Monday, January 28, 2019


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
What do Muslims think of Jesus? It’s a question Dr. Sabeel Ahmed said he gets often.
To help educate people on the significance of Jesus in Islam, Ahmed’s group, The Humanitarians, a Muslim interfaith organization, is launching a monthlong campaign that includes billboards along high-trafficked areas in Arizona along with radio ads.
Ahmed, the group’s founder and outreach coordinator, said the intent is to highlight similarities between Islam and Christianity and bring people together during the holidays.
“We want to educate people on who we (Muslims) are and who we are not and show people that there are more similarities between the faiths than differences,” Ahmed said Tuesday during a news conference at the Islamic Community Center of Tempe.
Ahmed said Muslims recognize Jesus as one of Allah’s prophets. His mission, Ahmed said, was to invite people to worship God.
Note that since Christians regard Jesus as the Son of God, Muslims regard them as guilty of shirk, or polytheism, which for Muslims is the worst possible sin — or as some preachers, such as Nassim Abdi of Sydney have put it, is “worse than any sin.” I doubt that Ahmed will be telling his Christian audiences about why Muslims consider them guilty of shirk.
He said there are six articles of faith in Islam that include believing in all of God’s prophets. That includes Jesus, he said.
“If you don’t believe in Jesus, then you cannot be Muslim,” he said.
But the Muslim belief in Jesus as one more of the prophets in Islam — there are 124,000 prophets, according to Muhammad himself, though Jesus is the most revered prophet after Muhammad — has nothing to do with, and stands in opposition to, the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God. For as Sabeel Ahmed carefully does not tell his audiences, if you believe in Jesus as divine, “then you cannot be Muslim,” and you are, as noted above, guilty of “shirk,” which is “worse than any sin.” This is an ideological abyss that Sabeel Ahmed hopes his Christian friends won’t notice.
Muslims, like Christians, believe Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary, Ahmed said. They believe there is a creator and a higher power. Muslims also believe there is an afterlife and that people are accountable to God for their actions on earth.
Muslims are monotheists, and believe in an afterlife. This we are endlessly told by Islamic apologists. But what Sabeel Ahmed leaves out is the nature of that afterlife, and of how a Muslim can best achieve entry into Heaven, which is a very different place from the Christian Heaven. The Muslim Heaven is a sensual paradise with 72 virgins. And the surest way to enter it and enjoy its delights is to be a martyr, or shahid, dying while conducting violent Jihad against the Unbelievers. That is not information Sabeel Ahmed wishes to share with his audiences of trusting and unwary Christians.
Ahmed said Jesus is mentioned 25 times in the Quran, and that Mary, who is mentioned in the Quran 32 times, is the only woman mentioned by name in the religious text.
Again, the Muslim Mary (Maryam) is very different from the Christian Mary. She is revered; she has Sura 19 named after her; she is mentioned 32 times in the Qur’an –all of this is a staple of Muslim propaganda, that is used to impress Christians, and to conceal the basic difference: in Islam, Mary, no matter how revered, is not the mother of the Son of God.
There are more miracles related to Jesus in the Quran than there are in the Bible, Ahmed said.
More Taqiyya to keep us from focusing on the essential difference between Islam and Christianity. Jesus may in Islam be responsible for some miracles, but that does not make him divine, or the Son of God. He was appropriated by the early Muslims, downgraded to being a mortal man and a prophet. To worship him as the Son of God is inadmissible shirk.
The Arizona chapter of The Humanitarians bought two billboards on Interstate 10 — one near Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and another in Tucson near Prince Road.
The billboards, which Ahmed said cost $10,000, state in bold, white letters three Islamic beliefs about Jesus: Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary; he is honorable and blessed; and God supported Jesus with the Holy Spirit.
The billboards were unveiled last week and will be up for a month, Ahmed said.
What do you think would happen if some group of Islamocritics tried to rent billboards which simply read as follows:
Qur’an 3:110: “Muslims are the best of peoples.”
Qur’an 98:6: “Non-Muslims are the most vile of created beings.”
Qur’an 5:51: “O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends, for they are friends only with each other.”
Qur’an 8:12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”
In the hadith of Bukhari (4.52.220), Muhammad claims: “I have been made victorious through terror.”
Nothing here is made up; everything is quoted just as it is written in the Qur’an and, in the last example, recorded in the “reliable” (Sahih) hadith of Bukhari.
Despite the absolute fidelity to its sources in the Islamic texts, is there anyplace in this country where such a billboard could be put up? No. Truth is no defense, when it comes to protecting the image of Islam. Free speech does not matter. Anyone who selects such verses is clearly trying to place Islam in a bad light. It isn’t fair, it isn’t right, it’s Islamophobia. No such billboards will ever be seen.
As part of the campaign, the group also is running radio ads from Dec. 24-26 and doing a big push on social media. It has held open houses at different mosques and members are speaking at K-12 schools and universities.
Members of Sabeel Ahmed’s group are speaking to many audiences, including K-12 schoolchildren. Are school boards monitoring these appearances, this early childhood indoctrination? Are school boards, teachers, parents not alarmed? Do they think such propaganda efforts by smiling Muslim apparatchiks, well-versed in taqiyya, should be allowed in public schools, especially among the very young?
He said the group has received about 40 calls from Arizona residents interested in learning more about Islam and the similarities between the different religions.
Similar campaigns are happening in other cities nationwide, he said.
Ahmed said while unity should be celebrated year-round, The Humanitarians chose to launch this campaign in December because people are more spiritual during this time of year. He said Jesus is also a central figure in Christian holidays.
It sounds almost as an afterthought: “Jesus is also a central figure in Christian holidays.” You bet he is.
“We want to let Christians know how much we love, admire and respect Jesus,” Ahmed said.
Of course he does. What better way to reassure Christians about Islam than by Muslims stressing their “love” for Jesus in the Qur’an? Nothing will be said about how Muslims deny that Jesus was the Son of God, and that they regard Christians, for believing that Jesus was divine, as guilty of “shirk” or polytheism.
He said he hopes that once groups see there are more similarities than differences, they can work together to tackle other issues such as poverty, racism, gun violence and extremism.
The “similarities” consist of precisely this: Islam and Christianity are both monotheisms, and both claim to be “abrahamic faiths.” Abraham is seen by Muslims as their forefather, the physical ancestor — father of Ishmael, grandfather of Esau — of the Arab people, while for Christians, Abraham is seen as their spiritual ancestor. They are both “abrahamic faiths,” but in very different ways.
“First we have to do away with the fear of the unknown. Second, we have to educate each other on the commonalities of the faiths. And once we overcome that barrier, we can join together to better humanity,” Ahmed said.
Sounds good. But why stick only to educating about “commonalities”? Why not a free and frank discussion of all the ways Islam is different from, and Muslims contemptuous of, Christianity and Judaism, with which it supposedly has so much in common? That would require going off the interfaith script, and these days, that’s a tall order.
The Rev. Larry Fultz, director of the Arizona Interfaith Movement, said while he was not aware of the campaign, it’s a message he supports.
He said especially during such politically divisive times, celebrating the similarities between different groups is important.
If “celebrating the similarities” by Muslims means deliberately misleading Christians as to what Islam teaches about Christianity and Christians, then such “celebration” is to be deplored, and is not “a message” that the innocent Rev. Larry Fultz, up to his ears in interfaith (mis)understanding, should support. Instead, he might devote some time — he owes it to his flock and to himself — to studying the Qur’an and Hadith. No more pleasing interfaith pieties, please — we’ve had quite enough of that. Only the truth, however disturbing, will do.
“Anything that any group is doing to encourage dialogue, I’m for it. That’s our mission, to find things we have in common,” he said.
No, “finding things we have in common” is not your mission. Your mission is to find out the truth about what Islam inculcates, especially its view of non-Muslims, and the duty to wage Jihad against them — and then to educate your own parishioners. Feel-good support for those who are engaged in Taqiyya is a betrayal of that, your true mission.
Start your study of Islam straight from the scripture’s mouth, Rev. Fultz, by reading Qur’an 2:191-194, 4:89, 8:12, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4. These are a handful of the 109 versus that command Believers to engage in violent Jihad, to “smite at the necks”  and to “strike terror” in the hearts of the Unbelievers. Then take a look at 4:34, to learn about how a Muslim man may “beat” his disobedient wife. Finally, take a look at Qur’an 3:110, that describes Muslims as the “best of peoples,” and then read Qur’an 98:6, where Unbelievers — that is, all non-Muslims — are described as “the most vile of created beings.” That’s a mere ten verses of the Qur’an, a kind of starter-kit for a self-directed course on Understanding Islam. There’s more, of course, in the Hadith. There’s the story of Muhammad’s consummating his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old and he was 54. There’s the delight he expressed upon hearing of the murders of three people — Asma bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf — who had mocked him. There’s his participation in the slaughter of 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. There’s his buying, selling, and trading of slaves. There’s Muhammad’s remark that “War is deceit,” and his famous claim that “I have been made victorious through terror.” It’s a course of study that all ministers, priests, and rabbis should undertake before they make pronouncements about Islam to their flocks. Whereof they do not know, thereof they should not speak. The knowledge about Islam that they acquire through their own study, rather than relying on Muslims  eager to present their sanitized version of the faith, should dampen their enthusiasm for those interfaith gatherings — you know the kind — that no matter where they start from, always end up as sly apologetics for Islam.

Glazov Moment: Jihadist Psychopath’s “We Love Jesus” Charade

Glazov Moment: Jihadist Psychopath’s “I am the Victim” Charade



SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
They knew this was going to happen before they deported him. But they still deported him. Not to have done so would have been “Islamophobic.”
“Christian ‘beaten and threatened by Islamic extremists’ in hiding after UK deportation,” by Eno Adeogun, Premier, January 25, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
A Christian man deported from the UK to Pakistan earlier this month is living in fear of his life.
41-year-old Asher Samson had been in a lengthy legal battle to stay in the UK since he arrived in 2004 after suffering persecution.
He claimed he had been beaten and threatened with execution by Islamic extremists in Pakistan.
Premier was able to speak to Mr Samson earlier this month as he waited to be transported to a detention centre. However the leader of the church he attended before his removal confirmed that his application to remain had been denied.
Rev Lorraine Shorton from Hall Green United Community Church said on Premier’s News Hour: “I’ve received some messages from him. He’s very scared, he’s fearful for his life.
“He’s in hiding in Pakistan and his family are terribly worried for him.”
This comes as new research from the Catholic Church has found that 187 Christians are facing blasphemy charges in Pakistan.
Rev Lorraine said it was essential that Asher’s case be reopened.
Sharing her message to the Home Office, she said: “I would ask them to look again and bring Asher home to where he is safe.
“Jeremy Hunt on the 18th January – just this week, was talking with the Open Doors UK charity and said, ‘no one should face persecution for their faith where ever they are’ and that includes Christians.
“But the UK is sending people back to these countries where their lives are in danger. Pakistan is number five on the World Watch List for extremism against Christians and it’s just disgraceful really that we’re sending people potentially to their death.”…


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Let’s be clear; the Pope has always been a globalist. And by “the Pope,” I mean any Pope. After all, the term “Catholic” means universal, and the Roman Catholic church has always wanted a one-world government under the auspices of their power. The Vatican is a political Nation-State that wants the world united under its authority, and it has found the perfect tool to unite the world under its globalist aspirations with its Jesuit and Marxist pontiff, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, also known as Pope Francis.
However, standing between Roman Catholicism and globalism is Protestantism and its great champion, the United States. Also standing between Roman Catholicism and globalism is the Nation-State, a form of governance that federalizes power in a specific nation with unique language, culture, and borders. The Nation-State is the single greatest bulwark of individual liberty and personal freedom in the world (because the Nation-State exists for the sole purpose of protecting the liberty of its Citizens), and it cannot be allowed to stand intact if globalism is to prevail.
Pope Francis, like all globalists, seeks to dismantle every Nation-State from the world and remove them as an obstacle to global control. To do that, however, they must prevent the Nation-State from having their own language, culture, and borders.
Francis – yet again – took an opportunity to throw shade at the American president and America’s right to have its own sovereign borders. In a trip to South America today, Francis claimed that migration has “made us crazy” and insinuated that having a border wall is an act of insanity.
Beginning in 2016 when Francis denounced anyone who wants to build a wall to keep out migrants as “notChristian,” he has continually claimed that having a wall is unChristlike. 
Ironically, Francis’ comments seem to ignore the words of his host, Archbishop Jose Domingo Ulloin of Panama – where the Pope made the comments – who claimed that “young people often fall into the hands of drug traffickers and so many other realities that our young people face.”
Rather than offer suggestions for how the wealthy Roman Catholic church could help Central America – which has been ravaged by pedophile priests – Francis insinuated that their only hope would be for the poor to migrate to the United States to be taken care of by our welfare programs.
Francis will remain in Panama for the World Youth Day event where 150 thousand or so will attend. Many more will stick around for an extra vigil and a final Mass on Sunday. Foreign policy experts believe that Francis will use several of his planned addresses to encourage the youth of Central America to come to the United States to seek “better opportunities.”


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
[New York State Senate] ALBANY, NY— Senator Sue Serino today joined Livia Abreu—an Army veteran who tragically lost her unborn daughter as a result of a terrible domestic violence attack—at a press conference calling for the passage of legislation that would restore important protections for victims of domestic violence that will be removed when the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) becomes law.
“Contrary to popular rhetoric, the Reproductive Health Act does not simply codify the current law of the land, it is an extreme proposal that goes far beyond the current standard, allows non-doctors to perform abortions up until the day of birth, and it removes critically important legal protections for pregnant victims of domestic violence,” said Senator Sue Serino. “I am incredibly grateful for Livia’s courage in telling her story to advocate on behalf of victims across the state. To deprive a pregnant domestic violence victim of the justice she and her unborn child deserve is particularly reprehensible and the ‘Liv Act’ will ensure that these dangerous perpetrators are held fully accountable for their heinous crimes.”
The bill, introduced by Senator Cathy Young, has been named the ‘Liv Act,’ in honor of Abreu, a courageous military paratrooper who was 26 weeks pregnant when her ex-boyfriend stabbed her multiple times and caused the tragic loss of her daughter. After the brutal attack, Abreu’s assailant heartlessly left her on the floor for a half-hour in her own blood. She bravely crawled from her apartment to a neighbor’s home for help.
Specifically, this legislation addresses a major injustice and flaw in the Reproductive Health Act (S240), which strikes from current law the criminal charges that are applied to perpetrators like Liv’s ex-partner who specifically commit acts of violence against pregnant women. The bill establishes the crime of ‘assault on a pregnant woman’ by expressly recognizing that violence against them is a felony, and it would apply when there is violence done to a pregnant woman, even if it does not involve the loss of her pregnancy.  I
In a statement following the press conference, Abreu said:
The Reproductive Health Act is, in my opinion, extreme and filled with gaps. It does not codify Roe v. Wade in the state of NY. In fact what it does is decriminalize abortion in all aspects, including abortion as a product of an assault on a pregnant female. Essentially, if this bill passes today and becomes law it will remove abortion as a crime from the penal code as a whole. Oscar Alvarez is currently facing abortion charges in the 1st & 2nd degrees. The passing of RHA will likely exonerate him from those charges. Which will in turn lessen his sentence now that a judge has decided the case is going to trial and the new law will take effect prior to that date. Let that sink in. He will likely be convicted of the crimes he committed against me, but the loss of my daughter will be a non-factor to the law because she wasn’t “born and alive.” That’s language used in the RHA bill. To clarify, I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I am very much neutral, because most things are never simply black or white. Choosing one side or the other will make me an extremist, and that I am not. I understand that there are circumstances in which a difficult decision must be made in order to save a life. However, I find it completely unacceptable for pregnant women & their unborn babies to be left unprotected under the law. I’m thinking about the many women who could be faced with a situation like mine. Domestic Violence & Assault cases on pregnant women continue to rise. I pray that it doesn’t, but what happened to me will likely happen to someone else. I cannot imagine living in a world where harming and/or killing an unborn child as a product of an attack on a pregnant woman is not a crime… A world where mothers have been stripped of & have to bury and mourn their unborn child but the person responsible is not held accountable for it. Read the bill if you haven’t already.
With RHA enacted, the criminal and civil laws here in the state would fail to adequately recognize the harm experienced by Liv and other victims here in New York. Passage of the ‘Liv Act’ would ensure that a criminal statute would still exist in New York that would recognize that violence done to a pregnant woman puts her reproductive freedom at stake.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written by New York State Senator Sue Serino and originally published at The New York State Senate. Title changed by P&P]

How To Schedule Abortion At Nine Months Pregnant!

Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver challenges the Democrat talking point that "late-term abortions are only available for medical emergencies" by showing she was able to schedule an abortion appointment in her 9th month of pregnancy simply using the vague excuse of depression.


SEE:;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Last month, Facebook banned me for 30 days for calling Bruce Jenner a man. You can read about it in this article, Facebook Bans Pulpit & Pen Publisher for Calling Bruce Jenner a Man, which received more than 29 thousand Facebook shares of people who didn’t think that stating facts was particularly hateful. Within a few days of being released from ‘Facebook jail,’ the social media giant banned me again for stating yet another fact; those claiming ‘transgenderism’ are mentally ill.

The post I made was sharing this article, which was simply reporting the news that the U.S. Supreme Court would allow the Commander in Chief to do his job, and use his best judgment in providing a capable fighting force. No doubt, Facebook probably considers the Supreme Court decision or our President’s decision to ban ‘transgender’ people from the military to be hate speech in and of itself. The article was a re-post of what was first written at LifeSite News.
However, what Facebook probably took exception with was my comment at the top, “We should never want to send the mentally ill to war zones. It is not humane or loving.
What kind of heartless person would disagree with that?
Of course, what no doubt violated Facebook’s capricious, ever-changing, politically correct “community standards” was the scientific declaration that thinking you’re the wrong gender is mentally ill.
But…enter science.
The American Psychiatic Association lists Gender Dysophoria as a mental health disorder. I didn’t make that up. It’s currently listed as a mental health disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
I don’t need a textbook to tell me if you think you’re a duck, and you’re not a duck, you’re mentally ill. And I don’t need a textbook to tell me if you think you’re a man, and you’re a woman, you’re mentally ill. But let me ask you, who do you think is a better expert on mental illness, Facebook or mental health professionals?
Since when is medical science “hate speech”?
I appealed the decision, and Facebook again insisted it was hateful. Facebook then asked for feedback regarding their decision. I responded…

What Facebook is doing is clarifying that in their opinion, science doesn’t accord with Facebook “community standards.”
For the matter of record, I need to clarify that when the American Psychiatric Association goes the way of the World Health Organization and removes this tragic mental illness from the list of disorders, it won’t change the fact that it’s still a mental disorder.
Finally, let me add that even though gender dysphoria is a mental illness, it doesn’t mean that it’s not primarily a spiritual illness. The Fall of man and its various outworkings of depravity affects man totally, including mind, body, and spirit. In this case, indwelled sin even affects someone psychologically to the point they become a living, breathing lie about God’s creation.
When people argue that Christians are somehow against science, remind them that it’s Facebook that thinks science is hate speech.
[Contributed by JD Hall]

Another Victory for America, as Supreme Court Upholds Ban on “Transgender” Soldiers


"She is bisexual and is the country's first openly bisexual statewide officeholder and first openly bisexual governor."
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes: 
OREGON, January 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – News from Oregon that Governor Kate Brown is on board with a bill which would establish “universal” invasive home visits by state employees to all households with newborns is causing shockwaves throughout the nation.
While the proposed legislation, known as Senate Bill 526, remains in a nascent form with very few published details, it has nonetheless generated great excitement among progressive statists while sending chills down the spines of parents and families who fear increased government interference in their private lives.
The controversial bill directs the Oregon Health Authority “to study home visiting by licensed health care providers.” It has also been given “emergency” status, meaning that action must be taken before the end of this year.
The “emergency” designation has an oddly ominous tone, stating that the measure is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” so “an emergency is declared to exist.”
The language of the bill that is available has some concerned that these “universal” visits could be mandatory, even though state authorities are denying it.
“What’s the big emergency?” asked Paula Bolyard in an opinion piece penned for PJ Media.
“Apparently, the state of Oregon is concerned that some parents are raising their children without the watchful eye of Big Brother monitoring their every move – a big no-no in the view of the progressive left,” continued Bolyard.
“It’s frightening to think about what would happen to parents who refuse such visits,” noted Bolyard. She added:
As someone who has been involved in the homeschooling movement for more than 20 years, I have seen many attempts to increase the oversight of children taught at home by requiring home visits by a teacher or social worker. The basic premise behind these attempted power grabs is that parents cannot be trusted with the care of their own children — that an agent of the state is the only one qualified to ensure that children are being properly cared for. Without such surveillance, proponents argue, children are at risk for abuse and neglect, something they believe government agents can prevent, despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. In Oregon, in fact, children in the foster care system are abused at twice the national rate. One wonders how a state that can’t handle the children currently in its care could possibly manage to surveil an additional 40,000 children per year, let alone pay for such a program (answer: it can’t).
The proposed bill is a continuation of policies straight out of the Obama White House which aggressively sought to nudge Americans toward accepting ever-increasing government involvement in their private lives.
With the introduction of its Julia website, the Obama Administration demonstrated how a person could be wholly government dependent, from birth until death. The site was short-lived as Americans recoiled from its premise, with even CNN calling it the “Wrong vision for America.”

Statists do not trust parents to raise children without government’s invasive guidance

Patrick Allen, Director of the Oregon Health Authority, made it clear in a statement to the Beaverton Valley Times that this is not just about helping parents and children living on the edge, who might need recourse to government aid.
“This isn’t something for people in trouble,” said Allen.
“When the program is complete, every new parent — this includes adoptions — would receive a series of two or three visits by someone like a nurse or other health care practitioner,” noted Allen.
“Can we really trust that medical professionals employed by the government who come into our homes are going to actually benefit our children and families?” asked an essay in Health Impact News.
“Is this proposed bill for universal home visits possibly just another way for the State to collect funds, and to potentially remove children from their homes and place them into the lucrative foster care and adoption system?” the essay also asks.
Tellingly, at the head of the essay is a picture of a doctor standing in front of seated family, titled, “Government Approved Family.”
“If the program becomes reality, all families — regardless of income or area of residence — could see three visits from a nurse. They likely could come when the baby is 3 days old; 2 weeks old; and 2 months old,” said Dr. Alanna Braun of Oregon Health & Science University and member of the Oregon Pediatrics Society in an interview.
The program would also allow nurses to monitor moms for signs of postpartum depression and “check to make sure there’s a safe place for the baby to sleep and to be bathed and more,” according to the outlet to which Braun spoke.
She continued:
At the three-day mark, the visit could focus on such basics as weight loss.
At two weeks, the baby’s weight again could be checked. Babies could get the “heel stick,” the pinprick drawing of blood that checks for metabolic indicators of problems which, at that point, show no outward symptoms.
At two months, nurses and families could discuss the many vaccines that [babies] face.
Health Impact News cautions that “parents today face a very real risk of losing their children to Child Protection Services if they dare to question a doctor’s advice regarding medical procedures, or even wanting to seek a second medical opinion.”
Bolyard said that the home visits aren’t just about the health of the newborns, and that the state’s representative would also be observing and making judgements about the parents.
“Government agents monitoring the homes of law-abiding parents who have not been accused of a crime without a warrant is an unconscionable violation not only of parental rights and individual liberty but also a trampling of the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution,” warned Bolyard in her PJ Media commentary.
“The bottom line is that the statists pushing these policies do not trust us with our own children,” concluded Bolyard. “It’s not enough for them to have their hooks in them 180 days a year, feeding them propaganda from the first day of kindergarten through the end of high school. They now want access to them from the day they are born — and they will succeed if parents don’t rise up and tell the government nannies to back off.”
As currently conceived, if the plan becomes law, it would be rolled out over the course of four years.

Oregon Lawmakers Push for Government Surveillance Of Newborns The state of Oregon could be the first in US history to require all parents of newborns to submit to universal home visits by agents of the state.