This is an excellent video showing how “Christians” have to distort the clear Word of God [the Bible for you dummies] to be inclusive to adopting Transgender ideology. The latter trumps the former to these apostates.
Here is a play off the WHATEVER episode:
Oh come on, who did this!? WHO DID THIS!? pic.twitter.com/XwORbLlr1n
— David Santa Carla 🦇 (@TheOnlyDSC) April 26, 2023
A 13-year old article is making it’s rounds and I thought it worthwhile to post it here – in full with links to comments/posts on it. This is from ARCHIVE TODAY via REDDIT: Here are some comments taken from REDDIT before the SUNDAY TIMES article.
IGOR’S SUBSTACK has more
INDEPENDENT SENTINEL has more
John Harlow, Los Angeles, Sunday May 24 2009, 1.00am BST, The Sunday Times
TITLE: Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation:
SUBTITLE: America’s richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a ‘disastrous’ environmental, social and industrial threat
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.
They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.
Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.
The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.
This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.
Larry Elder nails down some double standards that Democrats enjoy and the media perpetuates. Larry zeros in on an example using Oprah Winfrey and a Larry King interview of Donald Trump. I include near the end Larry and Professor John Eastman discussing the topic as well.
Larry Elder “acts a fool” in his opening segment [salvo] against the media portraying Oprah’s Golden Globe award speech as — presidential. Larry is in his element here….
This great story of a mothers love and concern, not only for her son’s financial well-being, but his spiritual well-being… shows the depth of a mother’s love. And God’s love through His people. Read more about it at The Blaze:
PJ Media has this:
On Sept. 9, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered a major address on the subject of his health care reform bill, which at that time had not passed Congress. The president declared in that speech, delivered before a joint session of Congress and entire nation on television, that ObamaCare would not apply to illegal aliens. Specifically, he said:
There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.)
The audience member was Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. Here’s video of the moment.
Wilson’s outburst stirred condemnation from the Democratmedialeft but didn’t hurt him: He raised a load of campaign cash while the left denigrated him, and he became an instant national figure and hero here on the Right. And he was re-elected.
And it turns out that Wilson was right all along. The president was lying.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.
Of that $28.8 million, “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.
Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.
“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.
Further, the grant recipients are required to serve ”all residents“ who walk through their doors.
Points of emphasis added. There are between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the United States.
…read more… (see also American Spectator)
Stand with Arizona elaborates:
…The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law. But as part of that sum, CNS reports that ”approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” and an HHS official said:
“grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services. ‘Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,’ Further, the grant recipients are ‘required to serve all residents’ who walk through their doors”.
So say it again, Joe Wilson: Obama lied. Since “50% of “migrant” agricultural workers are illegal aliens”, according to the New York Times, that means it will be guaranteed that tens of thousands of illegal aliens will be covered under ObamaCare…
The Burning Truth writes well on the recent indecent, and brings us into Blaze’s commentary afterword:
…I’m no fan of Oprah, never have been. Mostly because I know who she really is as a person.
I’ve watched her get away with misleading her audience on a whole host of issues, pretending to be outraged when guests turned out to be frauds, giving away free cars and saddling winners (who had not entered to win) with huge tax bills, refusing to marry because she didn’t want ‘a man’ to get her money, etc., etc.
Now this latest Oprah racism flap has awaken some to what really lies beneath the Harpo. Others are ceasing upon the story to highlight that even rich black people face racism. Of course, there is absolutely no evidence of racism in this story, but that hasn’t stopped the race-baiters (Oprah included) from fanning the flames of hate.
Before we continue, you should know that the person accused of being racist has vehemently denied Oprah’s accusations, and Oprah has apologized.
Certainly, it is possible for a wealthy, famous person to encounter racism. My doubt in this story comes from a distinct lack of anything racial supposedly being said to or about Oprah. So right of the get go, I’m assuming she’s race-baiting.
There is, however, a history of Oprah frivolously crying racism when she doesn’t get her way. You see, Oprah is an elitist, and she’s never hid that from anyone. Her fans were simply ignoring it. She’s a wealthy, famous person who believes her turds don’t stink, and she thinks people should bend over backwards for her. When they don’t … RACISM!
In 2005, Oprah also levied the charge of racism. Why? Because Hermes would let her in the store when they were closed for business. How dare they not give her special treatment!
Talk show host Oprah Winfrey believes she was refused entry to the Hermes shop in Paris, France because she is black, and she is planning to discuss the incident when her TV show resumes later this year.
Here is the commentary by the Blaze’s:
In 2005, Oprah Winfrey accused luxury store Hermes in Paris of turning her away when she stopped in to purchase an expensive watch for singer Tina Turner. A spokesperson for the TV personality later referred to the incident as her “crash moment.”
“Crash” was a 2004 film that centered around the damaging effects of racism. The phrase “crash moment” refers to “situations where a party feels discriminated against on the basis of skin color,” CNN reported in 2005.
The claim is extremely similar to Oprah’s recent claim of discrimination she supposedly experienced at a high-end boutique in Zurich, Switzerland. In that case, she says a sales assistant refused to show her a $38,000 handbag because it was too expensive for her. The sales assistant and the store manager have both strongly denied the allegations.
As it turned out, Oprah and her team arrived at Hermes at around 6:45 p.m. on June 14, 2005, which was about 15 minutes after the store had closed and was setting up a private PR event. A store spokesperson said a security guard informed the star that the store was closed. Oprah was given a card and told to come back the next day.
Surveillance footage of the exchange backed up the store’s account. Oprah apparently wanted the store to allow her to make a quick purchase, but was denied.
The New York Post, citing various sources close to Oprah, reported she was turned away because the store had been “having a problem with North Africans lately.”
A Hermes spokesperson vehemently denied the allegation.
“There was never any discussion of North Africans,” she said. “The story is not true.”
However, Hermes still ended up apologizing to Winfrey for the misunderstanding.
Via The Blaze:
Oprah Winfrey made headlines on Monday after saying that in her mind, the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till are the “same thing.”
Glenn Beck responded on his television program Tuesday with a thorough overview of both cases, saying Winfrey’s comments are a “slap in the face to the memory of Emmett Till and anyone who suffered during segregation and the Civil Rights era.”
“These are two cases that have nothing in common,” Beck said. “I can’t think what they have in common, honestly.”
Beck began by recapping some of the details of the Trayvon Martin case, which are likely familiar to many at this point. He noted that Zimmerman, who fatally shot Martin in 2012 in what a jury recently ruled was self-defense, had multiple head injuries and a broken nose after his encounter with Martin. He also noted that both the prosecution and the defense said race played no role in the case, among other things.
Emmett Till, on the other hand, was a 14-year-old African American from Chicago who was tracked down, then mercilessly tortured and murdered after flirting with a white woman.
Beck told the story in detail, explaining how Till was visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was killed, and how his mother initially didn’t want him to go on the trip. He spoke about the “racists” who knocked on the door where Till was staying late at night, “demanding to see the n-word who did all the talking,” before kidnapping the child.
“Does this sound so far like the Zimmerman case at all?” Beck asked. “Doesn’t to me.”
Also this AMAZING article from the Weekly Standard entitled, A Tale of Two Trials, points out some of the false narratives in the media (an interview with the author, Charlotte Allen, via Dennis Prager follows):
….That was the small stuff. Here is a list of some of the more significant discrepancies between the facts of the Zimmerman case as they emerged in the Bizarro World of outside-the-courtroom commentary and the facts that the jury actually heard:
Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. This was a favorite media meme, typified in a CNN column by Miller Francis: “Was . . . Martin justified in . . . defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?” The trial evidence showed merely that Zimmerman briefly ran after Martin while making a 911 call to the police about a suspicious person he saw wandering between some houses in the complex, which had been hit by a wave of burglaries, at least two involving young black men. According to statements Zimmerman made to the police after the shooting, Martin then approached him as he was returning to his car. It should be noted that Zimmerman was legally carrying, under a concealed-weapon permit, the gun with which he shot Martin; a neighbor interviewed by Reuters in 2012 said he had bought it to fight off a periodically loose pit bull that was terrorizing his wife.
Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. The media picked up this allegation from the prosecution’s affidavit of probable cause filed on April 12, 2012. “It cannot reasonably be disputed that the incident that left Mr. Martin dead began with ugly racial profiling,” NBC News legal analyst Lisa Bloom wrote for the New York Times on July 15. NBC had creatively edited the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him look fixated on race, leaving out the part where the dispatcher asked for a description. Judge Debra Nelson, who presided over the trial and who was not known for her sympathy for the defense, pointedly barred the use of the term “racial profiling” during opening statements or at any other time. Racial profiling would have been a tough charge in any event to sustain against Zimmerman, who was half-Hispanic, with a Peruvian mother and a black great-grandfather. (The New York Times’s response to the revelation that Zimmerman wasn’t quite the Aryan that the press had initially characterized him as was to dub Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” Campos of Salon called him “a more or less white man.”)
Zimmerman disobeyed a police dispatcher’s order to stay inside his car and instead embarked on a vigilante quest for Martin. That’s what nearly every newspaper reporter and TV network in America said during the year or so leading up to the trial. “Wannabe cop” was a favorite epithet. As the recording of Zimmerman’s conversation with the dispatcher, Sean Noffke (together with Noffke’s testimony at trial), revealed, Noffke had merely said, “We don’t need you to do that,” when Zimmerman was already out of his car. And judging from the rhythm of Zimmerman’s breathing on the recording, he stopped pursuing Martin a mere 13 seconds after Noffke issued his advice.
Zimmerman provoked the conflict with Martin by confronting him about what he was doing on the premises, effectively nullifying his claim of self-defense. Andrew Reinbach, a blogger for the Huffington Post, wrote on July 16: “It can certainly be argued . . . that Mr. Zimmerman provoked the attack that prompted him to use deadly force against an unarmed teenager who bested him in a fistfight.” (The “fistfight,” according to Zimmerman’s statements to the police, corroborated by the testimony of witnesses at the trial and gunpowder evidence on Martin’s shirt, consisted of Martin’s sucker-punching Zimmerman to the ground and pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk while on top of him.) That Zimmerman started it was one of the prosecution’s theories, but Judge Nelson, rejecting the idea that Zimmerman’s questioning of Martin could amount to provocation, refused to allow a jury instruction on provocation—so it was never an issue in the courtroom trial.
Florida’s generous “stand your ground” law allowed Zimmerman to prevail on a claim of self-defense that would not be permitted in other states. Florida—like the majority of other U.S jurisdictions—does not require someone to retreat if reasonably possible rather than use deadly force against a real or reasonably perceived aggressor who threatens death or grave bodily injury. Florida also—unlike the majority of other U.S. jurisdictions—allows people to use deadly force merely to defend property under some circumstances, such as a home or car invasion. But as Stephen P. Garvey, a professor of criminal law at Cornell University, explained to me in a phone interview, the “stand your ground” doctrine under any interpretation simply wasn’t an issue in the trial, because Zimmerman didn’t draw his gun until it was impossible for him to retreat. As Garvey says, “This is a very bad case on which to base your thoughts about important issues such as racial profiling or the duty to retreat.”
Gateway Pundit has this:
OJ Simpson has reportedly confessed to killing his ex-wife in self-defense. The Daily Mail reported:
O.J Simpson has confessed to Oprah Winfrey that he murdered his former wife, it has been reported.
The talk show host made headlines recently saying that one of her regrets was never having got the shamed former sportsman to confess to the killing.
And it appears her wish may well have come true with reports Simpson has already told one of her producers in an interview from jail that he knifed ex-wife Nicole in self-defence – a confession he will now repeat to the talk show queen during a spectacular televised sit down interview.
Did Oprah’s wish come true?
Oprah’s representatives moved quickly to quash rumors that the talk show queen is conducting an interview with O.J. Simpson in which he confesses to murder.
The rumor raced around the Internet after the Daily Mail picked up a National Enquirer report that Simpson will admit to killing his late wife Nicole in a jailhouse interview.
But representatives for Harpo, Oprah’s company, flatly told the Hollywood Reporter, “that’s not true.”
However, it’s no secret that Oprah has been pining to do exactly this kind of interview. During an appearance at a cable convention earlier this month, she said that her dream is to have Simpson confess to her.
“And I am going to make that happen people,” she said. “I don’t just want the interview. I want the interview on the condition that you are ready, Mr. Simpson.”
(Videos updated 2019)
An update on the cult associated somewhat with Oprah Winfrey (who is very much involved in the New Age) from Religion News Blog:
Jurors in the manslaughter trial of James Arthur Ray have heard the complete briefing the self-help author gave to dozens of people before they entered a northern Arizona sweat lodge ceremony he conducted, AP reports.
Prosecutors had earlier played snippets of the recording, but defense attorneys contended the snippets had been presented out of context.
In the recording, Ray told participant, who paid up to $10,000 each to attend the event, that as “true spiritual warriors” and their “altered state” they would endure heat so intense it would make it feel like their skins was coming off of their bodies.
“I will be right there with you,” he said.
“You will have to get to a point where you surrender to death,” Ray said. “When you are going into the lodge symbolically you are going back into the womb of mother earth.”
“It is such a great metaphor …” the author said. “My body dies but I never die.”
Prosecutors maintain Ray psychologically pressured participants to remain in the lodge even when they weren’t feeling well, contributing to their deaths.