swedicide

Crime Statistics: 77% of Rapes in Sweden are committed by the 2% Muslim male population

In January 2017 a video was live streamed on YouTube by a Muslim raping a Swedish girl. The video was posted by J Strömqvist who wrote:

Published on Jan 23, 2017

The alleged crime took place in an apartment in the city of Uppsala in Sweden early on Sunday morning. The victim was reportedly close to unconscious.

Josefine Lundgren, 21, alerted the police at 8.24am on Sunday morning as soon as she realised what was happening on the closed group, of which she is one of 60,000 members.

“He tore off her clothes and lay down on top of her,”

“You have been raped,” one of the men said to the woman at the end of the broadcast before laughing, according to the paper. “Three against one, ha ha ha,” one of the members of the closed group then commented under the feed.

I couldn’t find the whole footage but I did save some shots, added the audio and subtitled it.

This is horrible.

WARNING DISTURBING VIDEO:

Radio Nordfront published the following commentary and video about immigrants behind the gang rape of a wheelchair bound woman in Gotland:

Published on Oct 5, 2016

“You are not welcome here!” Brave Swedish man verbally confronted immigrants who are suspected of having gang raped a wheelchair-bound woman. Nordfront.se has movie!

Nordfront.se has previously reported on a gang rape that occurred in Visby on Gotland in the weekend. A 30-year-old woman, who is wheelchair bound, went with a man to a home to use the toilet. There, the man raped the woman and several men also came to the scene and participated in the rape, which should have lasted for several hours. Five men sat under arrest for the rape, but was released earlier today.

An enraged National Socialist had located the residence that suspected rapists by information available on internet and that the building had been seeled of by the police. When one of the residents of the house would fetch a bag in the house the Swede asked the immigrant if he was one of those who raped the woman. Before anything more could happen two under cover police officers interrupts the discussion.

The National Socialist stalkes the suspected gang rapists, where the suspected rapist met his two friends. Discussion also occurs here and immigrants confirms that they have been arrested by the police and then they are told in English that they are scum who are not welcome in Sweden. In the end a security officer can be heard shouting to the angry Swede.

Gateway Pundit reported:

On Saturday President Trump held a rally in Florida in front of thousands of supporters.

During his speech President Trump referenced the violence in Sweden due to the tremendous influx of refugees.

The media immediately attacked President Trump for suggesting there is a refugee problem in Sweden.

Read more…

Here is a 2016 BBC News video report on Sverige Muslim immigrants molesting young Swedish girls in Stockholm:

According to Muslim Statistics:

This article touches upon the over representation of ‘foreign’ born criminals in Sweden’s crime statistics.

The total Muslim population in Sweden is estimated at 4.4% (2013 figures). Out of that 4.4%, and if we casually deduct the women and children, we can roughly guesstimate that around 2% are male.

The ‘foreign born’ rape figures at 77.6% can quite securely be estimated to be a Muslim majority one today as the figures are behind by five years. We have seen this in Oslo (Norway) police stats from 2011. Oslo Police inspector Hanne Kristin Rodhe says the perpetrators often are unemployed, have been asylum-seekers during the last five years. A rough estimate of 80% Muslim rape figure has been anonymously confirmed by Swedish police in a phone conversation with our volunteer.

Let us hope that a complete un-biased, transperant and accurate government study will one day reveal the real figures. The reason government figures are held with limited access is because the summary would be shocking and outrageous. The actual figure could be higher. The percentages presented in the article below does not include Muslims with Swedish citizenship contained within rapes in the figures categorized under “Swedish nationals”.

Staggering rape and assault rape statistics from Sweden from 1985-89 and 1997-2001. Rape committed by Swedish born rapists (blue) were 22.4%. Foreign rapists represent 77.6% of all figures divided into ‘normal’ representation (pink, red and orange) at 5,070; over representation (red) at 3,752 rape cases; unregistered migrants (orange) at 653 rape cases. Note that the blue bracket of Swedish rapists include foreign born persons with Swedish citizenship as the statistics are only counted on citizenship, and not nationality.

Alex Jones from Info Wars posted in July 2016 yet another video of Muslim migrants raping Swedish girls at anti-Racism concert:

Any questions?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black Americans, According to Civil Rights Commissioner

This Is What Trump was Talking About: Muslim Migrants Grope Girls, Slap Mothers with Children (VIDEO) – Tea Party News

Obama’s Organizing for Action Partners with Soros-Linked ‘Indivisible’ to Disrupt Trump’s Agenda

Trump may have been unclear, but Sweden experiencing a migrant crime wave | Fox News

Journalist Investigating Rape Epidemic in Sweden Beaten By Migrants Speaking Arabic – Katie Pavlich

INDIVISABLE LOGO

‘Indivisible’: Teaches Young Americans to Love Big Government

Indivisible is an organization that seeks to persuade Americans – particularly young people – to believe that big, centralized government can benefit society in a multitude of ways that the private sector cannot. In short, Indivisible’s objective is to “energiz[e] and infor[m] Americans about government’s potential” to ensure “a safe, healthy, just and prosperous future” for all. Asserting that “too much time is taken up debating big government versus small government,” Indivisible contends that “what we need to be discussing is how our government works well,” and why it is indispensable for “accomplishing big things.”

In an effort to “inspire a cultural shift in how Americans think about the role of government in America,” Indivisible is committed to “disrupting and reframing negative media discourse about government,” “creating a network of champions to change the conversation about government in their communities,” and “training the next generation of civic-minded leaders.” Toward these ends, the organization has created an Indivisible Institute that administers a leadership-development program for young people “who share a passion for reclaiming government as our unique tool for addressing tomorrow’s challenges and opportunities.” These “emerging leaders” are taught how “to help … build a new American culture” wherein “the potential and promise of government” is axiomatic.

One of Indivisible’s major projects is its “Pave the Way” video contest, whose name derives from the notion that government is “literally paving our way with road construction and interstates.” This contest offers cash prizes to young people who produce quality videos of interviews wherein small-business owners tell “how government paved the way for their business’ success” by means of things like the GI Bill, the Affordable Care Act, Small Business Administration loan programs, and infrastructure spending.

Another key initiative of Indivisible is its “I Love My” program, which offers information and talking points designed to highlight the many benefits of government. On the premise that “it’s amazing how much government is doing behind the scenes to make our lives better every day,” Indivisible argues that the media should make a special effort to “show [that] our public systems and structures [are] usually so well run that we don’t notice them at all.” One such structure, says Indivisible, is the U.S. Postal Service, which “makes our businesses better,” “helps our communities function,” “makes our democracy work,” and “is the reason our country works at all.”

Similarly, another section of the “I Love My” program teaches people to how to speak about taxes in a way that emphasizes their usefulness in helping government to serve “the common good,” rather than in a way that casts them in a negative light. “Don’t talk about taxes as a ‘burden‘ or something from which we need ‘relief,’” Indivisible advises. “These [terms] are inherently negative and they cue up the dominant thinking that taxes are bad. Instead, talk about taxes as ‘loads’ to be carried or shared.” Moreover, says Indivisible: “Don’t call people ‘taxpayers‘ – it limits the conversation to only one side of the ledger (costs, not benefits). Instead, talk about people as ‘residents’ or ‘citizens’ or ‘member[s] of our community’ – it highlights that we are all people who both contribute to and benefit from public systems and structures.”

Indivisible’s “My Take” program features interviews where “real people” are asked to articulate “their feelings [about] government” and their various interactions with it. For example, the interviewees are asked: (a) “What is your favorite thing that government does?” (b) “Who is your government hero who is not an elected official?” (c) “What thing that government does do you think would surprise most Americans?”

Indivisible’s “Reality Check” program seeks to “expos[e] the reality behind myths and misunderstandings about government,” which ultimately serves as “our tool to help us solve big problems together.”

Reclaiming Government for America’s Future is an Indivisible research project consisting of reports, videos, and webinars that aim to counter the popular notion that government “is too big, intrusive, untrustworthy, and controlled by powerful elites” who have little interest in using it as “a tool for the common good.” Topos Partnership conducted this research on behalf of Indivisible, Public Works, and a number of partner organizations in Oregon, North Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Arkansas, and Colorado. The overarching objective of the project is to spell out ways in which progressives can effectively “shift conversations and begin to change the cultural common sense about government.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Indivisible Team Plans to Use Aggressive Tactics to Destroy Trump’s Presidency

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Discover The Networks.

ofa obama podium

Organizing for Action: Obama’s Army of 32,500+ Soldier Anarchists

Discover the Networks reports:

OFA logoOrganizing for America (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC’s Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President’s plan to invest in America’s future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

Read more…

OFAction logoThe Office of Barack and Michelle Obama website lists Organizing for Action as its primary political activist organization.

It appears that Organizing for America has now morphed into Organizing for Action (OFA).

It was and continues to be Barack Obama’s army of activists and, in some cases, violent anarchists. The OFA website states:

OFA is committed to mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers and leaders, because real, lasting change doesn’t just happen on its own—it requires a program, it requires organizing, and it requires people like you.

With grassroots chapters in neighborhoods across the country, OFA volunteers are building this movement from the ground up, person to person, community by community—because democracy isn’t a spectator sport. [Emphasis added]

Organizing for Action has more than 250 local chapters around the country. According to it’s website OFA has the following six policy objectives:

  1. Turning up the heat on climate change deniers, because the stakes are too high not to act. [silencing science]
  2. Calling for lawmakers to stop standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform. [open borders]
  3. Telling the stories of the millions who are seeing the life-saving benefits of Obamacare. [“resist” the repeal and replacement of ACA]
  4. Rallying around the simple principle that love is love and that no one should ever be discriminated against because of who they are or whom they love. [radical homosexual agenda]
  5. We organize because too often a woman’s health care is debated as a political issue, not as a basic right. [abortion]
  6. And we believe that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair shot at the American dream. [amnesty]

Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post:

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Read the rest of the article here.

As Sperry points out, “Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show ‘nonpartisan’ OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.”

Shadow government, anti-Trump protests, OFA, anarchist army, Barack Obama, the media, Democrats and sabotage are all united against President Donald J. Trump.

So, what’s new? These efforts may border on sedition.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

The Left Is Self-Destructing: Stand Back and Enjoy It

OBAMA’S PERMANENT PROTEST: Why the rise in rioting and civil unrest under Obama is no coincidence, but part of the plan

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

Sabotage: Obama is commanding an Army of 30,000 anti-Trump activists from his home 2 miles from the White House

EDITORS NOTE: Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.

brown

Georgetown Islamic studies professor: Slavery is Moral, Rape is Normal

Georgetown professor jonathan brown

Jonathan Brown, Georgetown University professor of Islamic Studies and Muslim Christian Understanding

IPT News in a column titled “Prof’s Slavery/Sexual Consent Comments Become Georgetown’s Latest Outrage” reports:

A Georgetown University Islamic civilization professor’s lecture on slavery, asserting that it isn’t “morally evil to own somebody” and minimizing the need for sexual content from a spouse is bringing the school renewed criticism and scrutiny.

Jonathan Brown’s remarks came last week during a lecture at the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization Brown works closely with, and one that law enforcement has long suspected of being a Muslim Brotherhood front.

People obsess too much over the word “slavery,” Brown said, when what matters are the conditions, whether people were treated well or harshly.

In fact, “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery,” he said. “As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout state and time trans-historically, there’s no such thing as slavery.”

Brown is a Georgetown associate professor and the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service.

Read more…

These comments support Islam’s view of slavery and dominance over women.

David Wood discusses the issue of slavery in Islam in his video “The Islamic View of Black Slaves.”

For more on slavery in Islam, be sure to watch “Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Terrorism Adviser Says War on ISIS About Ideology

Defense Leaders Agree: US Military Readiness Is at a Dangerous Low

#BLM Protester Who Assaulted DeVos from Entering School is Actually Afghani Refugee, Charged With Crime

fake news

Disinformation Campaign on the Hearing Protection Act Continues [Video]

This month the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) with co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) as S.59. Representatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and John Carter (R-TX) – together with 42 co-sponsors – introduced a similar bill in the House as H.R. 367.

The bill would remove suppressors from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires buyers to pay a $200 tax and undergo an enhanced background check that can take up to nine months to complete. Suppressors would continue to be regulated like non-NFA firearms, which require a background check when sold by a licensed firearms dealer or across state lines.

Not surprisingly, anti-gun advocates and their media allies are furious that the gun community would dare remove an onerous and unnecessary law that limits their ability to protect against hearing loss while target shooting and hunting.

Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald announced that “violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners.” Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times piled on, declaring that the naming of the “Hearing Protection Act” was “so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: ‘What are they hiding?’”

Joining the anti-gun tirade, Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center contended that “they want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” arguing that “when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.” Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence went so far as to argue “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

Let that sink in.  A representative of the Brady Campaign argues that there is no evidence of hearing loss from gunfire.  One is left to wonder if their zealotry blinds them to the truth or if they really are that ill-informed on firearms and their use.

Other anti-gun advocates argue that “silent” guns make it easier to commit crimes, citing YouTube videos and television shows where silencers reduce a gunshot to a faint cough. Professor Robert J. Spitzer, writing in the Washington Post, even argued that deafening noise “is an important safety feature of any firearm” and that “the lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate.”

Supporters of so-called “common sense gun safety” are willfully blind to the reality that clear, objective scientific evidence demonstrates that suppressors prevent hearing loss. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and tinnitus are high-priority health issues – and the only type of hearing loss that is completely preventable.

The benefits of suppressors are scientifically proven. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have both determined that even a single noise over 140 decibels causes hearing loss. The peak sound pressure of a gunshot ranges from a low of 144 decibels (.22 caliber rifle) to 172 decibels (.357 caliber revolver). A suppressor reduces the sound by approximately 30 decibels. In consequence, even suppressed firearms are loud – about 120-130 decibels – and louder than a car horn three feet away. It is, therefore, both inconsistent and illogical for the government to recommend – and even legally mandate – noise abatement for loud machines like lawn mowers and chainsaws while simultaneously setting large regulatory hurdles that discourage suppressor use with firearms.

Furthermore, suppressed firearms are not the choice of criminals, and the more than 100-year history of suppressors in both the United States and Europe demonstrates that anti-gun fearmongering is unfounded. A study of the criminal use of suppressors between 1995 and 2005 found only 15 used in crimes – and only two instances of being used in a murder. Indeed, as the number of federally-registered suppressors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade (from 150,364 in 2006 to 902,805 in 2016), the Violence Policy Center can identify only a scant handful of crimes committed with them. As Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman notes, “any useful technology can be put to villainous ends,” and common sense demonstrates that the existing rule on silencers is “a major hassle for the law-abiding” while being “an irrelevance to criminals.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center are counting on public ignorance and disinformation to derail a legitimate effort to allow gun owners to protect their hearing and the hearing of those around them. Armed with facts and scientific evidence, the National Rifle Association urges its members to contact their lawmakers to support the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

You can contact your member of Congress via our Write Your Reps tool by clicking HERE or use the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

president trump signing executive order

PresidentTrump Signs Executive Order Defunding Planned Parenthood International

Donald J. Trump has taken the first step confirming his promise to be a pro-life President. The day after the rallies by pro-abortionists across the United States and overseas, the President by executive order defunded Planned Parenthood International.

Steven Ertelt from Life Site News reports:

President Donald Trump today signed an executive order to defund International Planned Parenthood.

Most pro-life Americans are anxiously awaiting Congress to pass a bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business. While that defunding legislation concerns the domestic-based Planned Parenthood abortion corporation, President Trump has the ability to put in place an executive order that would revoke funding for its International affiliate.

When pro-abortion former President Barack Obama took office, Obama overturned a policy that prevented funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. The Mexico City Policy covered over $400 million in federal funds, part of which flowed to the abortion businesses International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International for their foreign efforts.

As LifeNews.com reported, the pro-life policy had been in place during the entirety of the Bush administration and Obama rescinded it on his first week in office. Named for a 1984 population conference where President Reagan initially announced it, the Mexico City Policy made it so family planning funds could only go to groups that would agree to not do abortions or lobby foreign nations to overturn their pro-life laws.

Today, Trump restored the Mexico City Policy by executive order.

Read more…

Every day Americans learn that President Trump is a man of his word. Tens of thousands of the innocent will now live with this stroke of a pen.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pastors lift Trump administration as ‘God’s instruments for good’

female male symbols

Stop Gender Genocide

Following the death of Carrie Fisher — and the death one day later of her mother, Debbie Reynolds — I ran across an article about Fisher’s 24-year-old daughter, Billie Lourd.

Fox 2015 programming presentation Red Carpet Arrivals at Wollamn Rink in Central Park  in New York City Featuring: Billie Lourd Where: New York City, New York, United States When: 11 May 2015 Credit: Alberto Reyes/WENN.com

Carrie Fisher’s daughter, Billie Lourd (pictured above) says her mother “raised me without gender.” Photo credit: Alberto Reyes/WENN.com

Lourd proudly spoke about her upbringing at the hands of single mom and admitted drug abuser Carrie Fisher. Lourd boasted that her mother “raised me to not think of men and women as different. She raised me without gender. It’s kind of the reason she named me Billie.”

Yet clearly Billie Lourd is a woman, despite Fisher’s attempts to raise her without any gender identification. She looks and dresses as a woman, and she dates men. Lourd believes her upbringing was a success, but if the intent was to raise her as gender neutral, it was a dismal failure. Nature, it appears, was victorious.

In another example of what today can only be described as gender genocide, the National Geographic magazine put on its December cover a picture of a nine-year-old transgender, a boy dressed as a girl with long, bright pink hair.

Inside, the story details the difficulties little children encounter living as transgenders. One of these little kids had been struggling since he/she was five years old.

Another little girl, age nine, is described as a Muslim living in India who wants to be a boy so she can earn money and “get stuff for her family.” Is that a good enough reason to neutralize this child’s sex? Maybe for that family it is.

It’s hard to believe that children as little as five are actually struggling with their gender identity unless they are coerced into such a struggle by the adults around them. Kids that age are still contemplating the mystery of Santa Claus, not their gender identity.

This is gender genocide — the willful destruction of our biological sex. It’s the last frontier for the gay lobby (the sex lobby, it may as well be called) and its quest for ultimate control over our sexual behavior and identity. This is a deeply sinister social engineering that seeks to indoctrinate children into thinking they can define their own gender, regardless of their God-given gender.

Having conquered the battlefield of gay marriage (in 2015 when the Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex marriage) … the sex lobby has turned its sights on transgender rights and gender fluidity. The more victories they achieve, the more absurd their goals become. Gay rights … gay adoption … gay partner benefits … gay marriage … transgender acceptance … same-sex bathrooms … gender fluidity … new pronouns. Just when it seems the end is in sight and they can’t possibly do more damage to our culture, they move the bar further.

Eliminating God From American Life

But at its heart, this is a movement to eliminate God’s natural order from our lives, plain and simple. It is a twisted effort to undermine the biblical underpinnings of our culture and eradicate the sexes.

The Bible says that in the beginning, “God made them male and female.” (Gen. 5:2) Pretty clear and straight forward, though the sex lobby never likes the word “straight” in any context.  This rock-solid fact is the one immovable force that they cannot surmount, so they have come up with ways around it.

One way is to declare, despite what our eyes tell us, that people can be any sex they want. We only need to decide which sex we identify with in our minds — and voila, that’s the sex we are. And, it must follow, we should be allowed to use the bathroom of our choice absolutely anywhere and everywhere in the United States … especially in our taxpayer-funded schools.

Literally, this new battle is being waged in the toilet.

But at least now we’re getting to the meat of the issue. If the sex lobby can change the attitudes of our children about sex, and encourage them to follow every urge that pops up in their pubescent heads, they will have a captive army of young adults to march out into the world and tear down the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation.

Like lemmings following each other off a cliff only to drown in the sea, our young people obey, just like Billie Lourd and other Hollywood celebrities do. In the process, though, they position themselves as role models for our kids, and there’s the danger.

Miley Cyrus says she is “gender fluid.”

miley cyrus

Miley Cyrus says she is “gender fluid.”

Miley Cyrus, who performed a music video stark naked on a wrecking ball, claims she is “gender fluid.”

“I’m just equal,” she gushed in an interview. “I’m just even. It has nothing to do with any parts of me or how I dress or how I look. It’s literally how I feel.” She had to add those last few sentences because she has female body parts and dresses like a woman, so don’t be fooled if she looks like a woman, she’s really whatever she wants to be at the moment.

Hypocrisy Of Gender Warriors

The hypocrisy of the gender genocide advocates is stunning. If gender doesn’t matter anymore, why did women go berserk when Hillary did not become the first FEMALE president? If Hillary’s not a she but a “ze” — the preferred neutral pronoun of the gender genocide lobby — then there’s no glass ceiling to break, right?

Witness also the hysteria that followed the publication of a Washington Post magazine article just recently that displayed the wrong symbol for womanhood (they used the male symbol with the circle and arrow, instead of the circle and cross for female). Male and female heads were exploding over the mistake — which the Washington Post apologized for abjectly and corrected right away.

But if gender doesn’t matter, then why do the symbols matter?

For that matter, why was it so important to legalize same-sex marriage? If genders don’t matter, or if they are all in our head, what’s the big deal?

The answer is obvious to even the little children who are being used as petri dishes for the sex lobby’s ungodly experiments. There are boys and there are girls. Period. Even the most strident advocates for gender neutrality recognize this physical reality.

Within the past couple of years hundreds, perhaps thousands, of school districts, institutions and municipalities have jumped on the gender-neutral bandwagon and declared that their bathrooms are open for use by any gender. Men may use the women’s room if they’re feeling a little feminine that day, and vice versa.

No doctor’s note is required to show that a sex change operation has been performed. No psychiatric exam is required, either.

What is so shocking is the lack of thoughtful and reasoned examination of the movement. Schools and public places are just lining up to follow the new guidelines like brainless robots programmed to obey. They should be asking, Where’s the science?

Christians Toe The Line

At a time when the Christian community should be standing up to these attempts to pollute biblical truths, some so-called Christian institutions are toeing the line. One Christian school in the Seattle, Wash., area, sent home notices to all parents that it would be hosting a “coming out day” for its gay and transgender students, and that students may now use the restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

The alternative is to be forced out of business or suffer staggering fines. The Obama Administration ordered every public school in the nation to cater to transgenders in the restrooms or lose their federal funding. One transgender girl in a Maine public school was awarded $75,000 because her school forced her to use a staff restroom. That’s a scary prospect for a school district that needs the money — money, mind you, already paid by parents in the form of taxes that should rightfully come back to the schools with no gender strings attacks.

Jonas Maines, left, and his transgender sister, Nicole Maines, stand outside the Penobscot Judicial Center, Wednesday, June 12, 2013, in Bangor, Maine. The siblings were born as identical twins boys. The state supreme court heard arguments on Wednesday over a school district’s handling of Nicole Maine's restroom needs. The lawsuit accuses the school district of breaking a state law in 2007 when it stopped letting the Maines use the girls bathroom and required to her use a staff bathroom after a student's grandfather complained. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Nicole Maines, a boy who is a transgender “girl,” sued a Maine public school for forcing her to use a staff restroom. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

These sick stories remind me of another Bible verse, the one that warns us not to cause children to sin against God.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble,” warned Jesus, “it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

bruce reimer

Bruce Reiner was born as a boy, raised as a girl, had surgery to create a vagina and then later committed suicide.

The Sad Case of Bruce Reimer

I am also reminded of the tragic case of Bruce Reimer, born a male with a twin brother, Brian, in Winnipeg, Canada, in the 1960s. Following a botched circumcision Bruce was raised as a girl, Brenda. Doctors fully castrated him as a baby and later gave him female hormones so he could like his entire life as a woman. Bruce’s clueless parents agreed to this.

Enter the evil mad scientist, Dr. John Money, a “sexologist.” It was Money’s theory — as it is the theory of so many in today’s sex-obsessed culture — that gender identity is the product of nurture rather than nature. Dr. Money followed the twins’ progress throughout their tragic lives, forcing them to strip naked in interviews and examine each others’ genitals … and forcing them to re-enact the sex act as male and female while the mad Dr. Money took pictures.

But Brenda, formerly Bruce, knew in his soul that there was something wrong with him, and as time went on he began to live out a more masculine lifestyle — despite Dr. Money’s efforts to force him to behave like a girl. At the age of seven Dr. Money began to torment Brenda with demands that he have surgery to create a vagina. Brenda resisted to the end.

When, as a young adult, Brenda finally learned that he was a male, he immediately began to live as a man and stopped taking the female hormones. He even married a woman and adopted his wife’s children.

But the horror of what had been done to him was too much for both twins. First the twin brother Brian killed himself with an overdose of anti-depressants. Then, at the age of 38, Bruce shot himself in the head with a shotgun.

Dr. Money was allowed to live out his life in comfort until the age of 85 as a renowned sexologist, dying in 2006. Sadly, at least two of his victims killed themselves because they could not live out the false life that Dr. Money had chosen for them.

Are we repeating today the experiments that Dr. Money performed all those years ago? Are we risking the lives and happiness of our children to satisfy the sex lobby’s insatiable appetite for destruction?

Tragic Human Cost

Like the heartbreaking story of Bruce Reimer, which can be viewed here in a BBC documentary, the lifestyles of Billie Lourd and Miley Cyrus are just exotic theories without regard for the tragic human cost. Because despite the “feelings” of these sad and confused individuals, God made them male and female. Their feelings really don’t matter.

Bruce Reiner was born as a boy, raised as a girl, had surgery to create a vagina and then later committed suicide.

Thankfully, we are beginning to see some pushback to all this nonsense. Thirteen states have filed lawsuits against the Obama edict mandating that transgenders have free access to any bathroom (and locker room) of their choice.

In late 2016 a Texas judge blocked Obama’s edict. And in North Carolina officials enacted a ban on forcing public facilities to provide transgender restrooms. (The LGBT lobby is fighting this tooth and nail and vowing to overturn the ban.)

Taken to its illogical extreme — that we are whatever we think we are — then what is to stop me from claiming age fluidity? So what if my birth certificate shows that I’m a senior citizen. I identify as a 24 year old, at least today.

Or, I may be just 24 and identify as a senior citizen …

… so I demand the senior citizen discount.

Foolish it is, this gender genocide is sweeping our nation. But dangerous, too. In Romans 1 we are warned:

“God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

And “furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” And, “although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

God help us if we continue on this path toward the utter and complete genocide of the genders that God ordained for us.

obama-dictator

Obama farewell: Half the nation can’t wait to be rid of him

Obama the dreamweaver will leave office with the highest favorable ratings he has enjoyed since the honeymoon months following his 2008 election. Despite this, in the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls judging whether the country is heading in the right direction, roughly the same percentage of Americans who approve of Obama also believe the country is headed the wrong way.

This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, the growing realization that Obama’s massive social spending programs that have doubled our national debt in just eight years were doing serious damage to our economy has been building for the past four years, and led to Donald Trump’s victory in November.

A majority of Americans are fed up with Obama’s policies, while paradoxically they still retain a favorable view of Obama the person.

Every president should be so lucky.

But a president who is so lucky should also be clear-headed enough to recognize the distinction, and not take his success in the personality contest to mean the American people approve of his policies.

Clearly, Obama has not understood this. His limitless narcissism continues to cloud his view of himself, his policies, and his impact on America.

Obama believes that he is leaving the country with an economy far stronger than the economy he inherited. On the surface, that is true. When you come to office as the economy lurches into an apparent death spiral, any recovery seems good.

Certainly, the economy has climbed back from the depths of the recession. But this has been a jobless recovery, with 95 million Americanswho have bowed out of the labor force, an unprecedented number.

These are not fantasy numbers, but official U.S. government numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), based on a total of 252 million Americans over the age of 16 in the labor pool. The under or unemployed equal 37.7% of that total workforce.

In an effort to minimize those disastrous results, the BLS claims that the majority — including an overwhelming majority of young people aged 16-24 — “do not want a job now.” That is just patently absurd.

Along with this unprecedented rise in unemployment, under Obama the number of Americans receiving food stamps has also risen to historic highs, growing from 28 million when he took office to more than 44 million today, or 14.5% of the U.S. population.

Even left-wing websites such as the DailyKos cannot mask the outrageous — and tragic — rise in dependence on government handouts under this president.

And yet, this president claims that “we’ve turned an economy that was shrinking and losing jobs into one that’s growing and creating jobs, with poverty falling, incomes rising, and wages that have jumped faster over the past few years than at any time in the past four decades.”

He claimed unbelievably in Chicago that health care costs are “rising at the slowest rate in fifty years,” when anyone paying for health insurance today knows just the opposite is the case.

Obama believes he can build his legacy on a tissue of lies, just as he built his presidency.

He wants us to believe that he has reduced race tensions, when any sentient being can see just the opposite is the case. He wants us to believe that crime is down, incomes are up, and terrorism is no more than a law enforcement issue.

He wants us to believe that his withdrawal from Iraq has led to a “sustainable” U.S. presence in that country, when in fact our totally unnecessary and unwanted (by the Iraqi people) withdrawal has led to massive bloodshed and an ISIS takeover of one-third of the country.

In addition to creating ISIS, the power vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal has handed much of Iraq over to Iranian control, with Iranian government agents now running Iraq’s central government and Iranian-backed militias poised to overrun much of the country.

Since the 2008 election, Obama has proclaimed that Afghanistan was the “right war.” And yet, despite his surge loss of more Americans than during the entire Bush years, Afghanistan is a shambles and the Taliban controls more territory today than it did when he took office.

The Obamas are such phonies, it’s hard to confront their lies with a straight face.

To an enthusiastic crowd in Chicago who had drunk the Kool-Aid, Obama claimed that America was “a better, stronger place than when we started.” And then he set to firing up his base, blaming his opponents for dividing America, when he himself bears the greatest responsibility pitting Americans against each other by race, creed, and income.

Obama’s legacy is a graveyard of disasters.

  • Libya: an unnecessary war, where the United States deposed a pro-U.S. authoritarian who had given up his WMD and joined the fight against al-Qaeda. Today, that country is controlled by ISIS and other Islamist groups.
  • Syria: Obama proclaimed “red-lines” in 2012 and stood by passively as Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad trampled them repeatedly. Today, Russia for the first time since the Cold War has military bases in the country, while Iran and its proxies physically occupy a third of the country.
  • Iran: The nuclear deal Obama heralded? It legitimates Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and actually commits the United States to helping Iran develop its nuclear infrastructure. It also commits us to helping Iran defeat cyber attacks, such as Stuxnet the U.S. and Israel jointly launched under Obama’s stewardship to crash Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges.

Obama hinted he wants to become the leader of the anti-Trump movement in the next four years. Certainly, an anti-Trump U.S. media will welcome and promote him.

But as the new president actually grows the economy, expands prosperity, and makes America stronger and safer again in clearly demonstrable ways, my guess is Obama’s game will soon get old.

Let’s hope reality will win out over the delusions of the past eight years.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obamacare’s ’20 Million’ Number Is Fake

In Revealing Article, Obama Puts ‘Progressive Goals’ Before Due Process

13 Inconvenient Truths About Obama’s Legacy

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

female-genital-mutilation

VIDEO: Columbia University Students Want Planned Parenthood to FUND FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION!

AFDI UNVEILS ALARMING NEW VIDEO SHOWING ACCEPTANCE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK, New York: The human rights advocacy group the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) today unveiled an alarming new video, filmed at Columbia University, showing that at Columbia University, an Ivy League school and one of the nation’s foremost centers of higher learning, most students are willing to condone female genital mutilation.

AFDI President Pamela Geller noted: “Students were asked if Planned Parenthood should fund and support female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM involves partial or total removal of the clitoris causing injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It has no health benefits for girls and women, and removes all possibility of sexual pleasure. It is the worst kind of misogyny. Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.”

Geller explained: “We sent AFDI reporter Laura Loomer to Columbia and found the people there remarkably unconcerned about female genital mutilation. Probably because of fear of being called ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic,’ they condoned the introduction into the U.S. of this human rights abuse.”

The video shows the need for honest and realistic education about the crime of female genital mutilation, and the failure of the American academic establishment to provide that education.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PamelaGeller.com

schlafly-funeral-trump

Donald J. Trump on Phyllis Schlafly: ‘She never wavered’ … Nor will I

As Americans anticipate the inauguration and administration of President-elect Donald J. Trump, it is fitting that we remember the life of Phyllis Schlafly the leader of the pro-life movement. President-elect Trump has promised to appoint strict Constitutionalist pro-life Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Anthony Scalia.

In a the column LifeNews.com column Donald Trump: “I Am Pro-Life and I Will be Appointing Pro-Life Judges” to the Supreme Court Steven Ertelt reported:

During tonight’s presidential debate [on October 19, 2016 at University of Nevada-Las Vegas] Donald Trump made it very clear that he will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court who would be likely to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision that has led to 58 million abortions.

Trump said he is pro-life and the kinds of Judges he would put on the nation’s highest court are those that would be the kind pro-life voters would appreciate. For pro-life voters, the Supreme Court is probably the most important election issue this year as the nation’s highest court could control the fate of abortion for decades to come and whether another 58 million abortions happen or if unborn children will eventually enjoy legal protection.

“The Supreme Court – it’s what it’s all about. Our country is so, just so imperative that we have the right justices,” Trump said. ” I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.

When then candidate Trump said this perhaps he was thinking of Phyllis Schlafly? It may be so because at her funeral just a month before this debate Trump stated, “[W]e will never ever let you down.” I now appears that a President Trump will keep his promise to Phyllis.

phyllis-photo-semi-profile-640x480

Phyllis Schlafly

Full text of remarks delivered by Donald J. Trump at the funeral of Phyllis Schlafly
Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, September 10, 2016

Thank you very much. What a great honor. And what a great lady.

We are here today to honor the life and legacy of a truly great American patriot. I wish first and most importantly to extend my deepest heartfelt condolences to her six wonderful children who she loved so much – John, Bruce, Roger, Liza, Andy, and Anne. And also her sixteen grandchildren and her three great grandchildren.

A movement has lost its hero. And believe me, Phyllis was there for me when it was not at all fashionable. Trust me. You have lost a mother. An amazing mother. And our country has lost a true patriot. Phyllis was a strong, proud, fierce, and tireless warrior; and that’s what she was – she was a warrior. And she was a warrior for the country, which she loved so much. Even at the age of 92, this beloved woman had more strength and fire and heart than 50 strong politicians all put together. Believe me, I witnessed it. To borrow a phrase from a great poet, Phyllis was “that strength which in all days moved heaven and earth.” This incredible woman has been active in American politics for one quarter of American history – think of that. One quarter of American history. And at the top! She was the ultimate happy warrior – always smiling, but boy could she be tough. We all know that. And in all of her battles, she never strayed from the one guiding principle – she was for America. And it was always America first. People have forgotten that nowadays. With Phyllis it was America first.

She never wavered. Never apologized. And never backed down in taking on the kingmakers. She never stopped fighting for the fundamental idea that the America people ought to have their needs come before anything or anyone else. She loved her country, she loved her family, and she loved her God.

Her legacy will live on every time some underdog – outmatched and outgunned – defies the odds and delivers a win for the people. America has always been about the underdog and always about defying the odds. The idea that so-called “little people” or the “little person,” that she loved so much, could beat the system – often times the rigged system (we’ve been hearing a lot about it) – that the American grassroots is more powerful than all of the worlds’ special interests put together. And that’s the way Phyllis felt. She’s always felt that way. That’s the romance of America; that’s the story of the mother and the patriot that we honor here today. Phyllis, who has rejoined with her late husband Fred, is looking down on us right now and I’m sure that she’s telling us to keep up the fight – no doubt. No doubt about it.

Phyllis we love you, we miss you, and we will never ever let you down. God bless you, Phyllis. God bless her family. And God bless everyone. Thank you very much, thank you.

100-day-plan

Celebrating the New Year With Our 100 Day Plan

Here we are as in olden days, happy golden days, of yore …” Christmas was awesome! Since moving to Florida 16 years ago, this was Mary and my first Christmas back to Baltimore for the annual Christmas Eve festivities at my dad’s home. My four younger siblings, their kids and grand-kids were there. The millennial girls prepared a delicious homemade feast. We joined hands in a huge circle for Dad to say grace.

Dad, 89 caught me by surprise. Passing the baton of family leadership, Dad said his time was running out and they should come to me as patriarch of the family.

I’m a mystery to many in my family; the embarrassing traitorous black political activist they see in the media bashing their beloved Obama. So when patriarch Dad said this is my beloved son, hear ye him, that was huge. It is a responsibility I take very seriously.

As Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee, I am with our team in a secured underground bunker in an undisclosed location planning our strategy for assisting the implementation of The 100 Day Plan (Donald Trump’s Contract With The American Voter); just kidding about the bunker.

While I did not become a Christian preacher like my dad, politics is my ministry. This battle goes beyond Democrats vs Republicans/Conservatives vs Liberals. We battle not against flesh and blood, but spiritual wickedness in high places; good vs evil. No, I am not saying everything Republican is good. I am saying 99% of the modern Democrat party’s agenda is anti-God, anti-America and anti-traditional wholesome values. If you believe you’re a chicken trapped in a human body, count on the democrats to pass legislation to fund your feather implants and force us to celebrate your Chickenization.

During the debates Trump said partial-birth abortion is wrong. Hillary’s shocking retort was a woman has the right to kill her baby on the day of delivery. Then, she used the Left’s tactic of attempting to brand anyone who thinks otherwise a male Neanderthal who hates women. Evil folks.

Trump’s landslide electoral victory was clearly a repudiation of the Left’s agenda from forcing Americans to allow men to use restrooms with their daughters to dethroning America as the world power.

I am convinced many still do not comprehend the Left’s disdain for us normal Americans, God, traditional family and country. Forcing the Left’s minority agenda down our throats is all that matters; trumping national security and American lives. Therefore, no tactic is too deadly, divisive or evil. This is the arena in which we fight. Some on our side still don’t get it; wanting to bring an olive branch or a knife to a gun fight.

With blood coming out of their eyes from hate and rage, the Left is committed 24/7 to branding Trump’s election illegitimate and blocking our 100 Day Plan.

Leftist actor Charlie Sheen tweeted that he wishes for the death of Trump.

Extreme Leftist, Democrat Rep. Maxine Walters vowed, “I’m going to fight him every inch of the way!”

Make no mistake about it folks, all the Left’s vitriol against Trump is really their hatred for us; every day Americans. CNN’s hate-filled Leftist Van Jones slandered Trump voters calling them angry white racist against a changing country and a black president.

Even Leftist columnist Maureen Dowd had to admit that this election was Americans rejecting Obama’s and the Left’s agenda. Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes, not all of them cast by homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, sexists, misogynists or any other “ists.”

So here we are folks. The Inauguration is weeks away. The Left true to its evil nature is still being obstructive; spewing fear and hate including celebs refusing to perform at the Inauguration. Fine. This is God’s way of providing an opportunity for other deserving artists.

I’m so excited about the new year 2017. However, the Left “ain’t” stoppin’ and they ain’t goin’ away. I cannot express enough how crucially important it is that we stay alert and protective of our 100 Day Plan; doing everything legally possible to push it through.

I feel like singing, “Happy days are here again…The skies above are clear again…So let’s sing a song of cheer again…Happy days are here again!”

foolishness-quote

Pronouns Matter, Misgendering and Gender Fluid are ‘Foolishness’

In The Blaze column “‘My pronouns are…’: College library workers wear buttons announcing preferred gender pronouns” Dave Urbanski reports:

A sign posted at University of Kansas Libraries spells it out.

“Because gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual,” the sign says, according to the Lawrence Journal-World. “Each person has the right to identify their own pronouns, and we encourage you to ask before assuming someone’s gender. Pronouns matter! Misgendering someone can have lasting consequences, and using the incorrect pronoun can be hurtful, disrespectful, and invalidate someone’s identity.”

Now some library employees are wearing buttons that announce their preferred gender pronouns, the Journal-World reported.

The “My pronouns are” buttons come in three versions: “He him his,” “She her hers” and “They them theirs” — the latter for those who don’t identify as male or female, the paper said.

Read more…

What is most queer is the University of Kansas statement that “gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual.”

Upon reading this article Brit Hume from Fox News posted the below tweet:

brit-hume-tweet-on-gender-fluid

The definition of foolishness is “lack of good sense or judgment; stupidity.” This is what the University of Kansas is teaching our youth, to lack good sense and be stupid.

But the University of Kansas has foolish champions in the field of sociology, one of them being Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos. Dr. Zevallos is an applied sociologist and is the publisher of the Other Sociologist blog. Zevallos explains the difference between sex, gender and sexuality using the below infographic:

sex-gender-and-sexuality-sociology-definitions

Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos

Note the foolishness in the Zevallos infographic. Let’s take each statement and analyse it:

  1. Sex are “biological traits that society associates with being male or female.” Truth: sex is determined by science, DNA and the laws of nature, not society.
  2. Gender is “cultural meaning attached to being masculine & feminine, which influence personal identities.” True in part. Culture and society is based upon science, DNA and the laws of nature, which by definition, associates gender with a person’s sex at birth. What is wrong is Zevallos listing “transgender, intersex, gender queer, among others” in the Gender category. The only two words that belong under Gender are man and woman.
  3. Finally, Zevallos get it right when she defines sexuality as a choice a “sexual attraction” and “practices which may  or may not align with sex and gender.” Sodomy is a choice. Sodomy in mutable. One’s sex and gender are immutable.

To believe that one can choose one’s gender is indeed foolish and believing that gender is fluid can be dangerous for the individual, a culture and society in general.

Biology, science and genetics, and therefore society/culture, are all in agreement that a male is in fact a male and a female is in fact a female. Changing one’s appearance does not change one’s sex. Believing one is something he or she is not is the definition of foolishness.

To believe otherwise is foolishness.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Liberals Think They Can Alter Reality. They’re Wrong.

A homeless man was indicted for castrating his homosexual Bronx lover

KU libraries’ gender pronoun pins part of inclusion push

older-man-woman

Best Affordable Care Tips for Your Health and Safety

Medical alert systems – the most affordable and effective means for ensuring your health safety. Having been introduced in the 1970s these small devices have since saved a great number of lives. The mechanism is easy and simple – push the button of the device that is normally worn either around your neck or wrist, when an emergency occurs and there is no one around to help you. You will get connected with the professional staff of a call center which differs from company to company. The latter will send people to your rescue.

Medical alert systems are especially good for seniors – those who live alone. It’s no news that old age brings about a number of health issues – memory loss, heart attacks, strokes, seizures, and the like, – and no one wants their loved ones to be alone and helpless when facing these problems. Here is when medical alert systems come to the fore and release you from all the worries about your senior relatives living alone.

Whenever they fall down – be it accidentally or as a result of some illness – regardless of them being far from the phone, all that is required from them would be pushing the button of their medical alert system and the help will be there in no time.

With medical alert systems you get the best affordable care for your loved ones or yourself. Now let’s dive in deeper into the subject by playing a game of questions and answers. Read on to find out the answers to all the questions regarding medical alert systems, their purchasing process and other minute details that will help you choose the best one for affordable health care.

What to Look for in Medical Alert Systems?

In helping you choose the best medical alert systems at the same time we provide you with highly effective health care tips. Health care is of crucial importance especially when it comes to safety of the elderly. Medical alert systems are a key to this safety and in order for them to function properly and contribute to the health care of your loved ones you need to have the skills and knowledge to choose the right one.

The best medical alert systems come with certain important features that are the basis of their “successful functioning”. So let’s have a look at these important features that you should seek in every medical alert system:

  • Alarm Buttons: Any quality company that you apply for a medical alert system will by all means offer you a selection between pendant and wristband types of buttons. The further choice is a matter of individual preference.
  • Wall-Mounted Help Buttons: Check out the availability of installing wall-mounted buttons throughout your house. This will be very helpful in case you “get into trouble” and don’t have your medical alert system around your neck or on your wrist. You can call for help with the help of these buttons.
  • Contact Listing: A quality and customer-oriented medical alert service will preserve a list of contacts and let you choose whom to call for your rescue. Maybe all you need is just a neighbour’s kind assistance.
  • Battery Backup: This point is crucial and makes up an important part of our care tips because of the simple reason that if your medical alert system lacks battery backup then in case of sudden power cuts it will be of no use. Battery backup will enable the functioning of your medical alert system even if there is no trace of electricity in your house.
  • Call Center: Speaking about the call center, we recommend you to check carefully whether it is of high quality and whether or not the staff is professional. For this exact purpose, the main way of checking the professionalism of the members of the call center staff is to make sure they are certified by the Underwriters Laboratory or UL. The latter qualifies companies according to the standards of quality they provide for customer care. Make sure your call center not only qualifies for these standards but also passes them on a regular basis.

What is the Amount of Coverage Provided by Your Medical Alert System?

Here arises another important question regarding medical alert systems. You should know how much coverage you or your loved one need. The answer to this depends on the type and size of house you live in. However, regardless of your house type, be it a big three-storey house with a garden, a small cottage, or an apartment, you should be sure that your medical alert system has enough amount of coverage and will function not only everywhere in the house, but in the yard/garden as well.

Landline or Cellular Service?

The next thing you should ask yourself refers to the type of medical alert system you want. Landline service is considered highly reliable but requires the presence of an available phone line. However, if you don’t have a phone line, then the cellular medical alert system will function as good. The rest depends on your personal choice.

Do You Need Fall Detection?

This question sounds about the same as “Do you need an additional safety feature?” The answer is obviously positive. Of course, you do! This feature might especially be of great relevance if you or your loved ones suffer from any kind of disease. You are never fully secured even with a medical alert system on your neck or wrist. But you can be if you buy one with the feature of fall detection.

Fall detection means the availability of special motion detection sensors that are normally built in into the medical alert system. They will detect the falling of a person and call for help automatically. Don’t hesitate to pay a bit more for this feature!

Are Medication Reminders Effective?

Some companies might offer special reminder-services that tell the elderly that it’s time to take their medication. This is done either automatically or through a base station and over the phone. This will be a good option for those suffering from regular memory losses.

What Do I Need to Know about the Medical Alert System Pricing Technique?

To start with, keep in mind that the concept of price is very relative and that neither a very low price nor a high one will ensure high quality. However, when talking about the prices of medical alert systems, we shall say that they are generally not very expensive, but require monthly or yearly fees. The latter differ from company to company.

Some companies might offer you to sign contracts. We advise you either not to agree to this, especially if they insist on it much, or do it with the help of a lawyer because these contracts can be really tricky and have some hidden fees.

Make sure the company provides you with price guarantee. If it doesn’t, it might raise your monthly fees later.

Another important tip is that you should find out the system activation fee beforehand so as not to have to face unexpected issues later.

And last but not least, don’t forget to buy a medical alert system that comes with a warranty. The latter will help you avoid wasting hundreds of dollars in case of any system malfunctions.

Medical alert systems are highly efficient and are worth the money, but following our tips you will get the best buy and the most affordable health care service.

What about the Lockbox?

For those who don’t know, a lockbox is a special box that comes with a lock combination chosen according to your preferences, it is kept outside of your house and contains a spare set of your house keys with the help of which the emergency staff won’t have to break the door in order to enter your house. This is very beneficial in terms of your budget as it will help you avoid further “door renovations” requiring hundreds of dollars.

Having learnt all these tips and bought a medical alert system that meets all our instructions as well as your expectations, you can be sure that the health care of your loved ones or yourself is fully secured. Find out the best companies that have positive reviews by the majority of their customers (we have singled out the best ones for you to make your purchase easier), check the medical alert systems they offer, the features they provide and choose the one you consider the best fit for yourself from all aspects mentioned above.

Don’t forget to test the medical alert system after you complete the installation process. There is usually a test button, in case your device lacks one, simply push the alarm button that connects you with the call center to be sure it functions.

What refers to the installation, it is utterly easy and doesn’t require much time. You can do it by simply reading the step-by-step instructions that most companies will provide you with. In case you have trouble with the installation process, simply call the company’s service center and they will give you further instructions on the phone.

Note: Don’t trust a company that wants to send a specialist with you for the installation, let alone requires additional fees for it. No high-quality company would do such a thing because of the simple fact that the installation of a medical alert system is extremely easy! In essence, all it takes you is to plug in the device into the wall.

Follow the health care of your loved ones and yourself, buy the best medical alert systems and keep yourself secure in all emergency situations!

trump-american-flag

Reflections on the Trump Presidency by Ray Dalio

Ray Dalio, Chairman & Chief Investment Officer at Bridgewater Associates, L.P. wrote a compelling analysis of the Trump administration. The title of Dilio’s Linkedin article is “Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election.”

Please take the time to read it in full.


Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election

By Ray Dalio

Now that we’re a month past the election and most of the cabinet posts have been filled, it is increasingly obvious that we are about to experience a profound, president-led ideological shift that will have a big impact on both the US and the world. This will not just be a shift in government policy, but also a shift in how government policy is pursued. Trump is a deal maker who negotiates hard, and doesn’t mind getting banged around or banging others around. Similarly, the people he chose are bold and hell-bent on playing hardball to make big changes happen in economics and in foreign policy (as well as other areas such as education, environmental policies, etc.). They also have different temperaments and different views that will have to be resolved.

Regarding economics, if you haven’t read Ayn Rand lately, I suggest that you do as her books pretty well capture the mindset. This new administration hates weak, unproductive, socialist people and policies, and it admires strong, can-do, profit makers. It wants to, and probably will, shift the environment from one that makes profit makers villains with limited power to one that makes them heroes with significant power. The shift from the past administration to this administration will probably be even more significant than the 1979-82 shift from the socialists to the capitalists in the UK, US, and Germany when Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Helmut Kohl came to power. To understand that ideological shift you also might read Thatcher’s “The Downing Street Years.” Or, you might reflect on China’s political/economic shift as marked by moving from “protecting the iron rice bowl” to believing that “it’s glorious to be rich.”

This particular shift by the Trump administration could have a much bigger impact on the US economy than one would calculate on the basis of changes in tax and spending policies alone because it could ignite animal spirits and attract productive capital. Regarding igniting animal spirits, if this administration can spark a virtuous cycle in which people can make money, the move out of cash (that pays them virtually nothing) to risk-on investments could be huge. Regarding attracting capital, Trump’s policies can also have a big impact because businessmen and investors move very quickly away from inhospitable environments to hospitable environments. Remember how quickly money left and came back to places like Spain and Argentina? A pro-business US with its rule of law, political stability, property rights protections, and (soon to be) favorable corporate taxes offers a uniquely attractive environment for those who make money and/or have money. These policies will also have shocking negative impacts on certain sectors.

Regarding foreign policy, we should expect the Trump administration to be comparably aggressive. Notably, even before assuming the presidency, Trump is questioning the one-China policy which is a shocking move. Policies pertaining to Iran, Mexico, and most other countries will probably also be aggressive.

The question is whether this administration will be a) aggressive and thoughtful or b) aggressive and reckless. The interactions between Trump, his heavy-weight advisors, and them with each other will likely determine the answer to this question. For example, on the foreign policy front, what Trump, Flynn, Tillerson, and Mattis (and others) are individually and collectively like will probably determine how much the new administration’s policies will be a) aggressive and thoughtful versus b) aggressive and reckless. We are pretty sure that it won’t take long to find out.

In the next section we look at some of the new appointees via some statistics to characterize what they’re like. Most notably, many of the people entering the new administration have held serious responsibilities that required pragmatism and sound judgment, with a notable skew toward businessmen.

Perspective on the Ideology and Experience of the New Trump Administration

We can get a rough sense of the experience of the new Trump administration by adding up the years major appointees have spent in relevant leadership positions. The table below compares the executive/government experience of the Trump administration’s top eight officials* to previous administrations, counting elected positions, government roles with major administrative responsibilities, or time as C-suite corporate executives or equivalent at mid-size or large companies. Trump’s administration stands out for having by far the most business experience and a bit lower than average government experience (lower compared to recent presidents, and in line with Carter and Reagan). But the cumulative years of executive/government experience of his appointees are second-highest. Obviously, this is a very simple, imprecise measure, and there will be gray zones in exactly how you classify people, but it is indicative.

Below we show some rough quantitative measures of the ideological shift to the right we’re likely to see under Trump and the Republican Congress. First, we look at the economic ideology of the incoming US Congress. Trump’s views may differ in some important ways from the Congressional Republicans, but he’ll need Congressional support for many of his policies and he’s picking many of his nominees from the heart of the Republican Party. As the chart below shows, the Republican members of Congress have shifted significantly to the right on economic issues since Reagan; Democratic congressmen have shifted a bit to the left. The measure below is one-dimensional and not precise, but it captures the flavor of the shift. The measure was commissioned by a National Science Foundation grant and is meant to capture economic views with a focus on government intervention on the economy. They looked at each congressman’s voting record, compared it to a measure of what an archetypical liberal or conservative congressman would have done, and rated each member of Congress on a scale of -1 to 1 (with -1 corresponding to an archetypical liberal and +1 corresponding to an archetypical conservative).

When we look more specifically at the ideology of Trump’s cabinet nominees, we see the same shift to the right on economic issues. Below we compare the ideology of Trump’s cabinet nominees to those of prior administrations using the same methodology as described above for the cabinet members who have been in the legislature. By this measure, Trump’s administration is the most conservative in recent American history, but only slightly more conservative than the average Republican congressman. Keep in mind that we are only including members of the new administration who have voting records (which is a very small group of people so far).

While the Trump administration appears very right-leaning by the measures above, it’s worth keeping in mind that Trump’s stated ideology differs from traditional Republicans in a number of ways, most notably on issues related to free trade and protectionism. In addition, a number of key members of his team—such as Steven Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, and Wilbur Ross—don’t have voting records and may not subscribe to the same brand of conservatism as many Republican congressmen. There’s a degree of difference in ideology and a level of uncertainty that these measures don’t convey.

Comparing the Trump and Reagan Administrations

The above was a very rough quantitative look at Trump’s administration. To draw out some more nuances, below we zoom in on Trump’s particular appointees and compare them to those of the Reagan administration. Trump is still filling in his appointments, so the picture is still emerging and our observations are based on his key appointments so far.

Looking closer, a few observations are worth noting. First, the overall quality of government experience in the Trump administration looks to be a bit less than Reagan’s, while the Trump team’s strong business experience stands out (in particular, the amount of business experience among top cabinet nominees). Even though Reagan’s administration had somewhat fewer years of government experience, the typical quality of that experience was somewhat higher, with more people who had served in senior government positions. Reagan himself had more political experience than Trump does, having served as the governor of California for eight years prior to taking office, and he also had people with significant past government experience in top posts (such as his VP, George HW Bush). By contrast, Trump’s appointees bring lots of high quality business leadership experience from roles that required pragmatism and judgment. Rex Tillerson’s time as head of a global oil company is a good example of high-level international business experience with clear relevance to his role as Secretary of State (to some extent reminiscent of Reagan’s second Secretary of State, George Shultz, who had a mix of past government experience and international business experience as the president of the construction firm Bechtel). Steven Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross have serious business credentials as well, not to mention Trump’s own experience. It’s also of note that Trump has leaned heavily on appointees with military experience to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience (appointing three generals for Defense, National Security Advisor, and Homeland Security), while Reagan compensated for his weakness in that area with appointees from both military and civilian government backgrounds (Bush had been CIA head and UN ambassador, and Reagan’s first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces during the Cold War). Also, Trump has seemed less willing to make appointments from among his opponents than Reagan was (Reagan’s Chief of Staff had chaired opposing campaigns, and his Vice President had run against him).

By and large, deal-maker businessmen will be running the government. Their boldness will almost certainly make the next four years incredibly interesting and will keep us all on our toes.

lbj war on poverty

Why Poverty MUST Be About Racism, Not Marriage

Virtually every Trump voter, reluctant Trump voter or defender of any policy or appointment of Trump, is being hit with one or more of the following personal accusations: racist, misogynist, bigot, homophobe.

Or maybe you exist as the trifecta. In many people’s minds, the three-part combo of white and male and Christian has become the bane of all that is wrong with society — the real cause of the nation’s problems.

Like most things we tackle at The Revolutionary Act, this is not just wrong thinking. It is irrational, emotion-based and anecdote-reliant, driven by a cultural misinformation machine and ultimately dangerous to the people they claim to want to be helping.

For instance, a recent Facebook debate on poverty focused almost exclusively on racism in the United States. We interjected data definitively showing that the strongest links to poverty are single moms, not graduating from high school and not taking a job, according to the moderate Brookings Institute.

These factors apply to whites, blacks, Hispanics and surely all of the rest of humanity. So the solution is not blaming entrenched institutional racism — which has now become a tiny rump of what it once was — but to tackle the ultimate causes. The solution is connecting personal choices to outcomes.

Now, try posting that on Facebook. The responses are irrational, emotion-based and anecdote-reliant. A recent fad is to be labeled a “scold.” Anything except the actual merits of the point.

Irrational: “What about the men who get these single moms pregnant!?!?! This hatred of women is why Hill lost.”

Emotional: “I’m a single mom and the proud daughter of a single mom! Quit telling me I’m the problem!!!”

Anecdote-reliant: “Plenty of kids succeed coming from single-parent households. Look at Ben Carson.”

There you have it. Toss out the scientific data — actual facts — and fall back on irrational charges, emotional defenses and Ben Carson.

Sigh.

This is why we cannot make any headway against poverty despite our enormous wealth and mind-boggling wealth transfers.

The welfare failure

We’ve transferred $22 trillion to poorer Americans since launching the war on poverty in 1964, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis. And yet official poverty numbers have hardly budged at all.

Robert Rector, one of the authors of the NCPA study, wrote: “If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.” Got that? We could write a check to each poor person annually to get them out of poverty — five times over.

OK, so this just must to be excruciatingly clear: the 80 government welfare programs (which does not include Social Security and Medicare) are definitive failures in doing anything to affect poverty. There can be no argument about that. Doing more of what has failed for 50 years is doomed to further failure.

So why do we keep doing it?

The problem of marriage morals

Because to actually fix the problem we would have to declare certain things as true and proclaim the necessary ownership of personal choices.

First, out-of-wedlock births are first-line causes of poverty (as is divorce — and that is stepping on a lot of toes) and that leads to pre-marital sex being at the very least a risky step toward poverty. As that is often conducted unprotected and in the heat of passion, particularly with young people, it is better to not have sex outside of marriage.

Well that’s starting to sound an awful lot like some puritanical Bible-thumping — and the culture drivers in our country simply cannot abide by such a thing. In fact work and personal responsibility also have a bit of a biblical ring to them.

After spending much of the 20th century trying to break down Judeo-Christian moral sexual norms — and we are now all the way up to gay marriage and transvestite men using the women’s room — no one is willing to talk about the need for sexual self-control and fidelity. And certainly no one wants to talk about sex outside marriage being wrong. Watch any TV show or movie. The opposite is glorified, and the image painted is that everyone does it.

But if we did talk about sex only in marriage, and promoted it like we promote the ongoing sexual “revolution,” we would take a huge step toward defeating a lot of poverty. At least, that’s what the actual facts suggest.

But we won’t. Because we don’t want to. So we blame racism because it is cheap, easy and available and makes many feel morally superior.

And poverty remains as it has ever been. Transferring $22 trillion changed nothing. And another $22 trillion won’t, either.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.