Daily Archives: January 9, 2026

Muslim Woman, 56, Kicked Out Of Donald Trump Event And Booed By Audience

After standing in silent protest when he suggests Syrian refugees are affiliated with ISIS

A Muslim woman was removed from Donald Trump’s campaign event in South Carolina on Friday after standing in silent protest following one of the Republican front-runners controversial immigration comments.

Rose Hamid, 56, attended the event in Rock Hill wearing a hijab and a shirt that read ‘Salam, I come in peace,’ hoping that her presence might manage to change the opinion some Trump supporters have about members of the Islam faith.

She positioned herself directly behind Trump, and when he began to speak about Syrian refugees being banned from entering the United States and suggested that many had ties to ISIS, she silently stood up out of her seat.

Police immediately escorted her out of the event while the audience booed the woman and yelled at her to ‘get out,’ with one man screaming; ‘You have a bomb, you have a bomb.’

Read more

Obama Establishing A Dictatorship

Impeachment Leader: Obama Establishing A Dictatorship

http://www.infowars.com/impeachment-leader-obama-establishing-a-dictatorship/

Alex Jones talks with Stephen Pidgeon about the possibility and the need of an impeachment of Barack Obama.

IMPEACH Obama! Your Country Depends On It!

America won’t last under an imperial presidency

Regarding executive orders, the Constitution states in Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 that the executive, i.e. the president, “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” or face impeachment.

“Migrants” Shooting Guns, Throwing Fireworks

Comment: Enjoy this song for the last time >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY

Shock Video Shows Migrants in Berlin Shooting Guns, Throwing Fireworks

Like something out of a warzone

Shocking video taken in Berlin on New Years Eve shows migrants shooting guns and hurling fireworks in scenes that resemble something out of a war zone.

The clip shows terrified women with children and prams running from the scene as fireworks explode in every direction.

Infowars confirmed with a source who was in the area that the incident happened on the same night that around a thousand migrants molested German women in Cologne.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Did You See This? Gender Neutral Marines. Will Someone Please Stop The Madness?

In the I just can’t take this crap anymore category. —————————————————-

Marines Announce Gender Neutral Boot Camp…So USMC Captain Goes BEAST Mode In EPIC Rant.

Screen-Shot-2016-01-08-at-8.39.28-PM

Published on January 8, 2026

This is what is happening to our military under President Barack Obama, he definitely is going to be leaving a big legacy, that’s for sure. After the Marines announced that they plan to make their boot camp gender neutral,U.S. Marine veteran, Captain and Counterintelligence officer Eric Kirsch went full on beast mode on Facebook speaking out about it. Check it out…

According to IJ Review:

On January 15th, the Marine Corps is required to submit a plan toSecretary of the Navy Ray Mabus on how they’re going to make boot camp gender neutral.

Their proposed plan must also apply to Officer Candidate School, as well as include a method on how to make titles gender neutral for Marines.

Here it is:

“The Navy Secretary served for 24 months (1971-1972) in a non combat role within the United States Navy prior to attending Harvard Law School.

He issued his memo request on 1 JAN and expects a detailed plan to be delivered no later than 15 JAN, erasing 241 years in 14 days, the United States Marine Corps, compliant to lawful order, obedient and faithful, always, is scrambling to dismantle title, as if it were an gangrenous arbitrary item and they have 5 further business days in which to do it.”

…

“I served with Males and Females and Homosexuals and I’m cool with Transgendered because nothing would make me happier then hearing the frantic stuttering hand held radio transmissions of ISIS fighters announcing the assault of fabulous Marines who also enjoy alternative lifestyles raining steel upon their intolerant bullshit.

That said, I believe, firmly, in gender segregation, in basic training….why WOULD YOU NOT SEGREGATE GENDERS? Of what benefit to either gender is mixing the two in initial training? If you got something I do not know about, regarding how it will IMPROVE the Marine Corps, sound the fuck off, I beg you.

I also believe it’s folly to argue over the inevitable, fine, okay, they are making Female Grunts now? Ok, I politely suggested ALL FEMALE / FEMALE ONLY INFANTRY BATTALIONS, yet I said that somewhere else and was pretty much called a Satan Shit Lord Misogynist, unreal.”

“We’re about to be glove slapped by history and then who will have the strength to point their outraged little fingers when the rosters swell with madness of unnecessary WIA/KIA due to “Social Manipulation” in the name of bullshit “Gender Equality”, we are NOT ALL EQUALS and life is not fucking fair, fair is where you go on rides and eat candy apples, F!”

Will removing the title “Man” from the United States Marine Corps end our Constitutional Republic, no, yet it’s sort of like taking a massive break in a rest room after a binge at Taco Bell and bombing the head with Butterfly Garden aerosol potpourri.

Now your confined space smells like a bear took a dump in a Butterfly Garden, I’m not sure what is worse, natural rancidity or that enhanced by a toxic chemical perfume.”

~Steve~

clashdaily.com

COMING TO AMERICA: ONE INVADER EVERY 27 SECONDS, UNLESS YOU WAKE-UP

By Karen Schoen
January 8, 2026
NewsWithViews.com

Over the years we have been reporting on illegal immigration.

We have shown you that Agenda 21/2030 calls for NO Borders.

It requires and demands that the UN be the end all and be all for its One World Governance. All policies must comply with the UN. One just has to look at the actions of Obama and Bush to see where their orders are coming from. They come from unelected boards and regional councils created right out the UN play book. The ultimate goal is to strip America of its wealth and natural resources mainly by the use of “Trade Agreements”, to make the US Constitution subservient to the UN Charter, to eliminate private property in the name of fairness and to divert America’s economy to third world countries in the name of eliminating hunger and poverty.

In the last 70 years since its inception, the UN has been the recipient of Trillions from the US. Yet we still have disease, hunger and poverty in third world countries. No one ever asks WHY? Perhaps if the UN communists and the variety of dictators – the real recipient of the trillions were not stealing their people would have money. How do I know? Again, I will ask – Where are the Billions that Americans donated for the Haitian people due to the earthquake? I know it was given to the Bush / Clinton coalition; but somehow it never got to the Haitian people. It is time to stop the money train like those “just donate $19.95 for starving children in Africa.” commercials. Wonder why after 40 years of donations we see the same commercials over and over? Just look at the salaries and overhead of those organizations. They want your money.

Illegal immigration, refugees, open borders are just code for MONEY, POWER CONTROL. How do I know? They tell us. We just don’t listen, we don’t believe they mean what they say. This is a breakdown of one of the groups bleeding the America people. The International Resettlement Committee, headed by David Miliband, currently paying many religious charities to accept refugees while Americans can not put food on their tables and veterans sleep in tents and cars.

Wait…that David Miliband is not THE David Miliband, failed Labour Party leader in England? Tell me NO, it’s not possible:

It is possible and now David Miliband has a new gig, the Refugee Resettlement Head of the UN. How much does he make for working 37.5 hours a week?

Read the rest at Newswithviews.com

CIA denies request for info on Edward Snowden

by Jon Rappoport
January 7, 2026
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

“The Matrix can be looked at as one gigantic covert op. It spills over with cover stories and lies and false trails, to conceal what is actually going on under the surface. The information- specialists have to make the surface seem true, so no one bothers to look underneath it. Keep in mind that media stories, no matter how absurd they are, tend to be believed because they’re simpler than the truth, and people want simple. If the Times says three terrorists jumped out of a mule’s ass on a quiet road and killed a group of tourists, and you come along and propose that the attack was actually the result of a multi-bank money transfer and three idiot dupes who were pumped up by an FBI informant, part of the reason your scenario is rejected is because the mule’s-ass version has only one step…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Update: the CIA has just refused a FIOA request for information about its former employee, Edward Snowden.

The request was filed on November 15 by John Young, the owner of Cryptome.org. The CIA’s response, dated December 29, refers to Young’s query seeking “records granting Edward Joseph Snowden access to classified information…[and] records indicating Mr. Snowden[‘s] compliance with controls of classified information upon leaving the CIA.”

The CIA’s letter to Young states, “…the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request.” The CIA letter states that any other response would violate rules governing classification of data.

Bottom line: the CIA has nothing specific to say about Snowden’s status while he worked for the Agency.

Once again, the question of exactly who Edward Snowden is resurfaces.

Of course, that question is taboo in major media. All we’re given is: Snowden worked as a contractor for the NSA, he stole vital information, he gave it to journalists, and they are gradually releasing it.

And those who support Snowden consider him an exceptional hero, about whom unpleasant questions should never be asked. He did a wonderful thing; end of story.

Well, what about this: in the wake of Snowden’s revelations and the consequent press coverage, a few billion people know something they didn’t quite know before. They know their lives are under surveillance. What better way to enforce the Surveillance State than by letting people know it exists, so they’ll police and censor themselves? Can this element be legitimately considered in the telling of the Snowden story? Or must it be ignored and rejected out of hand?

Who is former CIA employee Edward Snowden?

As we go along, keep in mind that intelligence-agency personnel live in order to tell low-level and high-level lies. They tend to fall into a suicidal funk if they aren’t lying on at least three or four levels at once.

Let’s look at Snowden’s brief history as reported by The Guardian (“Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations”, by Glen Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras in Hong Kong, 11 June 2026):

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this elite training program?

Snowden breaks both legs in an exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming service?

If he was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs? Just asking. Just a thought.

“Sorry, Ed, but with two broken legs we just don’t think you can hack into terrorist data anymore. You were good, but not now. Try Walmart. They always have openings.”

Circa 2003, Snowden gets a job as a security guard for an NSA facility at the University of Maryland. He specifically wanted to work for NSA? Or was it just a generic job opening near his home he found out about? Nothing worth discovering here? Nothing to see?

Snowden shifts jobs. Boom. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He apparently has no high school diploma.

In 2007, Snowden is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him a diplomat cover story. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security for the CIA and US diplomats. Major job. Obviously, he has access to a wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? He’s just a kid.

During this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours Snowden on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, and then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep financial secrets to the Agency.

This sours Snowden? He’s that naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?” He doesn’t already know about CIA assassinations and engineered regime changes? MKULTRA?

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the Presidency, might keep his “transparency” promise.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US inter-agency intelligence network, or a major chunk of it?

If you buy that without further inquiry, I have condos for sale on the dark side of the moon.

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and goes to work in the private sector. Dell, Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but, again, he claims to have so much access to so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. The. Whole. US. Intelligence. Network.

This is Ed Snowden’s sketchy legend. To anyone familiar with intelligence legends and cover stories, it’s mostly red flags, alarm bells, sirens, flashing lights.

Then we have the crowning piece: they solved the riddle: Ed Snowden was able to steal thousands of highly protected NSA documents because…he had a thumb drive.

It’s the weapon that breached the inner sanctum of the most sophisticated information agency in the world.

It’s the weapon to which the NSA, with all its resources, remains utterly vulnerable. Can’t defeat it.

Not only did Snowden stroll into NSA with a thumb drive, he knew how to navigate all the security layers put in place to stop people from stealing classified documents.

“Let’s see. We have a new guy coming to work for us here at NSA today? Oh, whiz kid. Ed Snowden. Outside contractor. Booz Allen. He’s not really an in-house employee of the NSA. Twenty-nine years old. No high school diploma. Has a GED. He worked for the CIA and quit. Hmm. Why did he quit? Oh, never mind, who cares? No problem.

“Tell you what. Let’s give this kid access to our most sensitive data. Sure. Why not? Everything. That stuff we keep behind 986 walls? Where you have to pledge the life of your first-born against the possibility you’ll go rogue? Let Snowden see it all. Sure. What the hell. I’m feeling charitable. He seems like a nice kid.”

NSA is the most awesome spying agency in this world. If you cross the street in Podunk, Anywhere, USA, to buy an ice cream soda, on a Tuesday afternoon in July, they know.

They know whether you sit at the counter and drink that soda or take it and move to the only table in the store.

But this agency, with all its vast power and its dollars…

Can’t track one of its own, as he steals the whole store. Can’t keep the store locked. And they can’t track the later movements of this man who made up a story about needing treatment in Hong Kong for epilepsy and then skipped the country.

Just can’t find him.

Can’t find him in Hong Kong, where he does a sit-down video interview with Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian. Can’t find that “safe house” or that “hotel” where he’s staying.

No. Can’t find him or spy on his communications while he’s in Hong Kong. Can’t figure out he’s booked a flight to Russia. Can’t intercept him at the airport before he leaves for Russia. Too difficult.

And this man, this employee, is walking around with four laptops that contain the keys to all the secret spying knowledge in the known cosmos.

Can’t locate those laptops. The most brilliant technical minds of this or any other generation can find a computer in Outer Mongolia in the middle of a blizzard, but these walking-around computers in Hong Kong are somehow beyond reach.

And, again, before this man, Snowden, this employee, skipped Hawaii, he was able to access a principal segment of the layout of the entire US intelligence network. Yes.

Not only that, but anyone who worked at this super-agency as an analyst, as a systems-analyst supervisor, could have done the same thing. Could have stolen the keys to the kingdom.

This is why NSA geniuses with IQs over 180 decided, in the aftermath of the Snowden affair, that they needed to draft “tighter rules and procedures” for their employees. Right.

Pieces of internal of security they hadn’t realized they needed before would be put in place.

This is, let me remind you, the most secretive spying agency in the world. The richest spying agency. The smartest spying agency.

But somehow, over the years, they’d overlooked their own security. They’d left doors open, so that any one of their own analyst-supervisors could steal everything.

Could take it all. Could just snatch it away and copy it and store it on a few laptops.

But now, yes, having been made aware of this vulnerability, the agency will make corrections.

Sure.

And reporters for elite media don’t find any of this hard to swallow.

On the ever-solicitous Charley Rose, a gaggle of pundits/newspeople warned that Ed Snowden, walking around with those four laptops, could be an easy target for Chinese spies or Russian spies, who could get access to the data on those computers.

But the NSA can’t. No.

The tightest and strongest and richest and smartest spying agency in the world can’t find its own employee. It’s in the business of tracking, and it can’t find him.

It’s in the business of security, and it can’t protect its own data from its employees.

If you instantly believe all that, with no questions, I have timeshares to sell in the black hole in the center of the Milky Way.

Here is a different possible scenario. Is it any less likely than the one we’ve been treated to?

Snowden was working an op, either as a dupe or knowingly. He was working for…well, let’s see, who would that be?

Who was he working for before he entered the private sector and wound up at NSA?

The CIA.

Would that be the same CIA who competes, on certain levels, with the NSA?

The same CIA who’s watched its own prestige and funding diminish, as human intelligence has given way to electronic snooping?

Yes, it would be. CIA just can’t match the NSA when it comes to gathering signals-intell.

Wired Magazine, June 2013 issue (“NSA Snooping Was Only the Beginning. Meet the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar”, 06.12.13). James Bamford, author of three books on the NSA, states:

“In April, as part of its 2014 budget request, the Pentagon [which rules the NSA] asked Congress for $4.7 billion for increased ‘cyberspace operations,’ nearly $1 billion more than the 2013 allocation. At the same time, budgets for the CIA and other intelligence agencies were cut by almost the same amount, $4.4 billion. A portion of the money going to…[NSA] will be used to create 13 cyberattack teams.”

That means spying money. Far more for NSA, far less for CIA.

Turf war.

Suppose people at the CIA, genuine experts, carefully, over time, were able to access those NSA documents, and handed them to Snowden—or patiently, and at length, or showed Snowden how to execute that quite sophisticated piece of access-trickery? Because (more believably) NSA’s internal security was very good. It wasn’t (far less believably) a bumble-dumb of mismanaged amateur clockwork. It was quite tight, so tight that a man like Snowden wouldn’t have been able to move through it like a ghost.

The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy. They needed a guy who could appear to be from the NSA, to make things look worse for the NSA and shield the CIA.

They had Ed Snowden. He had worked for the CIA in Geneva, in a high-level position, overseeing computer-systems security.

Somewhere in his CIA past, Libertarian and freedom-loving Ed meets a fellow CIA guy who sits down with him and says, “You know, Ed, things have gone too damn far. The NSA is spying on everybody all the time. I can show you proof. They’ve gone beyond the point of trying to catch terrorists. They’re doing something else. They’re expanding a Surveillance State, which can only lead to one thing: the destruction of America, what America stands for, what you and I know America is supposed to be. The NSA isn’t like us, Ed. We go after terrorists for real. That’s it. Whereas NSA goes after everybody. We have to stop it. We need a guy…and there are those of us who think you might be that guy…”

This could be a straight con, or a few CIA people could have actually wanted to torpedo the NSA for its unlimited surveilling operations.

Ed says, “Tell me more. I’m intrigued.”

He eventually buys in.

And the CIA will eventually find a way to protect and shield him while he’s escaping the US and staying in Hong Kong.

Put two scenarios on the truth scale and assess them. Which is more likely? The tale Snowden told to Glenn Greenwald, with all its holes, with its super-naive implications about the fumbling, bumbling NSA, or a scenario in which Snowden is the CIA’s boy?

Let me enhance my alternative scenario and branch it out. If Snowden is still working for the CIA, he and his buds aren’t the only people who want to take the NSA down a notch. No. Because, for example, NSA has been spying on everybody inside the Beltway.

Spying on politicians with secrets.

That includes a major, major, prime NSA target: Congress.

Do you think members of Congress with heavy secrets enjoy knowing NSA is over their shoulders?

Imagine this conversation taking place, in a car, on a lonely road outside Washington, late at night. The speakers are Congressman X and a contractor representing a covert unit inside the NSA:

“Well, Congressman, do you remember January 6th? A Monday afternoon, a men’s room in the park off-”

“What the hell are you talking about!”

“A stall in the men’s room. The kid. He was wearing white high-tops. A Skins cap. T-shirt. Dark hair. Scar across his left cheek. Blue tattoo on his right thigh.”

“Jesus.”

Dead silence.

“What do you want?” says the Congressman, now trapped.

Imagine this one: “Senator, we know about the underage cheerleader in Ohio. Your trip there in 2010, just before the election.”

Blackmail on the hoof.

If you’re a Congressman or a Senator with nasty secrets, and you know NSA is spying on you, because it’s spying on everyone in the Congress, who’s your potential best friend?

Somebody who can go up against the NSA, somebody who wants to go up against the NSA.

And who might that be?

The CIA?

It’s not perfect, but it’s the best you can do.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

ISIS Issues Fatwa #64: How To Be A Good Rapist

lby for LIDBLOG.COM

Who says ISIS terrorists are a bunch of lawless thugs? They are thugs with laws — laws that are, sadly, as disgustingly inhumane as their beheadings.

Take, for example, Fatwa #64: the “do”s and “don’t”s of raping female captives (a fatwa is a legal opinion or learned interpretation issued by a Muslim cleric and has the force of law).

Back in May 2015, U.S. Special Operations Forces were targeting a heavy-hitter in the Syrian ISIS leadership when they found a cache of documents. One of those documents was Fatwa #64. Reuters had the opportunity to review and report on these new rules, which were issued at the end of January 2015.

This particular fatwa provides the rules of when and how ISIS captors force sex upon their female captives. It was issued “in an apparent bid to curb what they called violations in the treatment of captured females.”

The ruling or fatwa has the force of law and appears to go beyond the Islamic State’s previous known utterances on the subject, a leading Islamic State scholar said. It sheds new light on how the group is trying to reinterpret centuries-old teachings to justify the sexual slavery of women in the swaths of Syria and Iraq it controls.

Some of the rulings in Fatwa #64 include taboos on a father and son raping the same slave, and a stipulation that if both a mother and daughter are”owned,” one cannot rape both. Or, if a slave is sold, the previous owner can no longer partake in intercourse with her as she “is no longer his property,” while joint owners of a slave are also banned from raping the captive as she is “part of a joint ownership.”

The fatwa starts with a question: “Some of the brothers have committed violations in the matter of the treatment of the female slaves. These violations are not permitted by Sharia law because these rules have not been dealt with in ages. Are there any warnings pertaining to this matter?”

It then lists 15 injunctions, which in some instances go into explicit detail:

Reuters took the document to Princeton University’s Cole Bunzel, a leading ISIS expert, who explained that “the fatwa went beyond what has previously been published by the militants on how to treat female slaves.” Bunzel also related that just because something is in the fatwa it doesn’t necessarily mean that the violation is actually happening.

“But,” he adds, “I bet some of these violations were being committed.”

On the bright side, Fatwa #64 does instruct the slave’s owners to “show compassion” and to “be kind” the their captive females.

The video below is a report about ISIS sex slavery which appeared in November on the British news magazine, Channel 4 News .

 

UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

BY ALEX NEWMAN FOR NEWAMERICANMAGAZINE.COM

The United Nations and its mostly autocratic member regimes have big plans for your life, your children, your country, and your world. And those plans are not limited to the coercive “climate” agreement recently concluded in Paris.

While the establishment media in the United States was hyping ISIS, football, and of course “global warming,” virtually every national government/dictatorship on the planet met at the 70th annual General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York to adopt a draconian 15-year master plan for the planet. Top globalists such as former NATO chief Javier Solana, a socialist, are celebrating the plan, which the summit unanimously “approved,” as the next “Great Leap Forward” — yes, the old campaign slogan of the Chinese Communist Party.

The master plan is comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) with 169 specific “targets” to be foisted on all of humanity — literally all of it, as the plan itself states explicitly. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind,” reads the UN manifesto, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But if you love liberty, self-government, free markets, or the U.S. Constitution, you will almost certainly be wishing that the UN would leave you behind.

Officially dubbed “Agenda 2030,” the UN plot, as its full title suggests, is aimed at “transforming” the world. The program is a follow-up to the last 15-year UN plan, the defunct “Millennium Development Goals,” or MDGs. It also dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But the combined Agenda 2030 goals for achieving what is euphemistically called “sustainable development” represent previous UN plans on steroids — deeper, more radical, more draconian, and more expensive.

“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.” Ironically, the preamble even claims the UN goals will “free the human race from the tyranny of poverty” and “heal” the planet — or, as the planet is also referred to in the document, “Mother Earth.” Not-so-subtly purporting to usurp the role of God, the UN even claimed that the “future of humanity and of our planet lies in our hands.”

Speaking on September 25 at the opening ceremony of the confab that adopted Agenda 2030, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong-un, Raul Castro, Robert Mugabe, and other despots who hold great sway with most of the regimes comprising the United Nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.” “We need action from everyone, everywhere,” Ban said, pointing to the “guide” offered by the 17 SDGs. “They are a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.” “We must use the goals to transform the world,” Ban continued. “Institutions will have to become fit for a grand new purpose.”

The Agenda 2030 agreement makes the audacity of the scheme clear, too. “This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance,” boasts the document. “Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavor across such a broad and universal policy agenda,” the agreement continues. “What we are announcing today — an Agenda for global action for the next fifteen years — is a charter for people and planet in the twenty-first century.”

The Agenda

Perhaps the single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.

Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”

In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning … expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

In truth, such “lifestyles and consumption patterns” are sustainable, so long as the freedom that makes prosperity possible is not destroyed in the name of achieving “sustainability.” The UN and the environmental lobby claim that we must get by with less because there are now too many people on the planet consuming too many resources. But this rationale for accepting UN-imposed scarcity is patently false.

Of course, the promoters of Agenda 2030 would claim that rather than impoverish us, the global regime they envision would take good care of us — through universal health coverage, for instance. One of the targets for Goal 3, ensuring “healthy lives” and “well-being,” is: “Achieve universal health coverage,” including “vaccines for all.” Universal access to “mental health,” along with “sexual and reproductive health-care services” — code words for abortion and contraception — are also included. All governments are expected to integrate such services into their “national strategies and programmes,” the agreement demands.

It is worth noting that mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin made clear that controlled healthcare is the “keystone” of socialism. The United Nations obviously agrees. And though he may not call it “socialism,” Obama undoubtedly also views government control of healthcare as key. Indeed, enactment of ObamaCare could be viewed as a “great leap forward” by the United States toward implementation of a key component of Agenda 2030, before Agenda 2030 was even “approved.”

But as important as targeting healthcare is to the globalist schemers, any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls “agents of change,” ready to push forward the plan for the new global order. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” the agreement explains.

The sort of activists that the UN hopes to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by “sustainable development” — population control, central planning, global governance, and more — the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone.

“Sustainable” children for global citizenship in the new order will be accomplished via what the UN misleadingly refers to as “education.” In the UN document the word “education” alone is mentioned more than 20 times. And throughout the agreement, the UN openly advocates the use of schools to indoctrinate all of humanity into a new set of values, attitudes, and beliefs in preparation for the new “green” and “sustainable” world order. The UN’s education agenda also puts sex “education” front and center. “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services [abortion and contraception], including for family planning, information and education,” the document explains.

How much will Agenda 2030 cost? Various figures have been thrown around by UN bureaucrats regarding the monetary costs of the plan, generally ranging between $3 trillion and $5 trillion per year.

Yes, trillions. In the “From Billions to Trillions” report released by the World Bank in July 2015, the globalist outfit, a key player in Agenda 2030, conceded: “To meet the investment needs of the Sustainable Development Goals, the global community needs to move the discussion from ‘Billions’ in ODA [Official Development Assistance] to ‘Trillions’ in investments of all kinds: public and private, national and global, in both capital and capacity.”

But the money needed to implement Agenda 2030 and other UN schemes is only part of the cost. Other parts include the loss of our national independence and freedom that the rise of global governance and global socialism would surely entail. Revealingly, empowering dictators to help in global governance is openly touted by Agenda 2030. The document states, “We recommit to broadening and strengthening the voice and participation of developing countries [the regimes ruling those countries] — including African countries, least developed countries, land-locked developing countries, small-island developing States and middle-income countries — in international economic decision-making, norm-setting and global economic governance.”

Powerful Promoters

When Agenda 2030 was adopted at the 70th annual UN General Assembly confab in New York City on September 25, the UN plot to re-engineer civilization was ushered in with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from murderous communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN’s controversial goals on their subjects.

It all sounded so wonderful to some of the world’s most brutal dictators that they could hardly contain their glee. “This agenda promises a brave new world, a new world which we have to consciously construct, a new world that calls for the creation of a new global citizen,” gushed Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe, the genocidal mass-murderer enslaving Zimbabwe who also serves as chairman of the African Union. “I want to believe that we are up to this task that we have voluntarily and collectively committed ourselves to. Our success, and in particular the promise of a new world that awaits us, depends upon this commitment.” He also promised to vigorously impose the UN Agenda 2030 on the starving and impoverished victims his regime lords over with Agenda 2030-style policies. The communist Castro regime vowed to work with socialist Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and other tyrants to impose the UN goals on their victims, too — all with financing from Western taxpayers.

The brutal tyrants ruling Communist China, meanwhile, have also been enthusiastic cheerleaders for the UN goals — goals that the regime boasted it played a “crucial role” in developing. The Chinese autocracy, infamous for forced abortions, censorship, religious and political persecution, the “one-child policy,” terrible pollution, kangaroo courts, and of course, murdering more human beings than any other entity in all of human history, used its vast, global propaganda machine to celebrate Agenda 2030.

“China has made important contributions to the global efforts in reaching a fair, inclusive and sustainable post-2015 development agenda,” the regime’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Wang Min, was quoted as saying in a report by the Communist Chinese news and espionage service Xinhua. “China is also very active in putting forward Chinese proposals…. The agreement includes important proposals by China and many other developing countries in numerous aspects.”

Among other “commitments,” China promised to spend $2 billion in foreign countries to meet the UN goals in “education” and “health,” with its funding increasing to $12 billion by 2030. While only contributing a small piece of the pie, the fact that Beijing is so excited about the agenda is quite revealing. Echoing Chairman Mao’s rhetoric, EU and NATO globalist Javier Solana said, “With a sustained commitment from all countries, developed and developing alike, the world can ensure that it celebrates another great leap forward in 2030.” (Emphasis added.) The last “Great Leap Forward,” presided over by Chairman Mao Tse-tung between 1958 and 1963, resulted in the murder of an estimated 45 million Chinese who were worked, starved, or beaten to death.

The Obama administration, which apparently does not plan to present the UN scheme to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution, also offered a forceful defense of the UN agenda. Speaking to the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2015, after purporting to commit the United States to the global plot, Obama claimed the UN blueprint “is one of the smartest investments we can make in our own future.”

Even the world’s leading religious figure, Pope Francis, addressed UN member governments with a plea to support the UN goals. “The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … is an important sign of hope,” he declared, before demanding a UN “climate” regime as well.

Beyond governments and religious figures, much of the private sector also enthusiastically backed the new goals. Among the mega-corporations backing the scheme are the world’s top three search engines: Google, Microsoft’s Bing, and Yahoo. It was not immediately clear whether those corporations’ support for the UN agenda would affect the supposed impartiality of search results, but critics of the UN plan expressed alarm nonetheless.

For now, at least, the world and the White House are all pretending that the SDGs are binding on Americans, too. However, the U.S. Senate was not consulted, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. And even if the Senate were to ratify it, the federal government cannot grant itself new anti-constitutional powers merely by approving a treaty. Therefore, the agreement has no force in the United States. But as UN Agenda 21 showed clearly, that does not mean that the Obama administration, and possibly future presidents, would not attempt to push it forward anyway. The American people, therefore, must demand through their elected representatives that the UN power grab be stopped.

climate special report

This article originally appeared in The New American’s special report on climate. To order the report in either PDF or print format, click here.

The Islamization of Britain in 2015

by Soeren Kern

  • Hospitals across Britain are dealing with at least 15 new cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) every day. Although FGM has been illegal in Britain since 1984, there has not been a single conviction.
  • At least 1,400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013 in the town of Rotherham, mostly by Muslim gangs, but police and municipal officials failed to tackle the problem because they feared being branded “racist” or “Islamophobic.”
  • Reverend Giles Goddard, vicar of St John’s in Waterloo, central London, allowed a full Muslim prayer service to be held in his church. He also asked his congregation to praise “the God that we love, Allah.”
  • There has been a 60% increase in child sexual abuse reported to the police over the past four years, according to official figures.
  • British intelligence are monitoring more than 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks in Britain.
  • A Muslim worker at a nuclear power plant in West Kilbride, Scotland, was removed from the premises after he was caught studying bomb-making materials while on the job.
  • “We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist.” – Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic.

The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 3.5 million in 2015 to become around 5.5% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.

Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during 2015, and can be categorized into five broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria and Iraq; 2) the continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) the sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; 4) Muslim integration into British society; and 5) the failures of British multiculturalism.

JANUARY 2015

January 7. The British-born Islamic extremist, Anjem Choudary defended the jihadist attacks on the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. In an opinion article published by USA Today, Choudary wrote:

“Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

“In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Mohammed are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?”

January 9. Muslim cleric Mizanur Rahman of Palmers Green, north London, also defended the attacks in Paris and declared that “Britain is the enemy of Islam.” Speaking to an audience in London — his speech was also streamed online to thousands of his followers — Rahman said the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were guilty of “insulting Islam” and therefore “they can’t expect a different result.” He added: “You know what happens when you insult Mohammed.”

January 14. Zack Davies, 25, attacked a 24-year-old Sikh named Sarandev Bhambra with a machete at a Tesco supermarket in Mold, north Wales. British newspapers initially portrayed the attack as a “racially-motivated attempt” by a right-wing extremist promoting “white power.” It later emerged that Davies is actually a Muslim convert who goes by the name Zack Ali. On the morning of the attack, Davies warned on his Facebook page of his impending assault, posting four verses from the Koran that call for violence against non-Muslims.

January 16. Rahin Aziz, an Islamist from Luton, was pictured in Syria brandishing an AK-47 rifle. In a tweet, Aziz, who also calls himself Abu Abdullah al-Britani, wrote: “Still deciding to what to do with my #british passport, could burn it, flush it down the toilet, I mean realistically its not worth spitting on.”

January 16. Communities Secretary Eric Pickles sent a letter to more than 1,000 imams across Britain asking for their help in fighting extremism and rooting out those who are preaching hatred. Muslim groups responded by accusing the British government of stoking “Islamophobia” and demanding an apology.

January 17. The Telegraph reported that a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist with close links to the jihadist attacks in Paris cannot be deported from Britain because it would breach his human rights. Baghdad Meziane, a 49-year-old British-Algerian, jailed for eleven years in 2003 for running a terror network recruiting jihadists and fundraising for al-Qaeda, was released from prison five years early and allowed to return to his family home in Leicester. Since then, Meziane has successfully thwarted attempts to deport him, despite the government’s repeated insistence that he constitutes “a danger to the United Kingdom.”

According to The Telegraph, a close associate of Meziane, Djamel Beghal, mentored at least two of the suspected gunmen responsible for the killings — Amedy Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi — while they were together in prison. Beghal’s wife, a French citizen, is living in the UK, courtesy of British taxpayers. Sylvie Beghal lives rent-free in a four-bedroom house in Leicester. She came to Britain with her children in search of a more “Islamic environment,” after deciding that France was too anti-Muslim.

January 20. The former chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, in what can be seen as a recommendation for self-censorship, warned Britons not to insult Islam if they want to avoid Islamic terrorists from striking inside the country. He said:

“If you show disrespect for others’ core values then you are going to provoke an angry response… There is a requirement for restraint from those of us in the West.”

January 25. Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said that the term “terrorist” was too “loaded” to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

January 26. It emerged that hospitals across Britain are dealing with at least 15 new cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) every day, and that the problem is especially acute in Birmingham. Although FGM has been illegal in Britain since 1984, there has not been a single conviction.

January 29. A Sky News investigation into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, a town in South Yorkshire, found that hundreds of new cases continue to emerge. In August 2014, the so-called Alexis Jay Report revealed that between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited, mostly by Muslim gangs, and that police and municipal officials failed to tackle the problem because of politically correct concerns over being branded as “racist” or “Islamophobic.”

FEBRUARY 2015

February 4. British police arrested 45 Muslim men on charges of child sex grooming. In Northumbria, 20 suspects appeared in court to face charges including rape, sexual assault and sex trafficking. The alleged offenses involved 12 victims, including one girl aged just 13. In Halifax, West Yorkshire, 25 men were charged with a number of child-related sex offenses.

February 4. The entire cabinet of Rotherham Council resigned after a report found that misplaced political correctness, combined with a culture of denial, allowed more than 1,400 girls to be routinely abused by gangs of Muslim men over a period of 15 years. Children as young as nine were groomed, trafficked and raped by members of the town’s Pakistani community, but fear of being labeled racist meant town councilors turned a blind eye to the abuse.

February 8. More than 1,000 British Muslims protested in central London against what they called “insulting depictions” of the Prophet Mohammed by the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Crowds carrying placards with slogans such as “Stand Up For the Prophet” gathered near Prime Minister David Cameron’s office in London’s Whitehall government district. The event was organized by a group called Muslim Action Forum, which is launching a lobbying campaign as well as series of legal challenges in the English court system to establish that depictions of Mohammed are a “hate crime.”

February 25. Asif Masood, 40, an unlicensed drunk driver, apparently three times over the blood alcohol limit when he crashed his friend’s car into a fire hydrant in Nottingham, avoided a prison sentence after he persuaded a judge that he had just rediscovered his Muslim faith and had quit drinking.

February 27. A judge in Liverpool stopped a trial after he discovered that the defendant, Kerim Kurt, had sworn on the Bible and not the Koran. Judge Patrick Thompson of the Liverpool Crown Court said Kurt had taken “an oath to tell the truth which was sworn on the New Testament.” But it later emerged in cross-examination that he was a Muslim. Kurt insisted that he accepted taking the oath on the Bible because “he respected all holy books and wanted to swear on the holy book of the country in which he was residing.” But Judge Thompson said he “took the view that Mr Kurt should have sworn on the Koran as a Muslim.”

MARCH 2015

March 3. A government report found that nearly 400 British girls as young as eleven are believed to have been sexually exploited by Muslim rape gangs in Oxfordshire during the past 15 years. The report charged local officials with repeatedly ignoring the abuse due to a “culture of denial.”

March 7. A leading liberal clergyman, Reverend Giles Goddard, vicar of St John’s in Waterloo, central London, allowed a full Muslim prayer service to be held in his church. He also asked his congregation to praise “the God that we love, Allah.” It is thought to be the first time an entire Islamic service has been held by the Church of England.

March 11. Reverend Canon Gavin Ashenden, one of the Queen’s chaplains, expressed concern about more than 100 passages in the Koran that “invite people to violence.” He was responding to comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who claimed that young people are turning to jihad because mainstream religion is not “exciting” enough.

March 12. A delegation of prominent British-Egyptians called for the UK government to proscribe the Muslim Brotherhood and ban its activities on British soil. The petition said: “Terror knows no borders, and the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs know no mercy, their lust for power, quest for theocracy and desire for domination, make them all blood thirsty, and they will stop at nothing until they bring down civilization — West and East alike.”

March 15. The British government announced that it would not classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

March 20. Newly released figures showed that the population of Muslim inmates in Belmarsh prison — London’s de facto terrorist jail — has more than doubled in just four years. The number of Muslim inmates at the top-security “Category A” prison has jumped by 108% since March 2010, up from 127 to 265 in December 2014. Government data shows in spring 2010, Muslim prisoners made up just 14% of Belmarsh inmates, but fewer than five years later, that proportion had climbed to almost one-third. The proportion of Muslim prisoners in Pentonville prison jumped 40% while that in west London’s Wormwood Scrubs had increased by almost a sixth over the same period.

March 23. A report warned that Muslim women across Britain are being systematically oppressed, abused and discriminated against by Sharia law courts that treat women as second-class citizens. The 40-page report, “A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today,” was authored by Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords and one of the leading defenders of women’s rights in the UK. The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

APRIL 2015

April 1. Police in Turkey detained nine British nationals from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, who were allegedly seeking to join the Islamic State in Syria. The nine — five adults and four children, including a one-year-old baby — were arrested in the Turkish city of Hatay.

One of those arrested was Waheed Ahmed, a student of politics at Manchester University. His father Shakil, a Labour Party councilor in Rochdale, said he thought his son was doing an internship in Birmingham:

“It’s a total mystery to me why he’s there, as I was under the impression he was on a work placement in Birmingham. My son is a good Muslim and his loyalties belong to Britain, so I don’t understand what he’s doing there. If I thought for a second that he was in danger of being radicalised I would have reported him to the authorities.”

April 5. Abase Hussen, the father of a runaway British jihadi schoolgirl, conceded that his daughter may have become radicalized after he took her to an extremist rally organized by the banned Islamist group, Al-Muhajiroun, run by Anjem Choudary, a British-born Muslim later remanded in custody, charged under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Amira, 15, was one of three girls from Bethnal Green Academy in East London who flew to Turkey in February to become “jihadi brides” in Syria. During a hearing at the Home Affairs Select Committee in March, Abase blamed British authorities for failing to stop his daughter from running off to Syria. Asked by Chairman Keith Vaz if Amira had been exposed to any extremism, Hussen replied: “Not at all. Nothing.” The police even issued an apology.

Abase, however, changed his story after a video emerged which unmasked him as an Islamic radical who had marched at an Islamist hate rally alongside Choudary and Michael Adebolajo, the killer of Lee Rigby. Abase, originally from Ethiopia, said he had come to Britain in 1999 “for democracy, for the freedom, for a better life for children, so they could learn English.”

April 5. Victoria Wasteney, 38, a Christian healthcare worker, launched an appeal against an employment tribunal which found she had “bullied” a Muslim colleague by praying for her and inviting her to church. Wasteney was suspended from her job as a senior occupational therapist at the John Howard Centre, a mental health facility in east London, after her colleague, Enya Nawaz, 25, accused Wasteney of trying to convert her to Christianity. Wasteney’s lawyers said that the tribunal broke the law by restricting her freedom of conscience and religion, enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

CONTINUE READING http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7151/britain-islamization

Bill Of Rights. Or The Original 10 Amendments. Added 1789

billofrights

Amendments to the Constitution

begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.12

(Articles I through X are known as the Bill of Rights) ratified

Article the first. …. After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

-

Article the second. …. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. see Amendment XXVII

Article [I] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

 

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III] (Amendment 3 - Quartering Soldiers)

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII] (Amendment 7 - Civil Trials)

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII] (Amendment 8 - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

( READ THAT AGAIN FOLKS! THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS! )

Attest,
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate.
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives.
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.

(end of the Bill of Rights)

Planned Parenthood Endorses Hillary Clinton: “She is Everything We’ve Fought for For 100 Years”

Steven Ertelt FOR LIFENEWS.COM

Fresh from months of expose’ videos catching its top officials selling the body parts of aborted babies, Planned Parenthood will endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Two reporters unveiled the news on twitter about the impending announcement, which the abortion business will reportedly make on Sunday in New Hampshire, site of the first primary election.

Ironically, as reporters unveiled news of the presidential endorsement, Clinton took to Twitter to defend taxpayer funding for the embattled abotion company.

Cecile Richards, the president of the abortion business, said Hillary is “everything Planned Parenthood has believed in and fought for over the past 100 years.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List gave this response to LifeNews:

“In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, Cecile Richards said that ‘everything Planned Parenthood has believed in and fought for over the past 100 years is on the ballot.’ She’s absolutely right. With the pathway created by the reconciliation process to defund Planned Parenthood, the pro-life movement is closer than ever before to achieving this longtime goal. If Americans elect a pro-life president, this legislation could be signed into law as soon as 2017.

“Planned Parenthood’s endorsement of Clinton is also a much-needed and welcome moment of clarity in this election. It is proof positive of her extremism on the abortion issue. Clinton is grossly out of step with the majority of Americans who support legislative proposals such as limiting abortion after five months and getting taxpayers out of the abortion business.

“Make no mistake, this radical position – sadly the norm for the Democratic Party – will cost Clinton votes in November. As DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz acknowledged this week, support for abortion on-demand, without limits, simply does not resonate with a younger generation.”

The New York Times has more details on the endorsements:

Mrs. Clinton will officially accept the group’s support Sunday at a campaign rally in Manchester, N.H. The decision to break with tradition and endorse Mrs. Clinton comes as the House has approved a measure, endorsed by the leading Republican presidential candidates, that would repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act and strip away federal financing for Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive and health care services.

“Everything Planned Parenthood has believed in and fought for over the past 100 years is on the ballot,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

In a statement, Mrs. Clinton said she was “honored” by the endorsement and called the bill to defund the group “a jarring reminder of what’s at stake in 2016,” adding that as president she would “defend against attacks on reproductive health care, and protect access to affordable contraception and safe and legal abortion across the country.”

The endorsement, technically made through the nonprofit’s advocacy arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, brings with it at least $20 million to spend in this election cycle on presidential and Senate races in crucial battleground states, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Clinton’s extreme position on abortion is clear. At a campaign event in August, she compared pro-lifers to terrorists. Then, during a September interview on CBS, Clinton said she would oppose a federal limit on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

During the first Democratic presidential debate in October, Clinton defended Planned Parenthood although the abortion company has been caught selling aborted babies and their body parts. She said she was tired of the attacks from pro-life Republicans who have been working overtime to try to de-fund the abortion corporation.

“They don’t mind having big government interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to take down Planned Parenthood — they’re fine with big government when it comes to that,” Clinton said. “I’m sick of it.”

Clinton, who brought up Planned Parenthood unprompted during both debates, has been bending over backwards to protect and defend her friends at the abortion company, which will pull out all the stops in the 2016 election to ensure she takes over the White House from pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in the presidential race, supports unlimited abortions up to birth – a radical stance that most Americans oppose.

In a Sept. 20 interview with CBS’ Face the Nation moderator John Dickerson, Hillary Clinton revealed that she wouldn’t support a federal limit on abortion “at any state of pregnancy” in the name of a “woman’s right to choose.” While the 2016 presidential candidate once called the content of the recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood “disturbing,” she dismissed them as “misleadingly edited” to Dickerson.

According to Clinton, women should have the say in any circumstance.

“[T]his gets back to whether you respect a woman’s right to choose or not,” she said. “And I think that’s what this whole argument once again is about.”

SIGN THE NEW PLEDGE: I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President