Sep 19, 2017

Here Is A Brief Synopsis Of Trump's Speech To The UN

My only comment to His UN speech is, it was the best I have ever personally heard delivered in the United Nations. He spared not North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or the United Nations' weak and useless function in the face of the world's problems. Very few of the UN members were comfortable but very much amazed at his directness. There was little applause but huge effect. President Trump sounded presidential. You can expect the Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Tyrants, and Demopublicans here, and enemies abroad, to scream their objections hysterically. RB

From FOX Insider News
Bellwether: Sticking to Script, 
Trump Sticks It to UN
By John Moody
It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump presenting a more direct, focused and needed speech than the one he gave at the United Nations. Sticking to a teleprompter, he told the world body it was not doing its job. He also called out some of its bad actor members, in particular, North Korea, which he baldly threatened with total destruction.
The speech’s content had been widely telegraphed last week, but it was also, inevitably, a recitation of the rants and warnings that first Candidate, and more recently, President Trump has been pounding since his campaign took off. The Iran nuclear deal, he noted with justifiable heat, was signed without proper regard for America’s interests and needs fixing. Similarly, trade pacts with other nations must be more even-handed than the NAFTA agreement has proven to be.
Trump’s hottest rhetoric – and thankfully, here he stayed on script – was directed at North Korea. While he needlessly mocked its leader, Kim Jong-Un, as “rocket boy,” his warning to the Hermit Kingdom could not have been clearer or starker. Kim, the president said, is on a suicidal path that could result in North Korea’s “complete destruction.” There could be no misunderstanding those words, which no doubt are now careening around Beijing, Seoul and Moscow.
Perhaps most important to Trump, he laid out an honest and honorable definition of what he means by America First: it’s his job as president of the United States to put the interests of his citizens at the top of his priority list. The same burden, he said, falls on other world leaders with regard to their countrymen. What the U.S. is no longer willing to do, he said in plain (and scripted) language, is to allow itself to be out-dealt and outvoted on issues that affect Americans.
He bluntly told his hosts at the UN that they often failed to carry out their promises. And he pointed out the absurdity of appointing member states with horrible human rights records to its Human Rights Commission. This was a president of the people (despite receiving fewer votes than his opponent) speaking for the people. His speech will be criticized by some as hawkish. So what? Trump has shown that while he’s open to deal-making, he can also resort to force, as he did in Syria.
His speech is likely to restore the faith and enthusiasm of his base supporters, and give other world leaders a better indication of who this strange, unconventional president – with the world’s greatest armed forces behind him – really is.
If Trump can just stick to script, as he did at the UN, he could close out 2017 on a very successful note.
_________________________________
Listen to the entire speech here...
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/19/united-nations-speech-sticking-script-trump-sticks-it-un


Sep 18, 2017

The Rothschild "New World Order By 2018" Began With Banking


The so-called New World Order is not a new idea. The Banking World has been building it 50 years and publicly heralding it for 30 years. Every U.S. President since Bush#1 has promoted it ... except for Trump. But who knows what he will do. Everyone knows what Hillary would have done.

The first syllable in Rothschild (Roth) is an ancient German word meaning "red" referring to the spilling of blood by the warrior class of Germanic Deutsch soldiers. Therefore "Rothschild" means "the child of bloodshed". RB

This from Disclose.tv
ROTHSCHILD PUBLICATION PREDICTED THE NEW WORLD ORDER WILL BE IN PLACE BY 2018

The Economist magazine published (in 1988) that there would be a world currency in place by 2018. Of course, the controlling interest of the magazine is held by the Rothschild family, who think of themselves as the legacy of the magazine. With this in mind, the Economist is operating as a quasi-propaganda arm for the banking empire and it is meant to prime the public opinion that the globalist agenda will implement. 

In the magazine, on January 9, 1988, it was said that "30 years from now people in the United States, Europe and the Japanese along with others in countries that are rich, will be paying for shopping using the same currency. The price of items will not be shown in yen, dollars or the great British pound, but in one currency. This currency is going to be favored by shoppers along with companies as it would be a great deal more convenient than the different currencies of today." The idea of a single currency back in 1988 seemed to be outlandish....

The national economic boundaries are very slowly dissolving and the trend is going to continue, and the appeal of the currency union is going to be hard to resist to everyone ... With the new single currency, the economic adjustment to the shift in relative prices is something that is going to occur smoothly, and it will happen automatically.... The new single currency would see constraints on national governments being tightened. There is not going to be such a thing as national monetary policy. The new currency supply would be fixed by a bank that was central. There would be a world inflation rate ...

With (this) new century... natural forces are going to keep pushing the world into economic integration....

A single currency might start out as a mixture of national currencies, and in time the value against the national currencies is not going to matter due to the fact that people are going to choose it as it is going to be a lot more convenient and there will be stability behind the purchasing power. In 1998, ten years later, the Economist printed another article promoting globalist agendas, One World, One Money. This was similar to the piece they had written ten years prior, and it went on to try to explain why a more controlled and centralized system is going to be beneficial to the global economy, while at the same time ignoring that a centralized global currency is going to be a huge coup for international banking cartels. It will also be the bottom line, financially, for the banking empire of the Rothschild family.

Creation of a single global currency is also going to give a great deal of geopolitical capital to international bankers that have not been elected, and it could take power away from the people of nations along with government representatives. But the question is whether or not anyone wants international bankers to have a huge amount of power, politically, on top of a lot of financial influence and the amount of sway they already have in power. People today want to have more say in their own lives and they do not want policy dictated by bureaucrats and banksters. 

The Rothschild family is keeping a profile that is very low in the public eye. However, they do still have many business operations, and these are spread out over a wide array of sectors. There is not any particular member of the Rothschild family seen on the richest list of Forbes, but the family is said to have control over more than 1 trillion dollars in assets worldwide. Therefore they do still have a voice that is strong over the entire geopolitical spectrum, and many see this as a hand that is hidden that manipulates events quietly in the background under a veil of secrecy. 

Sep 17, 2017

Dr. Frankenstein Gave Life To His Creation. Hapless Villagers Did The Suffering

And So It Is With Rothschild Banksters

The Central Bank of the United States is the most powerful "financial" institution in the world. It may even be the most powerful "institution".  The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank was founded, to mirror the U.K.'s, by the U.S. Congress in 1913 to supposedly "provide the nation with a safe, flexible and stable monetary and financial system."

As with almost all legislative creations of Congress, they start out with idealistic intent and a high-sounding, vote-getting, noteworthy title, but finally end up a corrupt, destructive, money-hemorrhaging
disaster. That is the story of almost all Federal Agencies. It is also the outer space trajectory of most politicians. Note Kim Jong Un's Nuclear and Missile nightmare, which our politicians assisted by paying him bribes to act nice and cease aiming his hateful nuclear gun at us. All those $Billions didn't slow him down but greased his wheels and sped him up.

When the Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913, $1.00 would buy goods and services which will now cost you $23.00.
The steak dinner for two, that cost you $23.00 over the weekend, would have cost you $1.00 in 1913. What most people do not know is that the "Federal" Reserve Bank is no more "Federal" than the Federal Express, which delivers packages. But the Federal Reserve Bank is owned by International Banksters. The so-called "FED" essentially operates by their own rules and even say, with a grin, they are "Doing God's work", as you will see below. 

Here is the Rothschild Root and Seed of world Central Banking, from Wikipedia. RB

The Rothschild banking family of England was founded in 1798 by Nathan Mayer von Rothschild ...who first settled in Manchester but then moved to London. Nathan was sent there from his home in Frankfurt Germany by his father, Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Wanting his sons to succeed on their own and to expand the family business across Europe, Mayer Amschel Rothschild had his eldest son remain in Frankfurt, while his four other sons were sent to different European cities to establish a financial institution to invest in business and provide banking services. Nathan Mayer von Rothschild, the third son, first established a textile jobbing business in Manchester and from there went on to establish N M Rothschild & Sons bank in London. 

Since then the Rothschild banking system has spread throughout the world, and many politicians, in the know, now believe it should be eliminated. See a list of banks owned or controlled by the Rothschilds, at the bottom of the following article. RB

This from The Wall Street Journal:

Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein on Banking: ‘Doing God’s Work’

By Matt Phillips

The Times of London’s mammoth 6,900-word piece on Goldman Sachs .... contains plenty of fodder for those that see the investment bank as Wall Street’s top dog, as well as those that see it as a creepy, conspiratorial vampire squid of finance.
But the key quote that’s getting attention comes in Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein’s exchange with a reporter after a question on whether there should be limits to compensation:
Is it possible to make too much money? “Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.”
So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”.
At the same time, there does seem to be a strange an uptick in religious rhetoric from bankers lately, as they strive to counter an upsurge in anti-banker sentiment. For example, Time Magazine’s Justin Fox writes:
In a discussion about morality and markets at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, Goldman Sachs international vice chairman Brian Griffiths, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, described giant paychecks for bankers as an economic necessity. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,” he said.  (His smokescreen comment burns something real and leaves only ashes and destruction for survivors. The truth is, his "greater prosperity and opportunity for all" , is a lying, illusory, house of cards which will soon collapse in flames . RB)
And the New York Times recently quoted John Varley, of Barclays, telling an audience at London’s Saint Martin-in-the-Fields that ”profit is not satanic.”  (And, no, profit isn't Satanic but sucking the people's blood, under the guise of helping business and the world's producers, workers, and widows is. RB).
Blankfein’s wry comment that he’s “doing God's work” seems almost to be a veiled jab at this sort of religio-public relations push, which, to a serious banker of Blankfein’s stature, must seem somewhat silly.
Blankfein clearly knows who he (really) works for. After all, God couldn’t afford him. (From the Wall Street Journal, of all places).
_____________________________
Rothschild Owned Or Controlled Banks

Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Came Roon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica

Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya (Their most recent conquest)
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philip Pines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

You can see why they think they are "Doing God's Work"
The question is.... which god? RB













Sep 15, 2017

Hurricane Help Came First, Fast and Last From Christians

"... Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Lev.19:18.

God gave this foundational law, to His people on their dealings with their neighbors, in the Levitical Law, 1500 years before Christ repeated it in the New Testament ...
"...You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Matt.19:19

So, when a lawyer asked Jesus about eternal life, the conversation went like this ...
"And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' He said to him, 'What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?' So he answered and said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.'"
And He said to him, 'You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.'” Luke 10:25-28
And this is true. These are the actions, the works, that if done to perfection would earn a person eternal life. The only problem is that no human can live this to perfection, because of our sin nature.
But, a person who has repented of sin and believed on Jesus for cleansing and forgiveness, can then come as near living up to it as is humanly possible. Good works are a result of salvation, not its cause.  It is the ideal and perfect work upon which we Christians must set our hearts, to fulfill, with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit of God. Even as the good Samaritan did in Christ's illustration following the conversation above. Read it in Luke 10:29-37.

The point is, that charity given to those in need is not the God-given responsibility of government but is the God-given responsibility of Christ's Churches. The church I attend now has sent a truck-load of food, clothing, and necessities to those "neighbors" in South Texas who suffered great loss in Hurricane Harvey and thousands of other churches are sending relief to Florida, right now.
The church I pastored for 30 years in Tallahassee, Florida established and ran all kinds of missions, including Lighthouse Childrens' Home, Haven of Rest Rescue Mission, The Tallahassee Food Bank, a Mission Church in Mexico, a Christian TV Station, and three Christian Schools K-12, as well as world missions. We also helped thousands of needy individuals. Those things are part of the commission of Christ's churches. Help those who cannot help themselves and lead them to Jesus. If we don't do that, we do nothing worth mentioning.

This from The Washington Times
Christians Beat FEMA, And In So Doing, Tame Big Government

Just goes to show: Where charity exists, the government is not needed.
Look at this, from the Daily Caller: "Faith-based relief groups are responsible for providing nearly 80 percent of the aid delivered thus far to communities with homes devastated by the recent hurricanes."
The piece cited USA Today, which ran a headline: "Faith groups provide the bulk of disaster recovery, in coordination with FEMA."
Imagine that. When disaster strikes, it's Americans - specifically, Americans of faith - who lend the quickest hands, who provide the most assistance.
As USA Today noted, the Seventh Day Adventists took charge of disbursing bottles of water, diapers, clothing and other material needs.
The United Methodist Committee on Relief sent out the after-disaster work crews to help with cleanup - which includes everything from pulling mud from homes to assisting victims file their claims forms to government and insurance entities. The Convoy of Hope helped feed the masses, arriving on scene in the south with trucks upon trucks of food, even before Irma hit. Samaritan's Purse, the Rev. Franklin Graham's organization, brought everything from food to chainsaws. Post-storm, the same group will help victims rebuild their homes.
And while FEMA is on scene, too, it's the Christian groups and faith-based organizations who've taken the lead.
"FEMA, they have been a big blessing to us, they're an assistance to us," said Luther Harrison, vice president of North American Ministries at Samaritan's Purse, in USA Today. "For Hurricane Irma, the majority of our equipment across the border and FEMA was instrumental in helping us clear that with customs and getting all the paperwork done."
And perhaps most crucial to the cleanup is manpower - something the faith groups bring in droves. United Methodist, for example, has 20,000 or so trained volunteers around the nation, standing at the ready to serve as early responders. All they need is the call - all they need is to be activated - and they're there.
There's a critical point to note here, and it goes like this: Big Government types would have it believed that government, and only government, can save the citizens from disasters.
But before Big Government, there was the Citizenry.
And people who put God first, people who are committed to serving Jesus, people who are driven by a moral compass that comes from above, are the real doers and shakers and movers - the ones who see a need and respond. The Big Government types?F
They see a need and dial their lawmaker - call for a committee hearing - petition for a study. It's only after they navigate the hoops, and fill out the proper forms, they respond.
America's greatness was, is and always will be rooted in the fact that our rights come from God, not government. With that, comes a responsibility - that we conduct ourselves on an individual basis as if we believe in God. Bluntly put, it's what the founders believed; it's how they envisioned a moral and limited government not just shaping, but staying around a while. Happily, it's what a large portion of America's population today still believes.
But let's not miss the even bigger lesson that can be gleaned here. If you want to reel in government and curb the bureaucracy, you have to make the services government provides irrelevant. And the way to do that is provide them privately.
The way to a limited government is through a charitable citizenry.

Sep 12, 2017

New Calif/Democrat Remedy For Crime: Pay Their Gangs To Be Good


Snopes, in denying the outrageous fact, reported by Fox News, that The Sacramento, California City Council is contributing $1.5 million in "matching funds" to a charity called Advance Peace, to be paid to criminal gang members to not kill people and become good citizens, they had this to say in defence of this insane idea:

Snopes:
"On 1 September 2017, Fox News reported that the city of Sacramento was paying gang members $1.5 million out of its general fund to essentially bribe gang members to stop committing gun violence.  Although the program has generated local controversy, the broader Internet outrage seems to have started with an inaccurately-reported story published by Fox News, which reported:
FOX NEWS - Following a fatal shooting last weekend in a city park, the Sacramento city council unanimously approved a controversial program called Advance Peace in an effort to address a recent spike in violence. The program offers gang members cash stipends for graduating from school and generally staying out of trouble. ...The $1.5 million in cash stipends to gang members will come from the city’s general fund. A similar program is being used in Richmond, Calif., and Stockton is considering it. FOX NEWS

Snopes continues their defense...
"The idea of taxpayer money being paid to suspected criminals in exchange for said criminals to stop shooting each other is an easily-exploitable narrative for Internet outrage clicks, but it is not accurate. First off, according to Sacramento officials, the city is not the party paying the stipends — that money is being provided by the charitable organization Advance Peace via private donations. The city is providing matching funds for the organization to implement a gang intervention program over a three-year period. Further, gang members are not being handed money in exchange for not pulling the trigger. The stipend, which varies in the amount paid to each participant, is based on their commitment and success in the program.

So Snopes brands the Fox News story as  ...  
Mostly False

But then adds "What's True" and "What's False"...

WHAT'S TRUE
The city of Sacramento has contracted with a charitable organization in a pilot program aimed at ending gun violence; the city will provide $1.5 million in matching funds over three years to implement the program.
___________________________________________
WHAT'S FALSE
The city is not paying $1.5 million out of its general fund to give stipends to gang members; the stipends are funded by private donations and it's not guaranteed that $1.5 million in stipends will be distributed.
________________________________
That is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The city council is giving $1.5 million of tax money to the "charity" to match donor contributions to fund the program. So how does that differ from, as Snopes says, "handing it directly" to the criminal gang member? This is typical Democrat- Snopese verbalism. How does it legitimise the insane injustice of bribing criminals by passing the bribe through the hands of a bag-man charity to the criminals? 
Then Snopes adds a final insult to injury by pointing out that if the charity doesn't receive an equal amount from "donors" that "it's not guaranteed that $1.5 million in stipends will be distributed"  Typical Liberal Democrat way of thinking. This truly is bordering on some sort of insanity or simply devilish treachery. But what do you expect from a state that votes twice for Obama and then for Hillary Clinton the king and queen of illusion, evasion, and expert cover up? Snopes is no better by defending the idea as The Devil's Advocate. RB