Sometimes I feel like my head will explode………..you too?

I have written about Snopes in the past, and was quickly put in FB jail. Evidently, FB hired Snopes as their fact checker. OY!

There are still Christians using these Leftists to fact check for them. You may as well write to the NY Times and ask them if something is true or not!  Seriously – it’s the same thing.

Abortion was the leading cause of death in 2018. Most of us read this and it is true.

Lifenews.com came out with an article about Snopes and how they said that abortion was NOT the leading cause of death last year. Wait till you see Snopes’ rationale.

From lifenews.com

Snopes Claims Abortion Isn’t the Leading Cause of Death Because Babies Don’t Die in Abortions

Snopes has become more of a left-wing ideology proponent than a fact checker.

The site recently ran a piece attacking the assertion that abortion is the leading cause of death in the world, a statistic reported by LifeNews.com, Breitbart and other conservative outlets.

The statistic came by comparing data from Worldometers, an independent site that collects and reports data from governments and other reputable organizations. Breitbart contrasted the abortion numbers to other causes of death, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, traffic accidents and suicide, and found that abortions far outnumbered every other cause.

The site estimated there were 41.9 million abortions in the world in 2018.

But Snopes argued that abortions are “medical procedures,” not a cause of death.

According to its report:

“Stating that abortion is the “leading cause of death” worldwide (as opposed to a medical procedure) is a problematic pronouncement because that stance takes a political position, one which is at odds with the scientific/medical world. The medical community does not confer personhood upon fetuses that are not viable outside the womb, so counting abortion as a “cause of death” does not align with the practices of health organizations such as WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) …” source

This is when I was sure my head would explode!  

The “Life” or “Death” of a baby is NOT a political issue! It is a Moral issue – but the Left have no morals, and they have NO regard for human life (unless of course it’s their own).

It’s a “medical procedure”? I wonder how the baby likes the medical procedure which burns him/her……tears them apart; and if they are born alive, they are left in a cold dark room to scream themselves to death. I wonder how the baby feels about the “medical procedure” when they feel that sharp object crushing their skulls right before they are pulled from their mother? They take the dead child to the lab to see which “parts” of the child will bring in the most money.

ABSOLUTELY SATANIC.

Now that we’ve established that Snopes is a heartless Left-wing idiot site, I will show the reader an article I did on them months ago….actually years ago, but I’ve reposted it a few times.

Still Using Snopes to Fact Check? PLEASE Just say NOPE to SNOPES

****This is a reprint of an article I wrote over a year ago. I will probably be put in FB jail again – the first time I shared this I was in jail after just 3 shares!  

It horrifies me when Conservative Christians come to me and say, “I fact checked this on SNOPES and they said it’s not true.”

Just say NOPE to SNOPES! 

This Leftist outfit, run by an ultra-liberal couple, is definitely not the place for Conservatives to go for verification of facts. May I just say that if you want to be lied to, then Snopes is for you!  Talk about Fake News – Snopes is the place where left-wing fake news is verified and news stories from Conservative sites are vilified.

Where is the discernment?

Actually, it is just as shocking to me when Conservatives are duped by rag websites like Snopes. Many years ago, before I knew what this outfit was about, it only took me a few times before it was clear to me that I was dealing with lefties. At that point I began to research Snopes. My suspicions were confirmed when I read that the couple who ran this cesspool of misinformation were died-in-the-wool Liberal Democrats.

From dailycaller.com

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just a Failed Liberal Blogger

Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends – such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)

She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)

Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligence” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.)

Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.

After blogging for the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.

She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.

Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.

After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”

Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”

In that “fact-check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled: The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.

Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact-check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”

One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality. – source

Research to Vet Stories

As a writer, I must vet any major story before I publish it on my Word Press. It’s not that difficult. You find credible Conservative websites and do a word search using your search engine on the topic of which you are researching. After your word search, place a comma and then type in one of your trustworthy Conservative sites.

Have you noticed that since Obama gave away the internet, when you use a search engine, it immediately takes you to liberal rag websites?

This will help you:

Go to 4conservative.com   <(click here for the best Conservative site online! They have ALL of the Conservative websites listed for you! Search for TRUTH there!

Fake news is everywhere. There are even websites which are known to be satirical. I can’t tell you how many times I see people posting articles from “The Onion,” and I have to tell them that it’s political satire. At least these websites are up front about their tongue-in-cheek phony articles!

Brethren, we are not battling flesh and blood. The left-wing liberals are serving their master, Satan. We must be as wise as serpents, yet as harmless as doves. Learn the devil’s traps and snares; and more importantly, learn how to avoid them!

Share the Gospel of Jesus Christ! That is why we are still here!

And don’t forget: JUST SAY NOPE TO SNOPES!

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

grandmageri422@gmai.com

Articles at grandmageri422.me

 

I’m sure that many of you have watched Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as the press has interviewed her. It is actually painful to watch and listen. She is, as they say, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. She struggles to make a complete thought in a sentence.

So I ask you – Did Cortez co-write the GREEN NEW DEAL?  That’s rhetorical.

The Green New Deal originated at the United Nations during the reign of Obama in the U.S. Obama got the ball rolling on this U.N. initiative. He even lost Billions of dollars from our “Stimulus Package.” Do you remember that? Well, keep reading because you will see clearly where that money went.

Brethren, Cortez is a U.N. Globalist puppet. But those who are pulling her strings should have done their homework. They would have seen that this woman does not know how to articulate her thoughts… actually the thoughts of her handlers.

From the U.N. 

A Global GREEN NEW DEAL for Sustainable Development  (Emphasis added)

Financial support for stimulus packages in Developing Countries

In his letter to the leaders of the G-20, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has proposed to mobilize $1 trillion of financial support for developing countries to help them engage in an adequate response to the economic crisis. During 2009 and 2010, $500 billion should be provided in the form of enhanced international liquidity for compensatory financing to allow developing countries to refinance their sovereign debts as well as existing bank and corporate debts of their private sectors and accordingly unlock their domestic credit markets and regain access to trade credits and international capital markets. Another $500 billion would be needed in the form of enhanced long-term official development financing and development assistance to cover fiscal revenue gaps and provide developing countries the required space to protect social spending and finance fiscal stimulus packages.

So, did you catch that, brethren?  The U.N. wrote a letter to the G-20 Summit, stressing that the U.N. needed $1 trillion of financial support to help the under-developed countries “go green” along with the richer “developed” countries.  It is crystal clear that the Billions of Dollars which were “lost” by the Obama Administration (part of our “Stimulus Package”) was sent to the U.N. in support of their GREEN NEW DEAL. 

Currently, most developing countries lack the capacity to undertake public works programs through deficit spending as are being envisaged by the developed countries as well as a few emerging economies that have such capacity. Therefore, substantial increases in compensatory financing, official development lending and assistance are needed for developing countries to increase their fiscal space, enhance their scope for countercyclical responses and avoid having to cut into necessary public expenditures.

Even though the resources are needed to overcome immediate balance-of-payments problems and to provide stimulus for economic recovery, they can be simultaneously used to address long-term development challenges. This would include continued investing in education, health, and job creation to meet the millennium development goals (MDGs). In the short-run, resources would also need to be allocated to strengthen social protection systems. This will be critical to prevent millions of people in developing countries who are directly affected by rising unemployment, volatile agricultural prices and declining export demand, and other consequences of the crisis from falling deeper into poverty and thus prevent major setbacks in the progress made towards the MDGs.

What a deal!  The under-developed countries get a big wad of cash, but there ARE strings attached. Part of the money MUST go to “Green” initiatives for the country to be onboard with the U.N. goals. Sounds a bit mafioso, no?

The crisis and the required fiscal response should also provide an opportunity to make long-term investments in agricultural development to address the problem of food insecurity and in the “greening” of the economies of developed and developing countries in order to combat climate change.

Oh, there are those words – “Greening” and of course “Climate Change!”

See UN-DESA Policy Brief No. 13 for further detail of the $1 trillion-dollar plan.

So, let’s go there…

The UN-DESA Policy Brief No. 13 

The Trillion Dollar Plan    <click here to read about the $$$

Back to the U.N.’s GREEN NEW DEAL 

Making national stimulus packages ‘green’ and equitable

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has demanded that one-quarter of the three trillion dollars envisaged to be allocated to national stimulus packages by major economies be channeled into environmentally beneficial investments. Those include sustainable transport, energy efficiency, renewable energy, afforestation and reforestation, sustainable agriculture, and biodiversity protection.

*** U.N. is moving the money around – not good. And they are “demanding” – sounds like strong-arming to me.

This is a timely suggestion. As mentioned, one of the goals of the New Deal was to restore ecological health in the Midwest of the United States, thus addressing social security as well as food security and conservation objectives. Given the multiple environmental challenges faced by the world today, it would be most desirable to attract investment into areas that can help put the global economy on a more sustainable pathway.

Sneaky sneaky. Wasn’t it Obama who hurt the midwest farmers during his reign?  Read this article on the plight of the farmers under Obama from the Daily Signal.  NOTHING is coincidental!

However, the UNEP proposal needs to be enhanced through attention to two additional dimensions.

First, as argued above, it is critical that developing countries can, as developed countries have done, develop fiscal stimulus packages to prevent their economies from contracting. These stimulus packages can also provide the opportunity to lay the foundation for a new period of sustainable growth. Given the unmet needs for basic infrastructure, additional investment in such sectors is very likely to have a significant positive effect on growth.

Second, it also needs to be ensured that such investment is targeted especially at poor and vulnerable groups and regions within these countries. In other words, the investment should lead to the revival of growth that is both ecologically and socially sustainable.

For example, the demand for transport is growing dramatically in developing countries. Much of this is in the form of automobiles, which are environmentally harmful, contributive towards urban congestion, and beyond the means of a majority of people in developing countries. A shift to clean public transport is desirable from economic, environmental, and social viewpoints.

NOW we seeing Cortez’ Green New Deal more clearly.  Get rid of cars, trucks, airplanes – any mode of transportation which is not in compliance with the “Sustainable Goals” of the U.N. Oh, but never mind that our stores will not be stocked with food because the carriers of this food will be GONE. This is beyond belief. This will begin a domino effect on the economy, and communities will begin to starve.

But you can believe that the “elite” will be able to continue flying in their private planes, and they will NEVER be hungry! Do you see it now? This is diabolical!

Support for agricultural productivity and the creation of markets could be an important feature of national stimulus packages in developing countries, many of which are still highly dependent on agriculture such that shocks on agricultural markets can quickly put high proportions of the population into poverty. Re-invigorating extensions services will be a key component. Special attention would be needed for investments that promote a shift towards ecologically sustainable agriculture. Measures to shield small farmers from price volatility on global markets can also act as important safety nets.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs March 2009

Examples of socially useful public works activities in developing countries include:

• Projects could address water storage and drainage, contributing to agricultural productivity as well as climate adaptation, e.g. in many developing countries simple earthen storage dams could be constructed and existing drainage and canal networks rehabilitated. Digging of wells and basic flood barriers/levees are other options.
• Access to basic sanitation remains a major challenge in developing countries. Improvements could make a major contribution to the achievement of MDG 4, reducing child mortality. Public works programs could target the construction of basic sanitation infrastructure, as well as the regeneration of wetland ecosystems that act as “filters” for watercourses.

A recent study of HSBC Global Research has ranked various governmental initiatives on the basis of their “greenness.” This ranking could be adapted to include the social dimension and used to guide national policy making in all countries towards greater environmental and social sustainability.

Policy Coordination, Collaborative Programs and Initiatives

The third component of the Global Green New Deal would be collaborative initiatives of governments of rich and poor countries simultaneously to create jobs in developed countries while generating strong developmental impacts in developing countries. Such initiatives could be pursued in part by using the resources mobilized by developed countries’ stimulus packages. But over the longer term, the reforms of the international financial and multilateral trading systems will need to support the investments required to manage the shift to low carbon economies in both rich and poor countries alike.

***Does the reader remember back in 2009 when billions of dollars (part of our Stimulus package) were unaccounted for? Obama’s administration never did find out what happened to that money. But now we know, don’t we? It went straight to the Green New Deal as part of Agenda 21 which became the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015.

Read the rest of the U.N.’s GREEN NEW DEAL here

We know that all of this has to happen to fulfill Bible Prophecy. I feel led to research and educate the readers. This information could be used when sharing the Gospel with a person. All of this is leading to a One-World Government (NWO), and a person who does not believe the Word of God just might change their mind once they see what is happening globally.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

grandmageri422@gmail.com

Articles at grandmageri422.me