Pro-family activist in Canada under nationwide arrest warrant -- for passing out ‘anti-LGBT’ flyers. Will turn himself in to police Friday.

by  Mass Resistance

 

Canadian MassResistance ally Bill Whatcott charged in two “hate speech” cases. Being sued by “gays” for $104 million.

Protest planned outside Calgary Police Dept by churches as Whatcott arrives.

Is this what the future of the United States looks like?
Bill Whatcott, an extraordinary pro-family activist in a hostile country!

What is happening in Canada this week should be frightening to all of us.

Here in the United States the government tries to force businesses to make “gay” wedding cakes and schools to have “transgender” restrooms. But in Canada, that train is much further down the tracks. It leads us to wonder: Is this our future?

Earlier this week Bill Whatcott, long-time anti-abortion and pro-family activist and MassResistance Canadian ally, was suddenly informed that there is now a national criminal arrest warrant issued for him – for a supposed “hate speech” crime that took place two years ago in Toronto!

"To be honest I am still shocked myself,” he told MassResistance. The "crime"? “My ministry bringing the Gospel and the truth about homosexuality to Toronto’s homosexual pride parade in 2016.”

“I’ve indeed been persecuted for using accurate MassResistance resources for years,” he says.

So now Whatcott is being dragged into courts in two provinces on criminal “hate speech” charges. For one of the incidents he is also being sued by homosexual activists for $104 million.

All of this for simply passing out pamphlets that the LGBT movement doesn’t like.

National Arrest Warrant shocks supporters

The unusual action of a national arrest warrant being issued against Whatcott — especially for something fairly minor that took place two years ago — has shocked his supporters.  As Whatcott’s lawyer, Charles Lugosi, told The Toronto Star:

Usually, a Canada-wide warrant is issued with somebody alleged to have committed a very serious crime, like murder. Normally, with something like this, it’s never done. It’s abnormal.

Also, Whatcott has appeared when summoned in the past, and his lawyer has made it clear that he intends to continue to cooperate with the police now, though he will certainly challenge every charge against him.

According to published reports, the Attorney General of Ontario personally authorized the criminal charge against Whatcott.

Why did they wait two years before charging him with a crime? It’s not clear at all. According to The Toronto Star:

[Toronto police spokesperson Const. Caroline de Kloet] said part of the reason the warrant was issued two years after the incidents is because police had to “liaise” with the prosecution to approve the charge.

This clearly demonstrates the power of the LGBT movement in Canada.

Whatcott to turn himself in to police on Friday – amid protest

Whatcott has announced that he will turn himself in at a Calgary police station at 10:00 a.m. on Friday morning, June 22. Local churches have also announced that there will be a protest outside the police station to support him.

Members of the Toronto police "hate crime" unit have reportedly already traveled Calgary and will transport him to Toronto.

What did Whatcott do?

Bill Whatcott’s current “hate speech” charges are from two incidents where he handed out flyers that the LGBT movement didn’t like: (1) the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride Parade, which resulted in this latest arrest warrant for a criminal charge and also attracted a $104 million civil lawsuit; and (2) the 2017 British Columbia provincial elections where a man purporting to be a woman ran for Parliament and lost after Whatcott exposed him as a phony “woman.”

The 2016 Toronto Gay Pride Parade

In July 2016, Whatcott used an assumed name to successfully register to march in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. He and a group of supporters called themselves “The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association,” wore green body suits, and handed out approximately 3,000 “zombie safe sex” packets.  

Marching in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. Note the naked men right behind them.

Inside each packet was a folded up two-sided flyer that included medical-related information, plus graphic images of anal warts, genital warts, and a blotched corpse labeled an “AIDS fatality.” It also criticized the Prime Minister and other Canadian political figures for their homosexual activism, and how they have led Canada “on a destructive journey toward sexual anarchy and homosexual inspired oppression.”

The "safe sex" packet with the flyer inside. They passed out 3,000 of these that day!

A month after the parade, homosexual activists filed a civil lawsuit charging defamation and “hate speech.” They asked for an absurd $104 million in damages to various LGBT groups. They demanded that not only Whatcott but the other marchers in the group (who have never been identified) and anyone who supported the effort financially or otherwise be held liable. This was obviously done not only to bankrupt as many pro-family people as possible, but to frighten any others who might also hand out pamphlets against the LGBT agenda.

The lawsuit would also ban Whatcott and his group from leafletting or even posting their information on a website. It would also ban them from marching in any “gay pride” parade.

A judge later ruled that the plaintiffs could not claim defamation for an entire group, only individuals, but that the lawsuit could go forward. He also ordered Whatcott to disclose the names of the other “zombies” who marched as well as all their financial backers. Whatcott’s lawyer is appealing that order.

Such a lawsuit demanding “damages” be paid to the homosexuals seemed particularly hypocritical because the parade itself was a disgusting display of full nudity (particularly by males) and include a large dose of bigoted anti-Catholic and general anti-Christian imagery, according to photos of the event that we’ve seen. But the judges and other officials simply ignore that.

Toronto Gay Pride Parade participants. Exposing one's sexual organs to a child is a crime there (as it is just about everywhere else). But the police and authorities simply ignored that and went after Bill Whatcott's pamphlets.
 

Whatcott’s lawyer filed a very well-written defense brief that makes a very good argument that the parade was a state-funded and basically political event, where all views should be allowed. But the judge, not surprisingly, ignored those points.

(The current warrant for Whatcott's arrest is on a criminal charge of "hate speech" at the Toronto parade.)

Some of the Canadian-based media has written about this (the best is from LifeSiteNews):

Lawsuit takes aim at anti-gay ‘zombie’ from Pride parade, Toronto Star, 8/12/16

$104 million lawsuit against Bill Whatcott threatens free speech, Canadian Catholic News, 8/31/16

Bill Whatcott fights $104 million lawsuit over ‘gay zombies’ Pride protest, LifeSiteNews, 11/11/16

Police issue Canada-wide arrest warrant for Christian accused of LGBT ‘hate’ crimes. LifeSiteNews, 6/20/18

Anti-gay activist wanted for promotion of hatred will surrender in Calgary, lawyer says, Toronto Star, 6/19/18


Exposing a British Columbia "transgender" politician

A second trial for “hate speech” awaits Whatcott in early September 2018 before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (i.e., “kangaroo court”).

Bill Whatcott is going to trial in B.C. for simply stating the truth. Incredibly, the judge has already said that the truth is not a legitimate defense in this case! Could this happen here eventually?

He distributed a flyer in 2017 criticizing a male-to-female transsexual running for Parliament. Whatcott simply alerted voters that the Vancouver socialist candidate was a biological man, not the woman he claimed to be.

I am writing this flyer this election to share my concern about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender.

The truth is there are only two genders, male and female and they are God given and unchangeable. Ronan may have government ID that refers to him by the French female name “Morgane” and the media, NDP, and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Ronan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan's DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts.
“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:27
An interesting question: Will the Toronto police let him out in time for his September hearing in British Columbia?

Whatcott a dedicated activist

Whatcott is used to legal harassment employed against him. He has been subject to other “hate” charges, including a case that went all the way to the Canada Supreme Court (decided in 2013). His flyers in question were entitled, "Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon's Public Schools!" and "Sodomites in our Public Schools."

Reading the articles about how the Court decided this issue conjures George Orwell – or Alice in Wonderland. The logic is confounding on how the Canadians determine what “hate” legally is. The flyers contained documented facts about homosexual behavior backed up by peer-reviewed studies. They also included the term “sodomite” which obviously distressed the Court.

See media reports:

Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphleting, National Post, 2/27/13

Whatcott: Supreme Court labelled truth ‘hate speech’ in homosexuality case, LifeSiteNews, 3/4/13

What is Canadian “hate speech”?

As we have seen in the United States, so-called “hate speech” has no firm definition except what the liberal establishment decides it doesn’t like.

In Canada, hate speech is indictable under Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code and carries a punishment of up to two years imprisonment and possible forfeitures.

The offenses include:

  1. Public incitement of hatred – “communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace,” or
  2. Willful promotion of hatred – “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group”

Permitted defenses:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under sub-section (2):

  1. if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  2. if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  3. if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
  4. if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
In both cases where he’s being currently charged, Whatcott was simply telling the truth, and was also making legitimate religious arguments. There was no “breach of peace.” Thus, even by their own rules, he should not be held liable. But as in the United States, Canada’s activist judges mold the law as they wish.

Don’t let this happen here!

Obviously, Canada doesn’t have a First Amendment like the US. But as we’ve seen here with the Second Amendment, Constitutional guarantees are very tenuous and can start to disappear pretty easily.

As we say over and over, it’s absolutely critical for people to speak out and tell the truth as frequently as possible. That kind of confrontation forces the oppressors to back down. Otherwise the government simply takes over and fills the void with tyranny. Not enough people in Canada have been doing that, and so Bill Whatcott is taking the brunt of that.

On Friday, Bill Whatcott turns himself in to the Calgary police, amid a protest at the police station. We will have a full report on that!


Kansas Supreme Court Once Again Dictates the Level of School Spending

by Allen Williams


If you have ever lived in Kansas then you know that the state's judiciary gains bench positions by appointment NOT election.  "These efforts succeeded in 1958, when Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing merit selection of supreme court justices. The amendment's success can be attributed to the intensive lobbying efforts of the Kansas Bar Association and the political scandal aptly titled the "triple play of 1956," in which the governor and chief justice resigned their positions with the understanding that the lieutenant governor--who would become the governor--would appoint the former governor as chief justice. "

"The current procedure for filling a Supreme Court judgeship is very simple. A panel of lawyers [and non-lawyers] creates a list of fellow lawyers as candidates. That list is submitted to the governor and who appoints someone from that list. There is no vote. There is no confirmation process. There is no investigation or approval of any kind. The result of the current process is a judiciary run amuck.  A prime example is the Kansas Supreme Court. In the last session of the legislature, judges were caught discussing legislation with senate members and ethics complaints were lodged (they are still pending).  That same court has, in direct violation of the Kansas Constitution, ordered increases in school spending, a function reserved to the legislature. By its illegal actions, the court has effected increases that will force each man, woman, and child in the State of Kansas to pay an extra $400 per year in taxes by the year 2009."   It's a nice little monopoly  where, as KU law professor Stephen Ware, has noted some 10,000 people control 2.8 million.

I
n 2005
a petition was circulated by Wayne Flaherty and Judicial Watch for a constitutional amendment to change the judicial selection system to popular election. The state legislature failed to pass the amendment. The same year Topeka judge Terry Bullock ordered an increase of One Billion dollars for K-12 education in schools. This ruling violated the separation of powers via legislating from the bench. However, it was Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss who dictated the monetary amount in the Montoy decision to the state legislature that forever transferred spending authority from the Kansas Legislature to the Kansas Supreme Court.

In past years a number of attempts have been made to return judicial selection to popular election but the proposals were always beaten back by the public education system and its many supporters who obviously profit from the corruption of the current system.  Finally in 2013, then Governor Sam Brownback replaced merit selection for appeals court judges with gubenatorial appointment and Senate confirmation as in the case of federal judges.  A Kansas constitutional amendment to move the state judiciary to the federal model failed during Brownbacks tenure as governor. And in 2015, incredibly the Kansas Supreme Court, found that the state legislature's attempt to defund the court was unconstitutional. This decision has denied the people of Kansas the right of self government and established the Kansas Supreme Court as a ruling olighargy

The Kansas Court system is a corruption cesspoll and it hasn't disappointed.

Alan Rupe and his legal team have carved out a sweet niche suing the state legislature through the years to force higher taxes for education. Due to the obscure wording in the Kansas Constitution requiring a 'suitable education'. Many attempts have been made in the past to formulate a 'funding formula' for 309 Kansas school districts.

That's an awfully large number of school districts for such a small state you might think. Well, yes but absolutely essential to keep the for profit school indoctrination system rolling.  And public money makes the Kansas education system the largest PAC-lobby in the state. 

Here's how the school funding merri-go-round works:

(1) The state legislature develops a school funding formula which is always 'unfair' to some particular school district and in some cases nearly all by agreement. Greed dictates the relative 'degree of unfairness', etc.  (2) Rupe and his team go to court, finding a synpathetic judge isn't difficult because the lawyers control the judicial selection process. (3) The lawyers argue that the funding formula distributions aren't equitable or isn't weighted properly or the current formula simply fails to provide a 'suitable education' (Doesn't spend enough money) (4) The court agrees. Legal appeals are made and eventually the Kansas Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling for a fixed sum of money to finance education.(5) Go immediately back to (1) and begin the process anew.

Kansas is under authoritarain rule held hostage by a judicial hunta.

Only Hope for Kansas Student Education is a Constitutional Amendment

by Dave Trabert


Kansas students deserve constitutional amendment


On the Courts Allocating Education Spending Levels:

The Gannon v Kansas decision confirms that the only hope for students to get the education they deserve depends upon a constitutional amendment that prohibits the court from setting funding levels, and legislation that holds schools accountable for academic improvement at the building level.

What it Means for Taxpayers:
Rejecting a six-year $818 million funding increase as ‘inadequate’ is preposterous.  On top of the biggest tax increase in state history, Kansans face another inevitable tax increase to fund the $818 million already approved for schools -- and now unelected judges are effectively ordering even more tax hikes.

On the Disconnect Between Higher Spending and Student Achievement: 
We cannot be misled by the faulty premise that higher spending can produce greater results for our students. It’s time to end the decades-long cycle of litigation that has cost taxpayers millions. We must encourage our leaders in the legislature to ask the right questions about education spending; questions that put our students and teachers first.


The NFL

by Anonymous


[NFL History...history not often reported or leaked to the ticket holders.  I hope this helps you; it opened my eyes, to understand just when the public's respect for the NFL organization started to crumble...].

* In 2012 the NFL had an issue with Tim Tebow kneeling for each game to pray, they also had an issue with Tebow wearing John 3:16 as part of his eye-black to avoid glare, and made him take it off.

* In 2013 the NFL fined Brandon Marshall for wearing green cleats to raise awareness for people with mental health disorders.

* In 2014 Robert Griffin III (RG3) entered a post-game press conference wearing a shirt that said "Know Jesus Know Peace" but was forced to turn it inside out by an NFL uniform inspector before speaking at the podium.

* In 2015 DeAngelo Williams was fined for wearing "Find the Cure" eye black for breast cancer awareness.

* In 2015 William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for domestic violence. (Not that the NFL has a domestic violence problem...).

*In 2016 the NFL prevented the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal on their helmet in honor of 5 Dallas Police officers killed in the line of duty.

* 2016 the NFL threatened to fine players who wanted to wear cleats to commemorate the 15th anniversary of 9/11.


So tell me again how the NFL supports free speech and expression, all of a sudden... It seems quite clear based on these facts that the NFL has taken a position against any action by NFL players demonstrating RESPECT for any issue: For God, social causes such as mental health, cancer, domestic violence, for cops killed arbitrarily for being cops, for the Memory of 9/11...

BUT they will allow demonstrations of DISRESPECT for our National Flag, our National Anthem, for America, and for the American People, if it will help mollify a particular Group and its supporters. That is who and what the NFL now is shown itself to be.

Pass this post along to all your friends and family, if you believe it worthy of sharing.

Honor our military; too many of whom have come home with with the American Flag draped over their coffin.




Corrupt: McCabe Used Strzok’s Mistress To Keep Unauthorized Tabs on Clinton Probe

by Luke Rosiak


Then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe tasked the mistress of lead agent Peter Strzok to stay apprised of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private server — a decision that other bureau officials took issue with at the time, according to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s bombshell report.

McCabe was supposed to be insulated from the probe by two levels of management: Strzok worked for counterintelligence head Bill Priestap, who worked for national security head Michael Steinbach, who reported up to McCabe. However, Strzok communicated about the probe with his mistress, Lisa Page, who worked directly for McCabe and acted as a liaison for the Clinton investigation for the deputy director.

The report says:

Lisa Page, who was Special Counsel to McCabe, became involved in the Midyear investigation after McCabe became the Deputy Director in February 2016. Page told the OIG that part of her function was to serve as a liaison between the Midyear team and McCabe.

Page acknowledged that her role upset senior FBI officials, but told the OIG that McCabe relied on her to ensure that he had the information he needed to make decisions, without it being filtered through multiple layers of management.

Several witnesses told the OIG that Page circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or Steinbach’s knowledge. McCabe said that he was aware of complaints about Page, and that he valued her ability to “spot issues” and bring them to his attention when others did not.


McCabe has been the subject of concerns about political bias in the FBI’s handling of the case because of his family’s ties to the Clintons.  Around the time of the investigation, McCabe’s wife received $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. The money was for McCabe’s wife to run for state senate, an unusual amount of money for that office.
The IG report makes clear that McCabe intentionally essentially used Page as a mole to bypass multiple subordinates to feed him information about the probe.

It also contains an organizational chart detailing the chain of command on the Clinton emails investigation, annotated by The Daily Caller News Foundation here to highlight the way in which Page’s role was to be McCabe’s eyes and ears instead of relying on the normal channels.

Much of the most blatant anti-Trump rhetoric from FBI agents involved in the case has come from the text messages of Strzok and Page. Page made no secret where her allegiances lie, writing: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The two exchanged tens of thousands of texts about the matter.


Politics

Corrupt: McCabe Used Strzok’s Mistress To Keep Unauthorized Tabs on Clinton Probe

By Luke Rosiak
June 17, 2018 at 3:43pm

Then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe tasked the mistress of lead agent Peter Strzok to stay apprised of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private server — a decision that other bureau officials took issue with at the time, according to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s bombshell report.

McCabe was supposed to be insulated from the probe by two levels of management: Strzok worked for counterintelligence head Bill Priestap, who worked for national security head Michael Steinbach, who reported up to McCabe. However, Strzok communicated about the probe with his mistress, Lisa Page, who worked directly for McCabe and acted as a liaison for the Clinton investigation for the deputy director.

The report says:

Advertisement – story continues below

Lisa Page, who was Special Counsel to McCabe, became involved in the Midyear investigation after McCabe became the Deputy Director in February 2016. Page told the OIG that part of her function was to serve as a liaison between the Midyear team and McCabe.

Page acknowledged that her role upset senior FBI officials, but told the OIG that McCabe relied on her to ensure that he had the information he needed to make decisions, without it being filtered through multiple layers of management.

TRENDING: Trump: I’m Cutting All Aid to Countries Abusing America’s Immigration System [Video]

Several witnesses told the OIG that Page circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or Steinbach’s knowledge. McCabe said that he was aware of complaints about Page, and that he valued her ability to “spot issues” and bring them to his attention when others did not.

Advertisement – story continues below

McCabe has been the subject of concerns about political bias in the FBI’s handling of the case because of his family’s ties to the Clintons. Around the time of the investigation, McCabe’s wife received $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. The money was for McCabe’s wife to run for state senate, an unusual amount of money for that office.

The IG report makes clear that McCabe intentionally essentially used Page as a mole to bypass multiple subordinates to feed him information about the probe.

It also contains an organizational chart detailing the chain of command on the Clinton emails investigation, annotated by The Daily Caller News Foundation here to highlight the way in which Page’s role was to be McCabe’s eyes and ears instead of relying on the normal channels.

Much of the most blatant anti-Trump rhetoric from FBI agents involved in the case has come from the text messages of Strzok and Page. Page made no secret where her allegiances lie, writing: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The two exchanged tens of thousands of texts about the matter.

Texts show that Page was conflicted about taking the job with McCabe, because she is a lawyer and he wanted her to be his “special assistant.”“ The Deputy Director picked ME to work for him,” Page wrote on Feb. 3. But “I’m a lawyer, it’s my identity.”

RELATED: Peter Strzok Loses Security Clearance as Conspiracy To Harm Trump Unravels

Strzok said it would be tough to get McCabe to call her his “special counsel.” But ultimately — with Page considering turning down the job if she could not get the title — that’s what happened. “Let [McCabe] take the lead on role and expectations.”

It is unclear why it was so important to McCabe that information about the Clinton probe not be “filtered through multiple layers of management,” the IG report said, but officials may have believed that it would be inappropriate or abnormal to share certain information with him.

The IG report said numerous people in the FBI were telling McCabe to recuse himself from the Clinton probe due to the appearance of conflict. McCabe resisted recusal and got into an “argument” and tense conversations with FBI officials.

FBI General Counsel James Baker “had a series of conversations with McCabe culminating in a ‘very intense’ conversation in which Baker told McCabe that he believed he needed to recuse himself and that it was better that he do it ‘than have the boss order him to do it.’ He said McCabe ‘was not happy about it’ and ‘had lots of questions’ and they had a ‘good argument back and forth,’” the report said.

Then-FBI Director James Comey said in the report that he would have taken McCabe off the investigation sooner had he known about the donations to McCabe’s wife.

McCabe has not addressed whether he knew that Page and Strzok were having an affair and whether that is why Page had such a knack to “spot issues” in the Clinton probe.

McCabe was fired in March 2018 for displayed what the IG called a “lack of candor” during interviews about his authorization of an FBI official to speak with The Wall Street Journal in October 2016 about the Clinton email investigation and is currently suing the government.


Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.












Asparagus -- Who knew?

by Anonymous


{Some interesting articles do claim that Asparagus has anticancer benefits here and here.  Although there is a shortage of scientific study on the vegetable, that's not to say that the notion is false simply because asparagus isn't effective against all forms of cancer. What drug is? Homeopathic cures are always worth investigating despite the negative din from the usual naysayers like Snopes, Hoaxslayer, etc, who among other things, enjoy protecting the drug empire and its billions. - The following claims for asparagus curing cancer are purely anecdotal and we make no claims as to their veracity.  However the medicinal benefits claimed in the links cited are trustworthy. - ED}

Several years ago I met a man seeking asparagus for a friend who had cancer.. He gave me a copy of an article,  entitled "Asparagus For Cancer" printed in the Cancer News Journal, December 1979. I will share it here, just as it was shared with me: I am a biochemist, and have specialized in the relation of diet to health or over 50 years. Several years ago, I learned of the discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. that asparagus might cure cancer.  Since then, I have worked with him on his project. We have accumulated a number of favorable case histories. Here are a few examples:

Case No. 1, A man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated. Within 1 year of starting the asparagus therapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a
schedule of strenuous exercise.

Case No. 2
, A successful businessman, 68 years old, suffered from cancer of the bladder for 16 years.  After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he began taking asparagus. Within 3 months, examinations revealed that his bladder tumor had disappeared and that his kidneys were normal.

Case No. 3, On March 5th 1971, a man who had lung cancer was put on the operating table where they found lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable.The surgeon sewed him up and declared his case hopeless. On April 5th he heard about the Asparagus
therapy and immediately started taking it. By August, x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared. He is now back at his regular business routine.

Case No. 4, A woman had been troubled for a number of years with skin cancer. She developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by the acting specialist as advanced. Within 3 months after beginning asparagus therapy, the skin  specialist said her skin looked fine with no more skin lesions. This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney disease, which had started in 1949. She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability payments for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition. She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus treatment.

I was not surprised at this result as `The elements of materia medica', edited in1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania , stated that asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones. He even referred to experiments, in 1739, on the power of
asparagus in dissolving stones. Note the dates! We would have other case histories but the medical establishment has interfered with our obtaining some  of the records. I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large
number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy.

Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are believed to be active in controlling cell growth. For that reason, I believe asparagus can be said to contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer. That accounts for its action on cancer and
in acting as a general body tonic. In any event, regardless of theory, asparagus used as we suggest, is  a harmless substance. The FDA cannot prevent you  from using it and it may do you much good. It has  been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that
asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body's  most potent anti-carcinogens and antioxidants.

Just a side note... In case you are wondering why this has not been made public, there is no profit in curing cancer!



IG Report: President Obama Had ‘Direct Access’ to Hillary’s Illegal Email Server

By Chris Agee


A recent report compiled by U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz makes public new allegations and contradicts previous statements regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s improper use of a private email server.

The scandal became a major campaign issue during her 2016 presidential bid and resulted in a federal investigation, which was the subject of the report released this week.

A number of high-ranking officials were named in the document and accused of some level of involvement in the scandal, including former President Barack Obama. Clinton served as secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office.

Advertisement – story continues below

One of the major revelations in Horowitz’s report involves Obama’s apparent “direct contact” with Clinton through the private email account. He reportedly used an account with a pseudonymous email username.

“FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account,” a footnote in the 568-page report states.

TRENDING: ‘What Is… Jail?’: Winner of ‘Jeopardy’ Facing Prison for Hacking Email Accounts

The emails sent and received were not classified, according to the inspector general, and there was no indication the president purposely communicated with his secretary of state through an unsecured channel.

Nevertheless, Obama critics say the report appears to contradict statements both the president and then-White House press secretary Josh Earnest offered when the investigation got underway in 2015.

In a CBS interview, Obama said he learned of the email controversy at “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

Earnest issued a followup statement acknowledging that as “many people expected,” Obama “did over the course of his first several years in office, trade emails with the secretary of state.”

At the time, skeptics maintained that the difference between a secured “.gov” email address and Clinton’s “.com” domain should have been enough to raise a red flag for Obama. Earnest and others, however, continued to maintain the president did not have advanced knowledge of Clinton’s email situation.

Obama was cited in the inspector general’s report for reasons other than his email correspondences with Clinton.  As National Review noted, Obama made multiple appearances in the document.

His contribution to the controversy was largely limited to his assertion in a “60 Minutes” interview, that some in the intelligence community felt undermined their investigation.

“Former President Obama’s comments caused concern among FBI officials about the potential impact on the investigation,” the report states. “Former (Executive Assistant Director) John Giacalone told the OIG, ‘We open up criminal investigations. And you have the President of the United States saying this is just a mistake. … That’s a problem, right?'”

Others in the FBI had similar reactions, the inspector general reported.

“Former AD Randy Coleman expressed the same concern, stating, ‘(The FBI had) a group of guys in here, professionals, that are conducting an investigation. And the … President of the United States just came out and said there’s no there there,'” Horowitz wrote. “Coleman said that he would have expected someone in FBI or Department leadership to contact one of Obama’s national security officials, and ‘tell (him or her), hey knock it off.'”


Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead
promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family.




AMA Says Take Your Meds While Doctors Take Your Guns

by JD Heyes


For some reason, the American Medical Association — which was founded to promote the American medical community — wants to wade into one of the premier political battles of our day: Gun control.

The AMA has shifted at least some of its attention recently away from pushing Big Pharma meds that kill more than 100,000 Americans a year to jumping on the gun confiscation bandwagon pushed by the Marxist Left.

As reported by TownHall,

the organization last week approved a wide-ranging list of “common sense” gun control demands that include banning the sale of “all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.”

The list was okayed by the AMA’s House of Delegates, a pretend ‘legislative body’ that meets a couple times a year at overpriced venues to drink overpriced liquor and vote on medical and political ‘recommendations.

As TownHall noted further:

The lengthy list of gun policy changes also includes bans on the sale of firearms and ammunition to those under 21 years of age, prohibitions on the ownership and unsupervised use of firearms by those under 21, and the establishment of a national gun registry for all firearms and a gun licensing system for gun owners.
Also, the organization’s gun control proposals include a number of provisions ostensibly aimed at curbing domestic violence and abuse, including one recommendation for a new legal tool by which “family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel” can go to court in order to have a person’s guns confiscated “when there is a high or imminent risk for violence.” 

No ‘risk’ of having that authority abused, right?

According to a blog post introducing the ‘common sense’ proposals, the AMA appears to ignore a well-established  constitutional  requirement — due process — which must be engaged before a person’s property or belongings can be confiscated by authorities. 

Were this proposal to be implemented, it would mean the accused would not have an opportunity to defend himself or herself in court. Also, the proposals contain nothing in terms of how “risk for violence” would actually be defined, which means that even people without criminal records or any previous history of violence or abuse could feasibly have their firearms taken from them.

Who gets to decide?

The lack of defining parameters also extends to the AMA’s call for confiscating “high-capacity magazines” and “armor-piercing bullets.” (Related: Prescription drugs far more dangerous to Americans than guns.)

Typically, “high-capacity” has meant those that can hold 10 or more bullets, though New York state defines the term as a magazine capable of holding only seven or more rounds. Lawmakers in that state, by the way, never really said how they determined what the “safe” or “appropriate” level of bullets was in order to ‘allow’ state residents the ‘right’ to defend themselves and family. For instance, no one really knows how they arrived at seven bullets rather than five, or 11, or eight or…well, you get the idea.

The AMA’s guidelines also do not provide any definition of “armor-piercing,” and while that may seem rather obvious, remember that these demands were written up by Leftist anti-gunners, so the term could mean something completely different.

And if the term is applied too broadly, then it could apply to any bullet capable of piercing Kevlar-based body armor, which would encompass nearly every rifle round above .22 caliber.

One thing to remember as well is that these proposals are not being made as a symbolic gesture. The Big Pharma-linked AMA is making them with the intent of presenting them to lawmakers all over the country and in Washington, D.C. and getting them implemented.

“People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,” said AMA Immediate Past President David Barb, MD. 

Yes, well, they’re dying more often in vehicles and from prescription drugs, but no one’s calling for them to be banned.

Read more about Big Pharma’s death toll at PharmaDeathClock.com.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

TownHall.com

NaturalNews.com


We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (
Click for details).


Report: Obama’s HHS Placed Children With Human Traffickers, Media Dead Silent

by Benjamin Arie

A terrible double standard has been uncovered within the media, and it centers on one of the left’s favorite talking points this month: Underage illegal immigration.

For weeks, the topic has dominated headlines and sparked what seems like coordinated outrage among liberals.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that the Obama administration detained minors at the border for years, the left has pointed fingers instead at President Donald Trump for enforcing regulations that were enacted before he was even president.

Pundits including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough even compared U.S. law enforcement officials to Nazis, all because they separate children who are brought along during the commission of federal crimes from adults who are being placed into criminal custody.

This is akin to being outraged because police don’t throw the children of suspects in jail with their parents during arrests, but instead take them into protective environments.

The left-leaning media stayed strangely silent when the detention of migrant children went on for years before Trump took office… and now it looks like they also kept quiet when Barack Obama’s administration literally placed immigrant children in the hands of human traffickers just a few years ago.

“The United States government placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called ‘caregivers,'” New York magazine reported in 2016, based on a Senate report.

Blame Trump! The problem, for the left, however, is that this horrific mistreatment of immigrant children happened in 2013 — right in the middle of the Obama presidency, and two years before Trump even announced he was a candidate.

“In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border,” continued New York magazine.

“At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death,” the report continued. That’s right: Around the same time that now-infamous pictures of the Obama administration putting migrant children in caged detention areas were being snapped, the same administration was directly responsible for essentially handing foreign kids into child slavery.

“It is intolerable that human trafficking — modern-day slavery — could occur in our own backyard,” Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, told The New York Times at the time.

Politics

Report: Obama’s HHS Placed Children With Human Traffickers, Media Dead Silent

By Benjamin Arie
June 17, 2018 at 3:08pm

A terrible double standard has been uncovered within the media, and it centers on one of the left’s favorite talking points this month: Underage illegal immigration.

For weeks, the topic has dominated headlines and sparked what seems like coordinated outrage among liberals.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that the Obama administration detained minors at the border for years, the left has pointed fingers instead at President Donald Trump for enforcing regulations that were enacted before he was even president.

Advertisement – story continues below

Pundits including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough even compared U.S. law enforcement officials to Nazis, all because they separate children who are brought along during the commission of federal crimes from adults who are being placed into criminal custody.

This is akin to being outraged because police don’t throw the children of suspects in jail with their parents during arrests, but instead take them into protective environments.

TRENDING: Liberals Spread Viral Photo of Child in Cage, Silenced After Learning Who Was Really Behind Photo`

The left-leaning media stayed strangely silent when the detention of migrant children went on for years before Trump took office… and now it looks like they also kept quiet when Barack Obama’s administration literally placed immigrant children in the hands of human traffickers just a few years ago.

Advertisement – story continues below

“The United States government placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called ‘caregivers,'” New York magazine reported in 2016, based on a Senate report.

Blame Trump! The problem, for the left, however, is that this horrific mistreatment of immigrant children happened in 2013 — right in the middle of the Obama presidency, and two years before Trump even announced he was a candidate.

“In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border,” continued New York magazine.

“At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death,” the report continued.

That’s right: Around the same time that now-infamous pictures of the Obama administration putting migrant children in caged detention areas were being snapped, the same administration was directly responsible for essentially handing foreign kids into child slavery.

“It is intolerable that human trafficking — modern-day slavery — could occur in our own backyard,” Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, told The New York Times at the time.

“But what makes the Marion cases even more alarming is that a U.S. government agency was responsible for delivering some of the victims into the hands of their abusers,” the senator continued.

The Obama administration was appallingly lax at conducting even basic checks about the adults who showed up to “claim” migrant children.

“As detention centers became incapable of housing the massive influx of migrants, the [Obama-run] Department of Health and Human Services started placing children into the care of sponsors who would oversee the minors until their bids for refugee status could be reviewed,” explained New York magazine, again confirming that the detention of child migrants took place long before Trump.

The current administration at least provides comfortable and safe housing for the children who are separated from their parents. Obama’s team did something very different.“ But in many cases, officials failed to confirm whether the adults volunteering for this task were actually relatives or good Samaritans — and not unscrupulous egg farmers or child molesters,” the magazine reported about the Obama-era scandal.

“The department performed check-in visits at caretakers’ homes in only 5 percent of cases between 2013 and 2015,” it continued. “The Senate’s investigation built on an Associated Press report that found more than two dozen unaccompanied children were placed in homes where they were sexually abused, starved, or forced into slave labor.”

Shockingly, nobody knows for certain how many immigrant children ended up in horrific slavery-like circumstances under Obama’s watch. Over 90,000 immigrant children were placed into so-called “sponsor care” during the time-frame of 2013 to 2015.

“Exactly how many of those fell prey to traffickers is unknown, because the agency does not keep track,” New York magazine concluded.

Even after the scandal was uncovered and locations such as the slave-like egg farm in Marion, Ohio, were raided by police, the media remained oddly quiet.

A Google search of this incident reveals only a handful of media outlets covering the story between 2013 and 2014, despite the clearly huge implications of this Obama scandal.

It seems that when immigration enforcement policies made President Obama look bad, they were swept under the rug. Now that the same border problems that have existed for decades can be used against Donald Trump, however, liberal journalists have miraculously found the backbone to cover the story.

The reality is that border and immigration issues are tough, and children are unfortunately caught in the middle.

Just as it’s heartbreaking but necessary for police to make an arrest when children are witnesses, or for Child Protective Services to step in when a family situation turns ugly, the presence of minors doesn’t mean that we stop enforcing national laws. This would only encourage law-breakers to use children as “legal shields” as they commit more crimes.

Reality isn’t always pretty. There are no easy or magic answers on how to enforce U.S. border laws while being humane and compassionate to innocent kids dragged into the chaos by adults. It’s a difficult situation from any angle.

Trump’s administration is doing its best to deal with a problem it inherited from past presidents — but the fact that the mainstream media barely said a word about much worse treatment of migrants should be a giant red flag about the real agenda being pushed by liberal journalists now.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


Calif. School District Forbids Parents to Remove Kids From Graphic Sex Ed Class

by Ben Marquis


California passed a law in 2015 known as the California Healthy Youth Act, part of which expanded and overhauled sexual education classes to include information about homosexuality, gender identity issues and abortion, and which is just now being implemented in schools across the state.

The new sex ed course is intended to help students develop “healthy attitudes” (via state brainwashing - ED) with regard to such issues as “gender (and) sexual orientation” while also informing students about the effectiveness of various contraceptives and spurring an “objective discussion” about “parenting, adoption, and abortion.”

According to LifeSite News, there are some parents who don’t want their children being exposed to everything the curriculum offers.

There’s plenty to object to.

The curriculum includes a study guide about transgender issues and a “sexual health toolkit,” which teaches young students about such things as sex toys and anal intercourse, downplays such quaint notions as “abstinence” and “virginity” and relies heavily upon left-wing organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Advocates for Youth — which are pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion — as resources.

The 2015 law recognized that “parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children,” and as such had expressly allowed for parents and guardians to “excuse their children from participation” in the courses as a whole without any sort of penalty.

However, if parents allow their children to take the course at all, they can only keep their children from some aspects, specifically dealing with the physical organs. Otherwise, the children must be exposed to every part of it, including sex toys, anal sex and homosexuality. And parents will be in no position to object.

So, having a kid learn about sexual health means having the kids learn about homexuality and anal sex, too?

That’s the intepretation the Orange County Board of Education — more specifically Orange County Department of Education general counsel Ronald Wenkart — has reached anyway.

That’s because a statement in the law specifically exempts from the parents’ opt-out power “instruction, materials, presentations, or programming that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.”

In a memo published in full by the San Juan Capistrano Patch, Wenkart indicated that students could only be excused from the portions of the courses that dealt directly with human reproductive organs, and all other information imparted by the courses was mandatory.

Wenkart did, however, suggest that parents retained the right to “advise their children that they disagree with some or all of the information” put forward in the courses and were permitted to “express their views on these subjects to their children.” Gee, thanks for the permission.

The attorney also cited judicial precedents at the conclusion of his four-page memo that claimed “parents do not have a constitutional right to excuse their children from portions of the school curriculum that they find objectionable.”

Needless to say, there are rumblings of pushback brewing among parents .

According to LifeSite News, Heidi St. John, an author who runs a Facebook site called The Busy Mom, advised that parents in California raise the issue with their local school boards, as well as contact their local political representatives in order to make their displeasure at the decision known.

“These are our children!” she wrote in a Facebook post in April. “They do not belong to the schools.”

This episode is just the latest example of how public schools have become little more than indoctrination centers designed to cram as much of the progressive agenda and beliefs into students’ heads as possible, indoctrination that is increasingly being made mandatory.

This also serves as a glaring example of the notion held by far too many progressive leftists that they know what is best for everybody else, even more so than parents know about their own children, and everyone should just be quiet and accept their great wisdom, even if we wholeheartedly disagree.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.