A handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate.

Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits.

Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too.

Billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?


International Church of the Gates, New York, was officially started 31st March 2005, and is about to celebrate it’s eighth anniversary.

The official opening coincided with the sword of William Wallace being paraded through the streets of New York; the first time the sword had left Scotland in 700 years.

The church was planted in Manhattan New York, in order to build a spiritual wall of protection around the city, so the city would be protected from further destruction like that seen on 9/11.

For many years DPM (founder of the church) was inspired by Mel Gibson’s films and has been revealing the Biblical stories or the spirit the films were of, illustrating spiritual truths.

For example: Braveheart – William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson), couldn’t understand why those leaders whom we admire that seek to rule over us, (represented by the “religious system” currently in place) compromised with the enemy instead of destroying him.

Since these leaders wouldn’t fight, God Himself rose up from the ranks of the common man in Scotland, one of the spirit of David if you will, a man to raise an army to overthrow the ruling demonic principalities (then represented by England).  He gathered some comrades together and did battle, and Scotland (God’s people) were free of the ruling principality forever.

The same sword used by the actual historical William Wallace, has never left Scotland and has remained as a historical treasure for over 700 years to this day!

Scotland prophesied, the enemy would never have William Wallace’s sword!

This sword has ALWAYS meant FREEDOM! (as Mel Gibson so eloquently put it!)

Before the New Years Trip to Manhattan NY, DPM had no desire whatsoever to go.

But told God he would be obedient and asked if God would please warm up the weather for him.

Results? 2005 News Years Eve in Times Square was one of the warmest in centuries.

The day before leaving for NY, Prophets told DPM that men would begin to hear what DPM had been speaking for years, as the rule of the religious vail was broken.

Then, at the end of the New Years Eve trip God gave DPM a dream, a ruling principality, confronting DPM says: “You stole my WATCH, and I want it back!

DPM understood this to mean one level of controlling spirit had lost it’s foot hold over the city/nation, and that the fight was on to completely eradicate that which resisted the rule of the Spirit of God over our media cities, which control our perception of God and the perception over our nation.

The spirit DPM took the “watch” from, represents a ‘religious spirit’, which blinds many of today’s Christians as to the gifting and power of the Holy Spirit that God has given us, so we could truly rule and reign over ALL the works of the enemy!

What does all this have to do with the new church plant in New York?


Thursday March 31 2005, the New York Church in Manhattan NY officially opened.

Friday April 1 2005 the sword of William Wallace, which represents freedom from tyranny, left Scotland for the first time in 700 years and arrived in New York!

Saturday April 2 2005, Pope John Paul II died. In a sense, this represents the old religious system or procedure that is passing away, making way for a fresh, new move of God that indeed is already here.

And on the eve of the anniversary, only one month ago, did the following Pope quit his office…


On Friday, a YouTube video of Florida legislators in a committee hearing was uploaded. They were shocked during the proceedings on a bill to require medical care to an infant who survives an abortion when a Planned Parenthood lobbyist endorsed a right to post-birth abortions.

The lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Alisa LaPolt Snow, testified that her organization believes the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor should be the ones to make the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion.

Rep. Jim Boyd: “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Rep. Daniel Davis: “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

Snow: “I do not have that information. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Later Rep. Jose Oliva continued: “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Snow: “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Oliva: “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?”

Snow: “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Read More: The Weekly Standard


In an emergency meeting early Friday morning, Mr. Kim was photographed signing an order directing rocket units on standby to strike the US and South Korean targets at any time. This was prompted after a nuclear-capable US B-2 stealth bomber was part of joint military drills with South Korea hours earlier. The photographs published by the state-run Rodong newspaper included one with a chart labeled “US mainland strike plan” with trajectories of missiles in the vicinity of Hawaii, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and Austin, Texas.

The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported Mr. Kim as stating that: In the event of any “reckless” US provocation, North Korean forces should “mercilessly strike the US mainland … military bases in the Pacific, including Hawaii and Guam, and those in South Korea.”

Though North Korea has no proven ability strike the US mainland, Mr Kim said: “The time has come to settle accounts with the US imperialists.”

Read More: The Telegraph


In the UK the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has admitted that the government have given up trying to cut benefits spending. Since coming to power the UK government have sought to cut Britain’s budget deficit, and one of the main parts of this plan was to bring welfare spending under control.

However, Ian Duncan Smith has now said that they have given up trying to do this, instead they will focus on managing benefit increases. Duncan Smith also admitted that, “all those on benefits will still see cash increases in every year of this Parliament”.

A government minister told the press that there will need to be a more radical solution to welfare dependence in the UK.

The government have faced stiff opposition in their attempts to rein in public spending. The Department of Budget Responsibility have projected that the total government spending on benefits will be the equivalent of around £1,000 per family by 2015-16.

Read More: The Telegraph


When a man fell onto the tracks of a Philadelphia subway line, it was a quick thinking Good Samaritan who may have saved his life.The 63-year-old North Philadelphia man fell onto the tracks at the Cecil B. Moore Broad Street Line Thursday.

Surveillance video released by SEPTA shows the man walk across the subway platform, seemingly unaware he was about to fall. The video then shows the man fall right onto the tracks.

Christopher Knafelc, who happened to be visiting Temple University, hopped down on the tracks and helped the man.

more at Good Samaritan Jumps Onto Subway Tracks To Rescue Victim – Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29.


Over the last 2 days, the Supreme Court have heard the arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996,  which currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

The main issues raised in the Supreme Court this week touched on the role of individual State decisions to allow gay marriage, (so far in 9 States), and the 1100 federal laws which affect all States and define marriage in the traditional way.

If federal law redefines “marriage”, what happens in the 41 States who have voted against same sex marriage?

Would they be forced to accept it?  The majority have not yet decided…..

Therefore, the argument to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, seen as the “problem” area in terms of the law, became the central issue.

The question raised by the judges were essentially, “How can we get around this definition, to embrace all “types” of marriage so they are all treated the same under the law”.

Simple:  If this is about money/taxes and benefits – which the court case seemed to be saying – then call “marriage” between a man and a woman “marriage” and any other type of union a “civil partnership” within the DOMA definition.  Add those words to the federal law and it’s done.

But isn’t it instead about the longer term consequences on our society, to change it beyond recognition?
…are we allowed to say “No” or “lets just wait and see” without offending somebody? Do we have a choice?

Consider this;
1.    If marriage is redefined, where will it stop?  If the criteria is sexual orientation based, rather than biological (one man/ one woman), other groups who think differently about marriage could demand  “equal rights”.

For example:  Could marriage then become legal between one man and two or more woman, as in Muslim societies?  Could they bring a challenge under Sharia Law regarding marriage in the US in States which have strong Muslim communities?

2.  Lesbian, gay, transgender relationships,  are very new to society compared to the traditional marriage set up as defined for hundreds of years.  Children are secure in families and parents try to protect them from minority group influence they may disagree with.

Events such as the Folsom Street Fair, which allows all those with “different” ideas of sexual deviance, to display their “affections” in public.  Psychologists are now suggesting pedophilia is becoming likened to homosexuality.  These developments of “freedom of expression” could become common-place in our local communities as “normal” behavior.

Will those who disagree with the same-sex marriage ruling now be penalized if they don’t comply? Will church Pastors who disagree be sued if they don’t marry same-sex couples?  This has already happened in parts of Canada.

Most of the push toward gay marriage began in San Francisco and so it is not surprising that the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act started with Proposition 8, (the ruling of the people banning same-sex marriage) being challenged from California.

After World War II the US military dropped off it’s embarrassing gay recruits in San Francisco around Haight & Ashbury. At the same time the Hindu invasion lead by the Beatles and several Yogis entered our society. It is important to note here, this was all happening right after the fall of Hitler and his friend the Dalai Lama.

This was a spiritual invasion into western society that very few understand, but everything we are seeing is exactly what happened in Germany before “Nazi” Germany… it too was a “spiritual” invasion of these eastern deities.. This level of Occult is exactly WHY China kicked the Dalai Lama out and indeed fights anyone to this day, who promotes him.. but that’s another story.

Today in this same region of San Francisco it is normal to see naked people walking the streets in bondage and live anal sex acts performed for a world audience all streamed live to subscribers, being created and broadcast from the San Francisco Armory. NOTE: the court, government buildings and the federal reserve are all in the same neighborhood, and those who work in them, live work and play with their neighbors. Yes indeed this government sold the San Francisco Armory to the sex bondage company and were/are very aware of what they are doing in these “Upper Room” sexual debauchery events.

It is also important to note that during Arnold Schwarzenegger reign as Governor of California, Maria Shriver, under the tutelage of the Dalai Lama was brought in to influence “Woman’s Groups” and indeed first hand accounts of Maria putting the screws to Arnold, to sign Gay marriage or else… Once he did, and was no longer Governor, Maria let it fly about the child Arnold had 10 years prior and divorced to gain 250 million dollars to further invest in setting up his un-holinessines the Dalai Lama as the new Pope of the world…but this too is another story.

Harvey Milk, played by Sean Penn, was a close friend of the infamous Jim Jones, who used his sexual christian cult and black followers, to indeed, vote and re-vote, by busing them around to different precincts, getting elected those who would block the feds from investigating him. Harvey Milk indeed diverted a federal investigation away from Jim Jones. What bed fellows? forgive the pun, but facts are facts.

One person lead the movement through a relationship from San Francisco into the East Village in Manhattan NY and from their spawned the movement we see today.

Their focus were “Seats of Power”, Government, San Francisco Supreme Court, and Media Manhattan New York.

Important to note that despite the good citizens of California striking down gay marriage, out of San Francisco Supreme Court the Gay judge, involved with his neighbors and friends, as described above, over turned millions of voters in favor of the sexual deviance coming out of his neighborhood, to indeed affect the entire world.

Fox recently asked “Why do the muslims hate us?” Could it be the immorality we push via our media to an unsuspecting world?

Marriage as an institution has already suffered at the hands of historical social “norms”. In western society today we are reaping the legacy of the “progressive” 70’s and 80’s era of drug addiction and sex outside of marriage, with abortion used as the latest form of birth control today.  Where does someone’s moral opinion count?

Who is paying the price?  Our children of course !

The court mentioned that this was very much in the experimental stage –  to see the affects long term requires a 40 year span of time before the affects on children and family could be measured effectively.

So,…..will we see more mentally mixed up and abused children grabbing guns and mass shootings?  Who can tell…

Where is the nurturing mother in a sodomite male on male union who adopt children?  Nature made women nurturers……so how will this work?

Our future generations are at stake, and therefore the Supreme Courts decision will be life changing for us all .

3.   The country is already in crisis from a financial recession and on the verge of breakdown – Has the cost of this decision really been calculated?

In financial terms – who will pay the extra benefits and cover the loss of revenue, if this opens the floodgates for every “type” of “challenge” to federal law, decided by a minority group?

Note: California is on the verge of collapse and it is the largest economy in the USA. Depending on how this case goes, it could take California over the edge…
Has the cost been counted?

Isn’t this case about more than discrimination to a minority group who wish to achieve benefits for themselves?

Isn’t the real issue brought before the Supreme Court fundamentality challenging the solid principles of our society?

Legal discussions take no account of the implications on our society in general, because they decide on the individual outcome on a case by case basis usually. However, with the DOMA question, their vital decision will rule over the desires of ALL individual States, (the majority of whom have not embraced gay marriage), and shows clearly that the Law will not protect our nation from erosion and harm, where moral or spiritual issues are at stake. Let us hope they make a decision for the greater good, rather than just the legal dilemma brought before them.



Same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, since then it is estimated that there have been around 200 to 300 cases in which opponents of same-sex marriage have faced some sort of proceedings either through the courts, employment boards or human rights commissions.

In the National Review, Michael Coren, wrote: “once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.”

One Canadian Christian marriage commissioner was successfully sued for refusing to marry gay couples. There are now moves in Canada to withdraw tax free status from churches who refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, and to ban teachers who refuse to teach same-sex marriage in both state and private schools.

A Catholic Bishop from Alberta was charged with human rights violations for writing a letter to local churches outlining the Catholic Churches position on gay marriage.

Coren believes the number affected by the redefinition of marriage will be far higher as it does not take into account those who have been dismissed from jobs casually.

Read More


After the Arab Spring the West was optimistic that democracy would flourish in the Middle East. However, for the Christians of the area the Arab Spring was viewed with caution and fear.

In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood, with links to al-Qaeda came to power, and the Christian population of Egypt have seen persecution increase. In the latest attack Coptic Christians who were demonstrating against the government, and the deeply unpopular President Mohammed Morsi, were rounded up and taken to a Mosque after Friday prayers. The Mosque was taken over by hardline members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who then used the building to torture the Christians.

“They accompanied me to one of the mosques in the area and I discovered the mosque was being used to imprison demonstrators and torture them,” said Amir Ayad, a coptic Christian and protester of the Morsi regime. Ayad was severely beaten and later dumped at the side of the road, and left for dead.

This latest attack is further evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s attitude towards Christians in Egypt, and expects believe the situation of the Christian minority will only become worse. Christians make up about 10% or Egypt’s population.

Read more: FOX NEWS


View Offices of Roberta Kaplan lawyer for Edith Windsow in a larger map

The supreme court is today hearing the arguments in the case which will determine the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case is being brought by Edith Windsow, who is sueing the US government over $363,000 in federal estate tax she paid at the death of her partner Thea Windsow. The court is expected to make a decision in late June.

The 83 year old Edith Windsow was engaged to her partner Thea for 40 years, when in 2007 they went to Canada to marry. After Thea died in 2009 Edith had to pay the federal estate tax. She argues that had her wife been a husband then she would not of had to pay the tax, and therefore she believes DOMA to be unconstitutional, because it discriminated against her.

Edith Window’s story led President Obama to say the he and the Justice department would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA, in February 2011.

Windsow will be represented by Roberta Kaplan. Kaplan is regarded by her peers in the Law to be one of the finest lawyers of her generation, being voted by the National Law Journal as one of the top “40 under 40” lawyers in the US.


Ahead of the BRICS summit in South Africa, China and Brazil have struck a deal which will see the two emerging economies trade in each others currencies, and not the dollar.

The deal amounts to around $30 billion per year, and is the most significant step the nations have taken to shift the dynamics of global trade away from the dollar.

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa) have long sought to change the balance of global trade away form the dollar, which is presently the global reserve currency.

The BRICS summit will also discuss the formation of a new International Development Bank, which they hope will serve as an alternative to the World Bank. The BRICS leaders argue that the establishment of a new development bank would make the global banking system more democratic.

Read More: International Business Times


View Supreme Court of the United States in a larger map

This week in Washington DC, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday 26th and Wednesday March 27, for and against the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 (DOMA) and Proposition 8 in 2 separate cases, before 9 Supreme Court Judges, who will listen to 50 minutes of arguments from both sides and then make a final decision over the coming months.

Tuesday 26th – at 10am – Hollingsworth v Perry, which is the California Marriage Proposition 8 discussion, brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER).

Wednesday 27th – at 10am – Windsor v. United States brought by the ACLU, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP with super lawyer Roberta Kaplan from their New York office leading the arguments.
For more information about Windsor click here

The Gay, & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders group (GLAD), located in Boston, MA,  under the direction of Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto, have coordinated the amicus strategy, (meaning  sympathisers of the strategy write to support the legal case arguments), for the challenge to DOMA in the Supreme Court.

Essentially the arguments will revolve around the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is being challenged in separate individual cases as not standing up to higher scrutiny, and therefore controversial to the principles of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution on equal rights and protection under the law.

The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws”.

The challenge appears to have been brought as a result of cases where gay and lesbian individuals have not had the same protection under the law as married heterosexual couples, in the event of death of a partner and their right to inherit their estate.

On Tuesday morning, lawyers will present their arguments challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage for support/opposition of Proposition 8 in the case of Hollingsworth v Perry.

On Wednesday morning lawyers  for Windsor v United States will argue before the 9 Supreme Court Justices on the brief:

“Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as “only a legal union between one man and one wom- an as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. 7. It similarly defines the term “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Ibid.

The question presented is:

Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state.

The Justices final decision is expected in June, though some opinion is expected by their initial private vote this Friday.

GLAD has two other challenges to DOMA, Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. OPM, which will be held pending a ruling on Windsor.

Read more….


An article published by the American Foundation for Equal Rights gives excellent insight into how the Supreme Court Judges proceed, as they hear arguments around the California Proposition 8 case on Tuesday 26th at 10am and the Defence of Marriage Act on Wednesday, taking place at the Supreme Court in Washington DC.

The nine Justices are seated by seniority. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair, the senior Associate Justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority.

Following Along

Audio of the proceedings will be made available shortly after oral argument concludes on each day since cameras and love updates are prohibited from inside the courtroom. The Supreme Court has said that audio will be released by 1 p.m. EDT on Tuesday and 2 p.m. EDT on Wednesday. Since seating inside the Court is extremely limited, it is on a first come basis.


Shortly before 10:00 a.m., the Justices will meet in the Robing Room. This is where they will all shake hands and don their robes.

At 10:00 a.m., oral argument will begin.  As the Justices enter the courtroom, the Marshal of the Court will intone:

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Oyez!  Oyez!  Oyez!  All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting.  God save the United States and this Honorable Court!

The Chief Justice will call the case and invite Charles J. Cooper, attorney for the Proponents of Proposition 8, to the lectern.  He has 30 minutes to make his argument.

Once Mr. Cooper has concluded, the Chief Justice will invite AFER lead co-counsel Ted Olson to the lectern which will begin his 20 minutes to make his argument. He may choose to reserve some of his time for a rebuttal after the argument for the United States has been compeated.

After Mr. Olson has completed his argument, the Chief Justice will invite Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. to the lectern.  The Solicitor General has 10 minutes to make his argument for the United States as amicus curiae, or “friend of the Court”. He will be speaking in support of AFER’s Plaintiffs.

If Mr. Cooper reserved time for rebuttal, he will then have the remainder of his time to address the Court.

The case is submitted for consideration once the oral arguments have been completed.  The Justices are expected to vote at their private Conference on Friday, March 29.  A final decision should be published by the end of June.

The Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases that deal with marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans this week.

On Tuesday, March 26, the Court will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry,. This is AFER’s federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8. Two couples, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, are represented by Ted Olson and David Boies. Mr Olson will argue that Proposition 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Learn more about the Perry case >

On Wednesday, March 27, the Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the 1996 law that prevents the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples in states with marriage equality. The case came about because Edie Windsor, an 83-year-old widow, was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died. This is a tax she would not have had to pay if she was married to a man. Ms. Windsor claims that DOMA violates her right to equal protection of the laws and is represented by the ACLU.



In a last minute deal Cyprus managed to secure the €10 bn bailout it requires to avoid bankruptcy. The Cypriot parliament agreed on a deal which will see bank deposits over €100,000 taxed. The troubled Laiki Bank will also be wound up, and split into two parts a “good” bank and a “bad” bank. The largest Cypriot bank, the Bank of Cyprus, will undergo major restructuring. Deposits in the Bank of Cyprus over €100,000 have now been frozen.

It is believed the levy on bank deposits will be around 30%. The Cypriot finance minister said they were keen to protect individuals and small depositors. The majority of account holders with over €100,000 are wealthy Russians. The deal has angered Moscow, who have accused the eurozone of using the crisis to go after Russian money.

Laiki and Bank of Cyprus remain closed with ATM withdrawals limited to €100 a time.

Read More: BBC