The Factuals versus the OABS (Old Age BullShit)

The illuminati

aka The iLLs aka The iLLumiNOTi

Are Afraid Of Spiders & Cosmic Weavers

1. 
   
   "The illuminati aka The iLLs aka The iLLumiNOTi are afraid of spiders & cosmic weavers...
   Well WELL, WEAVE WELL"
   - SUSAN LYNNE SCHWENGER
   
   Susan coined the phrase "The iLLS" and, she also coined the phrase "The iLLumiNOTi"
   while utilizing the Avatar & Pseudonym of The eXchanger
   on The Original Project Avalon & The Original Project Camelot forums,
   she joined the new project on the new forum,
   however Bill Ryan assigned her a 'ghost forum' !!!
   
   So, what is a 'ghost forum' you might ask...
   well, it is the type of forum,
   that only people who were on her friends list,
   could actually see, or, the moderators of the forum,
   NO one else could see her postings.
   
   Since they had restricted her ability to be-friend anyone
   she also could NOT receive NOR send emails to anyone,
   with the exception of the moderators,
   it did NOT take her long to instinctly know something was rotten in avalon,
   and in camelot.
   
   She promptly deleted her forum, and left the site never to return to post again.
   
   She said, "in her opinion this was NOT a very nice way
   to treat the #8 member of the original project
   especially a member who was in the top 3 posters to the forum."
   
   NEEDLESS to say, she also does NOT support any of the work of Bill Ryan,
   Kerrie Cassidy, Project Avalon or Project Camelot.
   
   If anyone wonders where The eXchanger went,
   NOW you KNOW the real truth
   she is hiding out on www.cosmosdawn.net/forums
   ​
2. 
   
   
   
   
   PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:
   
   "BE the cosmic 'spider' weaver you originally intended yourself to be,
   Simply: command and demand, in 100% alignment with your missions, purposes and tasks '
   ~ (13) (333 333 315) susan lynne schwenger
   
   "Will it to be, so, it will be, and, so it is"
   ~ (13) (333 333 315* ***) susan lynne schwenger
   
   
   "Twelve (12) words plus one number sequence always and,
   in all ways activates The High Magic".
   ~ (13) (333 333 315* ***) Susan Lynne Schwenger
   
   
   ​
3. Visit my forum on this website:
   http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/ind...oti-are-afraid-of-spiders-cosmic-weavers.283/​

 

Ok Star Wars should be 4 5 and 6 (respect the true trilogy)
Rocky, Star Trek, terminator, and planet are NOT trilogies.
Super man had 4 movies (not counting the reboot)

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

 

Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria


​

by David French January 28, 2017 5:32 PM @DavidAFrench

The hysterical rhetoric about President Trump’s executive order on refugees is out of control. Let’s slow down and take a look at the facts. To read the online commentary, one would think that President Trump just fundamentally corrupted the American character. You would think that the executive order on refugees he signed yesterday betrayed America’s Founding ideals. You might even think he banned people from an entire faith from American shores. Just look at the rhetoric.
Here’s Chuck Schumer:



If you thought only Senator Schumer saw tears in Lady Liberty’s eyes, think again.
Here’s Nancy Pelosi:



CNN, doing its best Huffington Post impersonation, ran a headline declaring “Trump bans 134,000,000 from the U.S.” The Huffington Post, outdoing itself, just put the Statue of Liberty upside down on its front page. So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones. Let’s analyze the key provisions, separate the fact from the hysteria, and introduce just a bit of historical perspective.
First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year.
Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms. The chart below, from the Migration Policy Institute, is instructive:







In 2002, the United States admitted only 27,131 refugees. It admitted fewer than 50,000 in 2003, 2006, and 2007. As for President Obama, he was slightly more generous than President Bush, but his refugee cap from 2013 to 2015 was a mere 70,000, and in 2011 and 2012 he admitted barely more than 50,000 refugees himself.
The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016. Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction. Second, the order imposes a temporary, 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
These are countries either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments. The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security determines the “information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.” It could, however, be extended or expanded depending on whether countries are capable of providing the requested information.

The ban, however, contains an important exception: “Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.” In other words, the secretaries can make exceptions — a provision that would, one hopes, fully allow interpreters and other proven allies to enter the U.S. during the 90-day period. To the extent this ban applies to new immigrant and non-immigrant entry, this temporary halt (with exceptions) is wise.
We know that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the ranks of refugees and other visitors. We know that immigrants from Somalia, for example, have launched jihadist attacks here at home and have sought to leave the U.S. to join ISIS. Indeed, given the terrible recent track record of completed and attempted terror attacks by Muslim immigrants, it’s clear that our current approach is inadequate to control the threat.

Unless we want to simply accept Muslim immigrant terror as a fact of American life, a short-term ban on entry from problematic countries combined with a systematic review of our security procedures is both reasonable and prudent. However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. If, however, the Trump administration continues to apply the order to legal permanent residents, it should indeed be condemned.

Third, Trump’s order also puts an indefinite hold on admission of Syrian refugees to the United States “until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”
This is perhaps the least consequential aspect of his order — and is largely a return to the Obama administration’s practices from 2011 to 2014.
For all the Democrats’ wailing and gnashing of teeth, until 2016 the Obama administration had already largely slammed the door on Syrian-refugee admissions.
The Syrian Civil War touched off in 2011. Here are the Syrian-refugee admissions to the U.S. until Obama decided to admit more than 13,000 in 2016:
Fiscal Year 2011:29
Fiscal Year 2012: 31
Fiscal Year 2013: 36
Fiscal Year 2014: 105
Fiscal Year 2015: 1,682

To recap: While the Syrian Civil War was raging, ISIS was rising, and refugees were swamping Syria’s neighbors and surging into Europe, the Obama administration let in less than a trickle of refugees.
Only in the closing days of his administration did President Obama reverse course — in numbers insufficient to make a dent in the overall crisis, by the way — and now the Democrats have the audacity to tweet out pictures of bleeding Syrian children?

It’s particularly gross to see this display when the Obama administration’s deliberate decision to leave a yawning power vacuum — in part through its Iraq withdrawal and in part through its dithering throughout the Syrian Civil War — exacerbated the refugee crisis in the first place.
There was a genocide on Obama’s watch, and his tiny trickle of Syrian refugees hardly makes up for the grotesque negligence of abandoning Iraq and his years-long mishandling of the emerging Syrian crisis.
When we know our enemy is seeking to strike America and its allies through the refugee population, when we know they’ve succeeded in Europe, and when the administration has doubts about our ability to adequately vet the refugees we admit into this nation, a pause is again not just prudent but arguably necessary. It is important that we provide sufficient aid and protection to keep refugees safe and healthy in place, but it is not necessary to bring Syrians to the United States to fulfill our vital moral obligations.

Fourth, there is a puzzling amount of outrage over Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” In other words, once refugee admissions resume, members of minority religions may well go to the front of the line. In some countries, this means Christians and Yazidis.

In others, it can well mean Muslims. Sadly, during the Obama administration it seems that Christians and other minorities may well have ended up in the back of the line.
For example, when Obama dramatically expanded Syrian refugee admissions in 2016, few Christians made the cut:
The Obama administration has resettled 13,210 Syrian refugees into the United States since the beginning of 2016 — an increase of 675 percent over the same 10-month period in 2015.
Of those, 13,100 (99.1 percent) are Muslims — 12,966 Sunnis, 24 Shi’a, and 110 other Muslims — and 77 (0.5 percent) are Christians.
Another 24 (0.18 percent) are Yazidis. As a point of reference, in 2015 Christians represented roughly 10 percent of Syria’s population.
Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation for the disparity. Perhaps not. But one thing is clear — federal asylum and refugee law already require a religious test.

As my colleague Andy McCarthy has repeatedly pointed out, an alien seeking asylum “must establish that . . . religion [among other things] . . . was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”
Similarly, the term “refugee” means “(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to . . . that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . religion [among other things] . . . [.]” But don’t tell CNN’s chief national security correspondent, who last night tweeted this:



False. False. False.
Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference (though not exclusivity) to members of minority religions.
Finally, you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban.
It’s not there. Nowhere. At its most draconian, it temporarily halts entry from jihadist regions. In other words, Trump’s executive order is a dramatic climb-down from his worst campaign rhetoric.

To be sure, however, the ban is deeply problematic as applied to legal residents of the U.S. and to interpreters and other allies seeking refuge in the United States after demonstrated (and courageous) service to the United States. Twitter timelines are coming alive with stories of Iraqi interpreters who’ve saved American lives. Few have bled more in alliance with America than Iraq’s Kurds, but the order itself provides for the necessary case-by-case exemptions to the temporary blanket bans.
It is vital that General John Kelly, the newly confirmed secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, move expeditiously to protect those who’ve laid down their lives in the war against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Given his own wartime experience, I believe and hope that he will.
Trump’s order was not signed in a vacuum. Look at the Heritage Foundation’s interactive timeline of Islamist terror plots since 9/11. Note the dramatic increase in planned and executed attacks since 2015. Now is not the time for complacency. Now is the time to take a fresh look at our border-control and immigration policies.
Trump’s order isn’t a betrayal of American values. Applied correctly and competently, it can represent a promising fresh start and a prelude to new policies that protect our nation while still maintaining American compassion and preserving American friendships.

— David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria
​

Political Incorrectness from Australia!








​

 

This move will save millions of lives and the environment in the long run!


UN, Rep. Mike Rogers
UNITED STATES
Republicans pass bill to end UN membership

A Republican-proposed House Resolution has quietly passed under the radar – proposing that the United States withdraw its membership from the United Nations.

​

Published: January 25, 2017, 10:05 am

The bill, proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama, entitled the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, seeks a complete US withdrawal from the UN, that the international body remove its headquarters from New York and that all participation be ceased with the World Health Organization as well.

Rogers and other prominent Republicans have repeatedly voiced the idea that US taxpayer money should not fund anti-US interests.

The bill, quietly introduced on January 3 and passed on to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, would repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, signed in the aftermath of WWII.
“The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations…The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out,” according to the text of HR 193.

The bill would block the deployment of US military by the UN, and bring about the loss of “diplomatic immunity for UN officers or employees” on US soil.
Rogers had tried to pass the same bill in 2015, albeit unsuccessfully.
“Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?” Rogers asked at the time.

As another Republican supporter of the bill remarked in January 2015: “I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States… There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it,” added a Kentucky senator.
“The UN continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars.” Rogers went on to name treaties and actions he believes “attack our rights as US citizens.” These included gun provisions, the imposition of international regulations on American fossil fuels – but more importantly, the UN attack on Israel, by voting to grant Palestine the non-member state ‘permanent observer’ status. “Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel is not a friend to the United States,” Rogers said in June last year.

According to calculations by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the US provides over 22 percent of all UN funding.

All rights reserved. You have permission to quote freely from the articles provided that the source (www.freewestmedia.com) is given. Photos may not be used without our consent.
fwmstaff

 

The Truth of Heaven! A true Muslim meets God or is it Allah or Abba or ...?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1AKpD49KmQ

A deadly blow for the globalists (leftists, neocons and co), if true-confirmed!





QuebecShooting​

Suddenly the corporate globalist media no longer wishes to talk about the 'white supremacists'. Clever brainwashed Justin!
If confirmed! Robert Spencer claims one ID is Moroccan.​

​

 

Democracy Now - a favourite news site for the leftists-globalists exposed!

​

 

and, do NOT miss this video either



Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

http://www.politicalislam.com
More videos here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Uu...
For a version with English Subtitles: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-warn...
The history of Islam in Europe and how it effects us to this day.
This is a history based on numbers and facts that you may not see anywhere else
and explains why we may be afraid to see Islam
for what it is based on its own doctrine and practice.

posted by: susan lynne schwenger
#the13thBridge

 

Homeland Security
Trump Protects U.S., World Gets Enraged

By Robert Spencer January 30, 2017
chat 102 comments

French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, left, greets his newly appointed German counterpart, Sigmar Gabriel, before talks at the French Foreign Ministry in Paris, France. (Frederic de la Mure/French Foreign Ministry via AP)
President Trump’s executive orders to build a Mexican border wall and to place a temporary ban on immigration from seven hotbeds of jihad terror have the national and international Left -- and its jihadi allies -- in an uproar.
How dare he move to protect American citizens?
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said, during a meeting with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, that both countries were “concerned” about Trump’s immigration policies:

Welcoming refugees who are fleeing war is part of our duty … his decision can only cause us concern.​

A “duty”? According to whom? Wasn’t protecting Ayrault's own citizens from jihad terrorists known to be entering France among the “refugees” his duty? All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.
France apparently found jihad less distasteful than vetting refugees; France now has the option it chose.

Mayor Michael Müller of Berlin pontificated:

We Berliners know better than most the pain caused when a whole continent is split by barbed wire and walls. … I call on the president of the USA not to go down that road to isolation and ostracism.​

Müller’s statement has been widely circulated and greeted with joy -- among the clueless Left, which is acting as if it opposed the Berlin Wall when it was up. They did not.
Remember?
Ronald Reagan declared: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, and they recoiled in horror.
For the young leftist millennials, apparently there wasn’t time in high school to learn about East Germany. They were instead learning the U.S. was founded by white male slave-owners and has a history of oppression, racism, and imperialism. Today's self-righteous Left largely doesn’t know or care that the Berlin Wall was constructed by a totalitarian Leftist government to keep people in, not out.
The mayor of Berlin -- he, of all people, should know better -- is putting globalist Leftism above the safety of his own people.
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani jumped in on the phony Berlin Wall theme, too. Rouhani tweeted:

Let’s help neighboring cultures, not build walls between nations. Let’s not forget what happened to the #BerlinWall.​

Unlike the Berlin Wall, Trump’s wall is simply a national security initiative. Perhaps Rouhani, whose regime has ordered its citizens to chant “Death to America” every week in their mosques, shouldn't have helped create a security threat. With his tweet, note that Rouhani has an obvious vested interest in opposing any step the U.S. takes to defend its citizens.
According to CNN, Iran says it now will:

… ban all U.S. citizens from entering the country in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.​

Who else already had a Spring Break flight booked to Tehran? Guess I’ll hit my second choice, Mogadishu.
While Iran has a great history, as I explain in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran is so repressive and authoritarian -- and so hostile to the United States -- that American citizens would be foolish to go there.
People who have family in Iran will be hit by Iran's ban, and that is unfortunate. But there is a grown-up choice to make here -- we're choosing between death and inconvenience. We can inevitably admit terrorists to the United States, or we can inconvenience good people for a temporary period. France chose the former.
Others to be hard-hit by Iran's new ban are the likes of Carl Ernst, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill pseudo-academic. His work on Islam is so whitewashed, so fawningly apologetic, so complete in its denial of the jihad doctrine and Sharia oppression, that he was given an award in 2008 by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the genocidal anti-Semite who was at that time president of Iran.
Ernst happily flew to Tehran to accept. The incident was emblematic of how much American academia has degenerated.

The Iranian government’s statement said Trump’s ban was “an obvious insult to the Islamic world and in particular to the great nation of Iran.” Why is it an “obvious insult to the Islamic world” when the U.S. takes steps to defend itself from jihad terrorism? Because any defensive move taken by a non-Muslim entity is always seized upon by Islamic supremacists and jihadis as food for propaganda, which they produce when calling the defensive move an “unprovoked” act of aggression.
This is a tried-and-true response from Islamic entities going back all the way to the Crusades. Which are still taught in many places as unprovoked Christian aggression.
Leftist political elites worldwide are joining the likes of Rouhani in excoriating Trump for daring to defend his people. Will nothing but national and civilizational suicide satisfy them?