Friday, January 20, 2017

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on January 18, Vice President Joe Biden said, “It is imperative that we act urgently to defend the liberal international order.” Biden went on to use the phrase “liberal international order” eight times in his 2,725-word speech, starting early on with:
Our careful attention to building and sustaining a liberal international order — with the United States and Europe at its core — was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.
Taken in its historical context, the above reference to a “core” could only pertain to the establishment of NATO in 1949, when it was comprised of the United States, Canada, and 10 European nations. Those who remember the Cold War recall NATO as an alliance of free nations created to defend Western Europe from potential aggression by the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union. Few people realized what NATO was, however. Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter authorize forming “Regional Arrangements,” which is precisely what NATO is.

On March 19, 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that the NATO pact was “designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations,” that it was “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations,” and that it “is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.”
Going back to Biden’s speech, his preferred term “liberal international order” is a variation of a more familiar phrase, “new world order,” which he probably avoided because it tends to raise red flags among those who are concerned about the seven-decades-long efforts of internationalists to create a world government (“new world order”) under the auspices of the United Nations. The above-quoted Dean Acheson, who observed that NATO was essential for strengthening the UN, was — in addition to being a top proponent of creating NATO — a creator of the Marshall Plan, and was the top State Department delegate at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, held to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II.
Though not mentioning Acheson by name, Biden alluded to his work in his speech, stating: "We need to tap into the big-heartedness that conceived a Marshall Plan, the foresight that planned a Bretton Woods, the audacity that proposed a United Nations."
That one sentence encompassed a virtual internationalists’ delight of “new world order” programs, about which Biden lamented: “Of course, there are those who do not share this vision for the world.”
It is also worth examining Biden’s claim that the “liberal international order” (which, as we concluded, was built on NATO and the UN) “was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.”
The second half of the 20th century began in 1950, which happens to be the year the United States entered the war in Korea as the principal partner in the United Nations Command, which pursued military operations against the North Koreans. The aforementioned Acheson had counseled President Truman to enter the war.
During the following years of the 20th century and into the 21st, the United States would send troops to fight in other undeclared military operations in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All of these operations relied on UN resolutions, rather than congressional declarations of war, for authorization. Several of them relied on NATO forces to accomplish their military objectives.
An article posted by The New American in 2002 made a case that NATO had effectively become the UN’s military arm. The article quoted a statement from military theorist James J. Schneider, who, in his article “Ambushing the Future” for the April 1995 issue of Strategic Warfare magazine, noted that “the future will be dominated by a single overwhelming presence — the United Nations.” Schneider, recognizing the UN’s inability to have its own military force, added, “Even now we can anticipate the transformation of NATO from a regional security arrangement to a future role as the UN’s military arm.”
In Biden’s view, more than half a century of continual wars around the globe, all authorized by UN resolutions and many fought by NATO forces at the behest of the UN, can be viewed as an example of the “success” of the “liberal international order.”
While Biden merely alluded to NATO early in his speech, he went on to champion the UN arrangement by name, saying that “the single greatest bulwark for our transatlantic partnership is the unshakable commitment of the United States to all our NATO Allies.” He affirmed what many American noninterventionists object to concerning our involvement in such alliances:
An attack on one is an attack on all. That can never be called into question. And we must continue to stand with Ukraine as they resist Russia's acts of aggression and pursue their European path.
Such interventionism clearly disregards the sage advice offered by two of our nation’s Founding Fathers. George Washington said in his farewell address: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.” And Thomas Jefferson, pledged in his first inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”
At one time, our governments followed such wise advice. But the age of interventionism that commenced with Woodrow Wilson, resumed with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and has continued from Harry S. Truman until the present day, steered our path in another direction. The members of the American First Committee that opposed U.S. entry into World War II in 1940 were called “isolationists,” and modern-day advocates of a noninterventionist foreign policy, such as former representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul, have been branded with that same label.
Biden continued such branding in his speech, stating:
Popular movements on both the left and the right have demonstrated a dangerous willingness to revert to political small- mindedness — to the same nationalist, protectionist, and isolationist agendas that led the world to consume itself in war during in the last century.
As we have seen time and again throughout history, demagogues and autocrats have emerged — seeking to capitalize on people’s insecurities.
In this case, using Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic rhetoric to stoke fear, sow division, and advance their own narrow agendas.
This is a politics at odds with our values and with the vision that built — and sustains — the liberal international order.
The impulse to hunker down, shut the gates, build walls, and exit at this moment is precisely the wrong answer.
Biden asserted that the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) “is still the bedrock of addressing so many 21st Century threats — from terrorism to the spread of diseases like Ebola to climate change.”
He also correctly noted that our nation’s “commitment to Europe and NATO is thoroughly bipartisan,” though the Republicans he named as agreeing with his views on NATO were of the neoconservative stripe. For example:
Just last month, my good friend and frequent sparring partner, Republican Senator John McCain traveled to Estonia where he said: “The best way to prevent Russian misbehavior [is] by having a credible, strong military and a strong NATO alliance.”
Biden said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to make it clear that he was not referring to the imminent transition of power in his country, which provides him with deniability should anyone accuse him of directing his remarks toward president-elect Trump. That does not preclude a certain amount of reading between the lines, however.
Since a substantial portion of Biden’s speech can be viewed as a defense of NATO and U.S. interventionism on behalf of NATO members in the event of Russian encroachment, it is worth considering what Trump has said about NATO.
An article in the British Guardian six months ago noted that Trump — while not advocating U.S. withdrawal from the alliance, which would effectively destroy it — “has suggested that under his leadership America would not necessarily come to the aid of a NATO ally under attack, saying he would first consider how much they have contributed to the alliance.”
Trump’s position, however, was based mostly on economic considerations rather than an avoidance of “entangling alliances." He believes that the other NATO members have not paid their fair share of the collective defense costs incurred by the alliance.
A more recent article in Forbes on January 15 quoted a statement Trump made in an interview that day with Germany’s Bild and Britain’s Times of London. During that interview, Trump said that while the trans-Atlantic military alliance is important, it “has problems.”
“It’s obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said in the Bild version of the interview. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should,” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.” The Times quoted Trump saying that only five NATO members are paying their fair share.
During the interview, Trump also praised Britain’s decision to leave the EU.
There is nothing to indicate that the Trump administration will merit the noninterventionist label that might be applied to a Ron Paul or a Rand Paul. But neither is Trump likely to be an enthusiastic defender of Biden’s “liberal international order.”

Related articles:
In Davos, Globalists Hail Leadership of Communist Chinese Tyrant
China: Staking Claim in the New World Order
Communist Chinese Dictator to Push Globalism at World Economic Forum
Chinese Tyranny 2.0
World Economic Forum Pushes Global Controls
CFR Globalist: End U.S. States, Build China-style Regional Gov't
Robots Transforming China, Causing Heartburn at World Economic Forum
Communist Chinese Agent Takes Over Interpol, Global Policing
Communist China Unveils Most Orwellian Scheme Ever


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Sharia law is being packaged and marketed to public school children. 
Parents send their children to school, trusting that they are in good 
hands. Instead, the children in New Albany-Floyd County schools in 
Indiana are being indoctrinated to view Islamic jurisprudence as 
positive — even in its oppression of women.
“Worksheet on ‘Sharia law’ irks school parents”, by Kirsten Clark, Courier-Journal, January 18, 2017:
Parents in Southern Indiana are upset by a middle school worksheet’s portrayal of “Sharia law,” which they say casts the Islamic code in a positive light while ignoring human rights violations and the oppression of women.
“The way that the worksheet is left would be like describing how effective Hitler was at nationalizing Germany and creating patriotism but leaving out that he slaughtered 6 million Jews,” said Dean Hohl, one of several parents who spoke out against the assignment at a recent New Albany-Floyd County school board meeting.
He added: “I’m just not OK with my daughter – or any child that age – leaving class with the understanding that anything about Sharia law is OK.”
The worksheet, assigned to seventh-graders at Highland Hills Middle School, presents a passage written by a fictional 20-year-old Saudi woman named Ahlima, who feels “very fortunate” to live under Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. She writes about how she will soon become a man’s second wife and explains her modest dress: “I understand that some foreigners see our dress as a way of keeping women from being equal, but … I find Western women’s clothing to be horribly immodest.”
“That document by itself, it’s almost propaganda,” said Jon Baker, whose daughter also received the worksheet. “If you read that, you would think everything’s wonderful in that world.”
Bill Briscoe, a spokesman for the district, said the curriculum is being reviewed in light of the complaints, per district policy.
The same worksheet, created by InspirEd Educators Inc., caused a controversy when it was used at a middle school in Smyrna, Ga., in 2011. Sharon Coletti, the creator of the worksheet and president of InspirEd Educators, said she received death threats and was accused of “indoctrinating” children at the time.
Coletti, who is a Christian and longtime educator, said in an interview with the Courier-Journal that she wasn’t trying to indoctrinate anyone. She said she was just trying to create a lesson that was more engaging than dry, expository text pulled from a textbook.
“If I can shape something so that kids have to decide for themselves, once I get them involved in the situation, they never forget it,” she said…..


 Abdul Kareem Alkady
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Canary Mission database “was created in order to document people and groups that are promoting hatred of the USA, Israel and the Jewish people.”
The Canary Mission highlights an example that should raise a serious question: how many Muslims are working in the health care profession and attending to the sick, and yet actually hate some of those very people whom they are charged with healing? Abdul Kareem Alkady is a healthcare worker with a virulent hatred for Jews. He was a member of the Muslim Student Association at the University of Buffalo and now works as a registered nurse at the Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo. As a medical health worker, he has a mission to heal, but he says that his life calling is something quite different:
My life calling is to take down these Jews! And if yu become one of them then I’m sorry..yur next!!”
On October 14, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “Look at the Jewish guys face? Wallah I would just punch him right in the f**kin jaw.”
…“The hate I have towards Zionists and people that support Israel is growing. It’s consuming me wallah.
It is unnerving to even ask the question: how many Muslims like Alkady have the same hatred in their hearts but are working in public health jobs?
 Canary Mission Database, January 19, 2017: (
Abdul Kareem Alkady
Occupation: Unknown
University: USNY, UB
Organization(s): MSA
Close Connection(s): Noora AldulaimiFathAllah Ali , Mohamed AliAkram AlkadiAhmed AlmondAli AminNora BarzaniAdam ElayanNoor RadwanRawan SalehBushra SalemJasmine Shaath
“Yahood [Jews] are similar to parasites. Everywhere they go, they seem to mess up everything.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, August 6, 2012
“@Fat_K411 I was brutally beating a Jew!! My life calling is to take down these Jews! And if yu become one of them then I’m sorry..yur next!!”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, January 15, 2013
“Look at the Jewish guys face? Wallah I would just punch him right in the f**kin jaw.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, October 14, 2014
“You cheap broke fat yahoodi [Jew] makhnooth bitch.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, December 13, 2015
“@PaliNoseKid you’re a pali. You got a Jewish nose. And you’re short as sh*t. This explains so much.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, July 26, 2015
“I hate Israel. I hate them with all my heart.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, August 2, 2014
“The hate I have towards Zionists and people that support Israel is growing. It’s consuming me wallah. Idk if this is good or bad.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, November 18, 2012
“@calipalidunya eat a** you jew.”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, July 20, 2016
“@I_ali13 beat that makhnooth fat Jew!”
— Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady, Twitter, December 16, 2015
> Download
Abdul Kareem Alkady [Abdul Kareem Saeed Alkady] spreads anti-Jewish hatred on Twitter. He is a member of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at the University of Buffalo (MSA UB). Alkady was a student at UB until 2012.
Alkady is a 2015 graduate of the University of the State of New York (USNY), where he studied Nursing.
Alkady is a registered Nurse at the ECMC.
Alkady is the twin brother of Akram Alkadi
Threatening Violence against Jews
On January 15, 2013, Alkady tweeted: “@Fat_K411 I was brutally beating a Jew!! My life calling is to take down these Jews! And if yu become one of them then I’m sorry..yur next!!”
On October 14, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “Look at the Jewish guys face? Wallah I would just punch him right in the f**kin jaw.”
Calling Jews Parasites
On August 6, 2012, Alkady tweeted: “Yahood [Jews] are similar to parasites. Everywhere they go, they seem to mess up everything.”
Using “Jew” as an Insult
On December 13, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “You cheap broke fat yahoodi [Jew] makhnooth bitch.”
On July 20, 2016, Alkady tweeted: “@calipalidunya eat a** you jew
On February 8, 2016, Alkady tweeted: “@SaraDwiii @TheBouchizzle buy it your damn self you jew lol”
On December 16, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “@I_ali13 beat that makhnooth fat Jew!”
On December 7, 2012, Alkady tweeted: “UB is offering a Islam class next semester but it’s during Jum3ah Prayer. Oh the irony. Fukin Jewish bastards….”
On August 10, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “@jbma3 actually there is you ًDamn jew.”
On September 14, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “@arabnilla you’re a jew”
On August 27, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “Typical mooch. Just came back to buffalo and you’re already a jew”
On July 16, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “@almontaser64 ramadan ends after maghrib. At least wait till then you ًDamn yahoodi [Jew]”
On September 25, 2012, Alkady tweeted: “@ghadeermohsin1 ana neek al yahood, wal hanood, wal seenee!!! LMAO! [I will f**k the Jews, and the Indians, and the Chinese!!! LMAO]”
On January 28, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “Are you f**kin kidding me? All this for nothing?!? Ana neek al madrasa wal yahood !!! [I f**k the school and Jews !!!]”
Using Anti-Semitic Stereotypes
On July 26, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “@PaliNoseKid you’re a pali. You got a Jewish nose. And you’re short as sh*t. This explains so much.”
On July 27, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “@ockman24 her and her Zionist nose needa go somewhere.”
On July 18, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “@AroubAlawadi how are you ProPalestine but yo nose so Jewish.”
Conspiracies of Zionist Control
On July 21, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “And most of all, who ever made autocorrect on this iPhone has to be a Zionist. These niggas out here got my tweets all f**ked up and sh*t.”
On the same day, Alkady tweeted: “Mostly every damn company supports Israel because mostly EVERY DAMN COMPANY IS RUNNED BY ZIONISTS!!!”
Mocking the Holocaust
On April 14, 2013, Alkady tweeted: “‘If you’re a Jew, you don’t start from the bottom, unless you were in the Holocaust’ @AyoTee_ LMFAOOOO!!”
On May 7, 2013, Alkady tweeted: “Damn wtf is this smell?!? This niggga stink!!! He smell like he was in the holocaust. No reason to smell like that.”
On May 13, 2015, Alkady tweeted: I’d rather be in the Holocaust.”
Hatred of Israel and her Supporters
On August 2, 2014, Alkady tweeted: “I hate Israel. I hate them with all my heart.”
On November 18, 2012, Alkady tweeted: “The hate I have towards Zionists and people that support Israel is growing. It’s consuming me wallah. Idk if this is good or bad.”
On November 16, 2012, Alkady tweeted: “When I was little I used to dream of having magical powers and me going to Palestine to beat the Israel’s.”
On June 21, 2016, Alkady tweeted: “Anyone who supports Israel are the dumbest people.”
On January 24, 2015, Alkady tweeted: “@disturbedfan132 your mother sucked all the Jews di** to try and free Palestine.”
Demonizing Israel
On July 16, 2014 —  shortly Hamas claimed responsibilty for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli high-schoolers —  Alkady tweeted: “@talzmia yeah, Israel just skips the kidnapping and goes straight to murdering innocent children.”
The Muslim Student Association (MSA) was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America.” Today, the organization maintains its intimate affiliation with the brotherhood and a 2004 FBI investigation uncovered an internal Muslim Brotherhood document in which a brotherhood leader identified the MSA as “one of our organizations.”
With nearly 600 chapters located in the United States and Canada, the MSA is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America, boasting conferences, special events, publications, websites and other activities.
The organization includes a number of previous chapter presidents with explicit links to terrorist groups. Included are al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (Colorado State University), Somali al-Shabaab militant leader Omar Shafik Hammami (University of South Alabama) and Pakistani Taliban recruiter Ramy Zamzam of the MSA’s Washington, D.C. council.
Local MSA chapters regularly invite controversial speakers to their campuses.

Actress: Wear hijab to inauguration to 
“stand in solidarity with our about-to-be-disenfranchised Muslim sisters”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
More hysteria. Who is about to disenfranchise Muslim women? In any case, Kathy Najimy has now ably signaled her virtue, and can now sit back and enjoy the rounds of applause she will receive from the enlightened and intelligent, but where is her concern for Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it? Or Aqsa and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Or the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents, or all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?
Who is standing in solidarity with them? Those who taunt or brutalize hijab-wearing women are louts and creeps, and should be prosecuted if they commit any acts of violence. At the same time, the women who don’t wear hijab in Muslim countries are far more likely to be victims of violence than hijabis in the West. Who speaks for them?

“We should wear hijabs for Donald Trump’s inauguration in support of ‘Muslim sisters’, says US actress,” by May Bulman, Independent, January 19, 2017:
An American actress is encouraging women to wear head scarves on Donald Trump’s inauguration day in a show of solidarity with Muslim women who wear the hijab.
Kathy Najimy, best known for starring in Sister Act and Disney’s Hocus Pocus, recommended women attending an anti-inauguration march in Washington on Friday wear a scarf around their heads, “hijab style”, as a way of standing with their “about-to-be-disenfranchised Muslim Sisters”.
In a statement posted on Facebook, 59-year-old Ms Najimy wrote: “We wanted to create an action, visible and easy, to proclaim our commitment to freedom of religion and to the constitution — religion or no religion.
“We intend to show that we stand in solidarity with our about-to-be-disenfranchised Muslim sisters.”
The actress insisted that such an act would not mean endorsing any religious doctrine, but “standing for freedom”, adding: “We support every woman’s right to worship as they wish and live in security and peace.
“We are by no means endorsing or aligning with any religious doctrine, but simply standing for freedom.”
Ms Najimy is leading a campaign group called Sisterhood of the Travelling Scarves in the nationwide call ahead of a women’s march on Friday, which is expected to see more than 100,000 people in Washington to protest against Mr Trump’s presidency, viewing it specifically as a “feminist issue”….


 UK: Islamic call to prayer held inside historic Gloucester Cathedral
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This is being celebrated as an “inclusive” act. When will the Nicene Creed be recited inside a mosque? Or must the “inclusive” acts, as always, go only in one direction?
Do the “inclusive” people at the Gloucester Cathedral realize that now that the Islamic profession of faith, which is part of the Islamic call to prayer, has been recited in the cathedral, that according to abundant precedent, it is now a mosque? When Mehmet the Conqueror wanted to turn the Hagia Sophia cathedral in Constantinople into a mosque, he had a muezzin recite the profession of faith from the pulpit. So it’s now the Gloucester Mosque.

“Outrage as Islamic CALL TO PRAYER held inside historic British CATHEDRAL,” Express, January 19, 2017:
A ROW has broken out after an Islamic call to prayer was held inside one of Britain’s most historic cathedrals.
The traditional Muslim invocation to worship was performed in front of 1,000 people at the launch of a multi-cultural Faith Exhibition at Gloucester Cathedral.
Imam Hassan of the local Masjid-e-Noor mosque was invited by church leaders to carry it out in the cathedral’s 11th century Chapter House.
Many worshippers welcomed the “inclusive” act but some traditionalists questioned why a “different God” should be worshipped in such an iconic Christian house.
A clip of the call to prayer was initially shared on the cathedral’s Facebook page but then taken down as “inappropriate” as tensions rose.
One post on the removed thread by Isabel Farmer said: “It’s wonderful to be multicultural, but faith is set apart.
“We are never to worship other Gods in a house built for our saviour.
“My ancestors built this cathedral and to allow a practising Muslim pray to another God is insanely naive. What did you think it would do? Encourage them to convert?
“This is why England is on the downslide. Culture and Race have nothing to do with the first commandment as God made all races and he cares about souls only.
“Stand firm Christians. Bring people to the faith by telling them the truth.
“God is the same yesterday, today, forever, so stop with the multicultural appeal and open a history book and a Bible for yourself.”…
 Pagans, Buddhists Featured at U.K. Cathedral Event 


 Jerusalem mayor: “Obama administration…surrendered to the Iranians and radical Islam and abandoned Israel”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
All true. But…things are about to change. A new day is dawning. It’s morning in America.
The Washington Post and the establishment propaganda media is appalled that Barkat could say these things. The way the game is played, in their view, is that the Obama administration should be allowed a free hand to push for a settlement-building freeze, surrender to the Iranians and radical Islam and abandon Israel to a hostile U.N. resolution. But those who take notice of the fact that it has done this are “right-wing extremists.” Got it?

“In video praising Trump, Jerusalem mayor says Obama ‘surrendered’ to radical Islam,” by William Booth, Washington Post, January 19, 2017:
JERUSALEM — The mayor of the city holy to three world religions delivered a message Thursday to outgoing President Obama: good riddance.
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat released a video that disparages Obama and welcomes President-elect Donald Trump.
The mayor’s video launches an online campaign to encourage Israelis to sign a letter, which Barkat promises to deliver to Trump officials, urging the new president to make good on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy, from its current location in Tel Aviv, up the hill 50 miles to Jerusalem.
Barkat’s video pitch begins (in Hebrew, with subtitles):
“My fellow citizens, during the last eight years, the Obama administration has pushed for a settlement-building freeze, has surrendered to the Iranians and radical Islam and abandoned Israel to a hostile U.N. resolution.”
The video shows a clip of Obama saying, “There’s no magic to the phrase radical Islam” and another of him urging Israel to stop building settlements.
Obama, as has every other modern-day president, supports a two-state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Obama White House considered the Jewish communities in the occupied West Bank to be “illegitimate” and “an obstacle to peace.” The rest of the world calls them “illegal.” Israel disputes this.
The video continues, with Barkat saying: “This week President Donald Trump enters the White House. Let’s all welcome him together as our friend.”
Then the viewer hears some rousing music, sees Trump mount a stage, watches a crowd cheering wildly and cuts to Trump addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby in Washington, vowing, “We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem …”…


 Published on Jan 20, 2017
United States President Donald Trump spoke to the nation for the first time as Commander-in-Chief Friday afternoon moments after taking the oath of office to become the 45th President.





DEPLORABALL Inaugural Ball Features 

Mike Cernovich, James O'Keefe, Jack Posobiec



 Prohibited Persons
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Buckeye, AZ –-( In the final days of the Obama administration, several agencies finalized new rules and regulations that Mr. Obama had been pushing for.
Among those, the Social Security Administration, or SSA, announced that they have finalized rules under which they will be reporting – possibly many thousands of – Social Security benefit recipients to the FBI’s National Instant Check System as “prohibited persons.

Inclusion in NICS means complete loss of all Second Amendment rights, and makes it a felony for the person to possess or have access to any firearm or ammunition – ever.

It also makes a felon of anyone who provides a “prohibited person” access to firearms or ammunition. So parents of developmentally disabled children who receive SSI, and have used shooting and hunting as a family bonding activity, can continue doing that until the child turns 18, at which time, they would be committing a felony if they allowed their ward to touch a gun or ammunition.
Social Security Recipients
Social Security Recipients : What the law says is that “prohibited person” includes anyone: “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” That’s it.
The basis of this “final rule” is a bureaucratic finding that the person is “unable to manage their own affairs.” Just as we’ve seen from the Veterans Administration since the mid-1990s, the SSA is now submitting to NICS the name and identifying information of anyone whom they say is “adjudicated mentally defective” under the 1968 Gun Control Act.
The primary criteria for that determination is that they be an adult who, rather than handling SSA benefits themselves, has a “designated payee” who acts as a fiduciary to manage the person’s benefits. For instance, a person might have sustained a head injury and, as a result, has trouble dealing with numbers, so they have a parent or spouse named as their “designated payee.”
Under the new SSA rules, that person will be labeled as “adjudicated mentally defective” and will be barred from ever holding a gun or ammunition for the rest of their life.
It doesn’t matter to the SSA if the person is fully functional in every other way, if they “can’t manage their own affairs” with SSA, they are considered a “mental defective,” and their name is submitted to NICS.
In some cases, someone who requested a “designated payee” as a matter of convenience, might be able to appeal the NICS submission, but they can only appeal after the submission has been made, and they could be looking at significant time and legal expense. They would also have to remove their guns and ammunition from their home until the matter was resolved. That could be a problem in states like Washington, where any firearm transfer, even just temporarily while sorting out a SSA mistake, must be processed through a licensed dealer, with a per-gun fee, and a required background check.
Assuming the person won their appeal, legally transferring the guns back into their possession would require processing again, including the per-gun fee, and a background check on the person getting his guns back.
The thing that is the most frustrating about this new rule, is that SSA says they are merely obeying a law which received broad bipartisan support, and which was supported by the NRA. The law is called the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007. It was passed in response to the horrible attack at Virginia Tech. One of the provisions of the act requires that government agencies share with NICS the names of people who are prohibited from firearm possession for mental health reasons. Even more frustrating, the law which forbids possession of firearms by “mental defectives” does not say anything about people who can’t manage their own financial affairs.
What the law says is that “prohibited person” includes anyone: “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” That’s it. Nothing about managing financial affairs, etc. But several years ago, the BATFE, promulgated regulations for enforcing that line of the law, and in their definition of terms, they stated that “adjudicated as a mental defective” means:
“A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: Is a danger to himself or to others; or Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”
Out of the blue, the BATFE simply added the part about the “capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” They also stretched the term “adjudicated” to now include rulings by boards, commissions, and “other lawful authority,” which they say includes the bureaucrats at the VA and the SSA.

Where was Congress when this agency took it upon itself to overreach so dramatically.

And where have they been in the subsequent two decades as this unfounded regulation has been used to strip Second Amendment rights from countless, innocent veterans?
Let’s hope that this ruling from the SSA will be the wake-up call Congress needs to finally take action to correct this travesty. Please let your senators and representative know that you want this travesty corrected. The number for the Capitol Switchboard is (202)224-3121.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit:


 Obama Frees Communist Terrorist, Sparking Outrage
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In a fresh insult to victims of terrorism everywhere, outgoing President Barack Obama decided to commute the 70-year sentence of communist terror leader Oscar Lopez Rivera (shown), whose terrorist group unleashed a wave of savage violence that included more than 120 bombings across the United States. The brutal Fidel Castro-backed Marxist-Leninist terror group, known as the “Armed Forces of National Liberation” (FALN), murdered six and injured dozens of Americans amid its campaign to enslave Puerto Rico under communist rule. Critics and victims of terror expressed outrage, with some suggesting the move was a green light by Obama for future communist terrorism against innocent Americans.
But far from being a surprise, the latest radical move is merely a reflection of Obama's radical roots. After all, the virtually unknown extremist who grabbed the presidency with the backing of the establishment got his political career off the ground in the home of Castro-backed communist terrorist William Ayers of the Weather Underground — a close ally of the FALN terrorists. According to FBI operative Larry Grathwohl who infiltrated the outfit, Ayers' Weathermen group was plotting to exterminate 25 million anti-communist Americans in death camps once they overthrew America with help from foreign communist dictatorships. Like Obama and Ayers, Lopez Rivera was also a “community organizer” in Chicago. 

Under Obama's scheme, announced on January 17, the FALN terrorist leader Lopez Rivera will officially be a free man on May 17.  Whether he will resume his terrorist activities remains to be seen. But it is noteworthy that the convicted terror leader refused a previous offer of freedom conditioned upon his renunciation of violence and terrorism. He has never expressed remorse. And as far as anyone knows, Lopez Rivera still believes in the use of terrorism and in murdering innocent people to bring about totalitarian communist enslavement of the Puerto Rican people. Apparently he has some allies in Congress, including longtime Marxist-Leninist activist Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who gushed that he was “overjoyed and overwhelmed with emotion.”
Perhaps the most infamous attack by the FALN terror group was a 1975 bombing at Fraunces Tavern in New York that killed four innocent victims and injured more than 50. Before that, the FALN had bombed Exxon, Union Carbide, Federal Reserve Bank buildings, and other targets. Among the many victims was a police officer with the New York Police Department, who was maimed and blinded. By 1977, the communist terrorists were bombing Defense Department personnel, too. In an attack on the Mobil building, FALN terrorists killed another victim, critically injuring many more. Fortunately, the terrorists were also rather incompetent, so despite being busted with massive amounts of explosives, their war of terrorism and enslavement was not as deadly as it might have been.
Lopez Rivera was a key player in it all, helping to lead the terrorist group's operations in Chicago and the surrounding area. He was arrested in 1981, when the FBI found large quantities of dynamite, firearms, explosives material, fake identification, and more in his apartments. The terror leader was charged and convicted in federal court for “seditious conspiracy,” violating the Hobbs Act, illegal possession of weapons, interstate transportation of stolen cars, armed robbery, interstate transportation of firearms, and conspiracy to transport explosives with intent to destroy government property. He was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison by a federal court that same year.
Apologists for communism and terrorism have claimed that there is no “proof” Lopez Rivera directly murdered anyone, which, as critics have pointed out, could also be said of Osama bin Laden or Terry Nichols. But in his indictment, prosecutors listed 28 terrorist bombings across the Chicago region as “overt acts” in support of the conspiracy he was convicted of participating in. At his trial, a FALN witness also described, under oath, how Lopez Rivera had personally trained him in how to produce deadly bombs. Throughout the ordeal, he refused to recognize the legitimacy of the court, and he never expressed regret for the murder and mayhem he and his co-conspirators unleashed.  
Adding insult to injury, rather than serving his sentence peacefully, the terror leader and his communist co-conspirators concocted a plot to break him out of federal prison at Leavenworth in Kansas by murdering prison guards. Had the plot not been stopped, it would almost certainly have left prison officials and law-enforcement officers dead. After his associates were busted with bombs and guns plotting the escape, Lopez Rivera had his sentence extended by 15 years, time which he will never serve thanks to an outgoing Obama who seems determined to support terrorism and terrorists of any variety all over the world.
But the FALN terror leader could have been free almost a decade ago. With Obama's future scandal-plagued Attorney General Eric “Fast-and-Furious” Holder operating behind the scenes, then-President Bill Clinton offered in 1999 to commute the sentences of a more than a dozen FALN terrorists, including Lopez Rivera. Eleven were eventually freed. But Lopez Rivera refused the offer because he would have to renounce terror, serve another 10 years, and leave some of his co-conspirators behind. Victims of the FALN's terror campaign were horrified, and the spectacle was so unpopular that even Clinton's wife Hillary Clinton was forced to criticize the move by her husband amid her campaign for the U.S. Senate.
At the time, investigative journalist William F. Jasper with The New American blasted the move by Clinton. “The President’s clemency for FALN thugs opens the door to new acts of violence and exposes the hypocrisy of [Clinton's] supposed tough stance against terrorism,” Jasper wrote. “This White House-sponsored, massive, terrorist jailbreak was a flagrant and visceral broadside against America’s national security.” Numerous law-enforcement personnel who spoke to The New American also expressed outrage at the release of communist terrorists from prison.
Aside from a handful of far-left extremists in entertainment, academia, and government, commentators were aghast at Obama's decision, blasting the “unconscionable” move to free an unrepentant terrorist. Even some establishment voices were taken aback by the move. “The FALN's season of insurrection is long over,” wrote columnist Charles Lane with the far-left Washington Post in a piece that was also run by the pro-Obama Chicago Tribune. “But for the group's victims, as well as for all Americans concerned with the consequences our government applies to terrorists, this last-minute get-out-of-jail-free card for Oscar Lopez Rivera seems anything but well-timed.”
On the other hand, Obama's Castro-backed terrorist friend Bill Ayers, who wanted to exterminate 25 million Americans in death camps with help from Beijing, Havana, and Moscow, was ecstatic when he learned of the news. “Still in the air, dancing in the aisles,” the unrepentant communist terrorist and Obama ally wrote on Facebook after hearing of Lopez Rivera's imminent release. The day before, Ayers tweeted that he was on his way to Havana — headquarters of the mass-murdering Communist Cuban dictatorship, which helped finance and guide his terror attacks in America — but that he would return in time to “rise up” in Washington, D.C., for Donald Trump's inauguration.
The Communist Party USA and its official mouthpiece People's World also celebrated the decision. “Oscar will be freed!” wrote the communist propagandists, absurdly describing the terrorist as a “political prisoner” who was in prison merely for “fighting for his country's independence.” Also celebrating the move was Jacobin magazine, which falsely argued that Lopez Rivera's conviction on “seditious conspiracy” charges was the equivalent of a “thought crime.”
The far-left Spanish-language broadcaster Univision, which targets Hispanics with deception and propaganda, completely whitewashed the terror leader's crimes. In what critics described as “fake news,” the increasingly discredited Univision even suggested the terrorist was jailed merely for pursuing the “independence ideal, assuring that all human beings have the right to want their country to be free and sovereign.” Much of the English-speaking establishment media simply ignored the explosive developments altogether, focusing instead on Obama's decision to free leaker Bradley Manning.
Ironically, despite decades of scheming by Lopez Rivera and the totalitarian forces behind his terror campaign, the people of Puerto Rico themselves do not wish to be independent from the United States — much less to live under a Stalinist regime akin to the barbaric dictatorship enslaving Cuba that also backed the FALN. Today, just a tiny radical fringe in Puerto Rico supports the FALN agenda. But that does not mean the terrorists and the forces behind them are no longer a threat to life, liberty, and property.
With this move freeing Lopez Rivera, Obama has again disrespected victims of terrorism and American law enforcement, while emboldening communists and terrorists everywhere. But unfortunately, the latest scheme from the White House follows a long pattern over the last eight years of this administration. From aiding and abetting Marxist mass-murderers in Cuba and El Salvador to shilling for amnesty and seats in Congress for brutal Marxist terrorists in Colombia and beyond, Obama has been among the biggest enablers of terrorism in U.S. history. It is time for Congress and the next administration to find out what has been going on.

Related articles:
Clinton’s Terrorist Jailbreak
Obama’s Political Career Began With Castro-backed Terrorist
Obama-backed FARC Deal a Bonanza for Marxist Terrorists
Obama's Friend Ayers: Kill 25 Million Americans
Obama’s Rush to Leave a Legacy Leaves a Mess Instead
Top Obama Donors Tied to Mexican Fugitive Seeking Pardon
Obama Pushes Communist Vision of “Rights” on Cuba Trip
The Terror Conspiracy
U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria
Communists and Socialists Push Democrat Platform Toward Tyranny
Exposure of Radical CFR Latin America Boss Offers Broad Insight
Communist Mass-murderer Wins Suspicious El Salvador Election
Globalists and Gangs Back Marxist Mass-murderer in El Salvador
Obama Showers Support on Communist Terrorists in Syria, Iraq
Resurgent Communism in Latin America


Obama Illegally Sends Huge Check to UN “Climate” Fund, Then Lies 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In flagrant violation of federal laws signed by then-presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, outgoing President Barack Obama just illegally sent another $500 million of American tax money to a dictator-controlled United Nations “Green Climate Fund” (GCF). President-elect Trump vowed on the campaign trail to “cancel” the entire UN climate regime and the billions in payments, meaning Obama was almost out of time.   
When contacted with questions about the violation of U.S. law, the U.S. State Department responded with demonstrably false statements claiming that the GCF was an “independent entity” and “not an international organization,” and therefore not subject to the funding prohibition enshrined in federal law. The UN and the GCF, however, say otherwise, often and clearly.
With the latest Obama “grant” to the UN fund from an “Economic Support Fund” created by Congress to “promote economic or political stability,” the total disbursement of U.S. tax dollars to the UN outfit is now $1 billion. The previous $500 million check was seized from money Congress appropriated to fund infectious disease research at the height of the Zika scare.
Aside from the legal violations, leading scientists and experts have slammed the controversial UN “climate” entity as a slush fund to subsidize globalist bureaucrats and Third World kleptocrats who have either impoverished their victims, or kept them in poverty. How such a grant would promote economic or political stability, as required by law, was not clear.

But Obama, with just three days left in office, was unable to fulfill his entire illegal pledge to send $3 billion of American wealth to the UN fund. That means members of Congress, who pounced on Obama's illegal pledge and vowed to block it, ended up being proven correct, saving U.S. taxpayers billions.
But the violation of the law is a serious matter and cannot be left unaddressed. And Obama already knows that sending the money to the UN fund is illegal, as almost half of the U.S. Senate sent his administration a letter in April of 2016 letting him know.
The specific laws in question were passed by Congress in 1990 and 1994. The first one, signed by then-President George H.W. Bush, bans any U.S. funding “for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as a member state.”
The other measure, signed into law by President Clinton, prohibits the distribution of U.S. taxpayer funds to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” Both measures were passed by Congress in a bid to keep the Israeli-Arab peace process alive.
In February of 2016, though, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under which the Green Climate Fund exists and operates, decided to admit U.S. taxpayer-funded “State of Palestine” as a member state. That decision, made knowing full well what the consequences would be, triggered the prohibition on U.S. funding of the UNFCCC and the UN GCF that it created — primarily as a means of extracting wealth from Western taxpayers to advance the UN's “climate” regime by bribing Third World dictators into playing along with the schemes.
In short, that UNFCCC decision made it illegal for Obama or Congress to send any more U.S. money to any UNFCCC entity. Under U.S. law, that prohibition specifically includes the GCF, which (until very recently) described itself on its own website as “the financial mechanism under the UNFCCC” that, under the unratified pseudo-treaty known as the UN “Paris Agreement,” supposedly “invests in low-emission, climate-resilient development.”
U.S. lawmakers made the law abundantly clear to the Obama administration in a letter sent by nearly 40 Republicans after the UNFCCC decision to admit the non-state of Palestine. “We request that you ensure that no disbursements of U.S. funds are made to the UNFCCC and its related entities after March 17, 2016,” the senators wrote to Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry in an April letter. “We believe that your failure to do so will constitute a violation of current law.... We implore the administration to ... abide by current law prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds for the UNFCCC and its related entities and other UN affiliated organizations.”
In what may be one of the most nonsensical and Orwellian responses ever received by this writer from a federal agency, a spokesperson for the State Department offered false information “on background” purporting to justify the obvious violation of federal law. “To begin with, the Green Climate Fund is an independent entity and not an international organization,” claimed “Advisor for Environmental Communications” Emily White in the State Department Bureau of Public Affairs, contradicting the GCF's own statements about itself and common sense. “Rather, it is a trust fund with an independent board and secretariat, for which the World Bank serves as trustee.”
Despite the State Department's claims, there are mountains of evidence proving that the GCF is not just an “affiliated” international organization of the UNFCCC, but a direct component of it. At the 16th UN Conference of the Parties global-warming summit in Cancun, for example, governments and dictators established the “Transitional Committee for the Green Climate Fund.” The committee created a report, presented at the following year's UN climate summit, declaring that the “GCF would become an operating entity of the financial mechanism” of the UNFCCC. The New American attempted to reach the spokesperson by phone and e-mail for clarification, but no response was received by press time.
Addressing the laws in particular, White weaved a complex fantasy to justify the illegal move. “In addition, it is our view that neither the 1994 nor the 1990 legislative provisions that restrict contributions for certain international organizations that grant membership to the Palestinians has been triggered by the Palestinians’ purported accession to the UNFCCC,” the spokesperson said. “The UNFCCC is a treaty, and the Palestinians’ purported accession to it does not involve their becoming members of any UN specialized agency or, indeed, any international organization.”
To see whether the UNFCCC, which has 500 employees and a Secretariat based in Berlin, is really just a “treaty,” a quick visit to the UNFCCC website should suffice
In a statement quietly posted on the U.S. State Department's website, Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson John Kirby with the Bureau of Public Affairs made no mention of the federal laws that prohibit the action he was celebrating. “Today, the U.S. State Department is announcing that it has made an additional $500 million grant to support the Green Climate Fund (GCF),” Kirby declared on January 17. “Consistent with last year’s GCF grant, this funding is provided from the fiscal year 2016 Economic Support Fund (ESF) appropriation.”
While Kirby made no mention of it in his deceptive statement, which lies by omission, he did acknowledge the source of the funds — the so-called ESF. And that in and of itself may be an admission of a legal violation. According to 22 U.S. Code Chapter 32, sub-chapter II, part IV, funds from the ESF may only be disbursed “in order to promote economic or political stability.” Subsidizing oppressive Third World regimes through the GCF is likely to undermine both economic and political stability by encouraging lawlessness, tyranny, cronyism, and more. It certainly did not promote U.S. national interests either, as called for in the statute.
“U.S. funding for the GCF continues U.S. government support by this and prior Administrations for climate change programs through multilateral funds,” Kirby continued. “The GCF is the world’s largest multilateral finance institution dedicated to advancing low-emission, climate-resilient development. The GCF was created to help protect vulnerable populations and drive clean energy deployment, all with a special focus on engaging the private sector and mobilizing private capital.”
In reality, as this magazine has documented extensively, the GCF was created to ensure a large slush fund needed to bring Third World governments and dictators onboard the imploding UN “climate” bandwagon. The Group of 77 Plus China, a coalition of 134 governments and mass-murdering tyrants, even openly threatened to walk away from the 2015 UN “climate” summit in Paris if Western governments did not agree to hand over $100 billion per year of taxpayers' money to their regimes.
Critics highlighted the absurdity of it all. “This is a direct subsidy to, frankly, to kleptocracies,” internationally renowned physicist Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, told The New American on the sidelines of the UN climate summit in Paris. “We know what happens to that money. It goes into the pockets or bank accounts of the people who run these countries — it's been happening all the time, and I think it will continue to happen. So, as someone put it, it's a matter of the poor in the rich countries supporting the rich in the poor countries.”
But Kirby tried to put a happy face on the whole scam. “The GCF supports developing nations in their efforts to achieve those objectives and to become more resilient to climate change — in turn, reducing the global and national security risks associated with inadequate adaptation to and preparedness for extreme weather events and other climate related impacts,” he said, citing “policy and regulatory reforms” to promote the UN climate schemes as the objectives being pursued.
In short, on its way out the door, Obama once again decided to spit on the American people and the rule of law to help advance his radical globalist agenda. Whether the Trump administration and Congress can recover the money illegally stolen from the American people remains to be seen. But perhaps, if nothing else, Obama and his top officials who cooperated in this heist can be held personally liable for the crime, and be forced to make restitution to the perpetually abused American taxpayer. 

Related articles:
Oops! Federal Law Prohibits Obama Funding UN Climate Bureaucracy
After Diverting Zika Money to UN Slush Fund, Obama Demands More
Congress May Block Obama’s $3 Billion Pledge to UN Climate Fund
Top Scientist: UN “Climate Finance” Is Subsidy for Kleptocracy
Obama Seeks to Protect UN Climate Regime From a President Trump
UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity
To “Save Our Planet,” Obama Tramples Congress and Constitution
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
UN Climate Summit: Shackling the Planet to “Save” It
Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything