A George Soros-Led Mutiny

By Shari Goodman

The Oxford Dictionary defines mutiny as “an open rebellion against the proper authorities.”  It is synonymous with “revolt and riot.”  For the last few decades George Soros and his Open Society Institute have organized and financed a seditious movement to destroy our Constitutional Republic and monetary system.  Their mission appears to be to replace it with a One World borderless government under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

Soros, a native of Hungary, made his multibillion-dollar fortune by manipulating currencies.  Devoid of a moral conscience, he dumped 10 billion sterling, which broke the Bank of England and led to a British financial crisis.  It forced the devaluation of their currency while gaining for himself a billion dollar profit.  Through his trading activities in Malaysia, he brought down that nation’s currency and in Thailand he is viewed as an ” economic war criminal .”   He has openly stated that he sees himself as a messianic figure that fancies himself as some kind of god while making his fortune betting on the collapse of national economies and currencies.

Employing the Cloward-Piven Strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis, Soros seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands and grievances; thus, pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.  Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two radical socialist Columbia University professors inspired by Saul Alinsky’s revolutionary blended concepts of bringing down a U.S. government.

Similar to Alinsky, Cloward and Piven encouraged demonstrations, protests, and riots as a means to generate public attention and wreck institutional havoc.  Their goal was to force the collapse of their target.

Likewise, Soros appears to be using their concepts by employing the following steps to achieve his goal.

Source: Articles: A George Soros-Led Mutiny

It’s Not About Gay Marriage

The debate should not really have been about gay marriage.
It’s the classic liberal position of not having the government involved in marriage at all.
Why did the government get involved:
First it was stopping interracial marriage.
Then is was eugenics (blood test)

noun: eugenics
The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.

The marriage license has a much darker history than the confederate flag. Do some research.

The government should not have the right to tell a bakery it has to bake a cake for a gay marriage. The government should not have the right to tell a minister he must marry two gay people. There are other bakeries and there are other churches or authorized people who will perform the marriage. The government should not have the power to force people to go against their beliefs. We have a first amendment that guarantees a citizens right to have his/her beliefs.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.


The Ugly History of the Marriage License in America

Eugenics, Race, and Marriage

Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity


The Case for Getting Government out of the Marriage Business

Taking Marriage Private

Despicable Lizzie

This is a prime example of the disingenuous pandering politician with a fallacious emotive plea in place of a valid argument. For the most part today’s current left all employe this tactic with Elizabeth Warren being especially adept. This time she was called out by a fellow liberal and one of the few with integrity.
It is only rational to conclude that her pointing out and using that text demonstrates she fully well knew the intent and meaning of the quoted phrase and had not a problem with her omission. The worst kind of politician. What kind of credibility could anyone afford her knowing this. I say none.

Continue to article…

Liberal Alan Dershowitz Blasts Elizabeth Warren for Bastardizing Constitution

Mark Steyn Judith Curry and the Climate Change Academic Echo Chamber

As a commentator Mark Steyn has as much if not more than any other in the media. This is a special passion for him and his research into the science and the politics of “climate change” is thorough. Because of his knowledge on this subject he has been asked and testified in front of congress.

The “Craziness” of the Climate Science Echo Chamber

by Mark Steyn

I spent much of Wednesday guest-hosting America’s Number One radio show. You can find a few moments from today’s show here – including a reference to the story of most personal interest to me, the news that the distinguished climate scientist Judith Curry had decided to resign from her position at Georgia Tech :

The superficial reason is that I want to do other things…

The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.

Dr Curry elaborates:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

By “career suicide”, Dr Curry means that, if you dissent from the Big Climate orthodoxy, thug enforcers like Dr Michael E Mann will take the hockey stick to you until there’s nothing left. As Roger Pielke Jr, another scientist forced out of the field by the climate mullahs, said today :

No one has worked harder than Michael Mann, in public or behind the scenes, to destroy academic careers of those w/ views different than his

Naturally, Mann responded to her resignation with his characteristic gracelessness :

For his part, Mann said climate science would be stronger without Curry. He said she routinely engaged in character attack, “confusionism and denialism” and eroded scientific discussion.

“She has played a particularly pernicious role in the climate change denial campaign, laundering standard denier talking points but appearing to grant them greater authority courtesy of the academic positions she has held and the meager but nonetheless legitimate scientific work that she has published in the past,” he said. “Much of what I have seen from her in recent years is boilerplate climate change denial drivel.”

By “meager” scientific work, he means Judith Curry is the co-editor of The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences and the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee – as opposed to running around falsely claiming to be a Nobel Laureate and playing Jessica Alba’s personal climatologist on a James Cameron crockumentary.

Source: The “Craziness” of the Climate Science Echo Chamber :: SteynOnline

Mark Steyn rebukes democrats in climate hearing: ‘You’re effectively enforcing a state ideology’

At that same hearing:
Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate

In the above Sen Markey

To better understand Sen. Markey’s position you need to know who Tom Steyer is.

Another $1.8 million of Steyer’s donations went to CE Action Committee, a second super PAC he founded, which helped elect Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts to the Senate in a special election last year. Steyer also gave $5 million to the Democratic Senate Majority PAC.
Billionaire Tom Steyer On Money In Politics, Spending $74 M On The Election

About that 97% consensus:
The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (Wall Street Journal)

Of Course It’s Soros Funding Women’s March

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone but for those who are just learning who George Soros is and what he does this is further evidence to his influence in American politics.

DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN10 - George Soros, Cha...

In the pre-dawn darkness of today’s presidential inauguration day, I faced a choice, as a lifelong liberal feminist  who voted for Donald Trump  for president: lace up my pink Nike sneakers to step forward and take the DC Metro into the nation’s capital for the inauguration of America’s new president, or wait and go tomorrow to the after-party, dubbed the “Women’s March on Washington”?

The Guardian  has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet,  Vox , talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as  “a grassroots effort”  with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making  white women feel unwelcome ,  nixing women who oppose abortion  and  hijacking the agenda .

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the  funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups  that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really?, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I pored through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which  I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing  on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.

On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration. “Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity. Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an  “anti-Muslim extremist”  in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a  key speaking role .)

Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.”

Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a  “would-be dictator.”

A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations said in a statement, “There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports.” She added, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not  “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The left’s fierce identity politics and its failure on Islamic extremism lost my vote this past election, and so, as the dawn’s first light breaks through the darkness of the morning as I write, I make my decision: I’ll lace up my pink Nikes and head to the inauguration, skipping the “Women’s March” that doesn’t have a place for women like me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to include a statement from the Open Society Foundations.

Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter. She can be reached at  or on Twitter .

Source: Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times

Roe v. Wade : Bad Law

U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building.

Regardless of your stance this was a flawed decision and it is in fact “bad law”.

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary.

Yesterday marked the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and made unconstitutional most state efforts to regulate abortion practices. The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Even aside from these fundamental weaknesses, the details of how the case played out in court are often obscured by the pro-abortion-rights movement. If more Americans were aware of these little-known facts, more might oppose Roe and give credence to arguments in favor of unborn life.

First, many Americans do not understand the legal ramifications that would occur if Roe were to be overturned. Though most Americans oppose overturning it, data indicate that many do so because they that believe that, in the absence of Roe, abortion would be outlawed nationwide. In reality, if the Supreme Court were to overturn some or even all of Roe, the question of abortion would return to the states, allowing state governments to establish permissive abortion laws or to regulate abortion to protect the unborn. As state laws currently stand, nearly all would permit abortion at least until the 20th week of pregnancy; it would require a federal law or constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Furthermore, the decision in Roe did not create an absolute right to abortion. Instead, it held that government restrictions on a woman’s right to abortion must be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest possible standard of judicial review. It also permitted states to regulate abortion later in pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s health. Some of our current slate of expansive abortion rights comes also from two other Supreme Court cases: Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

While Roe permitted late-term abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother, Doe defined a mother’s health expansively, as determined by “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Under this logic, doctors are able to justify abortion in practically any instance, as any woman who might experience emotional strain or mental discomfort as the result of the pregnancy would be legally entitled to the termination of it. Casey offered the Court an opportunity to overturn Roe, but instead it reaffirmed the 1973 decision in the face of challenges from state law, arguing primarily that the country would be legally and economically destabilized if the ruling were reversed.

Perhaps the Court would not have been so determined to uphold Roe if it had more seriously considered the fundamental flaws in that original decision. One prominent abortionist involved in the case, Bernard Nathanson, later admitted that he and fellow abortion proponents in the medical field cooperated to falsify statistics on the number of illegal abortions and maternal deaths in the decades preceding Roe. When Nathanson later realized the horror of abortion and quit the practice, he explained publicly how he and other key individuals used the false information to convince the Court that legalizing abortion would be safer than allowing it to continue illegally.

Source: Roe v. Wade & Abortion as Constitutional Right — Supreme Court Wrote Fiction | National Review

Displaying the Courage to Be Real Scientist


Meet the Climate Realists

Though climate alarmists never tire of demonizing greenhouse gases and “fossil” fuels, hell has no fury equal to the venom they reserve for those maligned as “climate deniers.” “This is treason, and we need to start treating them as traitors,” spat environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at the 2007 Live Earth Concert at New Jersey’s Giants Stadium. NASA’s James Hansen testified before a congressional committee in 2008 that “CEO’s of fossil energy companies … should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” A 2009 Talking Points Memo article reached bloodthirsty pitch by asking, “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?” Earlier, in 2006, the environmental news magazine Grist wrote that “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

The smear campaign involves more than mudslinging and threats. In a May Washington Post op-ed, Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island called on the Obama administration to investigate and prosecute the “climate denial network” under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). More recently, New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, ordered an investigation of whether Exxon Mobil has lied to the public and investors about its contribution to global warming. The French government fired its chief meteorologist, Philippe Verdier, after the October release of his book, Climat Investigation, in which he criticizes alarmists in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for having “taken the world hostage” with misleading and erroneous data.

Likewise, the states of Delaware, Oregon, and Virginia have each muzzled their official climatologists for failing to toe the party line, according to a U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee press release. Patrick Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, declared, “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise — global warming — as state climatologist. It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.”

Pundits warn that climate-change skeptics and those who support them will face more political and legal reprisals in the near future. They have reason for concern. As executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer announced that those who ignore the urgency of global warming are “nothing less than criminally irresponsible.” And in November Secretary of State John Kerry censured those he claims “put us all at risk” by questioning climate change politics when he said that “we cannot sit idly by and allow them to do that.”

At the heart of the debate is the unsubstantiated claim that humans have transformed a harmless, life-sustaining gas that currently makes up about 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere into a life-threatening pollutant by raising its concentration by around 33 percent over the course of the last century. World-renowned organizations such as the IPCC, NASA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and even the Vatican say we can, though they lack verifying data, or evidence that such a change would be harmful in any way. Their proof amounts to a supposed 97-percent consensus among climate scientists that humans are destroying the planet with their unquenchable thirst for fossil fuels. This bandwagon fallacy has prompted President Barack Obama to declare the debate “settled” and human-caused climate change to be “a fact” — and to ignore the Constitution, bypass Congress, and enact costly bureaucratic regulations aimed at averting catastrophe.

Who could object to such stamps of authority? You can find a catalog of them at, where visitors pick their most hated “deniers” and “call them out” by sending an e-mail invoking the 97-percent appeal and tweeting their friends to do the same — a high-tech peer-pressure maneuver. The irony is that many of those climate offenders made the list when they realized Obama & Associates base their 97-percent statistic on a lone 2013 article published in the science journal Environmental Research Letters: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming [AGW] in the scientific literature.” The authors did indeed find a 97.1-percent consensus that humans are causing global warming, but only among the remarkably few papers that expressed a position on the subject. (Most of the reviewed literature didn’t.) William Jasper explains at that “only 65 (yes, 65) of the 12,000+ scientific abstracts” included in the study “can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible” for AGW. You disagree that one-half of one percent equals 97 percent? If so, you may be a climate denier, too!

But lest you fear to have joined a radical, lunatic three-percent fringe group, The New American has compiled a short sampling of the tens of thousands of rational and reputable scientists who maintain an unbiased skepticism toward AGW, even at the risk of acquiring the career-jeopardizing slur of “denier.” Meet some climate realists: Click below…

Source: Meet the Climate Realists

…lifting the fog

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :