U.S. Senator Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Repeal/Replace Obamacare

The Obamacare Replacement Act (S. 222) introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, M.D. accomplishes the following:

Repealing Obamacare

Effective as of the date of enactment of this bill, the following provisions of Obamacare are repealed:

  • Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.

Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions

  • Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
  • Restores HIPAA pre-existing conditions protections. Prior to Obamacare, HIPAA guaranteed those within the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. Equalize the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance
  • Individuals who receive health insurance through an employer are able to exclude the premium amount from their taxable income. However, this subsidy is unavailable for those that do not receive their insurance through an employer but instead shop for insurance on the individual market.
  • Equalizes the tax treatment of the purchase of health insurance for individuals and employers. By providing a universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes regardless of how an individual obtains their health insurance, Americans will be empowered to purchase insurance independent of employment. Furthermore, this provision does not interfere with employer provided coverage for Americans who prefer those plans.

Expansion of Health Savings Accounts

Tax Credit for HSA Contributions

  • Provides individuals the option of a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an HSA. If an individual chooses not to accept the tax credit or contributes in excess of $5,000, those contributions are still tax-preferred.

Maximum Contribution Limit to HSA

  • Removes the maximum allowable annual contribution, so that individuals may make unlimited contributions to an HSA.

Eliminates the requirement that a participant in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible health care plan

  • Currently, in order to be eligible to establish and use an HSA, an individual must be enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. This section removes the HSA plan type requirement to allow individuals with all types of insurance to establish and use an HSA. o This would also enable individuals who are eligible for Medicare, VA benefits, TRICARE, IHS, and members of health care sharing ministries to be eligible to establish an HSA.

Allowance of Distributions for Prescription and OTC Drugs

  • Allows prescription and OTC drug costs to be treated as allowable expenses of HSAs.

Purchase of Health Insurance from HSA Account

  • Currently, HSA funds may not be used to purchase insurance or cover the cost of premiums. Allowing the use of HSA funds for insurance premiums will help make health coverage more affordable for American families.

Medical Expenses Incurred Prior to Account Establishment

  • Allows qualified expenses incurred prior to HSA establishment to be reimbursed from an HSA as long as the account is established prior to tax filing. Ø Administrative Error Correction Before Due Date of Return
  • Amends current law by allowing for administrative or clerical error corrections on filings. Ø Allowing HSA Rollover to Child or Parent of Account Holder o Allows an account holder’s HSA to rollover to a child, parent, or grandparent, in addition to a spouse.

Equivalent Bankruptcy Protections for HSAs as Retirement Funds

  • Most tax-exempt retirement accounts are also fully exempt from bankruptcy by federal law. While some states have passed laws that exempt HSA funds from being seized in bankruptcy, there is no federal protection for HSA funds in bankruptcy.

Certain Exercise Equipment and Physical Fitness Programs to be Treated as Medical Care

  • Expands allowable HSA expenses to include equipment for physical exercise or health coaching, including weight loss programs.

Nutritional and Dietary Supplements to be Treated as Medical Care

  • Amends the definition of “medical care” to include dietary and nutritional supplements for the purposes of HSA expenditures.

Certain Providers Fees to be Treated as Medical Care

  • Allows HSA funds to be used for periodic fees paid to medical practitioners for access to medical care.

Capitated Primary Care Payments

  • HSAs can be used for pre-paid physician fees, which includes payments associated with “concierge” or “direct practice” medicine.

Provisions Relating to Medicare o Allows Medicare enrollees to contribute their own money to the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).

Charity Care and Bad Debt Deduction for Physicians

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a physician a tax deduction equal to the amount such physician would otherwise charge for charity medical care or uncompensated care due to bad debt. This deduction is limited to 10% of a physician’s gross income for the taxable year.

Pool Reform for the Individual Market

  • Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for the purposes of purchasing insurance.
  • Amends the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to allow individuals to pool together to provide for health benefits coverage through Individual Health Pools (IHPs). These can include nonprofit organizations (including churches, alumni associations, trade associations, other civic groups, or entities formed strictly for establishing an IHP) so long as the organization does not condition membership on any health status-related factor.
  • Requires that the IHP will provide insurance through contracts with health insurance issuers in fully insured plans and not assume insurance risk with respect to such coverage. Allows the IHP to provide administrative services to members, including accounting, billings, and enrollment information.

Interstate Market for Health Insurance

Cooperative Governing of Individual Health Insurance Coverage

  • Increases access to individual health coverage by allowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state.
  • Exempts issuers from secondary state laws that would prohibit or regulate their operation in the secondary state. However, states may impose requirements such as consumer protections and applicable taxes, among others.
  • Prohibits an issuer from offering, selling, or issuing individual health insurance coverage in a secondary state:
  1. If the state insurance commissioner does not use a risk-based capital formula for the determination of capital and surplus requirements for all issuers.
  2. Unless both the secondary and primary states have legislation or regulations in place establishing an independent review process for individuals who have individual health insurance coverage; or
  3. The issuer provides an acceptable mechanism under which the review is conducted by an independent medical reviewer or panel. Gives sole jurisdiction to the primary state to enforce the primary state’s covered laws in the primary state and any secondary state.
  • Allows the secondary state to notify the primary state if the coverage offered in the secondary state fails to comply with the covered laws in the primary state.

Association Health Plans

  • Association Health Plans (AHPs) allow small businesses to pool together across state lines through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their employees and their families. AHPs increase the bargaining power, leverage discounts, and provide administrative efficiencies to small businesses while freeing them from state benefit mandates.
  • While AHPs currently exist, strict Department of Labor standards exist regarding the types of organizations that may qualify as a single large-group health plan under ERISA. The standard stipulates that the association must be a group of employers bound together by a commonality of interest (aside from providing a health plan) with vested control of the association to such an extent that they effectively operate as one employer. This is considered a difficult standard for most associations to meet.
  • Amends ERISA to define AHPs and allow for their treatment as if they were large group single employer health plans. This definition would allow a dues-collecting organization maintained in good faith for a purpose other than providing health insurance to benefit from the insurance regulation exclusions currently afforded to large-group health plans under ERISA.
  • Requires solvency standards to protect patients’ rights and ensure benefits are paid. o Requires AHPs to have an indemnified back-up plan in order to prevent unpaid claims in the event of plan termination.
  • AHPs must undergo independent actuarial certification for financial viability on a regular basis. o Requires AHPs to maintain surplus reserves of at least $500,000 in addition to normal claims reserves, stop loss insurance, or indemnification insurance.

Anti-Trust Reform for Healthcare

  • Provides an exemption from Federal antitrust laws for health care professionals engaged in negotiations with a health plan regarding the terms of a contract under which the professionals provide health care items or services.
  • This section applies only to health care professionals excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. It would also not apply to contracts or care provided under Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the FEHBP, or the IHS as well as medical and dental care provided to members of the uniformed services and veterans.

Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers

  • Provides new flexibilities to states in their Medicaid plan design, through existing waiver authority in current law.
  • For many years, including under Obamacare, States have had the option to request a waiver from HHS to allow states to test new coverage rules under Medicaid and other programs. This provision would allow states to make changes to their Medicaid plans without interference from Washington.

Self-Insurance Protections

  • Amends the definition of “health insurance coverage” under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and parallel sections of ERISA and the Tax Code, to clarify that stop-loss insurance is not health insurance.
  • This provision is designed to prevent the federal government from using rule-making to restrict the availability of stop-loss insurance used by self-insured plans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House GOP Obamacare Plan Faces Uphill Battle in Senate

Breitbart.com: Sen. Tom Cotton says Paul Ryan’s healthcare bill does not deliver on GOP, President Trump’s promise to repeal, replace Obamacare

Mulvaney: GOP healthcare plan a ‘framework’

Adviser: Trump willing to accept improvements to healthcare proposal

GOP Healthcare Plan Allows Illegal Aliens to get tax credits

Numbers USA has reviewed the American Healthcare Act bill and found that illegal aliens are eligible for tax credits. Here is what Numbers USA published:

Healthcare reform legislation unveiled by GOP Leaders on Monday night would, at best, leave in place a verification system that allowed up to 500,000 illegal aliens to access taxpayer-funded benefits over the last several years. According to a 2016 Senate report, the government issued $750 million of Obamacare subsidies to individuals whose immigration status couldn’t be verified. The GOP plan would leave in place that failed verification process, or worse, eliminate the verification process altogether.

According to the 2016 Senate report, the Obamacare framework gave benefit of the doubt to illegal aliens when they applied for subsidies, but if the alien failed to file the necessary paperwork, the IRS was supposed to retrieve the funds. A lack of cooperation between Health and Human Services and the IRS, however, prevented the money from being recouped.

But according to multiple Hill contacts, GOP Republicans may not even be able to get the failed verification process, which would leave their entire plan open to illegal aliens. Under the plan, subsidies for health insurance would no longer be awarded, but individuals could receive tax credits for purchasing healthcare on the government exchanges.

For more on this, click here.

As we have said, this bill is out in the open. Now is the time for every citizen to read it and then contact their U.S. Senators and member of Congress and tell them what you think about this bill.

We’ve come a long way to get to this point, we’ve got a long way to go to make sure it gets done right.

RELATED VIDEO: Representative Mike Kelly Discusses Process of Repealing Obamacare w/Charles Payne on Fox Business.

Coca-Cola Puts Out Gay Ad: Brother/Sister Fight Over Boy

Coca-Cola Co has launched a gay-friendly ad in a recent campaign that is winning “praise” for diversity and inclusion.

The minute-long ad features a brother and sister vying for the attention of a handsome pool boy and fighting for the right to offer him an ice-cold Coke.

The ad is a part of the company’s global ‘Taste the Feeling’ campaign, and features a teenage girl eyeing the hunky pool boy from a downstairs window while her brother lustfully watches the boy from upstairs.

The two then race to the refrigerator in an effort to be the first to offer him a cold Coke.

Despite the best efforts of the brother and sister, Mom gets there first and has first dibs on the pool boy.

In a complicated statement, the Coca-Cola PR agency said:

‘We are managing culturally relevant messages organically within our spots not as the main subject of the story but as sub-text.”

Okay, enough of that gibberish.  Here’s what you really need to know about this ad campaign. And it’s more than you think.

Most older Americans will be perplexed at the purpose of this new Coca-Cola ad.  As well as they should be.

Is this an ad to attract more gays into buying Coca-Cola?  Or an ad to indoctrinate young Americans into accepting the gay lifestyle? No doubt this is part of the objective by Coca-Cola’s advertisement team.  But those reasons are not the complete, or perhaps even the main, answer.

Young adults run ad agencies, nowadays.  And as we all know these young adults have no qualm about using other people’s money (company money) to push their own political/moral beliefs and worldviews on society

But even this is not the compete answer.

Corporations view older Americans as an established, but dying, breed of purchasers.  Even if they are offended, they will remain loyal to the product.  They key word is “loyal.”  That is the objective of ad agencies: to get loyal purchasers.  Once you have a loyal buyer, the reasoning goes, that purchaser will ultimately withstand many offenses down the line.  You may lose some, but not enough to make a significant dent in profits.

Ad agencies, therefore, must focus on young Americans because they are not yet ‘loyal’ to the product.  Being gay-friendly, the reasoning goes, will win over the ‘loyalty’ of the young.  And with that loyalty, they will be Coca-Cola purchasers for decades.

And what about those who HAVE ALREADY BEEN loyal for decades?  Well, Coca-Cola already has their money…which can now be used to promote an immoral lifestyle to gain the acceptance, love and loyalty of an immoral people.

Most major companies don’t sell you on a product any more; they are in the business of selling you on their beliefs.

Perhaps what’s really sad is that people would buy a product, not because “Coke adds life,” but because “Coke adds perversion.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Homecoming at University of Minnesota Bows to ‘Gender Inclusivity’

ANSWERING FACEBOOK: Playing Dodgeball with Abortion Realities

The abortion debate inevitably travels in the same issue-avoiding circles. I was recently on an ABC panel debating the courts blocking Florida’s 24-hour wait period for a woman to get an abortion after receiving counseling, providing time for her to weigh more information into her life-and-death decision.

Naturally enough, it devolved into a debate on abortion — as it always should. I was debating a pro-choice feminist and board member of the ACLU. And a friend. Our debate was feisty but civil — an important goal.

However, the debate continued on Facebook, where it became decidedly less civil. One of the great canards thrown at me all the time is that I cannot have an opinion on this because I am a man. This is so easily cut down and burned that there is never a response to my point. It’s just reiterated that I can’t. I’m male.

What this and so much of the rest of abortion debate dodgeball suggest is that rational thought, morals and, more than ever, science, make the pro-choice position completely indefensible. There is simply no way to defend a woman’s “right” to end the life of another human being for any reason she chooses, at any point in the pregnancy she chooses.

Canards flying everywhere

Hence we have the dodgeball arguments that this is a “choice”; that this is about “reproductive health rights”; that this is about “health care”; that a man cannot have an opinion.

No, the first and central issue is whether that which is in the womb is a human being with rights inherent as a human being. Most people actually see that is the case, at least after a month or two. Science gives us evidence with brain waves, heartbeats and in-womb pictures.

So when I make these points, they are really never refuted head-on. This is demonstrated with painful clarity in the Facebook debate that followed. It’s linked below.

Here is a sampling from Facebook, from both men and women:

“I watched it last night. I still don’t understand why men think they have a say in women’s health.”

“The next segment should be on prostate health. I’m looking forward to (a woman) expressing her opinion on that.”

“A man’s opinion on a women’s health and body issue is just not on equal footing with (a woman’s), no matter how eloquent and reasonable it may be.”

“What if women were up in arms because of men’s selfish refusal to get vasectomies?? What if we tried to FORCE men to get vasectomies for the safety of women?”

“Another man chimes in, lol.”

FYI, the response that men cannot have an opinion on this is astonishingly faulty thinking. Morals are not gender-dependent. Right and wrong is right and wrong. There is not a different set of rights and wrongs based on gender. It is not morally acceptable for a woman to steal from a man because she is a woman, because *stealing* is wrong. It is not morally acceptable for a man to kill a woman, or another man, because *murder* is wrong. Stealing and murder are wrong independent of which gender is doing it and which gender is considering its morality. In the same way, killing an unborn baby is either morally acceptable or not morally acceptable, independent of which gender is doing it or which gender is considering its morality.

Let’s play abortion dodgeball!

All of this is dodgeball. You see how all of the accusations avoid the central point. I’m convinced most know deep down this is the willful taking of an innocent human life. They know that is not defensible on any moral grounds.

So they play dodge the issue.

  • I throw out “Is it a human life in the womb?” They dodge left with “It’s a woman’s choice!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They dodge right with “It’s about reproductive rights!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They duck with “It’s about healthcare!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They spin sideways with “Pro-lifers don’t care about the life outside the womb!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They slide down with “If pro-lifers really cared about abortions, they would support better sex education!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They spin sideways with “You’re a man!”

I throw one last time “Is it a human life in the womb?” And one may finally answer with “No! It’s a clump of cells. Nothing more than a tumor.”

Finally. Someone admits to being a science-denier. But at least we can get on to debate the core issue with all the scientific evidence that it is indeed a measurable human being within weeks. We measure the death of a human with heartbeat and brainwaves. The baby has both of those in six to eight weeks.

That’s it. Dodge the ball of what abortion really is.

None of these remotely approach a defense for a state policy of allowing the willful killing of a human being with inherent rights by another human being for any reason, or no reason.

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

Citizens can actually read the ‘American Health Care Act’ bill Online! Refreshing

Remember this:

Speaker Paul Ryan in an email to all Americans wrote:

I want you to be the first to know: we just introduced our bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. It is called the American Health Care Act, and it is a plan to drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance. It protects young adults, patients with pre-existing conditions, and provides a stable transition so that no one has the rug pulled out from under them.

Unlike the Democrats, we are not going to pass legislation to find out what is in it. The American Health Care Act will proceed through a transparent process of regular order in full view of the public.

Visit www.ReadTheBill.gop to download and read the bill.

How refreshing.

Michael A. Needham, Chief Executive Officer Heritage Action for America, in an email writes:

For seven years, Republican lawmakers have campaigned on the promise of full repeal. The American people elected a Republican House, Senate, and White House to ensure this promise was kept. For most people in the individual market, there would be no significant difference between the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the new American Health Care Act proposed by Republicans.

This is bad politics and, more importantly, bad policy.

If Republicans move forward with this bill, they will be accepting the flawed premises of Obamacare. Instead, they should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to follow through on their seven year promises to create a free market health care system.

Let the negotiations on the proposed American Health Care Act begin.

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservative Lawmakers to Use Their ‘Enormous Power’ to Fight Obamacare Replacement Bill

House Republican Health Care Bill Misses the Mark

What if there’s no affordable insurance to buy?

House Republicans Release Text of Obamacare Repeal, Conservatives Call for Action ‘Now’

GOP Unveils Obamacare Replacement Legislation

Trump’s Historic Chance to Dismantle the Administrative State

What Will GOPcare Change?

RELATED VIDEOS:

Sen. Rand Paul: “They can’t keep ‘Obamacare Lite’ and expect conservatives to vote for it.” – 3/2/17

Rep. Mike Kelly discusses American Health Care Act with Neil Cavuto.

The 6 Most Destructive Myths About Ebola

While fears and concerns mount in the face of the worst Ebola outbreak history, potentially dangerous myths and rumors are also being spread. Ranging from simple misunderstandings to deliberate misinformation.

burning of ebola victims source

Burning of Ebola victims.

The current West African Ebola outbreak has claimed more than 4,000 lives, but recent media coverage has also ignited a firestorm of panic and misinformation regarding the virus. In some cases, the myths surrounding Ebola make it more difficult for health workers to combat and contain it, and even harmless rumors can create unnecessary paranoia. Below are some of the most common and persistent myths about the Ebola virus.

It is Highly Contagious:

Ebola is highly infectious, but it is not very contagious. In humans, the virus spreads through close contact with infected bodily fluids such as sweat, saliva, blood, fecal matter, and semen. Ebola is not considered an airborne virus, since it cannot survive in the open air or travel long distances. Casual contact with an infected person is considered to bear a low risk of infection, which is why the majority of cases are reported amongst health care workers in constant close contact with infected patients. As viruses go, Ebola spreads at a much slower rate than most. Smallpox, which was successfully eliminated by a targeted vaccine program, was more than twice as contagious, while measles is a staggering nine times more contagious than Ebola.

Outside Assistance is Making it Worse:

One of the more dangerous myths about Ebola is that international aid efforts are making the outbreak worse. In some regions, there are even rumors that the virus was introduced by international healthworkers, creating distrust and hindering relief efforts. Some people also worry that sending health workers increases the odds of the disease spreading in other parts of the world, but current evidence suggests that this fear is unfounded.

There is No Hope for a Cure:

While there are currently no cures or vaccines for Ebola, that doesn’t mean that one won’t be developed. There are a number of promising treatments and vaccines that are being tested by the World HealthOrganization to ensure that they are effective and free of harmful side-effects. Many experts predict that a vaccine may even be developed and approved within a matter of months.

All Ebola Victims Die:

While Ebola is undoubtedly a dangerous and often-fatal virus, it is important to understand the data relating to its mortality rate in the proper context. There are several strains of Ebola, each with different reported mortality rates, ranging from 20% to 90%, making it difficult to pin down an accurate figure. Moreover, experts argue that many of the deaths attributed to Ebola could be prevented if patients were treated in facilities with better access to treatment and stricter adherence to safety protocols. With state of the art medical care, the mortality rate of Ebola may even be as low as 10-20%, making it roughly as fatal as SARS.

Travel and Immigration Pose a Serious Risk:

One of the most persistent myths about Ebola is that immigrants and foreign travelers pose a major risk of spreading the virus. The simple fact is that immigrants and travelers from anywhere in the world besides West Africa are not a threat. In countries facing the Ebola epidemic, air travel has become much more restricted, and screening processes have improved for both incoming and outgoing passengers. Since a person who does not display symptoms of the virus is not contagious, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that a serious epidemic could result from air travel.

The U.S. Isn’t Prepared to Deal with Ebola:

Much of the hysteria stemming from this Ebola outbreak is based around the idea that the United States wouldn’t be able to contain the virus. However, it is important to realize that the reason Ebola poses such a threat in West Africa is due to the lack of adequate healthcare in affected countries. Ebola is no more deadly or contagious than many other diseases, but the lack of training, clean medical supplies, and personnel in West African hospitals has created a situation where the disease is able to run rampant. In a country with strong healthcare infrastructure and state of the art facilities, the Ebola virus would be much easier to contain.

Ebola is certainly a major public health priority in West Africa, but the truth is that for most of the world, it is far from the apocalyptic threat that many people claim it to be. The persistent myths and rumors above have fueled widespread paranoia and public fear about the virus, but it is vitally important to understand the facts in order to better facilitate efforts to contain and eliminate the outbreak at its source.

source

A Promise Kept: Trump Signs Repeal of Obama-Era Social Security Gun Prohibition Rule

On Tuesday, President Donald J. Trump signed the repeal of an Obama-era Social Security Administration (SSA) rule that would have resulted in some 75,000 law-abiding beneficiaries losing their Second Amendment rights each year. 

The SSA rulemaking was issued in the waning weeks of Obama’s presidency and targeted those receiving disability insurance or Supplementary Security Income based on SSA’s listed mental disorders and who were appointed a “representative payee” to help them manage their benefits. The agency –for the first time in its history– sought to portray these individuals as “mental defectives” who were prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms under federal law. It had planned to notify them of their prohibited status and to report them to NICS.

Making matters worse, the beneficiaries would have had no ability to argue about their suitability to possess firearms before their rights were lost. Instead, they would have been reduced to filing a petition for “restoration” of their rights, an expensive and bureaucratic process that would have required them to pay for a mental health evaluation and to prove they were not dangerous, a premise the government never established in the first place.

The plan drew fire not just from the NRA, but also from the ACLU and a wide range of mental health advocacy and treatment groups from across the political spectrum. Also opposing the plan was the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies, programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with disabilities. The NCD issued a statement explaining:

Since the action was first proposed in 2013, NCD has consistently taken the position that equating the need for assistance in managing one’s finances with a false presumption of incapacity in other areas of life, including possession of a firearm, unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities of a constitutional right and increases the stigma that [affects] those who may need a representative payee. The overly broad classification of “mental disorder,” includes a wide range of limitations and a shifting set of criteria relevant to whether or not one can engage in substantial gainful activity. NCD remains steadfast in our position that this classification remains irrelevant to the question of whether one can be a responsible gun owner.

The SSA received tens of thousands of comments in opposition to the rule. The NRA-ILA’s submission explained in detail how the rule was contrary to the underlying statute, to the U.S. Constitution and would function mainly to stigmatize the SSA beneficiaries and discourage others from seeking treatment and benefits to which they were entitled. It also argued that there was no empirical support for the notion that the rule would promote public safety.

The SSA, however, ignored the comments and issued the rule essentially as proposed. 

It also brazenly brushed aside proffered evidence that the targeted beneficiaries were not at any increased risk for committing violence with firearms. “We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence,” the SSA wrote. “Rather, we are complying with our obligations under the NIAA, which require us to provide information from our records when an individual falls within one of the categories identified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g).”

Fortunately, pro-gun majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate acted quickly to disapprove the rule under the Congressional Review Act, a federal statute that allows Congress to use an expedited legislative process to overrule administrative actions passed in the waning days of an outgoing administration.

The efforts to roll back this unjustified and legally unauthorized rule were predictably met with a withering barrage of negative and fake reporting from the anti-gun media, with supposed “news” outlets issuing such ludicrous headlines as “Senate, House hand guns to seriously mentally ill.” All these reports completely ignored the fact that existing restrictions on persons who had been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally incompetent remained fully intact. By acting to block the rule, Congress simply disapproved the Obama administration’s attempt to create a new class of prohibited persons by “reinterpreting” a federal gun control statute passed in 1968.

President Trump’s signing of the measure not only served to help repair the damage to the Second Amendment wrought by the Obama administration, it ushered in what many hope will be a new era of respect for the right to keep and bear arms. Just over a month into his presidency, Trump signed a free-standing pro-gun bill into law. 

The NRA, of course, was among the earliest and staunchest supporters of Trump’s presidential bid. We thank him for his quick action on this measure and look forward to working with him and the pro-gun majorities in Congress to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Longer Life, Healthier Life?

The average human being is living longer than ever before. Nearly every country on the planet has seen an increase in life expectancy since the beginning of the 21st century.

But though we are living longer, not all of us are living healthier.

Health Adjusted Life Expectancy (HALE), or healthy life expectancy, is a metric used by the World Health Organization to measure the number of years a person can expect to live in good health, taking social and economic factors into account alongside disease and disability rates.

When we deduct healthy life expectancy from actual life expectancy, we see the average amount of years someone can expect to live in bad health – or ‘Bad Health Years‘.

This infographic takes a country-by-country look at the change in bad health years since 2000 to see where people are living a longer, healthier life.

Longer Life, Healthier Life?

Europe

Despite having some of the highest life expectancy in the world, the people of Europe live the most years in bad health. The majority of European nations have become even more unhealthy since 2000.
Longer Life, Healthier Life

Africa

It is in Africa where the biggest reductions in bad health years have occurred, with great progress in health and development since the turn of the century.

Longer Life, Healthier Life?

Middle East and Asia

While bad health years in most nations in the Middle East have increased since 2000, outcomes across the rest of Asia are slightly better.

South East Asia and Oceania

Indonesia and the South-East Asian nations are getting healthier, but in Australia and New Zealand bad health years are on the rise.

North and Central America

Mixed outcomes in North and Central America reflect the diverse range of economic and social conditions across the region, with the United States seeing one of the biggest increases in bad health years in the world. ”

South America

Similarly, South America displays a varied set of outcomes. Nations like Bolivia and Ecuador, traditionally considered to be among the continent’s least developed, have achieved the biggest reduction in bad health years.

Life Expectancy changes since 2000

Besides Bad Health Years, we also made some interesting findings regarding life expectancy.

The Price of Conflict

Only two nations did not register an improvement in life expectancy: Iraq and Syria.

Life expectancy in Iraq stagnated, while in Syria it has decreased by 3 years.

Healthier, longer lives

A number of countries have witnessed a startling increase in life expectancy since the year 2000. The top 10 can all be found in Africa.

How has life expectancy changed in Africa since 2000

Time for the U.S. Department of Justice to crack down on Marijuana

President Trump said during his address to a joint session of Congress,

I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.

We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth — and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.

[ … ]

As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.

In The Daily Signal article “How Trump’s DOJ Can Start Enforcing Federal Marijuana Law” Cully Stimson reports:

On Thursday last week, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he “believe[s] that we will see greater enforcement” of the federal laws against recreational marijuana.

While he acknowledged that the question to which he was responding was better directed to the Department of Justice, Spicer said that state legalization of recreational marijuana “is something the Department of Justice, I think, will be further looking into.”

Spicer’s comments are welcome news for those advocating commonsense drug policy.

Scientists agree that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and no major national medical organization advocates legalization. Whether you agree with that or not, marijuana remains illegal for good reason.

Thorough scientific reviews by President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration—as well as drug classification reviews by federal judges—have affirmed that marijuana should remain a Schedule 1 drug. Such drugs are defined as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

As I have written here and here, the predictable consequences of marijuana legalization are beginning to emerge in states like Colorado and Washington.

Annual reports from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and the Colorado Department of Public Safety have analyzed the negative impact that marijuana legalization has had on health and public safety in Colorado.

Read more…

President Trump, unlike his predecessor, has not used drugs and does not drink. President Trump is concerned about the social cost of a society that finds the use, and expected abuse, of drugs and alcohol to be wrong on many levels.

Stimson presents eleven (11) commonsense recommendations which are consistent with an interest in public health and safety of all Americans.

This President can turn the tide on drug abuse and the debilitating effects and crime that accompany it. Crimes such as human trafficking,  murder, sale of heroin and cocaine and death.

RELATED STUDIES:

Is marijuana a gateway drug?

Stages and pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis

Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use

Moral Clarity: Get the Feds Out of Bathrooms

Sometimes it is astonishing to see where we are as a country, that somehow we cannot find moral clarity on the idea that a man should not be allowed to use women’s or even girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.

But that is where we are.

First, perhaps, it would be good to clarify what transgender actually refers to. This will take a moment, because even on this point, clarity is elusive.

According to Wikipedia’s rather extensive entry on transgenderism, there is this to get the enlightenment rolling:

“…in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity. Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation: transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc., or may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable.”

Ok, there really is no clarifying the absolute hash we’ve made of gender identities and sexual proclivities deemed alternatively acceptable.

However, there is some moral clarity to be had on this issue.

Fundamental right and wrong

Common sense dictates this most obvious of all statements: A male with all the physiological package of a male should use the male bathroom and locker room facilities, regardless of how he feels about himself at any given moment. Science, decency and “well, duh” normal thinking dictate this truth.

Alas, that is not what President Obama thought when he ordered the schools to open up bathrooms, locker rooms and showers — the news accounts just focus on the bathrooms — to transgender people. I suspect most Americans are not buying into this, at the moment, but enough activists are that they provided cover for friendly media coverage for the policy.

However, all we need to do is think this through clearly, stepping away from power politics and emotional appeals based on a tiny number of people, to find clarity.

These laws pose an existential threat to women and girls. The threat does not have to come from transgenders, although it may. The laws themselves open pedophile portals, avenues for voyeurism and worse. Despite what you may hear, be guided by this reality: Most teen girls are not going to be comfortable changing and showering with anatomical boys — regardless of how the boy may identify.

Rights right and wrong

The media coverage of Trump overturning Obama’s Title IX guidance on transgenders using the bathroom of their choice, and other single-sex school facilities (which would be politically translatable beyond schools) is labeled transgender rights or LGBT rights. So naturally, Trump is seen as taking away rights.

But that is the wrong label, even wrong concept.

The word “rights” invokes powerful feelings and desires. There are rights we have as humans. Thomas Jefferson and other founders called them “unalienable rights,” meaning they cannot be separated from the person. They saw them as given by God to every man (yes, a huge error, now corrected, was committed on the point of slavery for the sake of colonial unity) and government cannot give or take those kinds of rights. They are inherent in being human.

The founders embedded this understanding in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The founders did not see governments as granters of rights, but as the largest threat to squash rights. They had, and still have, history on their side in that assessment.

Government makes laws determining what is legal and illegal. Sometimes, they make something legal that abridges the rights of others. Society at times agrees that this tradeoff is worth it (taxes, for instance) while other times society is rancorously divided (legalized abortion) for instance.

These laws are not unalienable. What government can give (Obama’s guidance) government can take away (Trump’s reversal) because those are simple executive policy decisions. No one’s rights were infringed on the reversal.

However, we have changed our definition of rights in recent years — often for political gain — and split rights into special subgroups. That resulted in pitting some groups’ rights against other groups’ rights through laws and policies. Gay rights conflict with religious people’s rights. Transgender rights conflict with women’s and children’s safety rights. And so on. This has created tremendous conflict in our nation — to the benefit of a select few.

If we could return to basic rights as unalienable from every person — no subgroups — we would be in a better place to judge what is best for all in laws and policies, and gain the added benefit of increased unity.

Clarity becomes easy

With this understanding, we return to the question of transgenders — and whoever else — being allowed to use bathroom facilities opposite of their genital package.

Realistically, women using men’s bathrooms and showers would be extremely rare, and it would be even more rare to be seen as threatening to men if they did. So the real danger is men using women’s facilities, and this is where there actually is a potential rights infringement.

Under the rubric of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” being comfortable in the bathroom is not a right. It is not unalienable, and being uncomfortable does not undermine the Declaration’s declaration. This is true for transgenders in bathrooms and it is true for non-transgenders in bathrooms with someone of the opposite sex. It simply doesn’t fall in the rights category.

However, any man or men being allowed in the same changing and showering facilities with women, does pose a very real physical threat. As much as we might want it to not be the case, everything we know tells us that a statistically significant percentage of men are sexual predators, primarily against women and girls, but sometimes against boys, too. The percentage of women in this category is not zero, but is negligent.

Government legally allowing potentially predatory males into women’s facilities presents a very real physical-harm threat against women and girls. That becomes an infringement of a basic human right to life, ensconced in the Declaration, throughout the Constitution, and accepted by the American public.

On this basis alone, allowing transgenders — but understand, please, that means any man who chooses — to have access to women’s bathrooms violates basic human rights we all agree on. And on that basis alone, Trump was right to reverse Obama’s policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Plumbing the Depths of the Bathroom Debate

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

Salem Virginia Veterans Hospital Lies, Misinforms, and Harasses Veterans

Over the years and currently each day veterans who risked their lives to save our beautiful country have been lied to, misinformed, and harassed by Veterans Hospital  (VH)  staff on a routine basis.  All one has to do is Google  this topic and  sadly you will see thousands of instances in which veterans were being treated as criminals by their physicians and their assistants.  I could write a book on these atrocities but for  today I am going to give readers an example of an abuse that has been committed by VH Salem (VHS) upon me over the last few years and as recent as of 21 Feb 2017.  I write this article with the intention of alerting other veterans to this form of physical and mental abuse.  It is also written so people who truly care about our veterans will step up and demand our veterans stop being mistreated at  the civil and criminal level by the government agency who are supposed to and being paid to help veterans and not treat them as useless pieces of human matter and used for experimentation.

A short bio:  I served in the USAF from 1977 until 1999.  Then I took a position with our government as a U.S. Federal Agent with our countries highest clearances until late 2003.  My last assignment with the government was in 2003 at the start of Operation Iraqi freedom.  I was in Nasiriyah, Iraq on the front lines.  I have since written two best selling books related to counterterrorism issues inside America.  During my time on active duty and as a civilian employee I suffered injuries that are well documented and I have Veterans disability for several injuries.

Throughout my military career I had severe teeth, jaw, gums, and other ailments related to this.  Again I have service connected ratings for these injuries and others.  During my years I also had been diagnosed with PTSD and have been obtaining treatment at our VHS for several years.

In late 2015 my dental rated injuries had risen to a level that I had been overridden with severe pain and infections in my jaw and teeth.  It was like having 30 awful toothaches at the same time.  Continuously for years I had requested the VHS to help me.  They refused and would not even give me medicine for the pain.  Finally in Nov 2015 I went to the Emergency room of VHS and begged for treatment because I was in severe pain and could no longer  tolerate it.  My face was swollen, my teeth and gums were severely infected, and I now suffered intolerable headaches.  The VHS did nothing and sent me home.  I am not a physician but even a child in the first grade could determine something was not right.  I immediately went to the emergency room of a local civilian hospital.  Within five minutes they realized I needed emergency treatment and as they said I was near death because of the out of control infections   I was immediately rushed to a trauma  hospital out of state (Duke University, NC).  I stayed several days and when I was getting better after surgery, I was sent to a hospital near my home in Roanoke, VA.  From Thanksgiving 2015 until Christmas I was in the hospital near death.  The infection had spread to my heart and my temperature was a constant 104 degrees.  Finally I was release but still in pain.

I immediately went to the VHS to see my physician (Dr. Gaylord).  He was sympathetic to the manner I had been treated by the VHS in regards to my teeth and infections which had occurred on active duty and documented on my DD 214 that upon my retirement  they had not corrected my dental issues.  The dental clinic at the VHS  still would not provide medical assistance for my teeth even after being in the hospital for a month.  Dr. Gaylord knew I was in pain and gave me a much needed pain medicine (hydrocodone).  Dr. Gaylord kept me on this pain medicine until he left for another department within VHS).  With the pain medicine the VHS mandates the patient and provider sign an opiate pain medicine contract.  Within the contract the patient has to agree to take the medicine as prescribed and mine was for as needed.  Since I had been prescribed this I had always taken when I was in severe pain and did not take if the pain was not severe (again per my prescription). This was the start of my continued nightmare with the VHS and Dr. Debra Mcginn (and her nurse and Resident Doctor).

The VHS never told me that Dr. Mcginn had replaced Dr. Gaylord.  I did not find out until I went to an appointment on 14 Feb 2017 and was told I had a new DR. (Mcginn).  I was expecting my new DR. who had suddenly appeared in my health part of my life to introduce herself and go over my years of medical records.  She did not.  Instead I was sent to her Resident Assistant Dr. in training (a young guy who could not go two minutes with me without running to Dr. Mcginns office for advise).  He seemed to be a poor chose to see a veteran with several disabilities and who did not know my past medical history.  On this date I had scheduled this appt. to be seen for a simple non emergency that had nothing to do with any form of pain.  This was a very very simple request for a medicine that was not even above the scale of vitamins.  Surprisingly I was eventually told by  this Resident and Dr. Mcginn who never even bothered to introduce herself to me to go to the lavatory for tests.  I asked what for and she told me it was for the minor reason I was there today and after the labs she would send my medication..  I was stunned. I could not figure out why lab tests were needed for such a simple ailment (again nothing was for pain).

I went immediately to the lab and was told I needed to give blood and urine.  It was getting stranger.  I gave all of my blood samples but could not urinate.  I had done so previously be fore I saw Dr. Mcginnis.  I eventually told the lab tech I could not urinate and since it was for a very simple medical issue I asked if I could come back.  She said it was fine.  From this point hell broke out in the VHS against me and instigated by Dr. Mcginn.   Finally on 21 Feb 2017, only a week later I went to the hospital to ask about my medications for the minor treatment and my pain medicine was up for refill.  I had arrived at the VHS at 0800 hours.  finally around 100 hours I was seen by Dr. Mcginns nurse.  I asked her about my medications.  She said Dr. Mcginn would no longer fill my pain medicine because I had refused a urine test for my pain medicine on 14 Feb 2017.  I was confused.  I said I had never been told about a urine drug test and I could not urinate and I had  told the lab tech.  I was shocked.  She said Dr. Mcginn had put in my records I had refused a drug test.  I told her I had never been told I was being sent for a drug test and again I had not refused, I just could not pee at the snap of their fingers!  I was very frustrated and felt betrayed by Dr. Mcginn and her staff.  The nurse was very very rude and treated me like a major narcotics offender.  After about two more hours the nurse told me to go to the lab for more tests.  I asked why, she would not tell me.  I tromped up to the lab for some unknown tests.  When I got there I told the lab tech Dr. Mcginn had sent me for more lab tests.  I asked her what the test was for.  She said it  was a urine sample for my pain medicine.  I was again stunned but not really surprised at Dr. Mcginns Gestapo tactics against me.  I was literally pissed off!  I gave the urine anyway by but only provide a small sample.

I then immediately went to the VHS patient advocates office to complain about Dr. Mcginns deceitful treatment of me.  Then I went back to the nurse.  She refused to hear my complaint about Dr. Mcginn.  She told me Dr. Mcginn would speak with me.  Finally I get to see my Doctor!!!  I knew she was only seeing me because  I had filed a complaint. When I went in Dr. Mcginn was all smiles.  Apparently she had forgotten or more correctly since I filed a complaint she wanted to appease me.  She said I had REFUSED a Drug urine test on 14 Feb 2017 and I had violated the Pain medication contract I had signed.  I tried to tell her I had not refused any tests, I simply could not urinate at that time.  Am I the first person who could not pee at the snap of a finger?  I emphasized she was also required to inform me and other vets if they were being sent to the lab for a drug test.  She said there was no requirement to do this.  I asked her repeatedly to review this contract and she will find out very clearly that a Dr. MUST inform the patient about drug urine or blood tests.  She barked at me that she does not need to do so.  She then told me I had FAILED the drug tests during the 17 months I had been on it.  I asked her how I failed because I have always used my medicines correctly to the tee.  She said I failed because on two occasions I did not have hydrocodone in my system.  I was now immune from being stunned.  I said you mean a patient fails the drug tests because even if their prescription says take as needed they still must have the med in their system?  She started mumbling and had no answer.  She said because of my failure to have no pain med in my system she was terminating me cold turkey!!!!  I thought, “God help other poor veterans who are going through tactics from alleged doctors but in reality were acting as narcotics officers!).

The day of this incident my stress and depression dramatically increased and I was sick to my stomach by the treatment of Dr. Mcginn and her staff.  I had to be seen at VHS mental health for the PTSD.  The treatment I have had at mental health for the PTSD has always been helpful, but the actions of Dr. Mcginn sent me rock bottom.  Again on 22 Feb 2017 the mental health doctor stabilized me to a degree that I could at least live with it.  He told me it was wrong that Dr. Mcginn had not informed me of the drug urine test and it is his opinion as a doctor that all actions affecting the patient should be discussed with the patient.  He advised he has seen more and more of this type treatment being used against patients and it concerned him.  I said it concerns me also.

A short message to other U.S. armed forces veterans:

  1. Understand you have a VHS mandated right to be told of any drug tests. The doctor is not given any option in this.  The doctor must inform you of a drug test, and you have the right to consent or not.  A doctor must inform you before hand of any tests outside of her office because it is and has been a medical ethical and lawful practice for centuries.
  2. Do not be intimidated by unprofessional treatment by Veterans Hospital personnel. Start with a complaint with your doctor, then patient advocacy, and then go right to your Congressman or Senator.  Also inform other veterans through the media.  If all else fails, then file a civil lawsuit as I have started and consider a trip to your local FBI office if you feel the VH staff have conducted criminal activities such as “falsifying your medical records”.  VH doctors can no more falsify and lie in your medeical records than they can in any other U.S. government record.  It is a crime for them to intentionally (doctor a document) to fit their untrue perspective.
  3. Consider lawful protests with other veterans at your local VH.
  4. Most importantly do not let VH personnel treat you as a useless human. Remember you have served your country by being willing to die for your country and other Americans.  Most of the VH doctors have never served in wartime and seem to care for their salary and playing narcotics officers than they do helping our young men and women.

I request all veterans and non veterans who care about our troops to complain to the VHS hospital for the unethical and criminal actions they have conducted against me.  The VHS number is 540-982-3463 and ask for Dr. Mcginn at Primary Care Group Clinic #2.   In addition please forward me any unfair or unethical treatment you may have received at a veteran hospital.  Veterans and their supporters must unite as one if we are to get the vet hospitals to provide positive treatment to the vets.

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

‘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.

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.

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