For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”
(1 Corinthians 14:33)
Not [The Author] Of Confusion

Taking Back Control

Tere’s so much that you need to do each day, so much that you want to do, and so much that others expect of you. You feel pulled in all directions. Pressure. Tension. Anxiety. Will it ever stop?

It won’t stop on its own, but you can break the cycle. You don’t have to remain entangled in the unending struggle to do more and have more. Life doesn’t have to be a daily crisis. You don’t have to be the prisoner of unrealistic expectations. Let Me help you regain control of your life.

The root of the problem is simple: You try to do too much, more than is humanly possible, and you put your mind, body, and spirit under pressure you were never meant to handle. It’s time to reassess. Determine what things mean the most and will have lasting value—your primary long-term goals and responsibilities. Channel your energies into those, and let go of the rest. Once you’ve done this, the pressures that once seemed unbearable will start to dissipate.

Do you want a new lease on life? You can have one, but you have to be willing to let go of the self-imposed pressures that drive you now.




Angry demands for apology follow comment on anti-Israel UNESCO resolution

Published: February 1, 2017

Just three-and-a-half months after Palestinians and Muslims celebrated the Oct. 18 vote by the executive board of UNESCO to deny all Jewish connections to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and Western Wall, the rug has been pulled from under their feet.

And the bearer of bad news is not just some agency of the United Nations, but its new secretary-general.

In October, UNESCO made its point explicit by referring to the disputed sites by only their Muslim names and labeling Israel an “occupying power” that uses “right-wing extremists” to badger innocent Muslims.

UNESCO “firmly deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to take necessary measures to prevent provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif,” the resolution stated.

Well, that was then, and this is now.

Late last week, newly installed U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres sent a very different message during an interview on Israel Public Radio when asked about the controversial resolution adopted under his predecessor Ban Ki-Moon.

“It’s clear as the sun is clear that the Temple, which was demolished by the Romans, is a Jewish temple,” Guterres answered.

“No one can deny the fact that Jerusalem is holy to three religions today,” he added.

Guterres’ acknowledgment of a Jewish Temple on the disputed site drew quick and sharp rebukes from Palestinian spokesmen.

Adnan al-Husseini, the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem Affairs minister, complained to Xinhua news service that Guterres had “ignored UNESCO’s decision that considered the Al-Aqsa mosque of pure Islamic heritage,” accusing the U.N. chief of having “violated all legal, diplomatic and humanitarian customs and overstepped his role as secretary general … and must issue an apology to the Palestinian people.”

Ahmad Majdalani, adviser to to P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas and a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, accused Guterres of “remarks that give Israel a green light for more measures against Jerusalem … [and] a strike to the credibility of the U.N. as a global organization that should stay on the side of the occupied people and be against the occupying power.”

Muslim authorities themselves published an official “Guide Book to Al-Haram Al-Sharif” in 1925 that listed the Mount as Jewish and as the site of Solomon’s Temple: “Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which ‘David built there an altar unto the Lord.'”

All Jewish connections – and especially a past Jewish Temple – are now denied by the Muslim in charge of the site.

WND reported last month that one of Israel’s leading archaeologists was almost expelled from the site for referencing the historic Temple.

Gabriel Barkay was leading a multi-faith group of students from UCLA on the site, reported the Times of Israel. While Barkay was explaining the archaeological significance of what the students were seeing, two Waqf guards shadowing the group overheard his reference to the Temple Mount. They stopped the presentation and took Barkay to Israeli police officers.

Barkay is best known for his 1979 discovery of small silver scroll amulets in a cave in Jerusalem’s Hinnom Valley containing the priestly benediction from Numbers 6:24-26: “The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.”

The amulets contain the oldest surviving biblical inscription discovered to date, dating back to 600 B.C., and the blessing is still used in synagogues and churches today.

The police informed the Waqf guards Barkay had broken no law and there was no legal reason to eject him. But on the advice of the officers, Barkay refrained from referring to “Temple Mount” for the remainder of the tour, instead calling it “the TM.”

Other tour guides have reported similar confrontations, reported Israel National News.

WND reported in November the forced removal of WND founder Joseph Farah, messianic rabbi Jonathan Cahn and 406 Christian pilgrims from the Temple Mount.

Cahn, the New York Times bestselling author of “The Harbinger,” “The Mystery of the Shemitah” and “The Book of Mysteries,” had simply referenced the Temple when his talk to the group was interrupted.

Cahn was told it was unacceptable for anyone to discuss the Temple on the Temple Mount. Muslims contend the site is famous and holy not because of the Temple, which some of them even dispute ever existed, but because Muhammad claims to have ascended to the site from the Arabian desert in a miraculous “Night Journey” on the back of a winged horse.

“While I was speaking, they pulled me aside and told me I had mentioned that there was a Temple on the Temple Mount – which I did – and said I was not allowed to mention the Temple,” explained Cahn. “They also accused me of mentioning America and someone clapped, which was also true. I mentioned one of the mysteries in ‘The Book of Mysteries,’ The Tenth of Av Mystery, that contains the secret of America’s existence. They also accused me of speaking of 1948, the birth of Israel, which I never did.”

Initially, just one representative of the Waqf approached Cahn during his talk – calling him away from the group for a meeting, which was soon joined by several other Waqf members, as well as two Jewish members of WND’s Israeli tour company and Farah.

“As I spoke, more of the Muslim authorities converged on me, and told me that I and the group had to leave the Temple Mount immediately,” Cahn recalled. “I went back to the group and told them that this was exactly the kind of warfare on the mount I had just told them about – but that nothing stops the purposes of God.”

The UNESCO decision was very unpopular with Jews and Christians around the world and was followed in December by the Obama administration refusing to use the U.S.’s Security Council veto to block a resolution calling for the limiting of the Jewish state to the borders it had before the 1967 war. The anti-Israel moves have spurred calls for the U.S. to defund or withdraw completely from the U.N., with Trump also joining in criticism of the world body.

Whether the threat of defunding was behind Guterres’ strong endorsement of Israel’s historic connection to the Temple Mount is unknown, but he told Israel Public Radio that he had no intention to initiate a new peace process between the two parties, despite his own support for a two-state


The Common Sense Show

ET Disclosure or False Flag Coming? The Day the Earth Stood Still

The Internet is increasingly carrying content about the ET/UFO subject. For example, the highly respected Mike Adams (Natural News) wrote a story on the pitfalls of first contact. Famous people from many walks of life are taking notice. From Presidents (e.g. Jimmy Carter) to Astronauts (e.g. Edgar Mitchel who walked on the moon) to high ranking government officials (e.g. Paul Hellyer the retired Canadian Secretary of Defense), have proclaimed interest and knowledge on the topic. Yet, there is not formal recognition of the phenomenon from our leaders. Putin has warned the United States that if disclosure does not come soon, he will force the issue out into the open.

One would have to possess a very closed mind to not give this topic some attention.

Three Possibilities

From where I sit, there are three possibilities when it comes to the topics of ET’s/UFO’s.

  1. There are ET’s behind the scenes manipulating mankind in order to control our destiny. Some suggest that is why the planet is in such disarray.

  2. This is part of the great deception and ET’s are actually fallen angels and the have come to deceive and form one world government for Satan to rule over.

  3. This is a carefully orchestrated plot designed to fool the people on this planet that we are in danger from ET’s and will come to accept global governance.

Cathlic Doctrine has Been Morphed Into the Perverted Practice Global Religious Unification

The leaders of the multi-religious, pagan event, sponsored a gathering last year known as the “Mekudeshet”.

This was the beginning of the mandatory One World Religion. The Pope popularizd Chrislam, the blending of Christianity and Islam. This is something that Francis has been working towards. However, this is not the only thing that the Pope, or more accurately, the anti-Pope has been pursuing over the last couple of years. He has seemingly been on a one man crusade to promote belief in the notion of the existence of exterrestial life.

The Pope and ET’s

The current pope is no stranger to the topic of ET’s an has been very outspoken in his beliefs.

I have been noticing a trend in Hollywood movies with an extraterrestrial overtone (e.g. Independence Day) and this tone is reaching a crescendo within the past month. In a search for predictive programming trends, I have noticed a distinct pattern with regard various networks to play older movies that involve the people of the Earth versus some alien threat.

Christianity and Islam worship the same God.

I have long thought that this Pope might be suffering from early onset dementia as he recently said he would baptize extraterrestrials as they would visit the Earth. This is the same Pope who has stated that Islam and Christianity are basically one and the same religion. This false doctrine sets the stage for the official state sponsored (United Nations) approved religion which we commonly call Gaia which is about as a pagan of a religion that there is. In light of these facts, does anyone have any questions as to why I have great trepidation with regard to the upcoming religious unification conference?

Before I discuss Operation Blue Beam, it is important to note that the predictive programming for this event goes far beyond Hollywood as we are seeing predictive programming in many segments of our society.

Key General Predicts that Graduating Officers Will One Day Fight Aliens

The following video depicts General Mark A Milley, mentioning “little green men”, and he’s not joking” as being one of the potential adversaries in the lineup of enemies that a graduating class of military officers will one day have to fight.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

In the 1951 movie, The Day the Earth stood Still, visiting alien, Klaatu, emerges from a spaceship and addresses an assembled dignatiaries, concluding with “It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple: join us, and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration.”

This planetary unification message is common. IT was the theme behind Independence Day. The message is clear, the only way for man to survive is to capitulate to a world government.



The Great Inception Part 1: The Mountain of Eden

January 28, 2017 by Derek Gilbert

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the first part in a new online series based on a SPECIAL SKYWATCH TV INVESTIGATIVE REPORT set to air on network television mid February (2017) through mid-March. This series and the forthcoming programs will center on two groundbreaking books (to be released Match 7) — Reversing Hermon by Dr. Michael S. Heiser and The Great Inception by SkyWatch TV host Derek P. Gilbert. These reports and entries will unveil what most in the modern Church have never heard regarding how the story of the sin of the Watchers in 1 Enoch was central to the mission of Jesus, the messiah, as well as Biblical facts hidden behind the stories of the old gods, the Titans, and the role they played AND WILL PLAY in the lead up to Armageddon, imperative supra-classified details altogether forgotten by modern religious institutions.

The long war between God and the lesser gods who rebelled began on a mountain, and it will end on a mountain.

First things first: The rebel gods are real. That’s not something you’re likely to hear in church. Not only have we been taught that the pagan deities of the ancient world were imaginary, most American Christians today don’t even believe in Satan or the Holy Spirit.

That’s not an exaggeration. The Barna Group found in a 2009 survey of American Christians that only about one in three believes Satan is real and not just a concept. Likewise, nearly 60% of American Christians said they didn’t believe the Holy Spirit is living entity. So it’s not surprising that when we think of Baal, Asherah, Moloch, Dagon, Chemosh, Marduk, and the rest of the pagan pantheon mentioned in the Bible, if we think of them at all, we tend to assume they were nothing more than lifeless blocks of wood and stone.

We couldn’t be more wrong.

The true story begins on a mountain: Eden.

But wait, you say. Eden was a garden! Yes, it was. A garden on a mountain. In Ezekiel 28, God tells the divine rebel from Eden:

You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;

in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.

Ezekiel 28:14 (ESV), emphasis added

If you read the Old Testament carefully, you’ll notice many references to God’s holy mountain. The prophets knew that the war between the rebellious fallen gods and the Creator was all about who would establish their holy mountain—the “mount of assembly” or “mount of the congregation”—as supreme. The most obvious reference is in Isaiah 14, a section of scripture that scholars generally agree is a parallel to Ezekiel 28:

“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

You said in your heart,

I will ascend to heaven;

above the stars of God

I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly

in the far reaches of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.’

But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.

Isaiah 14:12-15 (ESV), emphasis added

Over the course of this special five-week series, we’ll dig deeper into the conflict between God and the rebels and explore the importance of cosmic mountains. We’ll identify key battles in the long war and lay out a prophetic scenario for the final battle of this age.

Above all, we’ll show you a glimpse of this long war in the heavenlies, and where you can find it in the Bible. It’s a conflict that the prophets and apostles knew was real, but over the last two thousand years our churches have stopped teaching us about it. With this war stripped out out of the Bible, we’re left with an incomplete story of God’s plan to save us from the gods who want to kill us and destroy everything we love.


So let’s start at the beginning. What do we know about the enemy? Was it a talking snake?

In a word, no.

So who or what was the serpent? Most of us assume it was Satan, but maybe not. The serpent isn’t named in the book of Genesis. In fact, Satan wasn’t even a personal name in the Old Testament.

Satan means “accuser,” written ha-shaitan in the OT. It’s a title, the satan, so it really means “the accuser.” Think of it as a job title, like prosecuting attorney.

The adversary in the Garden is the nachash, which is the word translated into English as “serpent.” It’s based on an adjective that means bright or brazen, like shiny brass. The noun nachash can mean snake, but it also means “one who practices divination.”

In Hebrew, it’s not uncommon for an adjective to be converted into a noun—the term is “substantivized.” If that’s the case here, nachash could mean “shining one.” And that’s consistent with other descriptions of the satan figure in the Old Testament.

For example, in Isaiah 14, the character called Lucifer in the King James translation, based on the Latin words chosen by Jerome (lux + ferous, meaning “light bringer”), is named in Hebrew Helel ben Shachar—”shining one, son of the dawn.” (Interestingly, Šahar was a Canaanite deity, so a better translation of the verse is “Day Star, son of Dawn.” And that leads to some interesting speculation about the nature and origin of Helel. Were Helel and Šahar two of the fallen gods? But I digress.)

Now, consider this in Daniel 10:

I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.

Daniel 10:5-6 (ESV), emphasis added

Obviously, “shining one” is a pretty good description of the angel who battled the prince of Persia, another supernatural being, to bring his message to Daniel.

About 900 years before Daniel, when the Israelites started complaining on their way out of Egypt (see Numbers 21:4-9), God sent saraph nachash (“fiery serpents”), to bite them. Saraph is the root word of seraphim, which roughly means “burning ones.” But the key point of these verses in Numbers 21 is that the Hebrew words saraph and nachash are used interchangeably. So rather than “fiery serpents,” the translation should read “saraph serpents”.

Deuteronomy 8:15 praises Yahweh for bringing Israel through “the great and terrifying wilderness, with its fiery serpents,” reinforcing the interchangeability of saraph and nachash.

Now, if the mental image of flaming snakes isn’t weird enough, the prophet Isaiah twice referred to flying serpents (saraph `uwph, in Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6). And in his famous throne room vision, Isaiah saw:

…the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

Isaiah 6:1-2 (ESV).

Again, the root word of seraphim is saraph, the same word translated “serpent” in Numbers and Deuteronomy. In fact, aside from the Isaiah 6 passage above, every single mention of seraphim in the Old Testament refers to serpentine beings!

The flying serpent was a well-known symbol in the ancient Near East, especially in Egypt. It would have been very familiar to the Israelites. The uraeus, a cobra standing on its coil with its hood extended, was a royal symbol of protection used by pharaohs and Nubian kings. Tutankhamun’s death mask is an excellent example; the uraeus’ hood is depicted with six distinct sections that look a lot like wings.

Of course, some scholars cite this as evidence that the Hebrews’ understanding of seraphim was influenced by, or borrowed from, Egyptian cosmology. That’s a common message from skeptics—Israel copied its religion from its neighbors. We’ll deal with that later.

The bottom line is this: What Adam and Eve saw in the Garden wasn’t a talking snake, but a nachash—a radiant, divine entity, very likely of serpentine appearance.

Now, since you’re paying attention, you’ll remember that the divine rebel in Eden, the nachash of Genesis 3, was called a guardian cherub in Ezekiel 28. As we just showed you, nachash and saraph, the singular form of seraphim, are interchangeable terms. But if the rebel in Eden was one of the seraphim, how could he also be one of the cherubim?

Good question. Cherubim are mentioned more frequently in the Old Testament than the seraphim. They are usually referenced in descriptions of the mercy seat on top of the Ark of the Testimony or carved decorations in the Temple built by Solomon. The exceptions are the cherubim who guard the entrance to Eden and the four cherubim Ezekiel saw in his famous “wheel within a wheel” vision by the Chebar canal.

The modern image of cherubim has been shaped by artists in the Middle Ages—cute, chubby little boys with dinky wings who filled up the empty space in religious paintings. Nothing could be further from the biblical and archaeological truth. Cherubim are seriously bad dudes you do not want to mess with. For more, see Josh Peck’s book Cherubim Chariots.

The cherubim of the mercy seat are usually shown as a matched pair of plainly recognizable angels perched on top of the ark with their outstretched wings touching in the middle. The Bible doesn’t describe these cherubim, telling us only that they have wings and faces. Why? Apparently, everybody in the 15th century B.C. was familiar with what a cherub looked like, and they knew it was right and proper for them to serve as Yahweh’s throne-bearers. You see, God appeared to men above the mercy seat “enthroned on the cherubim.” (See Numbers 7:89; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2: Psalms 80:1 and 99:1; and Isaiah 37:16.)

But the cherubim that Ezekiel saw looked like something from a nightmare:

…this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze.

Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went.

As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle.

Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above. Each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. And each went straight forward. Wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went.

As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.

And the living creatures darted to and fro, like the appearance of a flash of lightning.

Ezekiel 1:5-14 (ESV), emphasis added

While these living creatures aren’t identified as cherubim in these verses, they are specifically called cherubim in Ezekiel 10.

So how do we read this? These creatures sound nothing like the shining serpentine seraphim. What’s even more confusing is the description Ezekiel gives of another type of angelic being, the ophanim—the wheels that UFO hunters love to call spacecraft. They seem to be related somehow to the cherubim:

And I looked, and behold, there were four wheels beside the cherubim, one beside each cherub, and the appearance of the wheels was like sparkling beryl. And as for their appearance, the four had the same likeness, as if a wheel were within a wheel. When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went, but in whatever direction the front wheel faced, the others followed without turning as they went. And their whole body, their rims, and their spokes, their wings, and the wheels were full of eyes all around—the wheels that the four of them had. As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing “the whirling wheels.”

And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was a human face, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

Ezekiel 10:9-14 (ESV), emphasis added

Wait—the ophanim had the face of a cherub and the face of a human? What’s the difference? Why a cherub instead of an ox for the fourth face? Is there some connection between the cherub and the ox?

Well… maybe. The word cherub probably comes from the Akkadian karibu (the “ch” should be a hard “k” sound, although we English speakers don’t usually say it that way). It means “intercessor” or “one who prays.” The karibu were usually portrayed as winged bulls with human faces, and huge statues of the karibu were set up as divine guardians at the entrances of palaces and temples. This is like the role of the cherubim placed “at the east of the garden of Eden… to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Genesis 3:24, ESV)

This is speculation, but the divine rebel in Eden, the anointed guardian cherub, might have protected the tree of life once upon a time.

Cherubim were the gold standard for guarding royalty in the ancient Near East. In Assyria they were called lamassu, and the Akkadians called them shedu. They were sometimes depicted as winged lions rather than bulls and they were often incorporated into the thrones of kings.

So the function of the biblical cherubim, guarding the tree of life and carrying the throne of God, was entirely consistent with what the neighbors of the Israelites knew about these beings. Based on archaeological finds in the Levant (modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel), the cherub was probably more like a winged sphinx than a humanoid with wings.

In other words, the presence of the cherubim in the Bible wasn’t something the Hebrew prophets just made up. The cherubim were known by different names by the other cultures of the ancient Near East, but they served a similar role in all of them. The cherubim were supernatural bodyguards for the throne of Yahweh, and their imagery was appropriated by earthly kings. A bit of hubris, no doubt encouraged as a PSYOP by the Enemy. Remember, “you shall be as gods.”


The consequences of the rebellion in Eden were immediate and harsh:

The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” […]

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

[T]herefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:14-15, 22-24 (ESV)

For centuries, well-meaning Christians have pointed to Genesis 3:14 as the moment in history when snakes lost their legs. That misses the mark entirely by desupernaturalizing the story. God didn’t amputate the legs of snakes; He was describing the punishment the nachash would suffer in figurative language. Even casual observers of the animal kingdom know that snakes don’t eat dust.

What happened was this: The nachash was cast down from the peak of the supernatural realm, “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty,” to become lord of the dead.

What a comedown! Isaiah 14 makes a lot more sense when you keep a supernatural worldview in mind:

Sheol beneath is stirred up
to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.

All of them will answer
and say to you:
‘You too have become as weak as we!
You have become like us!

Isaiah 14:9-10 (ESV)

Remember these verses because we’ll come back to them later in this series. The “shades” referenced by Isaiah are the Rephaim (root word rapha), a mysterious group mentioned several times in the Old Testament. The Rephaim weren’t an invention of the Hebrews, either. They were well known to their neighbors. We’ll examine them more closely a forthcoming article in this series.

For Adam and Eve, the banishment affected the two of them and all their descendants through the present day. Instead of living with God as members of His council, we humans have struggled for millennia to make sense of a world that often seems to make no sense. The memory of our brief time in the garden of God has echoed down the centuries, and it may be the source of our belief that mountains are somehow special, reserved for the gods.

The main takeaway of this article is this: Eden was a lush, well-watered garden “on the holy mountain of God,” which was where Yahweh presided over His divine council. The council included the first humans. They walked and talked with the supernatural “sons of God” who, based on clues scattered throughout the Bible, were beautiful, radiant beings. At least some of them were serpentine in appearance.

The long war between Yahweh and the sons of God who rebelled is not just about control of the spirit realm, it’s also about whether humanity will be restored to its rightful place in the seat of the gods—among the divine council on the Holy Mountain of God.



Pope Francis at November 2016 consistory

Pope Francis has become a source of division

Steve Jalsevac/LifeSite

Mon Jan 30, 2017 - 11:09 am EST

January 27, 2017 ( — Every day I pray for Pope Francis. And every day (I am exaggerating, but only slightly), the Pope issues another reminder that he does not approve of Catholics like me.

If the Holy Father were rebuking me for my sins, I would have no reason to complain. But day after weary day the Pope upbraids me—and countless thousands of other faithful Catholics—for clinging to, and sometimes suffering for, the truths that the Church has always taught. We are rigid, he tells us. We are the “doctors of the law,” the Pharisees, who only want to be “comfortable” with our faith.

The Roman Pontiff should be a focus of unity in the Church. Pope Francis, regrettably, has become a source of division. There are two reasons for this unhappy phenomenon: the Pope’s autocratic style of governance and the radical nature of the program that he is relentlessly advancing.

The autocratic style (which contrasts sharply with promises of collegial and synodal governance) has never been quite so evident as this week, when he has tossed aside the independent and sovereign status of the Knights of Malta. Writing of that remarkable coup in the Wall Street Journal, Sohrab Ahmari observed that it “has divided the church along familiar lines.” Ahmari (a recent convert to Catholicism) continued:

As with other recent disputes—communion for the divorced-and-remarried; the status of the Latin Mass; Vatican engagement with China’s Communist regime—conservatives are on one side and Pope Francis is on the other.

But a Pope should not be on “one side” of disagreements within the Church. Certainly the Roman Pontiff must make decisions and set policies. But unlike a political leader, he is not expected to bring his own particular agenda to his office, to promote his own allies and punish his opponents. Whereas we expect President Trump to reverse policies of President Obama—just as Obama reversed policies of President Bush—we expect a Pope to preserve the decisions of his predecessors. Because Church is not, or should not be, divided into rival parties.

Every Pope makes controversial decisions, and every controversial decision leaves some people unhappy. But a prudent Pontiff avoids even the appearance of acting arbitrarily. Mindful of the fact that he serves as head of a college of bishops—not as a lone monarch—he does his best to propose rather than impose solutions to pastoral problems.

Although he exercises enormous authority within the Church, a Pope also acts under considerable restraints. He is empowered to speak for the universal Church, but in a sense he forfeits the ability to speak for himself. The Pope cannot be partisan. He is expected to settle arguments, not to start them. At the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter set the standard for his successors: hearing out the arguments on both sides and then rendering a judgment (in this case, ruling against the stand that he himself had previously held).

By its very nature the Pope’s role is conservative, in the best sense of that word. He is charged with preserving the purity and clarity of our faith: a faith that does not change. Since our fundamental beliefs were set forth by Jesus Christ, no prelate can question them without subverting the authority of the Church that our Lord founded—the same Church that gives him his only claim to authority. While he is the supreme teacher of the Catholic faith, the Pope can only teach what the Church has always taught: the deposit of faith that has been passed down to him from the apostles. He can speak infallibly, but only when he proclaims and defines what faithful Catholics have “always and everywhere” believed.

In short the Pope cannot teach something new. He can certainly express old truths in new ways, but if he introduces actual novelties, he is abusing his authority. And if his “new” teachings conflict with the established doctrines of the Church, he is undermining his own authority.

Many faithful Catholics believe that with Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis has encouraged beliefs and practices that are incompatible with the prior teachings of the Church. If that complaint is accurate, he has violated the sacred trust that is given to Peter’s successors. If it is not accurate, at a minimum the Holy Father owes us explanations, not insults.

This article was originally published on and is re-published with permission.




James Cameron's documentary contends 'mythical' city is Bible's Tarshish

Published: February 2, 2017


“Atlantis Rising,” a new documentary by “Titanic” director James Cameron, argues the “mythical” city is the biblical Tarshish.

Breaking News Israel reports the “lost city of Atlantis has been found, and it’s straight out of the Bible – at least according to a stunning new National Geographic documentary.”

Emmy-winning journalist Simcha Jacobivici worked with Cameron on the newly released film.

BIN reported the two followed “ancient clues through Greece, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic on a search for Atlantis.”

“Along the way, they discover mind-blowing biblical connections to Atlantis, including a 3,000 year old carving that ties the mythical city to the Jewish Temple,” the report said.

“So often, when you tell people you are looking for Atlantis, they think it is a crazy project because they think it is a thing that was made up by Disney or Hollywood, a city full of mermaids,” Jacobovici told BIN.

He explained the references to the city are ancient.

“The only ancient source for Atlantis was the Greek philosopher Plato in the 4th century BCE. In his dialogues, Plato wrote about a traveler, Solon, who learned about a highly advanced, wealthy civilization, described in depth. It was a port city located ‘past the ‘Pillars of Hercules,” which Jacobovici explained is known today as the Straits of Gibraltar,” the report said.

The city was lost eventually to a natural disaster of mud and water, eventually sinking into the ground and disappearing, a circumstance Jacobovici “equated to a tsunami.”

Plato was detailed in his writings about Atlantis, but no one else wrote about it, he said.

The problem is that Greeks often renamed people and places.

The clues led searchers to the Iberian Peninsula, “where they began to make a connection between Atlantis and an ancient city known as Tartessos – which appears, amazingly, in the Bible,” BIN reported.

Jacobovici described many artifacts and ancient writings that show “that 3,000 years ago there was a great city of Tartessos, very wealthy and with a powerful navy.”

“Though we don’t know exactly where it was, it was purported to be somewhere in Southern Iberia, Spain or Portugal, precisely the area that Plato gives for Atlantis.”

The conclusion was reached that Atlantis was Tartessos, mentioned in the Bible as Tarshish, including in Psalms, which says: “For, lo, the kings assembled themselves, they came onward together. Trembling took hold of them there, pangs, as of a woman in travail. …With the east wind Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish.”

It also records King Solomon fought battles alongside the kings of Tarshish.

And it is to Tarshish that Jonah fled rather than accept God’s instructions to go to Nineveh, BIN noted.

And the report cited other revelations.

Spanish researcher Georgeos Diaz Montexano “showed me Bronze Age symbols, 3,500 years old, carved into ancient shrines,” Jacobovici told Breaking Israel News. “Montexano believes that after the tsunami destroyed Atlantis, or Tarshish, the refugees made these shrines to commemorate the destruction of their city and to pray to their gods that Atlantis should rise again.”

The report said the symbols “are strongly reminiscent of Plato’s description of the port of Atlantis: three concentric circular docks with a central rectangular temple to Poseidon, with a canal connecting out to the sea.”

Jacobovici said one of the symbols is remarkably similar to the Menorah.

The Australian newsite noted Cameron found a cluster of six 4,000-year-old anchors near the entrance to the Mediterranean.

“The idea of an advanced ancient civilization lost to history certainly has eternal appeal,” the report said.

“While the show travels throughout Greece, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean tracking ‘sightings’ of Atlantis, much is made of the discovery of a cluster of Bronze Age anchors on the Atlantic side of the Strait of Gibraltar – which some believe to be the ‘Pillars of Hercules’ Plato states the civilization was ‘beyond.'”

The report suggested the ancient Minoan civilization, based on the island of Crete, was “an advanced race of ocean-going traders.”

“Snake and bull worshiping goddesses feature prominently among their art.”

It explains a possibility is that the volcano Thera erupted, triggering landslides and tsunamis that caused the “collapse of the entire civilization as it engulfed much of northern Crete.”

“Into the ruins marched tribes of Greeks.”

In an interview with People magazine, Cameron said, “When I’m not doing my day job as a Hollywood movie guy, I’m doing my other job as an ocean explorer.

“The payoff is that in the course of searching for Atlantis and exploring the possible sites, we came up with some pretty good evidence that there was in fact a ship-based trading culture outside the so-called Pillars of Hercules, which is the Strait of Gibraltar, just off the coast of Spain. That’s pretty big.”

Jacobovici told People: “I think a lot of people when they hear the word ‘Atlantis,’ they put it in the same category as alien abduction. That is simply not the case. Somebody wrote this story down, and it’s not just anybody – it was Plato, one of the most famous philosophers in history.

“You can’t just think of Atlantis as one spot that people argue either existed or didn’t exist. Reading the original text very carefully – and it’s amazing how many times you can read the same pages and not see it – Plato doesn’t say it’s just a spot. He says it’s a civilization. It’s an empire.”



Trump Admin: Iran in Breach of Nuke Deal Restraint toward Islamic Republic 'will end'

BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0

February 2, 2017 5:00 am

In a vast departure from the Obama White House, the Trump administration went on record Wednesday to accuse Iran of being in violation of the landmark nuclear agreement as a result of its recent test of ballistic missile technology, according to a senior White House official, who said that Iran has officially been put "on notice."

Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's national security adviser, accused Iran of breaching international accords governing the nuclear agreement. He lashed out at the Islamic Republic for threatening American military assets in the Persian Gulf region.

Flynn's remarks represent a break with the previous administration, which worked to hide Iranian transgressions and declined to publicly state that Iran's behavior violated the nuclear deal.

One senior White House official disclosed to the Washington Free Beacon that "the restraint of recent years" when it comes to Iran "will end."

Iran's ballistic missile test this week—the latest in a series of about 12 tests since the nuclear deal was announced—is "in defiance of [United Nations] Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran ‘not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,'" Flynn said.

He also chastised Iran for attacking U.S. allies in the region and training terrorist forces.

"These are just the latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened U.S. and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea," Flynn said. "In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region."

A senior White House official told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration is reviewing a "range of options" to respond and that the "restraint of recent years will end."

The missile test and provocative actions against the US army not directly related to the nuclear deal, but show Iran "continues to defy international norms," the official said.

The White House is no longer willing to "tolerate continued Iranian provocation," according to the official, who explained that a range of responses are currently under consideration.

Flynn went on to criticize the Obama administration for failing to take appropriate action when faced with Iranian aggression.

"The Obama administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran's malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms," Flynn said. "The Trump administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk."

"Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened," he added. "As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."

Iran remained defiant in light of the Trump administration's criticism, maintaining that its ballistic missile tests do not violate international agreements.

Iranian officials shrugged off concerns about possible repercussions under the Trump administration.

"We don't have any concerns in Iran about Donald Trump's decision (about the nuclear deal)," Seyed Abbas Araqchi, an Iranian deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying on Iran's state-controlled radio on Wednesday. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready for all conditions and has planned for all scenarios."

Iranian officials disclosed this week that the country has begun to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, using highly advanced centrifuges. The next-generation centrifuge models spin uranium much faster than previous generations, enabling Iran to more quickly enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power.

One foreign policy insider close to the Trump national security team told the Free Beacon that Iran is in for a wake-up call.

"The Trump national security team is filled with very talented, very forceful figures, many of them from the military, and there are already signs they don't agree on everything," said the source, who is not authorized to speak on the record. "But one thing everyone in Trump world appreciates, whether they're in the government or working from the outside, is that Iran poses an overwhelming threat to U.S. interests. Some have suggested that the administration may bow to international pressure, originally mobilized by the Obama administration to boost the Iran deal, and ignore Iranian violations. That looks like a terrible bet."



Iran Prepares to Ditch Dollar in International Trade

© Flickr/ frankieleon

03:43 01.02.2017(updated 05:48 01.02.2017)

After US President Donald Trump included Iran on a list of Muslim-majority countries facing a temporary immigration ban, Tehran responded by threatening to stop using the American dollar.

Iran would either introduce a new common currency, in place of the US dollar, or use a portfolio of various currencies in foreign exchange and financial reports, according to Valiollah Seif, governor of the Central Bank of Iran.

Iranian media quoted Seif saying that the initiative would begin in March 2017, at the start of the fiscal year.

Trump signed an executive order on immigration last Friday, ostensibly to protect Americans from terror attacks. Under the order, immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen will not be allowed to enter the US for 90 days. Additionally, the US refugee program is suspended for 120 days, and the acceptance of refugees from Syria is suspended indefinitely.

Trump told reporters, "It's working out very nicely…You see it at the airports. You see it all over. It's working out very nicely and we're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years."

Massive protests cropped up at airports all over the country as a result, with demonstrators voicing their support for immigrants and refugees, as well as many professionals, including immigration lawyers, offering free consultations to those trapped in limbo.

Seif noted that the US dollar’s share in Iran’s foreign exchange is insignificant, and that its replacement should be suitable for trade with important partners like the United Arab Emirates, Russia, China and the European Union.

Agreements to stop using the dollar have been signed with Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Russia, although Seif pointed out that the agreements were not yet effective, as trade with those countries does not warrant the switch.

Some analysts have suggested that Tehran stands to make $41 billion in oil profits this fiscal year alone, and that switching from the dollar could pose a considerable financial risk. Iranian economic publication Donya-ye Eqtesad observed, however, that the dollar has already been largely replaced by other currencies in oil transactions, and that Tehran has been chiefly using it in official reporting.


MailOnline (Unbelievable heights of absurdity. Ed)

Don't call pregnant patients 'mothers': Doctors are banned from using the word over fears it will upset those who are transgender

  • Official guidelines issued by the British Medical Association says mothers-to-be-should be referred to as 'pregnant people'

  • The move aims to avoid offending and alienating transgender parents

  • The advice came in a 14-page booklet titled A Guide To Effective Communication: Inclusive Language In The Workplace

By Stephen Adams and Sanchez Manning for The Mail on Sunday

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 28 January 2017 | UPDATED: 01:42, 29 January 2017

NHS doctors have been told not to call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’ because it might offend transgender people, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The astonishing warning comes in official guidelines issued by the British Medical Association to its 160,000 members, which says mothers-to-be should be referred to as ‘pregnant people’ instead.

The controversial advice to doctors in hospitals and general practice comes just weeks after it emerged that a Briton who was born a girl but is changing to a man put his operation on hold to have a baby.

Four-months pregnant Hayden Cross, 20, is legally male and has had hormone treatment but not sex-change surgery.

There are no other known cases of a transitioning person becoming pregnant in the UK, but official figures show 775,000 women give birth in Britain every year.

Despite this, the BMA insists doctors should drop the word ‘mother’ when referring to pregnancy to avoid offending transgender people and to ‘celebrate diversity’.

The contentious call is made in a 14-page booklet called A Guide To Effective Communication: Inclusive Language In The Workplace.

It says: ‘A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. However, there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant.

‘We can include intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant by saying “pregnant people” instead of “expectant mothers”.’

In an introduction to the guide on the BMA’s website, senior executive Dr Anthea Mowat wrote: ‘I would encourage you all to read and share this guide, and think about how you can apply it in your day-to-day work. This is a time where we need to come together to support and protect our colleagues and our patients.’

But last night women’s campaigner Laura Perrins criticised the BMA’s advice as ‘anti-science, anti-women and anti-mother’.

She said: ‘As every doctor knows only females can have children. To say otherwise is offensive and dangerous. This will offend women up and down the country, and is an example of the majority of women being insulted for a tiny minority of people.’

Conservative MP Philip Davies described the guidance as ‘completely ridiculous’, adding: ‘If you can’t call a pregnant woman an expectant mother, then what is the world coming to?’

The guide also tells doctors that they should not use the terms ‘born man’ or ‘born woman’ in relation to trans people, as these phrases ‘are reductive and over-simplify a complex subject’.

Neither should they say ‘biologically male’ or ‘biologically female’, for the same reasons. Instead, they should say the individual was ‘assigned’ or ‘designated’ male or female at birth.

Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said: ‘I think it is sad that society is being pushed in this direction. God has made us man and woman, and mothers relate to their children in different ways than fathers. This ruling will confuse people about the vital role of mothers in bringing up their children.’

And the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, the Right Reverend Philip Egan, warned it would cause ‘great confusion and harm’.

He said: ‘It is Orwellian, isn’t it? Another example of people trying to control our thoughts and the way we speak.’

However, Heather Ashton, of the transgender support group TG Pals, said: ‘We know that biological females are the pregnant ones but trans people are parents too, and this is massive step forward to prevent discrimination against them. The fact that the terminology is changing can only be a positive thing for everyone who wants to be a parent and has the right to be a parent.’

Meanwhile, The Mail on Sunday has also discovered that the Department of Health has issued formal orders that trans women – those who were born male but identify as women – should be routinely accommodated on female single-sex wards. Similarly, trans men should be placed on male wards.

In a missive to hospitals they say: ‘Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia.’

There are now 53 charities and pressure groups dedicated to promoting the rights of transgender people – many receiving public funds.

And hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money is being spent on research looking at how everyday terms such as ‘boys and girls’ might ‘exclude’ transgender individuals.

Handouts include £50,000 given to Sheffield Hallam University for a study into ‘discriminatory’ toilet signs, which recommended that ‘ladies and gents’ signs be replaced with ‘toilets with urinals’ and ‘toilets without urinals’ signs. More universities are introducing ‘gender neutral’ toilets – at least 11 of Oxford’s 38 colleges have done so – while students elsewhere have campaigned for sanitary towel bins to be placed in men’s bathrooms to cater for trans men.

The BMA’s booklet on inclusive language does not only cover transgender rights. It also argues against male-centric language – so advises members to use the phrase ‘family name’ instead of ‘surname... which may originate from sire-name, the name derived from one’s father.’

But many linguists think ‘surname’ actually derives from the Anglo-French ‘sornom’ or ‘surnoun’, meaning ‘over-name’. The guide also advises that ‘gender neutral language’ should be used ‘until you know what terms they prefer’.

The BMA insisted: ‘This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA.

‘It is not workplace guidance for doctors, which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients.’

(In their extreme self righteousness with their attempts to show the world what they consider to be their moral superiority through “tolerance”, they are willing to destroy themselves, their families, their friends, and their nations. Ed)


Natural News

The Atlantic caught pushing fake science; claimed heartbeats of unborn babies are “imaginary”

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 by: Vicki Batts 

(Natural News) As if the left-wing media couldn’t get any further from reality, a recent article from The Atlantic went so far as to proclaim that fetal heartbeats are “imaginary” and that ultrasound technology is used to perpetuate the “myth” that unborn children are actually people.

Following the article’s publication, many people were quick to point out the bold-faced lies presented within its text.

Breitbart reports that The Atlantic caved in and issued a formal retraction of their claim “that that there is ‘no heart to speak of’ in a six-week old fetus.”

The subtitle, “The technology has been used to create an ‘imaginary’ heartbeat and sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus,” was also changed. Below is a screenshot of the article with the original subheading, courtesy of

This outrageously disingenuous piece was written and published just in time for the March of Life taking place in Washington, DC on the anniversary of Roe vs Wade. The article’s writer, Moira Weigel, tries to insinuate that ultrasounds are some kind of barbaric tool of the patriarchy; she even goes so far as to state, “Ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.”

In reality, ultrasound technology is non-invasive and is used by countless female and male doctors to check on a baby, among other health conditions. A 2015 study found that of the graduate medical education class for 2013-2014, women made up 85 percent of of all residents in obstetrics and gynecology. This would suggest that more women are practicing with ultrasounds than men. Furthermore; the notion that the ultrasound is in any way intended to oppress women is ludicrous: in pregnancy, the entire purpose of the ultrasound is to check on the baby you’re carrying. What ill will does that impose, exactly?

In addition to being a tool of the evil “patriarchy” to oppress women, Weigel alleges that this medical device was also developed to serve the pro-life agenda. She proclaims that “The origins of fetal ultrasound lie in stealth warfare,” and that “opponents of abortion enlisted it in their cause. It became an article of faith that women would respond to seeing ultrasound images by ‘recognizing’ that the fetus gestating inside them was a ‘baby’ — and, by extension, that abortion would be murder.”

That is some serious spinning on the hamster wheel. First of all, ultrasound technology is not a tool enlisted by “opponents of abortion” — it is a tool used by many medical professionals, across many medical fields. To assume that the intention behind the ultrasound was to “trick” women into feeling something for the life growing inside them is, at best, a radical and unsubstantiated belief — and at worst, it’s a testament to the overwhelming paranoia perpetrated by the Left to discredit and dissuade their opposition. [Keep up with the Left’s latest propaganda tactics at]

Secondly, a woman’s “recognition” of the fetus has literally no impact on whether or not the fetus “is” a baby. Humans give birth to babies; I know how terribly shocking that must be to read. Whether or not a woman has an ultrasound doesn’t really change that, either.

Weigel eventually revealed that the true purpose behind the nonsensical, anti-science article was actually to oppose legislation that would criminalize abortion after an unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected. By denying the existence of a fetal heartbeat, trying to undermine the credibility of the medical device used to detect them, Weigel and others like her can insist that the technology used to measure fetal heartbeats — and the presence of said heartbeat — is some kind of mirage created by male doctors to confuse women.

Throughout the article, Weigel also insinuates that women shouldn’t even get ultrasounds, claiming that “science”doesn’t attribute any meaning to ultrasound images.

Apparently, if you pretend not to hear or see something, that means you can go about pretending it’s not real.




The Telegraph

Boy Scouts, Reversing Century-Old Stance, Will Allow Transgender Boys


A boy scout carried a rainbow flag during a gay pride parade in San Francisco in 2015.

Credit Noah Berger/Reuters

Reversing its stance of more than a century, the Boy Scouts of America said on Monday that the group would begin accepting members based on the gender listed on their application, paving the way for transgender boys to join the organization.

“For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America, along with schools, youth sports and other youth organizations, have ultimately deferred to the information on an individual’s birth certificate to determine eligibility for our single-gender programs,” the group said in a statement on its website. “However, that approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state.”

The announcement reverses a policy that drew controversy late last year when a transgender New Jersey boy was kicked out of the organization about a month after joining.

“After weeks of significant conversations at all levels of our organization, we realized that referring to birth certificates as the reference point is no longer sufficient,” Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh said in a recorded statement on Monday.

In 2013, the Boy Scouts of America ended its ban on openly gay youths participating in its activities.

Two years later, the organization ended its ban on openly gay adult leaders.




Airport protests just the start of 'chaos' planned by Muslim Brotherhood

Published: 10 hours ago. Updated: 01/29/2017 at 10:52 PM


Major airports saw protests led by CAIR and other groups in defense of continued, unrestricted immigration from seven countries President Donald Trump says are harboring terrorists.

A former Homeland Security officer who spent years screening Muslim immigrants points to three “triggers” of confrontation between the new administration of Donald Trump and the global Islamic movement.

These three issues will spawn a violent backlash in response to Trump as he attempts to implement what many believe are long-overdue reforms.

And Trump has already bumped head-on into one of the hot-button issues – Muslim immigration.

According to Phillip Haney, a founding member of the Homeland Security Department and author of the book “See Something Say Nothing,” the stars are lining up for a major confrontation with the global Islamic movement and its allies on the political left.

The “flashpoints” to watch going forward are these:

  • Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

  • Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization

  • Restricting Islamic immigration into the U.S.

Trump’s executive orders slapping a 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement and a 30-day ban on those entering on visas from seven terror-sponsoring countries has been met with protests Sunday at airports in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit and Minneapolis.

In Hamtramck, Michigan, the nation’s first city to elect a Muslim-majority city council, protesters descended on City Hall Sunday with signs that included “Ban Bannon” and “We are all Immigrants.”

There were no such protests when former President Obama restricted Christian refugees from entering the U.S. from Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and other Muslim countries.

As Trump tries to rein in concessions given to the Muslim Brotherhood by the previous administrations of Clinton, Bush and Obama, he should expect the Brotherhood and its allies on the left to push back with hell’s fury, Haney said.

There will be lawsuits, ugly protests, and an all-out effort to create chaos in the streets of U.S. cities, he predicts.

The reason is simple. This isn’t 1968 or even 1978, when Islam in America consisted primarily of a few thousand Nation of Islam and Black Panther activists.

Islam, particularly the Salafist brand of Sunni Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah throughout the world, has been allowed to establish a major foothold in America.

More than 300 U.S. cities and towns have been stacked with Sharia-compliant Muslims through refugee resettlement and myriad other visa programs that have been expanding for four decades.

Meanwhile, groups that agitate for Muslim “civil rights,” which tend to manifest as special privileges not afforded to Christians, have been empowered. Thanks to the expanded immigration, the U.S. Muslim population has exploded to 3.3 million, the number of mosques has grown exponentially and the Council on American Islamic Relations or CAIR is now a force to be reckoned with despite its ties to extremist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, Haney said.

“There’s this concept of the observant Muslim base, it’s a global observant base, and that’s what the Muslim Brotherhood has done here in America since the 1960s is build up that observant Muslim base,” Haney said.

In a document seized by the FBI and presented at a terror-financing trial in Texas in 2007, the Brotherhood referred to this process as building “settlements” in the U.S. that would eventually subjugate all other religions. Doubters can read the Brotherhood’s strategy in the Brotherhood’s own words in a document titled the “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Russia have all banned the Muslim Brotherhood for its terrorist connections and seditious strategies.

A bill on Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, would do the same thing, declaring CAIR and other Brotherhood-affiliated group as terrorists.

“Now the U.S. has a new president who is considering doing the same thing and CAIR is crying about Islamophobia,” Haney said. “And that’s why they need to be designated as terrorists.”

Trump is already showing a pattern, a trend of behaviors, which indicates he plans to follow through with campaign promises related to Israel, terrorism and immigration, Haney said.

The main school of Islamic jurisprudence in North America, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America or AMJA, issued a fatwa which it called a “roadmap” for Muslim reaction in the wake of Trump’s election victory.

“They are expecting him to actually do what he said, so the AMJA steps in and provides a Shariah-compliant roadmap on the way that they should respond,” Haney said. “They have set the parameters of the acceptable response based on Shariah law. They included not only 32 Quranic verses woven into the roadmap but several other references to the hadith.

“The AMJA put this statement out and mobilized the observant Muslim base calling on them to be prepared to respond.”

And it’s not just Muslims who will join in this monumental push back against Trump.

As seen at protests in major U.S. airports Sunday, the radical left is eager to take up the crusade of Muslim activism. Haney says it’s not just American Muslims who will join this fight, either, but global Islamic extremists who are invested in destroying Israel, propping up the Muslim Brotherhood, and continuing the flow of Shariah-compliant Muslims from the Middle East into Western democracies.

“These three points will trigger conflict between the global Islamic community and the Trump administration,” he told WND. “There aren’t any other issues that have the volatility to precipitate actions up to and including violence.”

Haney said the three trigger points will affect three different areas: The Israel policy will affect the political arena, the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist declaration will affect law enforcement, and the immigration issue will affect the fabric of American society, halting the process of Islamization and civilization jihad that has been steadily occurring for the last 35 years and which was placed into overdrive under Barack Obama.

“It’s not about Trump. It’s about America,” Haney said. “America has had the audacity to pick someone different from what the world wanted, which was someone who would not be submissive to the global Islamic movement. So America is now going to become the focus of this backlash.”

In fact, the hardcore Islamic extremists affiliated with the Brotherhood and their allies among the hardcore left are already mobilizing a pushback for the cause of Shariah law. These troops have enjoyed complete cooperation from the U.S. government over the last eight years, Haney said, and to an extent for the last 20 years going back to the Bushes and Clintons. All of these administrations reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations for advice and counsel, inviting them to the White House, the State Department, and the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Trump has signaled a different approach by talking about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization and restricting Muslim immigration while shifting the government’s focus to rescuing Christian refugees. These were three untouchables under previous U.S. administrations and by even talking about these actions Trump must be prepared for a strong reaction, both foreign and domestic, Haney says.

The Brotherhood’s self-avowed goal is to spread Shariah around the globe. In the U.S., it works through a network of alphabet-soup organization that include CAIR, the Muslim Student Association or MSA, the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA, the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA, and the Muslim American Society or MAS.

These Brotherhood-linked groups work to infiltrate and influence America’s critical institutions –government and law enforcement, the educational system and the nation’s churches and synagogues. The overall goal of this three-pronged attack is to wear down these institutions’ defenses to Shariah concepts, such as the idea that criticism of Islam or its prophet is off limits and makes one an “Islamophobe” worthy of second-class status. Criticism of Christianity continues to be popular sport in American society but criticism of Islam is socially unacceptable in the media, pop culture, business, academia or law enforcement. This is essentially a voluntary implementation of the Islamic blasphemy law – which is the beginning of Shariah – Haney says.

The most important Islamic voice to watch in America is the AMJA – the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. This is the group of scholars that Muslim clerics look to for guidance on what to teach in America’s mosques, more than 75 percent of which have been funded by Saudi Arabia and 85 percent of which are led by foreign-born imams.

The AMJA issued a fatwa following Trump’s election, offering a “roadmap” forward on how U.S. Muslims should react to the changes Trump might try to implement. This roadmap informed the U.S. Muslim community that the rise of Trump held the potential to be a “calamity” for their future in this country.

While urging them not to panic, the AMJA then dropped the bombshell that the “worst of the worst” in America were those who try to destroy Muslim civil rights organizations, a direct reference to CAIR, ISNA, MSA and their overarching sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood. The fatwa went on to warn Muslims that they may have to take drastic actions that they don’t want to take but which will please Allah, quoting almost word for word from the Quran.

“It’s all intertwined,” said Haney. “It’s all coming together as we predicted.”

Watch video trailer for “Stealth Invasion,” which former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is calling “the must-read book of 2017.”

After Trump announced the first round of his border security and immigration crackdowns Wednesday, CAIR Director Nihad Awad immediately ramped up his rhetoric. He denounced the administration’s actions as “Islamophobic” and compared refusing Muslim refugees to previous U.S. policies of “slavery” and denying women the vote.

These are fighting words, Haney said, and sure enough CAIR’s chapters in New York and Dallas responded with their own press conferences, tweets and rallies denouncing Trump.

CAIR was also front and center in the protests at American airports Sunday.

This is just the beginning of what will be an ongoing battle of wills between Trump’s administration and the Shariah-supportive Muslim community that feels emboldened by its allies in the media and among what are mainly Marxist and left-leaning professors, lawyers and community organizers, Haney said.

Haney, who co-authored the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing” upon leaving DHS, says to watch the three trigger points going forward.

Any one of those three issues will be viewed as part of the “calamity” that the AMJA roadmap fatwa warned was coming under a Trump administration.

Trump will be challenged to find some Muslims who are not affiliated with Brotherhood organizations and give them a voice that offers an alternative to the intolerance and extremism put forth by CAIR, which has direct ties to Hamas and has had nearly a dozen of its current and former leaders investigated and charged with terrorist-related crimes.

Trump comments about moving the embassy to Jerusalem reverberated all the way to the slums of Sadr City in Iraq, where Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said a U.S. Jerusalem embassy would be tantamount to an all-out war against Islam.

“Just the fact that our ambassador said he will move his residence to Jerusalem is provocative enough,” Haney said. “It’s a declaration of war against the USA, and Sadr is saying the Shia will fill in the void if Sunnis don’t do what they’re supposed to do.”

On the immigration front, Trump said he plans to restrict visa permits for 30 days from seven Islamic countries, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Libya, while pausing all refugee resettlements for four months or until “extreme vetting” practices can be developed.

These would seem to be rather mild responses to the uptick in Islamic terrorism both in Europe and the United States over the last three years. Jihadist attacks on U.S. soil have included the Boston Marathon bombing, the knife attacks at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and at Ohio State University, the Orlando nightclub mass shooting, the Chattanooga shooting at a Navy recruitment center, the pipe bombing in Manhattan, and the San Bernardino shooting. All of these attacks were carried out by Muslim immigrants or sons of Muslim immigrants.

But the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations know the importance of the Islamic principle of al hijra, the Arabic term for “migration.” Their prophet, Muhammad, used it to perfection in his conquering of Medina back in the seventh century and it has been a favorite tactic of Shariah-adherent Muslims ever since.

The prayer by Imam Mohamed Magid at Trump’s inaugural prayer service in the National Cathedral last Saturday amounted to a “a signal flag,” to the Muslim community, Haney said. “The context of the verse he quoted from the Quran just happens to be related to the AMJA roadmap fatwa, so what he did was he waved a signal flag and told the Islamic community, here I am, I’m making a declaration that we should stand up and oppose the calamity of the Trump administration.”

Magid’s Muslim Brotherhood credentials are impressive. He’s past-president of ISNA, he served on Obama’s CVE or “countering violent extremism” steering committee and he is imam of the ADAMS mosque that was at one time under investigation by the federal government for ties to Hamas. And if that’ snot enough, he’s listed on the AMJA website as a shake and a fatwa expert. A shake in Islam is higher than imam.

“That means he’s a trained Shariah specialist,” Haney said. “But here he is at the National Cathedral in Washington delivering an inauguration prayer.”

Haney goes back to the allegory Trump used of draining the water out of the swamp.

“Your work really begins after the water is taken out,” he said. “You have to see what is actually buried down in the muck and mire. And if Trump has experts who are qualified to go in and conduct a forensic analysis, they’re going to find all kinds of stuff there and it will set in motion a whole sequence of events, if they can catch their breath and take a look at it. It will set off a sequence of events that will allow law enforcement and immigration officials to honestly evaluate the status of our current immigration policies and they’re going to find that there are a lot of problems with it, whether it’s the State Department issuing visas to folks they shouldn’t be, the way the USCS process people coming into the country on visas and green cards, all the way to the United Nations itself and how it does the initial selection and vetting of the refugees.

“So this examination, if it is thorough, is going to set off a lot of events that are going to expose the methods of the Obama administration as providing no oversight or protection whatsoever.”




Things Just Got Serious in Europe’s War on Cash

by Don Quijones • Jan 28, 2017

To protect citizens from threats as defined by apparatchiks in Brussels.

By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET.

The central authorities in Europe just launched their most important offensive to date in their multiyear War on Cash. The new move comes directly from the European Union’s executive branch, the European Commission, which just announced its intention to “explore the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments,” with a view to implementing cross-regional measures in 2018.

Maximum limits on cash transactions already exist in most European countries, and the general trend is downward. Last year, Spain joined France in placing a €1,000 maximum on cash payments. Greece went one better, dropping its cap for cash transactions from €1,500 to €500. In simple terms, any legal purchase of a good or service over €500 will need to be done with plastic or mobile money.

In some countries, the maximum cash limit is significantly higher. For example, in Europe’s biggest economy, Germany, recent attempts by the government to set a threshold of €5,000 triggered a fierce public backlash. The German tabloid Bild published a scathing open letter titled “Hands Off Our Cash,” while a broad spectrum of political parties condemned the proposed measures as an attack on data protection and privacy.

“Cash allows us to remain anonymous during day-to-day transactions. In a constitutional democracy, that is a freedom that has to be defended,” tweeted the Green MP Konstantin von Notz. Even Bunderbank President Jens Weidmann criticized the government’s proposals, telling Bild (emphasis added): “It would be fatal if citizens got the impression that cash is being gradually taken away from them.”

Germany’s neighbor to the south, Austria, has similar reservations about the EU’s plans to suppress cash. The Deputy Economy Minister Harald Mahrer said that Austrians should have the constitutional right to protect their privacy. “We don’t want someone to be able to track digitally what we buy, eat and drink, what books we read and what movies we watch,” Mahrer said on Austrian public radio station Oe1. “We will fight everywhere against rules” including caps on cash purchases, he said.

In other words, any attempt by the European Commission to set a mandatory continent-wide limit is likely to be met with fierce resistance — at least from some countries. Others are already so far down the path toward a cashless society that they’ll barely notice the difference.

The financial consultancy AT Kearney predicts that by 2022 there will be more cashless transactions in Europe than those using cash. According to a report by Fung Global Retail & Technology, nine of the top 15 “most digital-ready” countries are in Europe. Sweden is hotly tipped to become the world’s first completely cashless economy. It could happen as soon as 2030.

Yet even Sweden has seen an enthusiasm gap emerge, mostly along demographic lines, as the Guardian reports:

Older people in the rural north, tending to be the least tech-savvy, resent the economic power of Stockholm and Gothenburg, now almost entirely cash-free urban zones. The National Pensioners Organisation is a key player in the “Cash Uprising” coalition now campaigning to make sure older Swedes can still deposit and remove cash from banks.

Some experts fear the emergence of a dystopic “two-tier urban realm” in which the poorest become cut off from mainstream commercial life by their continued dependence on traditional forms of currency and are only able to trade among themselves. As financial writer Dominic Frisby explains, “the beauty of cash is that it’s a direct and simple transaction between all kinds of different people, no matter how rich or poor.”

What’s more, there’s no middleman involved. One party pays the other party in mutually accepted currency and not a single middleman gets to wet his beak. And to all intents and purposes, it’s untraceable. Is it any wonder that banks, fin tech firms, credit card companies, central banks, national and regional governments and UN agencies want to pull the plug on physical currency?

They already have vital technological and generational trends firmly on their side, as a result of which cash’s days as a commonly used payment method may well be numbered anyway. They also have the added bonus of widespread public ignorance, apathy, and disinterest. But they still want to hurry the process along, primarily by introducing incremental legislation that makes it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to pay with cash.

For now, the pretext most often wheeled out for this escalating assault on physical currency is the War on Terror, but there are also the familiar bugbears like organized crime, tax evasion and the informal economy.

These justifications merely serve to obscure the real ultimate goal: the complete — or near-complete — technocratic control over the money supply. In a world where every transaction must be electronic (i.e. traceable) and where biometric authentication systems have become the norm, the influence of big banks, corporations, tech firms and governments over our lives will be virtually unlimited.

Another important perk of cash is that it limits central banks’ ability to continue conducting arguably the greatest financial heist of the modern age, i.e., negative interest rate policy (NIRP). As long as cash exists, there’s no way of preventing depositors from doing the logical thing – i.e. taking their money out of the bank and parking it where the erosive effects of NIRP can’t reach it.

But perhaps the greatest beauty of cash is that it is one of the last remaining things that gives people a small semblance of privacy, anonymity, and personal freedom in their increasingly controlled and surveyed lives. However, according to the European Commission, privacy and anonymity do not constitute “fundamental” human rights:

…prevent(ing) the anonymity that cash payments allow might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

In other words, to protect European citizens from any threats to general interest identified by the apparatchiks in Brussels, the European Commission can quite simply override the non-fundamental rights of over 500 million people to privacy, anonymity and personal freedom. And it’s all set to begin in the next year. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.



'We can't ignore the people': Parliament backs Brexit bill in landslide vote

Published time: 1 Feb, 2017 19:33

Edited time: 1 Feb, 2017 20:03

Britain’s departure from the EU moved a step closer on Wednesday evening, when MPs voted overwhelmingly in favor of the government’s Brexit bill, by 498 to 114 votes.

After two days of debate, MPs voted to push the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill through to the next stage. After the bill fully clears parliament, Prime Minister Theresa May can trigger Article 50 and begin formal negotiations with the EU.

The bill, which was deliberately tightly worded to limit the ability of MPs to amend it, was put forward by May’s government after it lost a Supreme Court case earlier this month on whether she had the power to trigger a breakaway from the EU without consulting parliament.

In an earlier vote, MPs voted against an amendment calling for Article 50 legislation to be abandoned, by 336 votes to 100.

George Osborne, the Remain Conservative chancellor during the Brexit referendum, warned MPs against blocking the bill, saying it would risk “putting parliament against people.” He said for parliament to prevent Article 50 from being invoked would “alienate people who already feel alienated.”

He predicted that talks with the EU will be bitter and involve a trade-off between “access and money.”

Former Labour leader Ed Miliband described the vote on the government’s bill as a “fateful moment in the country’s history.” He confirmed he would be honoring the country’s mandate and voting for the Bill.

“We do not want to give the sense that people having voted for Brexit because they felt ignored, are being ignored once again,” he said. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ordered his MPs to back the government’s bill.

The final vote on Article 50 will be held in the House of Commons next Wednesday after three days of debate.

It has been confirmed that May’s White Paper containing her Brexit plan will be published on Thursday.

The government remains confident that the bill will complete its passage through parliament, including the House of Lords, in time for May to meet her May 31 deadline for invoking Article 50.




Anti-globalist leaders set to examine trade deals

RT - FEBRUARY 2, 2017


Vladimir Putin is paying a return visit to Budapest, a year after Viktor Orban’s trip to Moscow set the tone for enhanced bilateral cooperation.

The two leaders, similarly unpopular in Brussels, are set to discuss current and prospective mutually lucrative trade deals.

The visit comes during tense times between the EU and Russia, which is facing an ongoing sanction regime coupled with an unprecedented NATO troop buildup on its borders. The global geopolitical situation is, according to Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, however, way more favorable than during Putin’s previous visit to the country in 2015.

Putin’s first official trip in 2017 is set to bolster bilateral agreements reached during Orban’s February 2016 visit to Moscow. The two leaders are expected to focus on joint economic and trade projects, according to Kremlin.

Putin and Orban will also likely discuss cooperation within the frameworks of the Nord Stream and Turkish stream gas pipeline projects, Russia’s presidential aide, Yuri Ushakov told reporters on Wednesday.

About 85 percent of Hungary’s gas flows in from Russia. In 2015, Putin and Orban signed a new gas agreement replacing a 20-year contract that had expired in December 2015. Hungary pays only for gas it actually consumes under the agreement, which proved to be very lucrative for low-demand consumers.

Another key issue, which is expected to be discussed during the visit is the expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant. Russia and Hungary signed an agreement on the construction of two additional reactors in January 2014. Eighty percent of the project’s cost will be funded by a €10bn credit line from Russia, and work will be performed by Russian nuclear scientists. Budapest is currently awaiting approval of the project by EU bureaucrats who have been blocking it.

The Hungarian PM has been classed as the ‘black sheep’ of European politics because of his views on key EU issues, which frequently contradicts the mainstream establishment view. Orban’s skepticism towards the so called ‘open-borders’ policy and anti-Russia agenda has drawn criticism from many bigwigs on both sides of the Atlantic.

The European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, publicly greeted Orban as “the dictator” at the Eastern Partnership summit in 2015.

While US Republican Senator John McCain even went as far as to brand the Hungarian PM a “neo-fascist dictator” in a December 2014 Senate address.

Orban insists that he simply wants what’s good for his country, and that he “would not be a viceroy in Hungary commissioned by some foreign state.” His views on migration policy and desire to actually control his country’s borders proved to be quite visionary and realistic considering Europe’s migrant crisis.

While Budapest went along with the EU sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine, it has been criticizing Brussels’ anti-Russia stance ever since. Ahead of Putin’s visit, the Hungarian Foreign Minister reiterated that position.

“Hungary’s position on the [anti-Russian] sanctions is that [they are] useless,” Szijjarto told Reuters.

In 2014, Orban said Europe “shot itself in the foot” as the sanctions policy “causes more harm to us than to Russia.” Szijjarto’s assessment appears to be spot on as his country’s economic losses amounts to billions of dollars.

“According to our estimates, the loss of profit for Hungary amounts to $6.5 billion over the last three years,” Szijjarto told Kommersant daily. “We are speaking about exports. Given that the annual volume of Hungarian exports is about $90 billion, the losses are biting.”

Biologist Proves Measles Isn't A Virus, Wins Supreme Court Case Against Doctor


In a recent ruling, judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed that the measles virus does not exist. Furthermore, there is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of the virus in any scientific literature. This raises the question of what was actually injected into millions over the past few decades.

Not a single scientist, immunologist, infectious disease specialist or medical doctor has ever been able to establish a scientific foundation, not only for the vaccination of measles but any vaccination for infants, pregnant women, the elderly and even many adult subgroups.

The fact that many vaccines are ineffective is becoming increasingly apparent. Merck was slapped with two separate class action lawsuits contending they lied about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in their combination MMR shot, and fabricated efficacy studies to maintain the illusion for the past two decades that the vaccine is highly protective.

Studies such as one published in the Human and Experimental Toxicology journal found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates. The study, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller who has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.

MMR Vaccine

In the United States, children typically receive their mumps vaccination as part of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises children to receive their first dose between 12 and 18 months, and their second between the ages of 4 and 6.

Evidence has been published in the medical literature that vaccinated persons can get measles because either they do not respond to the vaccine or the vaccine's efficacy wanes over time and vaccinated mothers do not transfer long lasting maternal antibodies to their infants to protect them in the first few months of life.

Brian Hooker's published paper, is a comprehensive analysis of the CDC's own data from 2003 revealing a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine.

Brian Hooker's research in the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal provides the most recent epidemiological evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.

Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson confirmed that "the CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up." He remarked "we've missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They're not doing what they should be doing because they're afraid to look for things that might be associated." He alleges criminal wrongdoing by his supervisors, and he expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data.

Measles Virus Does Not Exist

German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka initially offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could provide scientific evidence that the measles virus existed. He had initially been ordered to pay up in court after Doctor David Bardens attempted to claim the prize after providing the biologist with a study that had been published in a medical journal. At that time, a Judge in the regional court in Ravensburg, South Germany, ruled in the favour of Dr. Bardens in a controversial decision claiming the criteria for evidence had been met.

The First Civil Senate of the BGH confirmed a judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) on in February 2016. The sum of 100,000 euros which was offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus did have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.

Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.

In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world's largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.

Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.

The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work "lege artis", i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.

The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff's position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.

The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of "measles virus." Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.

Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.

Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the "measles virus" contains typical cell's natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole "whole measles virus", this vaccine contains cell's own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.

In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.



Until next week...keep on believing.
Almondtree Productions

The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails firmly fastened, which have been given from one shepherd by agreement. And moreover, my son, guard thyself by means of them: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”
(Ecclesiastes 12:11-12)