Dr. Peter McCullough and other top scientist and doctors speak out at the COVID-19 Florida Summit in Ocala Nov 6, 2021, “Our public health agencies have become part of the disease and the vaccines are now a menace on society” There shall be no childhood vaccination, complete recognition of natural immunity, and no impediments to medical treatment of COVID-19.
By Joe Hoft
We have highlighted the following excerpts from Archbishop Vigano’s message:
True freedom is instead the ability to act within the limits of the Good, and this is the freedom to which you ought to aspire, this the freedom that you ought to claim with courage and pride, this the freedom that “will set you free” (Jn 8:32).
See Archbishop Vigano’s full speech translated into English below:
Iron Mountain — Blueprint for Tyranny
This is a two and a half hour documentary on the 1966 Iron Mountain Report, requested by John F. Kennedy’s administration. This explosive document caused a great stir around the world. It is the agenda of the elite on the methodology of a complete takeover of the United States and the world, via the introduction of Alternatives to War. Iron Mountain suggested such world wide threats as Gross Pollution, UFO’s and the rise of the United Nations with an all powerful Police Force. This DVD documentary takes you step by step through the highlights of the Iron Mountain Report and proves that it is being carried out. President Obama’s NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM that was pushed through Congress is right out of IRON MOUNTAIN. Few people realize how important the Iron Mountain Report actually is!! This DVD is fully documented with official documents, laws and maps, etc. This is the DVD that started it all!! This documentary is considered the CLASSIC IN ITS FIELD.
Apart from the racism of the white doctor saying “kill all the white people” because they’re “refusers”, Jon Rappoport breaks down the medical tyranny that would mandate some medical treatments, prohibit others and threaten to kill those who “refuse”. Follow David Knight On Twitter: https://twitter.com/libertytarian Follow Real News On Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealNewsX2 Like Real News On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealNewsX2/ Watch At: infowars.com/show Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER – https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK – https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme… Infowars on G+ – https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/
First Lady Melania Trump introduced her husband to a crowd in Melbourne in one of her first public appearances since the inauguration, telling the audience ‘I will act in the best interest of all of you’
Mrs Trump opened by reciting The Lord’s Prayer and followed up with a speech denouncing her critics
She wore a stunning Alexander McQueen red dress costing $2,200 and red $600 Louboutin pumps
By AFP and KAILEEN GAUL FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 02:34 GMT, 19 February 2017
Temple of Ba’al Arch Erected for World Government Summit in Dubai
By Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz February 16, 2017
“For they have consulted together with one consent; against Thee do they make a covenant; The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moav, and the Hagrites.” Psalms 83:6-7 (The Israel Bible™)
A replica of a Roman arch that once stood in front of the pagan Temple of Ba’al was erected for the World Government Summit in Dubai this week, creating a scene that one rabbi claims symbolizes the dangerous fusion of Ishmael and Edom against Israel.
The original Roman Victory Arch stood for 1,800 years in Palmyra, Syria, until it was destroyed by ISIS in October 2015. A full-size 28-meter tall replica of the arch was created last year by the Institute for Digital Archeology, a joint project of Oxford and Harvard universities, and has been displayed twice before.
The replica was erected for the opening of the World Government Summit that opened on Sunday in Dubai. Based in the United Arab Emirates, the summit is an international organization for global dialogue where leaders in government, business, and technology discuss how governments operate and how policies are made.
The first summit, held in 2013, was attended by former US President Barack Obama, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and other world leaders.
Though a Roman artifact recreated in a modern Arab metropolis may seem incongruous, Rabbi Pinchas Winston, a prolific author and End of Days scholar, saw a deeper meaning in it that is incredibly relevant today.
Though Rome and the Arab Emirates appear in different parts of the world and at different points in history, Rabbi Winston sees them as connected ideologically and spiritually.
“Tradition tells of four exiles, the last being the Roman exile. Israel is being assailed by the Arabs but nowhere do we hear of a fifth, Arab or Ishmael exile,” explained Rabbi Winston. “This Roman arch in Dubai symbolically ties them both together: Ishmael, the Arabs, and Edom, which was epitomized by Rome.”
The original arch in Palmyra, built by Roman Emperor Septimius Severus, stood in front of a preexisting temple that was used by the Mesopotamians to worship the pagan god Bel, mentioned often in the Bible as Ba’al.
For he built again the high places which Chizkiyahu his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal. II Kings 21:3
“Just like the Romans, the Arabs are trying to control the world, and succeeding,” said Rabbi Winston. “Even though it is the Arabs against the Jews, it is really the Arabs continuing the mission of Edom to conquer the world. This connection between Dubai and Rome is showing that Edom never ended. It just put on a different mask.”
The first century Jewish sage Jonathan ben Uzziel wrote about how this Biblical alliance between Ishmael and Esau and would reappear at the End of Days. Clear evidence of the spiritual connection between these two seemingly disparate worlds can be found in the growing political cooperation between Rome and the Muslim/Arab world.
Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny
Michael Brown Michael Brown |Posted: Feb 17, 2017
There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty on Friday. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.
There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.
Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs – beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years.
Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well – her house, her savings, her retirement funds – by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.
Previously, when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an aggressive liberal who brought the suit against Barronnelle, “announced he would accept $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,” Barronnelle rejected the proposed settlement.
She explained, “Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.”
She continued, “I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.”
IRAQI CHRISTIANS FLEE ISLAMIC TERROR. GET REJECTED BY GERMAN-MUSLIM IMMIGRATION EMPLOYEE
Posted on February 18, 2017
Iraqi Christian children look at a nativity scene that is displayed in a tent erected in the grounds of Mazar Mar Eillia Catholic Church, in Ankawa, that has now become home to hundreds of Iraqi Christians who were forced to flee their homes as the Islamic State advanced earlier this year, on December 12, 2014 in Erbil, Iraq / Getty
German broadcaster Welt24 reports, that a few days ago, German politician Wolfgang Bosbach met a Christian Iraqi family in Nordrhein-Westphalia (his constituency), who had recently applied for asylum in Germany.
Bosbach heard them tell how they had fled their country for fear of jihadist violence. Eventually, they reached the part of their story, in which they filled in their asylum application, in one of the foreign offices of the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). There, they faced a BAMF employee with a headscarf, who was going to decide whether or not they, Christians, would get protected status.
Last year, 97.000 Iraqis submitted an application for asylum in Germany. In January, 64.6% of Iraqi asylum applications were successful. The family that Bosbach met however, was rejected, and they told him they felt they were at a disadvantage because of the official who handled their case. Bosbach understood their reasoning:
“I understand the applicants’ concern that their application may not have been decided upon solely on objective and prejudice-free considerations, (…) when they are Christians telling a headscarf-wearing Muslima that they have suffered persecution by Muslims.”
To Bosbach, it doesn’t matter so much, whether or not the official in question really was prejudiced, but merely that “the applicants have reason to fear that their application might not be objectively decided.” And Bosbach is of the opinion that this fear
“is not entirely ungrounded. Therefore, I cannot understand, why only Muslims in BAMF get to decide whether or not Christians, who fled from radical Muslims, get the right to stay in the Federal Republic of Germany.”
When asked to comment, a spokesperson for BAMF seemed to miss the point when she declared that:
“Constitutionally, women are allowed to wear a headscarf in their place of work, and the employer can only limit that right when there are objective grounds to do so, for example, health and safety issues, when it is detrimental to the peace in the working environment etc.”
Bosbach is not convinced by this line of reasoning:
“Apparently, it is not an ‘objective ground’ for BAMF, when asylum-applicants fear, that those doing the interviews and making the decisions at BAMF do not view their application in a way that is unprejudiced, neutral and free from preconceived ideas. I can’t follow their reasoning.”
The Ministery of Internal Affairs meanwhile, appears to agree with the BAMF. It simply does not consider the headscarf, unlike the Christian cross, to be “a religious symbol in and of itself.” Only in context can it have a comparable meaning. And even that is not considered a problem, as there is no law or regulation against the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants.
The Iraqi family has been urged by Bosbach to make a complaint against the BAMF’s decision. But according to him, they’re afraid that “their complaint will again be judged by someone wearing a headscarf.”
DEUTSCHLAND ASYL VON CHRISTEN
Bosbach kritisiert Kopftuch-Praxis beim BAMF
Von Manuel Bewarder | Stand: 17.02.2017
Vor ein paar Tagen traf Wolfgang Bosbach in seinem Wahlkreis in Nordrhein-Westfalen eine Familie, die Asyl in Deutschland beantragt hatte. Die Menschen berichteten ihm davon, dass sie als Christen aus dem Irak geflüchtet waren, aus Angst vor gewaltbereiten Islamisten. Bosbach, der sich als Innenpolitiker schon lange mit dem Thema Asyl beschäftigt, hörte zu.
Schließlich erzählten sie ihm von den Stunden, als sie ihren Asylantrag in einer der vielen Außenstellen des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) stellten. Den Irakern saß demnach beim Stellen des Antrags eine BAMF-Mitarbeiterin mit Kopftuch gegenüber. Ausgerechnet sie also sollte darüber entscheiden, ob die Christen hierzulande einen Schutzstatus erhalten werden.
Insgesamt rund 97.000 Iraker stellten im vergangenen Jahr einen Asylantrag in Deutschland. Der Irak ist damit eines der Hauptherkunftsländer. Im Monat Januar waren 64,6 Prozent der Asylanträge von Irakern erfolgreich. Die Familie, die mit Wolfgang Bosbach sprach, wurde jedoch abgelehnt. Die Iraker erzählten ihm, dass sie sich benachteiligt fühlten, weil ausgerechnet über ihren Antrag jemand mit Kopftuch zu entscheiden hatte.
Wolfgang Bosbach kann das nachvollziehen. Wenn diese Christen ihr „Verfolgungsschicksal einer Kopftuch tragenden Muslima schildern müssen, dann habe ich Verständnis für die Besorgnis der Antragsteller, dass über ihren Antrag möglicherweise nicht ausschließlich objektiv und vorurteilsfrei entschieden werden könnte“, sagt der Innenexperte.