Asif appeared to be reacting to an article from the website AWD, which claimed that Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli Defense Minister, threatened to use nuclear weapons on Pakistan if the country sent troops into Syria. “As far as we are concerned, that is a threat, if, by misfortune, they arrive in Syria, we will know what to do, we will destroy them with a nuclear attack,” Ya'alon said in a presumed AWD exclusive.

There are but two problems with the news story.

First, Ya'alon left the post of Israeli Defense Minister back in May.

And second, he never said it, according to the Defense Ministry's prompt reaction.

Earlier on Sunday, the ambassadors of the 14 countries that voted in favor of the resolution were summoned by the Israeli foreign ministry. Netanyahu went so far as to suggest in no uncertain terms that the US not only allowed the resolution to pass, but was directly behind its introduction. "According to our information, we have no doubt the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated the wording and demanded it be passed," Netanyahu told his cabinet, according to Reuters.

Some other ministers reacted even more aggressively. "I wasn't surprised by the actions of the Americans or the UN, because they were never our friends," said Culture Minister Miri Regev in an interview with GLZ. “Obama surrendered to the Iranians, abandoned the Syrians, and stuck a knife in the backs of the Israelis,” added Cooperation Minister Tzachi Hanegbi, as quoted by the Jerusalem Post.

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch, turned an Obama administration official's speech about "fighting darkness with light" on its head, evoking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who has had an antagonistic relationship with President Obama — and urging Jews not to despair about the "darkness" cast by the United Nations vote.

Shemtov then went on to bring up Friday's 14-0 UN Security Council vote. The Obama administration abstained from voting, allowing the measure to pass and marking a significant shift in US Policy. "So as I know that some of us are so sad at what happened there with regard to Israel," Shemtov said. "We must remember that the way to counter any darkness, any disappointment is not with harsh rhetoric, not with anger, but when we create light, the darkness dissipates."

According to Breitbart: “There’s a big difference between a campaign where it is a private venue using private funds and a government entity,” Spicer told reporters at a Politico event. “We have a respect for the press when it comes to the government, that that is something that you can’t ban an entity from.”

But he also signaled that the process of briefing reporters would likely change, suggesting the idea of holding Facebook Live and Reddit AMA’s directly with the American people.

If President Trump begins addressing the American people directly and eliminating the middle man, meaning the mainstream media, then they are going to be seriously hurting. This is a ploy to threaten the media into covering the actual truth instead of using their power of information to misinform the American people.

The estimated 103 judicial vacancies that President Obama is expected to hand over to Trump in the January 20 transition of power is nearly double the 54 openings Obama found eight years ago following George W Bush’s presidency.

Confirmation of Obama’s judicial nominees slowed to a crawl after Republicans took control of the Senate in 2015. Obama White House officials blame Senate Republicans for what they characterize as an unprecedented level of obstruction in blocking the Democratic president’s court picks.

The result is a multitude of openings throughout the federal circuit and district courts that will allow the new Republican president to quickly make a wide array of lifetime appointments.

“The absence of reaction is a sign of death! Consequently, the good cases of resistance – and even those not quite so good – are necessary and merit being listened to, welcomed and their expression encouraged,” Pope Francis said Thursday, addressing the Roman Curia.

“There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing),” the pontiff added. “The reform does not have an aesthetical end to make the Curia more beautiful; it cannot be understood as a sort of face-lift or applying makeup to beautify the elderly curial body, nor plastic surgery to remove wrinkles,” he continued.

This is the third year in a row that Pope Francis has blasted the Vatican bureaucracy he aims to reform and reorganize. He warned that the reforms he plans to undertake will be far-reaching and at the same time will require those who run the Curia to change as well.

According to William Wagner, JD, magistrate judge, “Today, a majority of the Supreme Court no longer treats the parents’ right to control and direct the upbringing of their child as a fundamental liberty.” The denial of parents’ rights by State authorities has become more frequent over the last five decades as government has tested its reach under the color of law. Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law.

Case in point: A Medical Kidnap website documents thousands of cases around the country where hospitals have taken possession of children based on a medical diagnosis “in the best interest of the child,” with the court’s approval. Without being reported in the mainstream media, the general population is blind to these acts while unsuspecting families are targeted and picked off one at a time.  After years of market testing, State governments are now unveiling draconian laws without fanfare.

When did an obligation to care for and raise children suddenly turn parents into potential child abusers under the law? Although tyranny seems to have reared its ugly head overnight, history shows we have all been living this ideology under a slow boil. It was Karl Marx who said, “The family… must itself be theoretically and practically destroyed.” He argued fiercely that government and its authority must be substituted for parental authority for the sake of Capitalism. What he didn’t say was his desire to maintain a materialistic, feudal society where people are commodities without consciousness. 

There is no other purpose for anti-social, socialist dictates other than to unravel the fabric of the family. As Confucius said, “The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.” As the family goes, so goes the nation. 

Putin, the supposed arch-villain in this operation, heavily censors the press in Russia. That would be bad — except now, many of the people who support the claim that Putin masterminded the election-hack in the US want to heavily censor independent media outlets in the US, who claim the Russian hack is a lie based on zero evidence. Putin censoring news in Russia=bad. Censoring “fake news” in the US=good.

In the push for launching Gulf War 2 in Iraq, the political Left in the US demanded detailed proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When it comes to the accusation that Russia hacked the US election, no proof is necessary. After all, the CIA must protect its “sources and methods.” A simple assertion of hacking is sufficient.

Among green opponents of GMO crops, it’s common knowledge that the FDA never offered evidence of safety before certifying GMOs in the 1990s. However, those green people who support Hillary only need the CIA to say Russia hacked the election to believe it. No evidence necessary. “Who cares what the leaked emails SAY? All you need to know is: THE RUSSIANS DID IT. Russians are bad. We are good. Russians bad. We good.”

The CIA is good, too. Always was. Here is a 1981 statement attributed to Bill Casey, incoming director of the CIA: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

If you buy all this, you’ll surely be interested in purchasing my special ant farms. The ants are trained to drive your car. Put 50 of them behind the wheel and they’ll take you right to the market and back home again. They can also pilot a space ship to Mars. For that, you’ll need to order one of my ships separately…

Applause broke out in the chamber after the text was passed with support from all remaining members of the 15-member council. The landmark move by the Security Council came despite an effort led by Israel and backed by US President-elect Donald Trump to block the text.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rejected the UN resolution and slammed the outgoing administration of President Barack Obama for refusing to veto it. "Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms," a statement from Netanyahu's office said. "The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against this gang-up at the UN, it colluded with it behind the scenes," it said.

"Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution." Trump reacted after the vote by promising change at the world body after he takes office next month. "As to the UN, things will be different after January 20th," he tweeted.

Leading Democrats from both houses called out the UN as an inappropriate venue for rejuvenating the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. They objected to the Obama administration's departure from what they view as decades of established US policy of vetoing UN resolutions regarding Israeli settlements. 

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "extremely frustrating, disappointing and confounding" that the Obama administration failed to veto the UN's vote. Schumer called out the UN as a "fervently" anti-Israel body, since the days of "Zionism is racism." "Whatever one’s views are on settlements, the UN is the wrong forum to settle these issues," Schumer said.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, called the US's abstention from the vote "unconscionable." "A two-state solution must be negotiated directly between the Israelis and Palestinians, and this resolution flies in the face of this necessity," Blumenthal said. He also said support for Israel must remain "bipartisan," and that he'll work with colleagues on "both sides of the aisle" to advance "productive measures" that strengthen the US's relationship with Israel.

This resolution was approved by a vote of 14 to 0, and the US abstained from voting.  But essentially the outcome of the vote was going to be determined by Barack Obama.  For decades, the US veto power on the UN Security Council has shielded Israel from these types of resolutions, but this time around Obama decided to betray Israel by allowing this vote to pass.  Needless to say, this vote is going to have enormous implications for Israel, for the United States, and for the entire globe.

Just five days ago, I published one of the most important articles that I have ever written.  It was entitled “The Real Reason Why America Has Been Given A Reprieve“, and in that article I explained why the US has experienced a season of blessing since blocking a potential UN Security Council resolution that France wanted to introduce that would have formally divided the land of Israel in September 2015.  If you have not read that article yet, please go back and read it, because it will be of great aid in understanding why this new UN Security Council resolution is so incredibly important.

As I stated in that previous article, it is my contention that the reason why things have gone so well for the United States over the past 16 months is because Barack Obama made the right decision in September 2015 and chose to protect the land of Israel from being divided. But now that Barack Obama has reversed course and has greatly betrayed Israel, is America’s reprieve now over?