Thrice Censured RINO McCain Whines About Threats to Globalist “New World Order”

Mar 29, 2017 by 

Warmongering U.S. Senator John McCain (RINO-Ariz.; shown), perhaps the most aggressive neocon globalist in the Senate, complained in Europe last week that what he called the “New World Order” was “under enormous strain.” The widely ridiculed “Republican in Name Only,” or RINO as critics refer to him, also defended key globalist institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), both of which are under growing pressure from outraged citizens demanding a return of national sovereignty and self-government. Critics were quick to ridicule McCain and some of his Kremlin-centered conspiracy theories, but the globalist establishment fawned over his comments.

With the “New World Order under enormous strain” amid what he described as a “the titanic struggle with forces of radicalism,” American and European globalists “can’t stand by and lament, we’ve got to be involved,” McCain was quoted as saying by the online EU Observer. In other words, those who oppose his vision of globalism and Big Government are “radical.” Meanwhile, those who support his extremist vision of never-ending unconstitutional war, the erosion of national sovereignty, and an end run around the U.S. Constitution’s limits on government are the “moderates.” At least that is what the failed GOP presidential contender wants people to believe.

Speaking at the Brussels Forum organized by the globalist German Marshall Fund, established with taxpayer money to promote globalism, McCain also promoted the long-term internationalist objective of deeper “integration” between the United States and the EU. The world “cries out for American and European leadership” via the EU and NATO, a UN subsidiary, McCain claimed. Unsurprisingly, both of those institutions are run by unaccountable and unelected globalists who share McCain’s fanatical devotion to the “New World Order” agenda — transnational governance and globalism.

“I trust the EU,” McCain continued, calling for “more cooperation” and “more connectivity” between the EU and the U.S. government. He also said the “alliance” between the U.S. government and the EU, which is facing a massive uprising and enjoys virtually no popular support according to polls, was “one of the most important alliances.” In a nod to one of the frequent criticisms aimed at the EU, McCain conceded that it had “too many bureaucrats.” However, he claimed there was “not much bureaucracy,” and that the EU was “not the only place on earth with that problem.”

Of course, in the real world, European voters across the bloc are scrambling to ditch the bloated and totalitarian EU after the historic Brexit vote showed it was possible for a nation to restore its sovereignty. McCain touched on that, saying he was “still wondering what the overall effect of Brexit will be.” But, he claimed, it was not yet clear whether Brexit “is the beginning of a serious problem for the EU.” In other words, it remains to be seen whether the globalist outfit — which got started after World War II and was built on a foundation of U.S. taxpayer money and blatant lies to the public — will be able to successfully suppress the growing grassroots revolt against globalism.

In between attacking President Donald Trump for his anti-globalist stance, McCain also touted NATO as a key institution. Promoting the EU and NATO as “the best two sums in history,” he did call on European governments to spend more money on NATO. The globalist military alliance increasingly has become the UN’s enforcement arm, as witnessed under Obama when NATO was illegally sent by the UN to destroy Libya and overthrow its government, leaving the country in shambles with terrorists running wild. “We need to rely on NATO and have a NATO that adjusts to new challenges,” McCain continued, without elaborating on what sort of “challenges” he thought NATO would be needed to combat. Trump previously called it “obsolete,” and has made no secret of his hostility to the EU.

Finally, the increasingly erratic senator from Arizona pushed bizarre conspiracy theories suggesting that opposition to globalism and his extreme warmongering was coming from the Kremlin. He said, for example, that he was concerned about “the Russian role in our elections,” despite admitting he had seen “no evidence” that they “succeeded” in affecting the 2016 U.S. election. He also claimed Russia was hoping to conquer various Eastern European countries. And, he said, the Kremlin was trying to influence European elections, including in France and Germany, in favor of anti-globalist parties. “It’s an act of destruction that is certainly more lethal than dropping some bombs,” McCain claimed.

Without a trace of irony or a mention of the EU superstate’s brazen efforts to quash nationhood and self-government using fraud and trickery, McCain claimed Russian influence in European elections would be “a death warrant for democracy.” Ironically, when then-Czech President Vaclav Klaus warned in 2012 that the EU was already in the final stages of destroying democracy, McCain was nowhere to be found. Instead, he was busy posing for photos with brutal jihadists, demanding more unconstitutional wars, and seeking more U.S. support for terrorist organizations across the Middle East.

Of course, the latest outburst is hardly the first time McCain has alluded to the “New World Order” using that term. In late 2016, for instance, he warned that the “world order” was at risk of “unraveling.” And in confirmation hearings earlier this year for Trump’s Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, a Bilderberg attendee, McCain said the NWO was under “more strain than its ever been,” and asked if the nominee supported the “New World Order.” Mattis agreed that the “world order” scheme was under attack “from Russia, from terrorist groups, and with what China is doing in the South China Sea.”

However, despite his comments, more than a few prominent globalists including the recently deceased David Rockefeller and Rothschild protege George Soros have argued that the brutal communist dictatorship enslaving mainland China will in fact play a key role in the “New World Order.” In fact, Soros even said the ruthless mass-murdering regime should “own” the “New World Order” in the same way that the United States owned the old world order. Beijing enthusiastically agreed, using its propaganda organs to promote its starring role in what it, too, called the “New World Order.” Rockefeller, meanwhile, said in the New York Times that the “social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” It also left some 60 million people dead.

In the 1990s, then-President George H.W. Bush explained the “New World Order” in more detail than most others. “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations, a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations,” said Bush in a televised speech from the Oval Office, suggesting that the UN would be a sort of world government with the ability to make law. “When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order; an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

The UN’s key founders, of course, included mass-murdering dictator Joseph Stalin on the Soviet side, and convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss, who chaired the UN’s founding conference, from the United States. The notion of using the UN’s “peace” troops to enforce their totalitarian vision should also be highly alarming. In fact, for generations, the UN’s ruthless “peace” forces have been notable primarily for the systematic rape of women and children in nations they occupy. In one town in the Ivory Coast, a survey by Save the Children revealed that eight out of 10 underage girls admitted to being raped and sexually exploited by UN forces.

Others who have used the term “New World Order” to tout their globalist system include former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Joe Biden, billionaire George Soros, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, disgraced former President Richard Nixon, General Colin Powell (retired), mass-murdering Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, South African Communist Party leader Nelson Mandela, the mass-murdering dictatorship ruling Communist China, and countless more. Other prominent globalists have used similar terms such as “new international order” and variations on that theme.

Ironically, pro-NWO activist McCain, who in 2008 came under fire for violating the law to accept Rothschild money for his campaign, is a big fan of globalist fanatic Henry Kissinger, another key “New World Order” plotter widely viewed as a war criminal. Kissinger, of course, has been described as an “old friend” of Putin by Putin’s own spokesman, and he regularly meets and dines with the Russian strongman. In his recent book entitled World Order, Kissinger described the path to a New World Order very much along the lines of McCain’s own scheming — and Putin’s. Basically, regional governments combining eventually into a global regime.

“The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” explains Kissinger in his book. In other words, the world’s nations must be brought under the control of globalist regional governments, and then those regional regimes must be brought together like puzzle pieces. Already in place are the African Union, the Union of South American States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the EU, NATO, and many other such schemes. And despite the lack of media attention, Putin is in fact following the script, building his own regional government to ensnare Eurasia known as the “Eurasian Economic Union” that he hopes to merge with the EU and other blocs.

The voters of Arizona should work to remove McCain from office at the earliest possible opportunity. By his own admission, he is working to impose a globalist and unconstitutional “New World Order” on humanity, when his oath of office requires him to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. The two visions are entirely incompatible. More than a few critics have even accused McCain of treason for, among other crimes, literally supporting jihadist terrorists and pushing a globalist “New World Order” that is fundamentally at odds with the U.S. Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.

Trump was right to attack globalism and promote Americanism on the campaign trail. McCain and every other globalist politician seeking a “New World Order” at the expense of U.S. liberties, sovereignty, and prosperity should be run out of office and potentially investigated. After all, nothing in the Constitution authorizes politicians to surrender Americans’ God-given rights and self-government to any outside entity. McCain’s vigorous public defense of globalism and the “New World Order” should be the final nail in the coffin of his dangerous political career.

Photo of Sen. John McCain at Brussels Forum: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

Leaked TTIP Deal to Merge U.S. and EU Triggers Outrage

EU/U.S. — Transatlantic Convergence

John McCain, the Anti-Conservative

The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty

European Anti-Globalists Join Forces to Take Back Countries

Pence Pledges U.S. “Continued Cooperation and Partnership” With EU

Putin’s East vs. Globalist West: Merging Into a New World Order

Globalist Henry Kissinger Outlines “New World Order”

Is McCain Hijacking Trump’s Foreign Policy?

Putin: Key Player in the “New World Order”

Oops! Sen. McCain Met Syrian Rebels Accused of Kidnapping

China, G77 Tyrants, and UN Boss Demand “New World Order”

Kissinger, Putin, and the “New World Order”

Obama-Merkel Push TTIP, as Support for Transatlantic Union Tanks

China: Staking Claim in the New World Order

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO You’ve Been Triggered! Celebration – ‘Well Done Bannon; Well Done Breitbart, You’ve Helped with This Hugely’


Today we reach the point of no return, he proclaimed

Farage Celebrates Article 50 Day: "You've Been Triggered"

Mar 20, 2017 by 

Nigel Farage is enjoying a glorious day in the sun, as the British government has triggered Article 50 and officially notified the European Union that the United Kingdom has begun divorce proceedings that should be finalized within two years.

Farage posted a picture of himself on social media, smiling broadly, with a pint in one hand, and a copy of the Daily Express in the other.

“You’ve been triggered,” he wrote.

Moments later, Farage shut down a journalist attempting to rain on the parade by asking the Brexit architect if he had any support to offer for the “48% who voted to stay in, who find that today is a disappointing day.”

“Come on, keep up with the main party,” replied Farage. “It may have been 48 per cent on June 23 last year, but things have changed hugely.

“Consistent opinion polls show nearly 70% of the population want the government to get on with Brexit.”

“I want us to leave with a sensible free trade deal in place – fully understanding we are their most important export market in the world, they call us ‘treasure island’ for goodness sake,” he concluded.

Farage also took a moment to directly thank Breitbart and Stephen Bannon for their support through the Brexit process.

“Good on Breitbart; good on Bannon,” he said, whilst raising his pint. “You’ve helped with this hugely.”

In an interview with Sky News earlier in the day, the former UKIP leader recounted the arduous road he has traveled and the vicious ridicule he and his once-small band of anti-globalist Brexiteers have endured through the 25 year process leading up to today.

“It’s been a long journey,” he said. “The honest truth is, for the first 22 or 23 years, it was a real minority sport.”

“We were laughed at, abused, it was an ‘impossible dream,’ and hey, here we are – it’s happening.”

“At 12:30 today, we pass the point of no return,” he went on. “There will be lots of arguments about the deal, the negotiations – but the big story is that after today, we are leaving.”

The full text of Prime Minister Theresa May’s letter to the European Council is now available to the public.

Since the referendum’s stunning success, Farage and the “Bad Boys of Brexit” have recently joined in efforts to split the polarized state of California into two new states – essentially a hybridization of the leftist, anti-Trump #CalExit push, and the long-running “State of Jefferson” movement.

The Daily Mail reports that Farage and ‘Leave’ backer, Arron Banks, just traveled to California to help raise $1 million for the campaign, and show its proponents “how to light a fire and win.”

Dan Lyman: Facebook | Twitter

Nigel Farage on Article 50: ‘Well Done Bannon; Well Done Breitbart – You’ve Helped with This Hugely’

 29 Mar 2017 by Jack Montgomery

As the Prime Minister’s Article 50 letter made its way to Brussels, Brexit campaign leader Nigel Farage paid “a personal tribute and thank you” to former Breitbart boss Stephen K. Bannon for the role he played in securing victory for the Leave campaign in the European Union (EU) referendum.

In an interview with Breitbart London Editor in Chief Raheem Kassam on Breitbart News Daily to mark the occasion of Britain finally triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and officially commencing the Brexit process, the former UKIP chief was bursting with enthusiasm.

“Good morning everybody! It’s a happy day here in London!” he began. “All through the campaign, I went round the country with a placard that said, ‘We want out country back’ – and I’m just getting a marker pen, and I’m going to cross out the ‘want’ and put ‘got’.

“It’s a big, big day, and I think at 12:30, when that letter is delivered in Brussels we will have passed the point of no return. We are going to become an independent, self-governing, normal democratic nation again.”

Kassam asked the veteran campaigner if he ever worried that “legacy Remainers”, such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair and millionaire financier Gina Miller, might succeed in preventing this day from coming to pass.

“Well, it shouldn’t have taken nine months,” Farage replied. “Talk about a long gestation!”

He did not believe, however, that there was any realistic way out for the political class after more than 17 million British voters backed Brexit, suggesting the delay may have been due to the fact that “the establishment did not want us to vote to leave [and] did not expect us to vote to leave”, and made no contingency plans for it.

Asked if he thought diehard Remainers might now turn their efforts towards making a success of Brexit, Farage was sceptical.

“I don’t think they’ll ever give up; they’ve been so used to having their own way,” he said. “But they will begin to look more and more ridiculous.”

Farage confessed that family, friends, and colleagues “all thought I’d been smoking something funny” when he first began his political journey, and that actually achieving Brexit “looked completely and utterly impossible in every way”.

“But it’s been a 25-year journey. At first, dozens of people were there helping and supporting me. Then it was hundreds, then it was thousands, then it was millions – and today, the impossible dream came true.”

Farage attributed it to failures within the EU itself, including the euro which nearly all the “Remoaners” would have signed the country up to 15 years ago

He took the opportunity to pay tribute to Breitbart News Network in general and former Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon, now a leading figure within President Donald J. Trump’s administration, in particular, for giving eurosceptic voices shut out by the establishment media a platform where they could speak to the public:

“One of the very important things that happened is, because we had the entire media against us, and not even willing to give us a fair hearing, I think when Bannon opened up the Breitbart office in London and began to give the arguments that I was making a fair hearing, and very quickly, as Breitbart does well, started to reach a very, very big audience. I think actually on this great Brexit day I have to say a personal thank you and tribute to Steve Bannon for having the foresightedness of doing that with Breitbart, and I’m extremely grateful.”

Brexit becomes official as Article 50 is triggered. Watch PM Theresa May’s statement here.

By Robert Laurie

A little over a week ago, we learned that Prime Minister Theresa May intended to abide by the wishes of the voters, invoke “Article 50” by delivering a letter of intent, and trigger Britain’s exit from the European Union.  Today, the big moment arrived and, true to her word, the UK will soon be out.

“In accordance with the wishes of the British people, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back. Britain is leaving the European Union. We are going to make our own decisions and our own laws. We are going to take control of the things that matter most to us. And we are going to take this opportunity to build a stronger, fairer, Britain – a country that our children and grandchildren are proud to call home.

That is our ambition and our opportunity, and that is what this government is determined to do.”

You can watch the entire statement below.

Donald Tusk: “There’s no reason to pretend this is a happy day”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spiritual Gun Control Is Not God’s Control – Making Our Witness, The Chambers Model

Spiritual Gun Control Is Not God’s Control

Armed Christian

Mar 22, 2017 by 


Armed defense is the proper response to armed violence. And from the perspective of personal and family security, gun control makes no sense, and its advocates are mindless and irresponsible.

Yet, physical violence is not the only threat to you and your family. There are creeping, unseen dark threats lurking from the spiritual world. And they are so lethal as physical threats.

As liberal and mindless authors propose gun control (which they ultimately intend as gun ban) to society, liberal and mindless theologians propose spiritual gun control to the church: no supernatural gifts from the Holy Spirit to fight and expel demons.

Secular gun control is moved by political ideology and spiritual gun control is moved by theological ideology.

Young men and women, who were brought up even in conservative Christian homes, are enticed by dark forces, and their families are powerless and disarmed to fight their spiritual enslavers because they have been misled by spiritual gun control advocates.

There is a spiritual war raging around everyone. Supernatural gifts are supernatural weapons. Without them, even Christians are easy preys to demonic forces and their attacks.

Prophecy, revelation, healings, tongues and other supernatural gifts are God’s arsenal for his church. They are necessary for delivering the captives and oppressed. They are necessary against spiritual enemies.

Satan has a powerful arsenal, available to sorcerers and other Satanists, to destroy individuals and families, and his weapons can only be countered by Jesus’s authority and weapons.

To preach the gospel without such authority and weapons is something that Jesus never let his apostles do, and he promised this authority and spiritual military equipment to his church for its mission in the whole world, because you should never go without them, especially in the confrontation with evil forces.

Jesus said to his disciples,

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” (Mark 16:15-18 NIV)

He did not promise spiritual gun control. He promised the right to have and carry spiritual weapons in the whole world! Because the original apostles were unable to reach the whole world, this promise is to you and me!

However, as liberals want to ban guns in society, mindless theologians want to ban spiritual guns in the church.

Christians have a right to have spiritual weapons and use them against dark forces. Secular gun control is good only to killers, who find defenseless victims. Spiritual gun control is good only to Satan and his forces, who find defenseless victims.

Their propaganda approach to deceive their victims is similar. Secular gun control advocates use bizarre cases of gun violence as a pretext to ban guns to all families needing protection. Spiritual gun control advocates use bizarre cases of spiritual manifestations as a pretext to ban spiritual weapons to all Christian families needing protection. Whether secular or spiritual, gun control advocates think only in their ideology, whether political or theological.

Secular gun control benefits the secular Left. Spiritual gun control benefits the spiritual Left.

Books and articles by mindless theologians advocating spiritual gun control are a threat to the security of God’s people.

If you have spiritual and physical needs of security, you are entitled to have what God has made available to you, through His Word and His Spirit, to defend you and your family.

A gun-control mindset has never been God’s will for you. He wants to empower you and use you as a channel from His Spirit to bring blessings to you and your family, including protection, defense and, when necessary, attack.

The first step is to open your heart to Jesus and His Spirit. Next, by following 1 Corinthians 14:1, you should “eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.” (NIV)

This is the Spirit’s opportunity to empower and arm you!

Gun-free Christianity is Satan’s idea, even when inspired in the minds of theologians. It makes Christians defenseless and allow Satan to attack and destroy unopposed and undetected in his activities.

It is my understanding as a conservative Christian that law-abiding citizens should be fully respected in their right to have and carry guns for defense and protection. Only a communist would oppose such right.

It is my equal understanding as a conservative Christian that World-abiding Christians should be fully respected in their right to have and carry spiritual weapons for defense and protection. Only a “communist” theologian would oppose such right and tell that God does not grant today supernatural gifts.

Spiritually armed Christianity is God’s idea, and it works. It worked for Jesus and his first disciples, who preached and demonstrated the Gospel by healing the sick and expelling demons.

It will work for you too.

There is a spiritual war raging. Arm yourself with God’s weapons today.

Armed defense and attack are God’s ideas.

Portuguese version of this article: Desarmamento espiritual não é ideia de Deus


Whittaker Chambers

What startled many readers of Whittaker Chambers’s Witness when it first was published in 1952 (and became a bestseller) was its deeply spiritual tone, its message of returning to faith in God, not only for the sake of individual salvation but also for the hope of salvaging Western civilization.

Chambers had been a avowed atheist, an ideological stance influenced by his dysfunctional family upbringing, the nihilism communicated to him by his university education, and his commitment to changing the world through communism.

One of his most famous lines about religious belief prior to his conversion shows not only his attitude but his ability to convey that attitude in memorable phrases:

I associated God with ill-ventilated vestries and ill-ventilated minds.

That attitude crumbled when he finally faced the truth of the Christian faith. There is one passage in Witness that best describes what happened to him when the Spirit of God touched his life, and that passage is even more memorable than the one noted above:

What I had been fell from me like dirty rags. The rags that fell from me were not only Communism. What fell was the whole web of the materialist modern mind—the luminous shroud which it has spun about the spirit of man, paralyzing in the name of rationalism the instinct of his soul for God, denying in the name of knowledge the reality of the soul and its birthright in that mystery on which mere knowledge falters and shatters at every step.

It was that touch from the hand of God that led Chambers to his decision to make his witness before the world—not just a testimony about what he knew of the workings of the communist underground and its designs to overthrow the American government—but a witness to the grace of God in men’s lives.

Yet it was that very witness that most intellectuals rejected. They didn’t understand how Chambers could embrace the “old” faith that so many of them now despised. This is why Chambers, near the end of Witness, wrote this:

To those for whom the intellect alone has force, such a witness has little or no force. It bewilders and exasperates them. It challenges them to suppose that there is something greater about man than his ability to add and subtract. It submits that that something is the soul.

What’s interesting is that Chambers saw a clear demarcation between those intellectuals and the majority of the population:

Plain men understood the witness easily. It speaks directly to their condition. For it is peculiarly the Christian witness. They still hear it, whenever it truly reaches their ears, the ring of those glad tidings that once stirred mankind with an immense hope.

For it frees them from the trap of irreversible Fate at the point at which it whispers to them that each soul is individually responsible to God, that it has only to assert that responsibility, and out of man’s weakness will come strength, out of his corruption incorruption, out of his evil good, and out of what is false invulnerable truth.

Why did Chambers believe that weakness could become strength, that corruption could be transformed into incorruption, that good could be squeezed out of evil, and that falsehoods could nevertheless lead men to see the truth?

He could believe all of that because it happened in his life. He responded to the Christian message, he acknowledged that he was individually responsible to God, and he took the necessary steps to assert that responsibility by proclaiming the witness God had given him through his own personal experience.

The message hasn’t changed. God hasn’t changed. All of us need to respond as Chambers did. We need to make our individual witnesses to the world. We are all individually responsible to God and need to take whatever steps are necessary to make our witness.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Trump Can Legally Stop Sanctuary Cities, Remember Brown v. Board of Education – ‘They’re Harboring Criminals!’

Robert Barnes: Can Trump Legally Stop Sanctuary Cities? Yes. Remember Brown v. Board of Education

 27 Mar 2017 by Robert Barnes

Over 100 jurisdictions, fromManhattan to Malibu, refuse to assist federal law enforcement in their immigration law enforcement duties, especially as to criminal aliens arrested for crimes here in the United States but released before federal law enforcement can detain and deport.

These governments labeled themselves “sanctuary” cities, but a better label would be secessionist cities.

Two means of redress and remedy exist: first, the current path, of defunding sanctuary cities, a path much more legally perilous, but well-founded in the same doctrine that integrated American society; and second, an alternative, complimentary path of funding law-abiding cities with aid to enforce immigration law, an indubitably and indisputably legal remedy.

The legal argument the “sanctuary” cities rely upon bears merit, but they misuse and abuse the doctrine behind it. The “anti-commandeering” doctrine found one of its most articulate voices in Justice Scalia. The doctrine best distilled is this: “even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” The feds cannot shift enforcement to local government. That same doctrine makes the current path of defunding sanctuary cities a legally rocky road, especially in the current judiciary environment.

The Supreme Court made clear in two prior precedents the federal government cannot coerce states into acting as conscripted agents of federal law enforcement. When properly used, this anti-conscription doctrine is mostly a good thing, foreclosing the federalization of local life and municipal governments. When abused, it invites secessionist thinking. That is where a seminal precedent from the Second Circuit gives direction to support Sessions and Trump against the secessionist cities.

The seminal case supporting Sessions and Trump arises from the Second Circuit in enforcing comparable provisions of federal law passed by Clinton and Gingrich. Federal law then prohibited state and local governmental entities or officials from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information between local and federal officials. The statute Sessions cited and Trump relied upon for his executive order confers the same power: it only prohibits state and local governments from precluding voluntary participation in immigration enforcement, an area uniquely vested in the federal branches of power. As the statute states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Where did the Second Circuit look for precluding lawless, secessionist minded municipal government going rogue against appropriate federal law and respect of federal elections? Brown v. Board of Education, the most famous and celebrated case in Supreme Court history.

As the Second Circuit properly summarized: the sanctuary city argument “asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment’s shield against the federal government’s using state and local government to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrate federal programs,” including those programs of unique federal provenance and priority, such as immigration. Such actions could cause federal programs to “fail or fall short of their goals,” force the federal government to “restore to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter,” and invite “a refusal by local government to cooperate until a court order to do so.”

As the Second Circuit further noted: “A system of dual sovereignties cannot work without informed, extensive and cooperative interaction of a voluntary nature between sovereign systems for the mutual benefit of each system. The operation of dual sovereigns thus involves mutual dependencies” that can hardly survive as separate, antagonistic sovereigns. “Without the Constitution, each sovereign could, to a free, hold the other hostage by selectively withholding voluntary cooperations as to a particular program.” That is why the Supremacy Clause “bars states from taking actions that frustrate federal laws” in those areas of law the Constitution empowers the federal branches of government, like immigration. As the Second Circuit concluded almost two decades ago in undisturbed law: “states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs.”

This opens the door to a complimentary, alternative option: formally funding cities, counties, and states that assist with enforcement of immigration laws against criminal and potentially dangerous aliens, a power all courts recognize Congress and the President enjoy. This parallel strategy employs the carrot rather than the stick, but avoids the traps of the deep state allies and their secessionist city friends in the federal courts, much as federal funding of integrated schools acted as a deterrent to less-funded segregated classrooms.

Let liberty ring. Let the laws be enforced to safeguard those whose liberty the law protects in the first place: the citizens of the United States.

‘They’re Harboring Criminals!’: Brewer Calls Out ‘Unbelievable’ Sanctuary Policies

Mar 28, 2017

Former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) took aim at states and cities who have adopted “sanctuary” policies, applauding Attorney General Jeff Sessions for vowing to cut federal funding from communities that do not cooperate in enforcing federal immigration laws. 

In a press conference yesterday, Sessions specifically urged lawmakers in Maryland not to pass a bill that would declare the state a “sanctuary” for those in the U.S. illegally.

He was responding to a question about the recent rape of a 14-year-old girl, allegedly by an undocumented student, at Rockville High School.

On “America’s Newsroom,” Brewer criticized the “political agenda” motivating local officials and state governors to adopt sanctuary policies.

“Federal law trumps state or city law and regulations,” she noted, adding that polls have shown 80 percent of Americans support President Trump on the issue.

Brewer said legal action should be taken against officials who sign off on the release of criminal aliens, rather than hold them for deportation.

“Releasing criminals, murderers, rapists, child abusers back out into our streets? They ought to be in jail really. They’re harboring and protecting criminals!” said Brewer.

Watch her full commentary.


Todd Starnes: ‘Sanctuary’ mayors have American blood on their hands

Mar 28, 2017

In 2015 Kate Steinle was gunned down by an illegal alien in San Francisco – a sanctuary city. The man charged with her murder was a seven-time felon who had been deported five times.

Five times.

There was an immigration hold on the suspect, meaning the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement wanted to come get him and ship him out of the country. But San Francisco authorities set the man free. Just a few months later, Steinle was dead.

Steinle’s blood is not only on the hands of her killer, it’s also on the hands of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee.

It’s beyond belief that liberal mayors are allowing illegal aliens to run wild in the streets of American cities, terrorizing law-abiding citizens.

So Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ vow to punish sanctuary cities is welcome news. On Monday he announced plans to withhold from any city that harbors illegals billions in federal funding.

“Not only do these policies endanger lives of every American, just last May, the Department of Justice inspector general found that these policies also violate federal law,” Sessions said. “The president has rightly said disregard for law must end.”

I believe the Trump Administration should go a step further. If an illegal commits a felony crime in a sanctuary city – the mayor of that city should also face criminal charges – from harboring fugitives to aiding and abetting.

San Francisco’s Lee defiantly declared Monday on Twitter that “#SanctuaryCities are safer, more productive, healthier places to live.”

Tell that to Kate Steinle’s family.

The attorney general rightly said that failing to report illegal immigrants who are “convicted of criminal offenses put whole communities at risk, especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators.”

Countless Americans would be alive today if sanctuary cities were shut down. Kate Steinle would be alive today.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.” Follow Todd on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

Exclusive: As Democratic attorneys general target Trump, Republican AGs target them

L-R: Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Virginia AG Mark Herring and California AG Xavier Becerra.REUTERS/Files

Mar 28, 2017 by Dan Levine

For years the national political organizations of both Democratic and Republican state attorneys general observed an agreement not to target the other party’s incumbent office-holders in elections.

That hands-off stance ended this month when Republican AGs voted to abandon the agreement and spend money to help unseat Democrats in other states, according to the Republican Attorneys General Association. The decision has not been previously reported.

The move comes as Democratic attorneys general in states across the country have assumed lead roles in opposing some of Republican President Donald Trump’s policies. State AGs in Washington and Hawaii successfully sued to block Trump’s executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries, and California’s attorney general has pledged to defend the state’s environmental standards.

Republican attorneys general who supported the change reasoned that AGs should join other national political campaigns which target incumbents, two sources familiar with the closed door process said. Additionally, a desire by some to roll back same-sex marriage and the potential for increased corporate contributions played a role in the decision, said the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss the deliberations.

The  so-called ‘incumbency rule’ observed by the state attorneys’ party fundraising arms reflected a rare bit of bipartisanship in the polarized environment of U.S. politics, aimed at promoting cooperation across state lines on issues of common interest, such as consumer protection.

Attorneys general are the top public lawyer in each state, charged with defending state agencies from lawsuits as well as initiating litigation on their own. AGs took tobacco companies to court in the 1990s, and pursued mortgage lenders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. In larger states, an attorney general commands hundreds of lawyers and other resources.

Twelve Republican state AGs on Monday filed a federal appeals court brief supporting Trump’s revised travel restrictions.

Scott Will, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association, confirmed the decision to abolish the incumbency rule, but declined to discuss specifics of the vote.

“The stakes are too high for us to leave winnable races on the table,” Will said in a statement to Reuters.

The vote was taken over the phone with a tally of 15-8, the two sources said. Not every Republican AG participated.

Some of those who supported the change argued that every other national campaign committee targets incumbents, so AGs shouldn’t be any different, the sources said.

Those opposed expressed fears about threats to bipartisanship, and noted that Republican AGs had grown their ranks under the current system, showing there was no need to change the rules now, the sources said.

In 2000, Republicans held 12 of the 51 state AG positions, including the District of Columbia, but that number is about to hit 29, if a nomination made by New Hampshire’s Republican governor this month is confirmed.

One of the first fights after the rule change will likely come in Virginia, where Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, is seeking reelection this November. In all, 31 AG elections are scheduled for 2018. Republicans currently hold 18 of those seats, compared to 13 for Democrats, but some of the incumbents may not run for re-election.

Karl Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia and current co-chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, said the Republican group’s decision likely means Democrats will follow suit.

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Racine said in an interview.

Colorado attorney general Cynthia Coffman, a Republican, is up for election next year in a state that has been trending Democrat. A well-funded push to unseat her, something the Democratic AG group wouldn’t have participated in under the incumbency agreement, could spell trouble.

Coffman opposed the incumbency rule change, the sources said. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.



In laying out the reasons for the rule change, Will pointed to the key role Republican AGs played in opposing some of President Barack Obama’s policies.

Rolling back same-sex marriage was another issue cited during deliberations, said the two people familiar with the discussion. More Republican state AGs could help further that effort, though the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court would make any sweeping rollback unlikely.

Additionally, the group discussed a pledge from corporate interests to pour money into unseating Democratic AGs, the two sources said.

Participants in the vote were told that the group had received pledges totaling millions of dollars from organizations including from the company that makes the caffeinated beverage 5-Hour Energy, the sources said. The money depended on the Republican group changing its rules to target incumbent Democrats.

The company that manufactures 5-Hour Energy, Innovation Ventures, declined to comment. A spokesman for the Republican AG group declined to answer questions about the debate, including the role of 5-Hour’s pledge.

Innovation Ventures has been sued by attorneys general in at least five states for alleged deceptive advertising of its energy drink, with varied outcomes.

Last month a Washington state judge issued a judgment against the company for nearly $4.3 million in one such case, brought by Bob Ferguson, the Democratic attorney general whose lawsuit caused a judge to block Trump’s first travel restrictions. The company has said it would appeal the ruling. In at least two other cases, in Oregon and Indiana, Innovation Ventures prevailed. Oregon has appealed.

The precise dollar amount of the company’s pledge to Republican AGs could not be determined, nor is it clear if it is the only company that promised a contribution to target Democrats.

Already, the Republican Attorneys General Association has built a fundraising advantage. In 2016, it raised about $14.5 million, including donations from companies and conservative interest groups like the Judicial Crisis Network and Koch Industries, according to tax filings.

Sean Rankin, executive director of the Democratic AG group, said it raised about $5.2 million in 2016. The group’s tax filings show a mix of contributors including companies, plaintiff law firms and labor unions.

Interactive Graphic of state AGs



(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Sue Horton and Paul Thomasch)




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

TRUMP Time To Investigate Hillary Exchange of 20% USA Uranium To Russia For $ 145 M To Clinton Foundation

MARCH 28, 2017 


Finally! Donald Trump is calling for investigation of Hillary Clinton for selling uranium to Russian company Uranium One, which was also owned by Russian government, giving them  20% control of U.S. uranium.  In return, the Clintons got $145 million donations – did not disclose it – for their pay-for-play Clinton foundation.  Hillary’s campaign director, John Podesta, not only lobbied for Uranium One but “Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C.” 

“In addition to certain ties with one of Russia’s largest banks, the Podesta Group is also linked to the Uranium One sale of U.S. uranium. Yes, the Clinton Campaign’s chairman is linked to a firm that lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of a corporation that eventually sold 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russian government.

Podesta’s lobbying firm worked for Uranium One after half the company was owned by the Russian government. By 2010, Russia’s state-owned Rosatom controlled a 51% stake in Uranium One.” –  




From LIBERAL Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton Is Blaming Russia for WikiLeaks To Conceal John Podesta’s Russian Lobbying Ties

The fear mongering of associating WikiLeaks with a Russian plot to elect Donald Trump ignores the reality that John Podesta’s former lobbying firm worked to further the interests of a Russian-owned corporation and bank. Few people know that Open lists the Podesta Group as once having a $60,000 lobbying deal with Uranium One. In addition to lobbying on behalf of a corporation that was mostly owned by the Russian government, the Podesta Group’s ties to a Russian bank is well-documented.

As stated by John R. Schindler in a 2016 Observer article, the Panama Papers revealed that “Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C.” If you don’t believe this claim, just look at the Podesta Group’s Senate Lobbying Registration. As for other foreign ties to John Podesta, Ben Norton of Salon writes “A key gear in the Clinton machine that has sucked in hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying on behalf of the Saudi absolute monarchy has also worked for Russia’s biggest bank.”

In addition to certain ties with one of Russia’s largest banks, the Podesta Group is also linked to the Uranium One sale of U.S. uranium. Yes, the Clinton Campaign’s chairman is linked to a firm that lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of a corporation that eventually sold 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russian government.

…The notion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and John Podesta didn’t know Uranium One would eventually sell 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russian government ignores an inconvenient timeline. First, Podesta’s lobbying firm worked for Uranium One after half the company was owned by the Russian government. By 2010, Russia’s state-owned Rosatom controlled a 51% stake in Uranium One.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Cash-only Medical Care Benefits From IRS Non-enforcement of ObamaCare Mandate

Mar 27, 2017  by 

Cash-only Medical Care Benefits From IRS Non-enforcement of ObamaCare Mandate

Following the issuance of President Trump’s executive order in January in which he ordered the Health and Human Services Department to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of [ObamaCare, or ACA] that would impose a financial burden on any State, or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families…” the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) responded last month:

The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden[s]. Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their [health insurance] coverage status. [Emphasis added.]

This unheralded non-enforcement of the ObamaCare mandate not only spells the end of the government healthcare nightmare but is adding impetus to free market efforts to fill the void. The mandate was part of the “three-legged stool” upon which the failing government program was based. It forced individuals either to purchase health insurance, whether they wanted to or not, or else pay a penalty to the IRS. The IRS was the enforcement arm for ObamaCare.

Tax software companies are already adjusting their programs to reflect the decision by the IRS not to reject e-filed or paper returns when Question 61 on the Form 1040 is left blank. A notice from Drake Software, the provider of software for professional tax preparers, informed its customers that, effective February 3, the “IRS will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual ‘shared responsibility payment’ … as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61.”

The freedom from the mandate is driving the search for free market alternatives such as those offered by the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (reviewed by Kurt Williamsen at The New American), the Premier Medical Imaging facility in Minneapolis, the Ocean Surgery Center in Torrance, California or the Clinica Mi Pueblo, serving primarily the Hispanic community in Southern California.

Operating since 1997, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma is a free market, cash-only, direct-pay facility that serves customers from around the country. One of the center’s recent patients, Art Villa, not only saved himself and his company (which helps its employees pay for their medical expenses) almost $20,000 for a total knee replacement, but it was, according to Villa, a new experience: “I’ve really never experienced this quality of care,” he stated.

The Surgery Center’s fee for Villa was all inclusive: airfare from his home in Helena, Montana, pre-op examinations and tests, the surgery itself, and post-op care in a nearby Marriott Residence Inn where he stayed for a week and a half, along with rehab. The reason it could be done at half what it would have cost Villa in Helena is that the center takes no insurance, hence no filing, hence no staff needed to complete the paperwork and chase down late insurance company payments.

The all-inclusive price for every operation is listed on its website: $8,260 for rotator-cuff surgery, $2,750 for carpal tunnel syndrome surgery, $1,925 for setting and casting a broken leg.

This works the same for Clinica Mi Pueblo: $30 for a general medical appointment, $40 for an EKG and $95 for a complete blood analysis. The national average for an MRI is $2,611 while at CMP it’s just $350. Nationally a colonoscopy costs $1,626 but at CMP it’s only $450. The national average cost for an ultrasound is $263. At CMP it’s about half that.

Despite the recent failure of the initial effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare, the move toward more freedom of choice not only of medical insurance plans but choices of care will continue. More choices mean more plans, some with low premiums but high deductibles. People with that type of coverage will increasingly be open to the transparency and competitive pricing of alternatives such as these.

Even Time magazine was forced to say that “this trend may accelerate nationally. With the Affordable Care Act on the chopping block, many experts expect the free market model to take off … almost any change is likely to result in more Americans choosing high-deductible insurance plans, which would help fuel the cash-based marketplace for years to come.”

Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute agrees with Time:

We will only get medical costs under control when we move the medical system in the direction of the Clinica Mi Pueblo and the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, which are both based on the sensible, cost-controlling medical business model of a) transparent pricing, b) out-of-pocket cash payments like almost everything else consumers purchase (food, clothing, housing, transportation, computers, travel, etc.), and c) minimizing the role of third-party payments, mountains of bureaucratic paperwork, Medicare, Medicaid, and opaque pricing….

With the abdication by the IRS in enforcing the ObamaCare mandate, the future positive change is bright. Better care, with lower costs known in advance, without government mandates, hassles, and interference, especially no longer having to answer line 61 on Form 1040, is simply a matter of time.


An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at

Related articles:

Healthcare: Which Fix Should We Follow?

Free Market Healthcare Reform

House Leaders Pull Doomed ObamaCare Replacement Bill. What Now?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO There Will Be Those Who Perish In the Next Crisis, And Those “Who Survive In Underground Luxury”

Mar 26, 2017 by Mac Slavo



Ultimately, no one can stop what is coming.

The haves and have nots of the next, gritty era of aftermath will be those who have the means to survive when the system has failed, and those who do not.

For the wealthy, and prepper minded elite, hidden fortified layers purchased for insurance will preserve most of the luxuries of life above ground, and in the cities, even as society crumbles and burns to the ground.

Others, without the means to purchase these luxuries, may have still set aside the necessary materials to live and thrive after a great collapse, where anything and everything from the electric grid, to the fuel supply to the food supply will fail.

There will be tens of millions of starving, angry and bewildered people who face endangerment and extinction, and there will be a few who succeed not only in planning ahead, but in laying low enough to avoid being noticed and picked off by looters, marauders and misguided authorities.

Finding the perfect location for your redoubt, and making your preps to get away if need be, amount to something of an art and a science. Nothing is guaranteed, everything has its advantages and disadvantaged, but just by doing anything at all, you’ll be way ahead of the masses.

If the plans of the elite are anything to consider, they have decked out their bunkers with mementos and reminders of normal life, and not only enough to supplies not to feel the pain of a crumbling infrastructure, but to be distracted by the illusion of normalcy even in times of ultimate crisis.

But ultimately, all successful redoubts invest in the means to provide for long-term survival and maximum self-sufficiency.

As Health Nut News reports:

Most “shelters” include enough food for a year or more, and many have hydroponic gardens to supplement. The developers also work hard to create “well-rounded communities with a range of skills necessary for long-term survival, from doctors to teachers.” (During the 2016 elections, Vivos received a flurry of interest in its shelters from both liberals and conservatives and completely sold out of spaces in its community shelters.)

Many of the interiors are left as a blank slate so that each owner can create what they are looking for in terms of comfort and luxury- and it all comes at a cost. Base models can start at $25,000 and go up to almost $5 million dollars. Their footprints also vary from quaint to 5000 square feet.

It isn’t just happening in the United States, but all over the world. And while the fastest growing part of this sector clearly caters to the rich and well adjusted, many shelters are also being constructed to house millions of masses during emergencies – at least in places like China, Switzerland and Russia.

[…] The Oppidum, billed as “the largest billionaire bunker in the world.” This top-secret facility, once a joint project between the former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), was built over 10 years beginning in 1984. The premiere apocalypse dwelling is a place that billionaires can live out the horrors of the apocalypse- be it zombie or other- in luxury with every amenity you could ever hope for.

[…] Retail firm Survival Condos offers refuge at a re-purposed missile silo in Kansas, United States. The luxury apartments here are stacked underground and protected by blast doors designed to withstand explosions. Retail firm Survival Condos offers refuge at a re-purposed missile silo in Kansas, United States. The luxury apartments here are stacked underground and protected by blast doors designed to withstand explosions.”

[…] Vivos Europa One, in Rothenstein, is one of Germany’s largest repurposing projects. The 76-acre former Soviet bunker is capable of withstanding a nuclear blast, a direct plane crash or biological attack. It is being transformed into 34 five-star apartments, starting at 2,500 sq ft, which aim to protect the super-rich from any forthcoming apocalypse.

Self-sustaining communities or networks of individuals can also plan around their budgets to make these concepts a reality. Many companies will customize and scale down projects to costs as low as $25,000… while basic home fortification and DIY applications can be done for much less money.

In the end, those who prepared when nothing happened are only out what they invested on the principle of having a viable back-up insurance plan.

But those who didn’t prepare for the worst when it did happen could very quickly lose everything they have, and many will perish during the next major crisis – which could be triggered at this point by almost anything.

Read more:

How This Man Converted “Underground Shelter Using a 20 Ft. Shipping Container”

Elite Hiding in Bunkers to Escape War with China: “Intended Survivors Are Moving Underground”

Prepper’s Blueprint: The Step-by-Step Guide to Help You Through Any Disaster

The $50 & Up Underground House Book

Prepping Expert Joel Skousen’s The Secure Home

Doomsday Planning: Underground Shelter Networks

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments