters into with the state.”A summary of the settlement outlines that Michigan will enforce its current contract language prohibiting discrimination, which it says is consistent with both federal and state law.Examples of discrimination outlined in the document include “turning away or referring to another contracted agency an otherwise potentially qualified LGBTQ individual or same-sex couple that may be a suitable foster or adoptive family for any child accepted by the agency for contracted services,” and “refusing to place a child accepted by the agency for contracted services with an otherwise qualified LGBTQ individual or same-sex couple suitable as a foster or adoptive family for the child.”Organizations that commit these delineated violations may have their contract with the State terminated.While Bethany Christian Services decided to comply with the contract terms that will now be enforced under the settlement, St. Vincent Catholic Charities rather chose to fight the matter. It has now filed a lawsuit, stating that the requirement violates its sincerely-held religious convictions, and thus its First Amendment rights.“St. Vincent would be forced to close down both its foster care and adoption programs if the state follows through on their threats,” Becket attorney Nick Reaves told the Detroit Free Press. “The vast majority of the work St. Vincent is doing is through its contracts with the state.”“This means that adoptive parents will have fewer choices and foster children will face longer waits to find permanent homes,” the formal complaint reads.Proverbs 25:26 says, “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain and a corrupt spring.”_____________________________________________________________SEE ALSO:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
TOPEKA, Kan. — The Supreme Court of Kansas has ruled that the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights encompass a woman’s “right” to an abortion.“We conclude that, through the language in section 1, the state’s founders acknowledged that the people had rights that pre-existed the formation of the Kansas government. There they listed several of these natural, inalienable rights …,” the court wrote in its opinion, released on Friday. “Included in that limited category is the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination.”“This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy. Although not absolute, this right is fundamental,” it asserted. “Accordingly, the State is prohibited from restricting this right unless it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest.”As previously reported, in 2015, then-Gov. Sam Brownback signed Senate Bill 95 into law, banning what is termed as “dismemberment abortions.” The bill passed the Senate 31-9 and moved to the House where it likewise was approved 98-26.The law prohibits “knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”The prohibition was challenged by abortionist Herbert Hodes and his daughter, Traci Nauser, who argued that it placed a burden on their “right” to perform second trimester abortions.In court, the state defended the ban, in part, by presenting other options for ending the lives of the unborn.“The state has offered three alternatives to the standard D & E procedure: labor-induced abortion, inducing fetal demise with digoxin injections, and inducing fetal demise by cutting the umbilical cord (also known as transection),” an appeals court ruling outlines.In June 2015, Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks placed an injunction on the enforcement of the law while the constitutionality of the legislation is decided in full in court.“The alternatives do not appear to be medically necessary or reasonable,” he said. “[P]atients’ fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy will be unduly burdened if SB 95 goes into effect.”The state then filed an appeal, and in January 2016, the Kansas Court of Appeals announced that it was was evenly split over the matter.The half that favored the injunction pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex “marriage,” stating that the courts seem to find “rights” in the law that aren’t expressly written in the Constitution. It used the example and others to conclude that Kansas must include the “right” to abortion.But the other seven justices that favored the law said that they weren’t convinced that abortion has ever been considered a right, nor should it be.“Simply put, there is nothing within the text or history of §§ 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights to lead this court to conclude that these provisions were intended to guarantee a right to abortion,” they wrote. “Our state’s founders held sacred the basic concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they expressed those sentiments in that order in § 1 of our Bill of Rights.”“Even if Kansas courts were to find substantive due process rights under § 1, as opposed to a mere expression of traditional beliefs, we would not find a substantive due process right to abortion,” they continued. “The subject of abortion places the pregnant woman’s liberty interest directly at odds with the unborn child’s right to life.”In April 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the case. It took three years to issue a ruling, and now has concluded that inherent in the constitutional rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the “natural right to make decisions about parenting and procreation.”It pointed to other cases nationwide that have upheld the right to control one’s own body, and also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has found that “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” are “long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”The court then concluded that Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights “protects an inalienable natural right of personal autonomy, which today we hold to be fundamental. Presuming that any state action alleged to infringe that right is constitutional dilutes the protections established by our Constitution.”“[A] woman has a federal constitutional right to access an abortion, including whenever it is necessary to protect her health,” it also said. “A regulation that prevents her from accessing the safest method of abortion for her places an undue burden on that right. These holdings have particular significance in this case, where the trial court found that S.B. 95 has removed access to the method for performing a second-trimester abortion that is the safest in most cases.”One justice, Caleb Stegall, issued a sharp and lengthy dissent, calling the conclusion of his peers “far reaching.”“Perhaps it is apropos — though macabre — that while reviewing a prohibition against human dismemberment we have fashioned a 20th century jurisprudence of fundamental rights and tiered scrutiny into a procrustean bed upon which we now force the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights to lie,” he wrote.“[T]he majority abandons the original public meaning of section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and paints the interest in unborn life championed by millions of Kansans as rooted in an ugly prejudice,” Stegall said.He stated that by the way his fellow justices framed their decision, it would seem that “all the luminaries of the western legal tradition — from Sir Edward Coke and William Blackstone to Edmund Burke and Thomas Jefferson — would celebrate and enshrine a right to nearly unfettered abortion access. In this imagined world, the Liberty Bell rings every time a baby in utero loses her arm.”Stegall also found it ironic that while the court found a “fundamental right” to abortion, Kansas simultaneously “criminalizes homicides of the unborn; refuses to execute pregnant convicts; permits wrongful death actions for the unborn; gives no effect to a living will when the patient is pregnant; and provides for the representation of the unborn in trust and probate proceedings.”“Abortion has become the judicially preferred policy tail wagging the structure of government dog,” he lamented. “For the majority, the settled and carefully calibrated republican structure of our government must give way, at every turn, to the favored policy. But in my considered judgment, constitutional structure is the very thing securing and guaranteeing the full range of human liberty.”“History and reason suggest that those who, in the name of liberty, tear down that edifice will wind up out in the political elements, unsheltered and exposed to the cold wind of every arbitrary power.”2 Chronicles 19:6 reads, “And [he] said to the judges, ‘Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment.'”
______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://christiannews.net/2019/04/26/judge-blocks-hhs-rule-barring-abortion-facilities-and-referral-sites-from-federal-family-planning-funding/
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
At the “She the People” presidential forum in Houston, Cory Booker defended Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s “anti-Semitic comments about AIPAC,” stating that “the criticisms of Congresswoman Omar, what Donald Trump has been saying about her is reprehensible, it is trafficking in Islamophobia.”“Islamophobia” is nothing more than a buzzword used to beat down critics. It has become the fastest way to silence real dialogue and discussion about the global jihad. If you criticize hateful and violent Islamic doctrine, which jihadis refer to as their justification for murder and myriad other abuses and atrocities, you’re branded “Islamophobic” and “racist,” even though most of these atrocities are committed against visible minorities and women — a fact Democrats do not care about even amid their manipulation of racism and sexism charges to court votes.Those who have called out the anti-Semitic words of Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and have shed light on her alliance with Hamas-linked CAIR stand accused by Booker of “trafficking in Islamophobia.” Identity politics is in full swing among Democrats. It’s their primary playing card, and they will continue to play it even if it means aiding the jihad by defending those who ally with Muslim Brotherhood interests and maintaining their own alliance with degenerates like Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan sent a message to Omar about her disingenuous apology for her anti-Semitic comment: “Sweetheart, don’t do that….Pardon me for calling you sweetheart, but you do have a sweet heart. You sure are using it to shake the government up, but you have nothing to apologize for.” Booker agrees.“Booker Defends Omar: Criticism of Her Is ‘Reprehensible,’ ‘Trafficking in Islamophobia,’” by Pam Key, Breitbart, April 24, 2019:_____________________________________________________________Wednesday at the “She the People” presidential forum in Houston, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) defended Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) anti-Semitic comments about AIPAC.The moderator asked, “My question is about Ilhan Omar. She was recently critical of the outside influence of AIPAC in determining U.S. foreign policy, including funding of Israel. Subsequently, she has received condemnation from the President and members of her own party, as well as death threats. What will you do as president to protect the right of courageous women of color to criticize U.S. policy even when directed at allies?”Booker answered, “Thank you for your question. The criticisms of Congresswoman Omar, what Donald Trump has been saying about her is reprehensible, it is trafficking in Islamophobia,
SEE ALSO:
https://www.infowars.com/man-of-faith-cory-booker-says-thoughts-and-
prayers-are-bullshit/
