Is George Soros Pulling the Strings of European Parliament?

Soros and his ‘226 EU friends’ thrust into spotlight by Farage

– so who are they?

Picking up the anti-Soros torch from Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, UK politician Nigel Farage is seeking to investigate fellow EU MEPs who support the controversial vision of the wealthy financier. But are Orban and Farage’s fears valid?

UK politician Nigel Farage, the prominent face of Brexit, is now concerned about Europe’s destiny. Addressing the EU Parliament this week, Farage provided some thoughtful ideas as to the source of the claims that Russia had somehow manipulated the Brexit vote, as well as the Trump election.

“Just last week, the electoral commission, in the UK, launched an investigation to find out whether the ‘Leave’ campaign took offshore money or Russian money,” Farage said.

"This came about as a result of questions asked in the House of Commons by one Ben Bradshaw, somebody linked to an organization called Open Society.”

But Farage, who seems to take great delight in agitating his fellow MPs, was just warming up. He went on to provide yet another example of an EU parliamentarian working on behalf of George Soros, this time against Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, who has accused the financier of seeking to create “a Europe of mixed population.”

“We even had last week Mr. [Guy] Verhofstadt lobbying on behalf of Mr. Soros at the Conference of Presidents in a battle that is going on with Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary,” Farage said, pointing directly at Verhofstadt as he spoke.

“I wonder,” Farage continued, “when we are talking about ‘political collusion,’ I wonder if we are looking in the wrong place.”

Farage described Soros’s influence in Strasbourg and Brussels as “truly extraordinary.” And that influence looks set to increase dramatically now that Soros has donated the bulk of his wealth - $18 billion - into his Open Society pet project, which campaigns for open borders and supranational structures such as the European Union.

$18 bn can buy a whole lot of MEPs.

Farage concluded his short, fiery monologue with a weighty statement: “I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history.”

On the surface, there seems to be some legitimacy to Farage’s claim. According to public sources, Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI), the EU policy arm of Open Society Foundations, met with members of the European Commission on 44 separate occasions in 2016. And now that the organization has just been energized with $18 billion, it would seem apparent that that influence is set to increase.

Moreover, the Soros organizations published a pamphlet providing details on a list of 226 reliable “friends” who serve in the European Parliament. Farage said he would call on the parliament to set up a special committee to investigate the issue.

Who are Soros’ 226 EU ‘friends’?

In a 177-page pamphlet published by Open Society, entitled “Reliable Allies in the European Parliament (2014-2019),” 226 EU MEPs are listed and labeled according to their political orientation and views.

According to the pamphlet, “The presence of an MEP in this mapping indicates that they are likely to support Open Society’s work. Considering there are 751 members of the European Parliament, “reliable allies” of George Soros hold at least one-third of seats."

So what sort of qualifications does an MEP need to be included among Open Society’s “reliable allies?” A quick preview of the candidate’s description field provides some good indication as to what Soros expects from his allies, including a political philosophy that includes support of the LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or intersex) movement, open borders and an anti-Russia stance.

Among the 226 chosen, there is one Yana Toom, an MEP from Estonia, who comes in for a bit of criticism despite her inclusion. “Refused supporting the European Parliament’s first resolution on the Ukraine-Russia conflict in July 2014, and may be pro-Russia to an unknown extent (and, in that case, not necessarily an Open Society).”

For anyone who questions whether Open Society works directly against Russian interests, that single line should dispel all doubts. Moreover, it provides some background as to why Russia in 2015 banned Open Society from operating on its territory due to the threat it posed to the country’s “constitutional order.”

Another MEP on the list, Monica Macovei of Romania, serves as something like the golden mean for star-studded Soros status.

“Resolutely progressive; unquestionable ally of Open Society values; does not hesitate to go against her group’s instructions; however, can sometimes be described as a loose cannon with her own, uncompromising set of priorities.”

When reading such an assessment, one might get the mistaken impression that the European Parliament is designed to serve the will of George Soros and his highly controversial agenda, as opposed to the will of the European peoples.

What does Soros want?

To say that George Soros, who was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary, has an influence on the global scene, would be the understatement of the century. His excessive wealth allows him to finance a veritable army of organizations, many serving at cross purposes.

Indeed, Soros, 87, has been connected to movements and civil disturbances as diverse as distanced as Black Lives Matter movement in the US, to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine.

And nowhere has Soros’s influence been more felt than in the ongoing European debate over migrants. 

It looks like the European refugee crisis, which has been blamed on the Syrian civil war, would not occur in its current intensity without the direct assistance of the Open Society Foundation.

Thanks to the advocacy work of the Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), both Soros-sponsored organizations, the mass resettlement of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa into Europe became the norm.

In fact, it appeared that the so-called “Merkel Plan” – the deal struck by the EU and Turkey – was the brainchild of the European Stability Initiative, “in addition to the largesse of George Soros’ foundations,” F. William Engdahl wrote in the Near Eastern Outlook.

Considering that the massive influx of Muslim migrants threatens to change the face of “Christian Europe” forever, and without any vote on the matter by the people of Europe, perhaps it is time to see exactly what kind of direct influence George Soros and his Open Society Foundation are having on European parliamentarians. After all, these are not the play toys of any one individual, but the representatives of an entire state.

'Whatever It Takes': Missouri Democrats Try To Block Anti-gay, Religious Freedom Bill

The LGBTQI war on Christianity 

is skirmishing in the Missouri State capitol today

Missouri State Capitol © / Wikipedia

Senate Democrats in Missouri are filibustering in hopes of halting the advance of a constitutional amendment that would allow businesses and individuals in the state to refuse goods or services for same-sex marriages based on religious beliefs.

The filibuster of Senate Joint Resolution 39 began at 4:00 p.m. local time on Monday. The eight-member Democratic Caucus has maintained the filibuster since then, currently going on for over 20 hours.

Some senators said they plan to go at least 24 hours in their effort, as the minority party in the Missouri Senate, to block the resolution backed by the Republican majority.

“I can do this all day,” said Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal at 8 a.m. Tuesday, according to Think Progress. “This is my prime time.”

Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard said he would let the filibuster go on for 24 hours. "Maybe even longer. Whatever it takes," he said, according to statehouse reporter Crystal Thomas.

The longest filibuster in recent Missouri history was a 30-hour effort by Democrats in 2003 to halt legislation that aimed to limit high-amount civil lawsuits.

Republican state lieutenant governor Peter Kinder tweeted that Senate Democrats should "stand down and allow religious liberty to thrive in Missouri."

Joint Resolution 39 would prohibit "the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization who acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning same sex marriage, which includes the refusal to perform a same sex marriage ceremony or allow a same sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization's property."

The state could not penalize "an individual who declines, due to sincere religious beliefs, to provide goods of expressional or artistic creation for a same sex wedding ceremony" if the resolution is passed by the state Senate, then later approved by Missouri voters in the form of an amendment to the state constitution.

For instance, if a Missouri business or individual refuses, on religious grounds, to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, they could not be penalized for outright discrimination.

The resolution is similar to Indiana's religious freedom restoration act, a religious exemption law that attracted boycotts and business efforts in the state last year, costing Indiana as much as $60 million in economic benefits, according to a tourism group survey.

Critics have pointed out that the resolution is ultimately unnecessary, as Missouri's Human Rights Act protects from discrimination based on race, gender, and religious, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, state and local government agencies cannot curb a person's actions based on religious beliefs without a compelling reason.

There-in is the problem. At some point in time, religious freedom will manifest in what will appear as discrimination, and, sooner or later, discrimination will become a compelling reason.

Thus, lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people in Missouri are already allowed to be discriminated against in a host of ways, in employment, housing, or simply when patronizing a restaurant.

There are no known cases of the state penalizing anyone in relation to a same-sex marriage service, according to the Riverfront Times.

The resolution was introduced by Republican Senator Bob Onder on February 17, quickly finding its way to the Senate floor by the evening of March 7. Onder characterized the resolution as safety net against state encroachment on religious beliefs.

“This amendment is entirely defensive, in that it prevents state and local governments from imposing penalties,” Onder said, according to the Kansas City Star. “It is a shield, not a sword.”

Missouri Democrats say the bill reminds them of when it was legal to discriminate on the basis of a person's skin color.

“A lot of the arguments I’m hearing of proponents of this bill harken back to the same arguments we heard back in 1964 when people were fighting for segregation in Mississippi,” said Senator Jason Holsman.

When reading the measure through the eyes of an LGBT person, “I see a mean spirited attempt to try to make the laws apply differently to me than they do to you," Holsman added.

Onder said the measure was not driven by"bigoted motivation."

“Their is no desire to discriminate against anyone,” Onder said. “This would simply protect people from being persecuted based on their religious beliefs.”

And there is the reason why there is a war on Christianity, because religious freedom cannot co-exist with equal rights for gays and lesbians. There will always be confrontations, often deliberately arranged as gays and lesbians see Christianity as an obstacle in their path to credibility. They think they can bring an end to Christianity, but they haven't read the end of the Book.

The resolution could shield an adoption agency from penalty should it discriminate against same-sex couples, ThinkProgress noted, adding that local municipalities could be prohibited from enforcing a nondiscrimination law based on the resolution's language.

Business groups have come out against the resolution in fear of the kind of lost profits that Indiana suffered after enactment of its own religious exemption bill.

“While we understand the desire to protect clergy and religious institutions from having to perform ceremonies counter to their beliefs, expanding protections to individuals and private businesses that voluntarily enter the stream of public commerce sends the message to the rest of the country that Missouri condones discrimination,” the St. Louis Regional Chamber of Commerce said on Monday.

Filibusters are essentially efforts by opponents of certain legislation to delay a final vote. Famous filibusters in the US Senate include Senator Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster that sought to thwart the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In Texas, state Senator Wendy Davis successfully filibustered a state law in 2013 that restricted abortion access, speaking alone for more than 11 hours. The legislation was eventually passed and is now the subject of a US Supreme Court case.

The War on Christianity Flares Up at Sheffield University, UK

UK university expels Christian postgrad student over Facebook anti-gay marriage post - media

Is this the first act of discrimination for citing scripture?

© Mike Segar / Reuters

A social worker postgraduate has been expelled from Sheffield University for citing a biblical verse against homosexuality on his private Facebook profile while backing Kim Davis, a US clerk, who refused to issue marriage certificates for same-sex couples.

Felix Ngole, a 38-year-old father of four, was forced to abruptly finish his studies as a second year Masters student after the university’s ‘fitness to practice’ committee ruled that by calling gay marriage an ‘abomination’ on his FB he “transgressed boundaries which are not deemed appropriate for someone entering the Social Work profession," the Telegraph reports. Ngole, a devoted Christian, was citing Leviticus while propping his argument on the gay marriage issue.

The designated Bible verse says: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

The university’s disciplinary board began reviewing the case two months after the post appeared on his page, following a complaint from a fellow student. Ngole, who had already completed two university degrees and used to work as a teacher, was accused of “bringing the profession into disrepute” by voicing his personal opinion on the sensitive subject. 

The probe by the Fitness to Practice Committee said that although the student was entitled to express his views on gay marriage, his remarks “may have caused offence to some individuals.” Based on this judgment, Ngole was found unfit to pursue the chosen career path and was "no longer recognized as a University student.”

So, freedom of speech is sacrificed on the altar of 'may cause offence'. This would be a very quiet world if no-one was allowed to offend anyone else. Or is it that the remark 'may have caused offence' to a gay person? 

I would suspect that if the roles were reversed and a gay person made a disparaging remark about Christians, the Fitness to Practice Committee would not find it the least bit offensive. Christians are fair targets; gays are not. Even though Christians are persecuted and martyred all over the world (more than 10,000 of them in Nigeria alone), it is gays who need protection!!!??

Ngole intends to appeal the decision on the basis of discrimination.

“I wonder whether the university would have taken any action if a Muslim student who believes in Sharia law, with its teaching about women and homosexuality, had made moderate comments on his Facebook page. I don't think so," said Ngole, stressing that he was being discriminated against for expressing Christian beliefs, as cited by Premier ChristianRadio.

Or if a Muslim was sanctioned for reciting the Quran or Hadith, would that spark a reaction from the Committee (read: Thought Police)? If it did, there would certainly be a counter-reaction from the Muslim community, and not a very pleasant one.

Ngole who came to England from Cameroon in 2003 as a refugee, also questioned the right of educational institutions to monitor students` personal activity and rule that a particular student is fit or unfit for a profession based on his/her social media postings.

"If each university is making its own, arbitrary decisions, who is monitoring these decisions and how can students ensure that, across all universities, there is good, fair and equal assessment of such issues?” Ngole asked, warning of dangers that lie in banning persons from becoming professionals in social work and other fields in connection with their personal statements.

Universities, in his opinion, should follow a completely different path and, instead of censoring peoples’ beliefs, encourage an exchange of opinion.

“If they are 'censored' from even sharing their ideas or beliefs as part of a discussion on Facebook then how can that happen?” says Ngole, who plans to file a legal motion referring to the breach of his right of expression if his appeal to the university panel fails.

"I am not against people who are in same-sex relationships: that is their choice. But I am a Christian and if asked for my views I should be free to express that,” he said, as cited by the Guardian. He intends to challenge the panel’s argument that he would be unable to work with gay people, as they may stumble on to the controversy surrounding his name on the internet.

"I have worked with people in same-sex relationships in the past and there has been no issue whatsoever,” he claimed.

Andrea Williams from the Christian Legal Centre said the university’s conduct violates Ngole’s fundamental rights.  

"The university has failed to protect his freedom of speech under Article 10 and his freedom of religion under Article 9,” she said, referring to the Human Rights Act.

A spokesperson from the University of Sheffield told RT: “The University of Sheffield is concerned that stories in the media about a student undertaking a MA in Social Work are factually incorrect. The individual concerned is currently appealing the decision of a Fitness to Practise Committee, relating to professional registration and the standards of the relevant professional body.

“These standards are nationally determined by the Health and Care Professions Council. As the case is subject to appeal, the University of Sheffield will not comment on this case at this time.”

A spokesperson for the University of Sheffield denounced the accusations of religious bias against the student, saying that media reports were “incorrect.”

It's not an intentional 'religious' bias, but it is religious bias. Those on the committee are most likely to be atheists who don't believe the Bible was inspired by God, nor do they even believe in the God they will have to stand before in judgment. Most atheists believe that the 2.4 billion Christians around the world are all idiots. They, unfortunately, have completely missed the very point of our existence.