JUDGE OVERTURNS OBAMACARE "GENDER REASSIGNMENT" REGULATION

JUDGE OVERTURNS OBAMACARE 

"GENDER REASSIGNMENT" REGULATION 

BY DAVE BOHON

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/33783-judge-overturns-obamacare-gender-reassignment-regulation; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

A Texas federal judge has struck down a controversial part of the Obama-era Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — ObamaCare — that required doctors to perform “gender reassignment” surgeries, even if they disagree with such procedures on religious or medical grounds.

On October 15, Judge Reed O’Connor of the North District of Texas, who in 2016 had issued a preliminary injunction against the ObamaCare transgender mandate, struck down the regulation in his ruling in a pair of lawsuits filed by more than 19,000 healthcare professionals and several religious organizations.

In his ruling, O’Connor said that the ObamaCare regulation violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was implemented to allow for such contingencies. O’Connor wrote that the “Court now holds that the Rule violates the [Administrative Procedures Act] and RFRA. Accordingly, the Court vacates and remands the Rule for further consideration.”

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, recalled that the 2016 ObamaCare regulation, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, required virtually every medical professional “to perform gender-transition procedures on any patient referred by a mental health professional, even if the doctor believed the treatment could harm the patient. Doctors who refused to violate their conscience would have faced severe consequences, including losing their job.”

Becket noted that O’Connor’s ruling “aligns with two previous court decisions, accepted medical research, and a recent HHS proposal, keeping the government out of the private medical decisions of patients.”

Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Law, applauded O’Connor’s decision, saying that “it is critically important that doctors are able to continue serving patients in keeping with their consciences and their professional medical judgment, especially when it comes to the personal health choices of families and children. Doctors cannot do their jobs if government bureaucrats are trying to force them to perform potentially harmful procedures that violate their medical and moral judgment.”

The Christian Post noted that O’Connor has been at the center of several healthcare and LGBT-related cases in recent years. “He ruled last December that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was unconstitutional,” recalled the conservative, Christian news site. Additionally, in 2016 O’Connor “blocked an Obama administration guidance advising public schools to allow students to access bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identities, something critics felt would jeopardize the privacy rights of children.”

And in 2015, the judge “temporarily blocked regulations that would have allowed the Family and Medical Leave Act benefits to extend to same-sex couples.”

Newsweek noted that “LGBTQ advocates denounced O'Connor’s decision, arguing that it is an attack on transgender rights and will allow hospitals to deny treatment to trans patients.” Additionally, the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee called the ruling “just the latest act in the Trump Admin's crusade to dismantle our nation's healthcare system and turn back the clock on human rights.”

By contrast, Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund called the ruling “a major victory for compassion, conscience, and sound medical judgment,” adding that “our clients look forward to joyfully continuing to serve all patients, regardless of their sex or gender identity, and continuing to provide top-notch care to transgender patients for everything from cancer to the common cold.”

GOP GIVES UP ON REPEALING OBAMACARE

GOP GIVES UP ON REPEALING OBAMACARE

They claim to have more important things to do.

BY MATTHEW VADUM

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271322/gop-gives-repealing-obamacare-matthew-vadum; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Republican lawmakers have made it clear they have no intention of repealing Obamacare in the current Congress.

Republicans in the nation’s top lawmaking body have never really wanted to get rid of Obamacare. They would prefer to present the program, which David Horowitz correctly describes as “the greatest assault on individual freedom and individual choice in our lifetimes,” as a villain and whip up sentiment against it and run against it every election. They view Obamacare as good for the business of politics. They may chip away at it from time to time or tinker with it at the margins, but make no mistake: these creatures of Washington want to keep it in place. This is the Republicans’ dirty secret.

Republicans have been promising to rip Obamacare out root and branch ever since it was enacted. They ramped up their rhetoric after the allegedly conservative-dominated Supreme Court declared the blatantly unconstitutional Obamacare law constitutional in the incoherent NFIB v. Sebelius ruling of 2012. Americans responded to this government takeover of a huge chunk of the economy by electing GOP-controlled congresses in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, and by electing Donald Trump as president. 

Unintimidated by the Left and sneering hack journalists, Trump began the push to bury the misnamed Affordable Care Act and as a result, the individual mandate will die at the end of this year. But the bulk of the statute and related rules such as the economically suicidal pre-existing medical conditions mandate remain in place, complete with federal insurance-purchasing subsidies for people who don’t need the help, as well as the sclerotic administrative apparatus, and the odious rule that prevents health insurers from competing across state lines.

The top vote-counters in both chambers say repeal is a no-go for the rest of the year. This ought to worry conservatives because there is a good chance that when the new 116th Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019, one or both of its chambers will be in the hands of the government healthcare-loving Democrats. 

So it’s now or quite possibly never.

“I’m not going to be asking for another vote on that this year,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas reportedly said last week when asked about Obamacare repeal. His counterpart in the House, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, offered excuses for his party’s inaction. “We need to win this election and then get more seats next year.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he won’t revisit Obamacare before this Election Day, and no expects him to change his tune after then and pursue repeal in a lame-duck congressional session.

Whether the return to the battle over the law is a decision “I don’t have to reach anytime soon and don’t have time to facilitate, even if I was so inclined,” McConnell said last week.

Retiring Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) made it clear he couldn’t care less. “I haven’t even thought about it,” he said.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who previously blocked repeal, continue to support keeping the Obamacare law in place.

“I would still oppose outright repeal,” Collins last week. Aides to Murkowski said she “is not interested in another rushed, partisan process in the absence of a quality, comprehensive replacement” for the law.

It’s the same old same old. And it’s not going to change unless reliable hardcore conservatives take over Congress.

"GOOD FOR SLEEPING": LYING BARACK OBAMA INSULTS AMERICA & TAKES CREDIT FOR TRUMP JOB GROWTH IN CAMPAIGN SPEECH~OBAMA'S REAL ECONOMIC RECORD THE INVERSE OF HIS NARCISSISTIC IMAGINATION

"YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT ALL BY YOURSELF":

Judge Pirro to Obama: 'Your Lies, Your Policies and Your Divisiveness' Are Why Trump Is President

Comparison of Two Presidents: President Trump versus President Obama – Their First 600 Days

ECONOMY THE INVERSE OF HIS NARCISSISTIC IMAGINATION

OBAMA'S REAL ECONOMIC RECORD:

Barack Obama The first President in US history to not attain 3% GDP growth even though he had eight years to do it. A President who spent so much he slowed any growth he was generating. The national debt grew from 11.5 trillion to 20 Trillion under Obama. As did the Misery Index by 53%. Food Stamp recipients rose by a staggering 42%. Ironically, gun manufacturing boomed under the UN gun grabbing rhetoric of Obama’s by 192%. But we are all supposed to believe that the current roaring economy is due to Obama’s economic recovery strategy. Not President Trump’s corporate tax cuts or the reopening of factories humming the tune made in America again.

Dan Bongino, Ex Secret Service Agent, 

Rips Obama for Blasting Trump in Speech

Dan Bongino said Saturday on Fox & Friends that former President Barack Obama's speech, which blasted President Trump and the GOP, was "disgraceful."

Roger Stone SLAMS Obama Biden & Clinton's In Wild Speech At Rally 9/8/18

OBAMA'S REAL LEGACY:

BARACK OBAMA INSULTS AMERICA & 

TAKES CREDIT FOR TRUMP JOB GROWTH 

IN CAMPAIGN SPEECH

The country isn’t going to fall for his lies again

BY OWEN SHROYER

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-barack-obama-insults-america-takes-credit-for-trump-job-growth-in-campaign-speech/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Obama made a speech in Chicago Friday, where he took jabs at President Trump and tried to encourage Democrats to get out and vote in the upcoming midterms.

Watch Trump punches back after Obama attacked him in speech. President Donald Trump slammed former President Barack Obama after his predecessor a-t-t-a-c-k-e-d him while giving a speech at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign aimed at helping Democrats in the 2018 midterms.

Trump responded during a campaign rally, saying “I’ve found he’s very good, very good for sleeping.”

BABY MURDER "ADVOCATE", METHODIST PASTOR, WRESTS BIBLE VERSE TO DEFEND FORCING CHRISTIANS TO FUND ABORTIONS

BABY MURDER "ADVOCATE", METHODIST PASTOR, WRESTS BIBLE VERSE TO DEFEND FORCING CHRISTIANS TO FUND ABORTIONS 

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/methodist-pastor-wrests-bible-verse-defend-forcing-christians-fund-abortions/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

An Indiana minister who claims to be a pro-life Christian testified against a religious freedom ruling Friday during U.S. Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Alicia Baker, a community development organizer and ordained Free Methodist Church minister from Indianapolis, urged the Senate to oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation because of his decision to grant religious exemptions to the Obamacare HHS mandate.

“If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, access to affordable birth control will be in jeopardy,” Baker said. “This committee and the Senate must weigh the harmful impact Judge Kavanaugh would have on the health and well being of so many people.”

In 2015, Kavanaugh sided with Priests for Life in its challenge of the Obamacare HHS mandate while serving on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He said the government should not force religious employers to provide drugs and devices that may cause abortions.

“I concluded that penalizing someone thousands and thousands of dollars for failing to fill out a form because of their religious beliefs was wrong,” Kavanaugh said during the hearing Thursday.

Baker disagreed, arguing that women will suffer if religious organizations are exempted from the pro-abortion mandate.

“Jesus directs us to advocate for a just society that allows people to live their lives to the fullest. Jesus directs us to advocate for a just society that allows people to live their lives to the fullest. In John 10:10, Jesus says, ‘I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full,’” Baker said. “And this means supporting access to affordable birth control, because by permitting individuals to plan if, whether and when to become pregnant, birth control allows us to live our fullest lives.”

In her opening remarks, Baker claimed to be a pro-life Christian. But most employers who challenged the HHS mandate are pro-life Christians who did not want to be forced to provide birth control that may cause abortions. The most well-known HHS challenger, Hobby Lobby, objected to just four forms of birth control that may act as abortifacients, including the IUD and ella; it provided 16 other forms to its employees without objection

Baker said she became involved in the fight right before her wedding when her insurance would not cover her IUD. She said she and her husband decided that, for financial reasons, they would wait a little while before having children. Baker said her doctor recommended an IUD because of previous trouble she had had with hormonal birth control. However, her insurance company would not cover the device – something that Baker said left her “shocked” and caused a lot of stress right up to her wedding.

Her insurance told her it did not cover the device because it can act as an abortifacient, something Baker refused to believe.

However, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Women’s Health, it does. Its website described the device this way in 2014: “It [sic – If] fertilization does occur, the IUD keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus.” A fertilized egg is already a living human being with his/her own unique DNA.

Baker fought her insurance company and eventually joined a lawsuit with the pro-abortion National Women’s Law Center to challenge the Trump administration’s rule expanding religious exemptions under the HHS mandate.

Kavanaugh could hear the lawsuit if he is confirmed and the case comes before the Supreme Court. That worries Baker.

“My faith dictates that I must speak out on behalf of the millions of women who stand to lose access to affordable birth control if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed,” she said. “As a person of deep faith, I would never impose my religious beliefs on anyone – and no one else should either.”

But women like Baker have not been prevented from accessing birth control, including types that may cause abortions. Baker paid for hers herself, and other women may do so as well if their employers object.

Kavanaugh was correct in siding with religious individuals who the government threatened with heavy fines if they did not comply. Religious freedom is a core part of America, and religious individuals should not be forced to either give up their businesses or pay huge fines simply because they object to paying for something that could cause the death of an innocent unborn child. A Christian pastor should recognize that.

POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY REINSTATES OBAMACARE MANDATE WITH PENALTIES TOO!

NEW JERSEY REINSTATES OBAMACARE MANDATE

BY MICHAEL TENNANT

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/29203-new-jersey-reinstates-obamacare-mandate; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

New Jersey residents who thought they had finally been freed from ObamaCare’s individual mandate have another think coming: The Garden State, whose motto is “Liberty and prosperity,” just reinstated the mandate.

On Wednesday, Governor Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed into law a bill that imposes a state-level individual mandate to replace the one that Congress and President Donald Trump repealed in December. The state mandate will take effect January 1, the same day the federal mandate is set to expire.

According to Politico:

New Jersey’s mandate, which mirrors the former federal requirement, includes an annual penalty of 2.5 percent of a household‘s income or a per-person charge — whichever is higher. The maximum penalty based on household income will be the average yearly premium of a bronze plan. If it’s based on a per-person charge, the maximum household penalty will be $2,085. A “hardship exception” for individuals who cannot afford coverage would be determined by state Treasurer Elizabeth Muoio.

Roughly 800,000 New Jerseyans obtained health coverage under ObamaCare, reported NJ.com. About 500,000 got it through Medicaid, while the rest bought private plans. Meanwhile, about 189,000 New Jerseyans paid a total of $93 million in penalties for opting out of coverage.

New Jersey expects to be able to use the penalties it will collect under its own mandate to fund a reinsurance program to pay claims of patients with catastrophic illnesses. The “program is supposed to reduce the average premium increase by 10 percent to 20 percent,” wrote Politico.

Whether the state will be able to carry out its grandiose plan remains to be seen. For one thing, it has to apply for a waiver from the federal government to create the reinsurance program. For another, it also wants Washington to cover about half the cost of the program, which state Senator Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), one of the lead sponsors of the legislation, estimates will be $275 million. Experience with government estimates suggests the price tag will end up being significantly higher.

“The individual market would descend into a death spiral if not for this legislation,” Vitale toldPolitico. In other words, ObamaCare was structured in such a way that the only way to keep it afloat is to require people to buy health insurance (that the law made even more expensive) whether they want it or not. Otherwise, only those with costly, chronic conditions are likely to buy coverage, which will drive premiums so high that the market will collapse.

Contrary to Democrats’ insistence that they only want to help the less fortunate, the ObamaCare mandate and the similarly styled New Jersey one actually harm low- and middle-income families the most, noted Americans for Tax Reform. Based on Internal Revenue Service data, the group calculated that 78 percent of New Jersey households subject to the ObamaCare penalty earned less than $50,000 per year, and 38 percent earned under $25,000.

“Forcing individuals to buy a plan they can’t afford or don’t want is not a winning policy,” said Nina Schaefer, a health policy researcher at the Heritage Foundation. “Moreover, it does nothing [to] address the real problem of rising health care costs.”

The real problem, of course, is government interference in the healthcare marketplace. Mandates, regulations, and subsidies all increase the cost of healthcare and health insurance and skew them toward politicians’ desires rather than consumers’. Tax preferences for employer-sponsored insurance tie coverage to jobs and shield employees from their true healthcare costs. Government insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid discourage patients from seeking low-cost care and encourage the overuse of the healthcare system.

ObamaCare was just the latest attempt at patching this bureaucratic nightmare. It was already failing when the federal mandate was repealed, but repeal is quickly revealing just how shaky the law’s foundation was in the first place.

Instead of trying to apply yet another Band-Aid to the already wounded healthcare system, New Jersey ought to treat the disease that is afflicting it by declaring ObamaCare — and countless other unconstitutional federal healthcare laws — null and void within its borders and by repealing its own mandates and regulations that drive healthcare out of the reach of so many people.

PROMISE NOT KEPT?: TRUMP'S BUDGET PROPOSAL REINSTATES OBAMACARE BAILOUTS

PROMISE NOT KEPT? 

THEN & NOW:

 

TRUMP'S BUDGET PROPOSAL REINSTATES OBAMACARE BAILOUTS 

BY MICHAEL TENNANT

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/28289-trumps-budget-proposal-reinstates-obamacare-bailouts; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Despite President Donald Trump’s previously stated opposition to ObamaCare’s insurance-company bailouts, the federal budget he recently proposed actually reinstates these supposedly temporary bailouts and even asks for them to become a permanent entitlement.
Trump proposes spending $11.5 billion to pay back claims under the healthcare law’s risk-corridor program, whereby insurers who suffer losses on the exchanges are bailed out by those who reap “excess” profits on them. The program was supposed to be self-sufficient, but “the losses thus far have exceeded the gains, and the program ran an $11.5 billion shortfall through 2016, when the law required the program to ‘sunset,’” wrote the Daily Signal.
“To make matters worse,” reported the website, “the proposal both asks for an [$800 million] appropriation and proposes to put the program in the mandatory baseline — indicating that insurers are to be the beneficiaries of federal funding as a form of entitlement.” On top of that, Trump wants to exempt the program from budget sequestration, so it can grow even as other programs are forced to tighten their belts.
The risk-corridor program has never been funded by Congress. In fact, lawmakers passed bills explicitly forbidding its funding, and President Barack Obama signed them.
Insurers, who had counted on the program when deciding to participate in the exchanges, filed suit to get the bailouts to which they believed they were entitled. Despite Obama’s clear desire to give insurers what they wanted in order to shore up his signature achievement, his administration dutifully opposed the lawsuit in court. The Trump administration has done likewise, although seemingly under less duress, the president himself having told Congress to stop “providing bailouts to insurance companies.”
By asking Congress to fund the risk-corridor program — and to do so in perpetuity — the Trump administration “is undercutting the argument made by the Justice Department under both … Obama and Trump that this program is no longer an obligation of the federal government,” argued the Daily Signal. Insurance-company attorneys are undoubtedly delighted with this turn of events; others are not.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a longtime critic of the risk corridors, tweeted: “I’ve been fighting for years to ensure we do not bail out #Obamacare, but @POTUS budget includes $ for the Obamacare risk corridors & would protect the program from automatic cuts. Why should #Obamacare Insurer Bailout program be protected & not important programs for #Florida?”
Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips said in a statement, “It is disappointing to see this administration proposing to restart the misguided practice of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize big insurers. President Trump has provided regulatory relief that allows those hurt by skyrocketing Obamacare premiums onto short-term policies or association health plans, eliminating the need for a new round of insurance company giveaways.”
“Including CSRs [Cost Sharing Reductions] and risk corridors in the White House budget would only prop up the failing health care law,” he continued. “Obamacare was manipulated to put the profits of private health insurance companies ahead of tax-paying Americans, and it’s good that we have put an end to these bailout programs.”
The Trump administration announced in October that it would stop paying CSRs, which subsidize premiums for exchange plans, because Congress had not appropriated the money for them. A few days later, however, Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) made a deal to appropriate the money, which Trump then endorsed.
According to National Review, appropriating money for ObamaCare programs that Republicans have heretofore opposed appears to be part of a political strategy: “The plan is that insurers, flush with federal cash, will go easy on 2019 premium increases. That matters because those premiums will be announced just prior to the November elections. Republicans can then run, not on having repealed Obamacare, but on heading off another round of steep premium hikes. Moderate voters will find the kinder, gentler, more pragmatic GOP appealing and help the party retain seats in swing districts.”
Maybe. But iffy political gimmicks are no substitute for principle, particularly the principle that the federal government shouldn’t be doing anything the Constitution doesn’t authorize. Under that rule, not only the bailouts but the whole of ObamaCare should be shown to the door — and given a swift kick out.

OBAMA, THE HITLERIAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST: COMPARES TRUMP TO HITLER, STOKING THE FIRES OF ASSASSINATION~WANTS YOU TO FORGET HIS ANTI-AMERICANISM, FASCISM, BRAINWASHING & INDOCTRINATION

  OBAMA IS HITLER PERSONIFIED

NARCISSIST OBAMA WANTED WORSHIP AS A DICTATOR/SAVIOR/GOD IMMEDIATELY; 

TRUMP WANTS AMERICA & AMERICANS FIRST

 OBAMA REVISITED: HE GOT HIS 

SATANIC ENERGY FROM:

PERGAMON ALTAR OF ZEUS, BERLIN, GERMANY

Pergamon Altar in Berlin serves as the spiritual center for wicked energy and dubious speeches...especially when it envolves a trip to the Throne of Zeus/Satan !

 

 VIDEO OF OBAMA VISIT TO THRONE OF SATAN:

 OBAMA COMPARES TRUMP TO HITLER, 

STOKING THE FIRES OF ASSASSINATION 

 Matt Bracken joins Alex Jones live via Skype to address former President Obama's comments comparing President Trump to Hitler as a means of inflaming the "democratic" resistance towards violence.

 Obama Compares Trump to Hitler

 Rush Limbaugh: Obama compares President Trump to Hitler (audio from 12-07-2017)

 FOR THOSE WITH VERY SHORT MEMORY 

(OR NONE AT ALL)

 Obama's Throne Of Satan 

(Pergamon Altar)

 This is Obama's stage at the Democratic Nominating convention in Denver in 2008, designed to look like a Greek Temple. It's strange enough that Obama made a temple his stage, a place of worship, but Obama's nomination temple appears to be modeled after the Pergamon altar, a special place. This is the Pergamon Altar, which is on display at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Germany only a few hundred yards from the place where Obama gave a speech a couple months before the convention. The Pergamon Altar is special because it is mentioned in the biblical book of Revelation and is called in Revelation the seat or throne of Satan. The Greek god, Zeus, and pagan idols were worshipped at Pergamon. However, more importantly, Ceasar Augustus, the ruler of Rome, was worshipped as a God at Pergamon. An early Christian, named Antipas, was sacrificed there, because he refused to worship the pagan gods of Pergamon. Antipas was burned alive at this altar inside a hollow bronze bull. Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, also modeled the tribune at the Zeppelin field in Nuremberg after the Pergamon altar. This fact is mentioned in the documentary film, the Architecture of Doom. This is the Zeppelin Field at Nuremberg, one of the sites where Hitler had his Reichstag Rallies. Hitler also sacrificed 10 million Christians as well as Jews, by gassing them and burning burning their bodies, as well as other means. Obama's temple looks even more like the Pergamon Altar than Hitler's did. Obama is the most prominent follower of the radical anarchist, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky dedicated his book, "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer. It is a text book for revolutionary radical activists and Lucifer was the first revolutionary, as Alinsky points out. Black Liberation Theology teaches that the black race is the "manifestation of God on earth" and that a black messiah will lead the destruction of white society, the traditional Christian church and America as we have known it. That man is god is a Luciferian concept. You may recall from the Bible, Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, because he wanted to be on a higher level than God. The self-worship of man can be considered a form of Satanism. This is actually the kind of belief that the Nazis had, that the Aryan race is god and that Adolf Hitler was the Messiah. The stage design is unlikely to be accidental, because there have been so many references by his own supporters to Obama being the messiah or a God and the doctrine of his own church actually teaches that concept. It seems more likely to be a provocation. Obama loves for his opponents to call him the "Antichrist," because he can use it to make them look hysterical and to motivate his supporters. But I think it is also a play on his own religious belief. Because they can't normally say it openly in public, occultists have used ambiguous symbolism like this for hundreds of years to hint to others what their beliefs are. Saul Alinsky tied his book to Lucifer, because he realized that he is using the same principles. It seems that Obama is pointing to his own relationship to Lucifer with what appears to be the dedication of his campaign to the Great Deceiver. 

Obama's Throne of Satan http://stopobamanowsd.wordpress.com/o... 

Impeach Obama Tea Party https://www.facebook.com/ImpeachObama...

 Nazi Germany: A Child for Hitler; 

Youth in Hitler's Germany

  William L Shirer Talks About The Hitler Youth (1945)

 Obama Jr. Drill Team

 This is an Obama junior drill team. Such paramilitary drill teams have been a feature of Black Nationalism since Marcus Garvey started the mass movement in the late 1920's. The Alpha/Omega chant is a reference to the Black Nationalist belief that an ordinary man will be exalted as the Black Christ. This Christ figure will create the millenary Kingdom by destroying the white race, America and the church. 

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8

 Children Of The Future-

Obama/Nazi Indoctrination

 A campaign ad by an Obama Super PAC from the 2012 campaign is compared to the indoctrination of Hitler Youth in the 1930's. The Nazis taught youth to hold their parents and the older generation in contempt and this campaign ad has the same elements. The ad was pulled due to widespread outrage. The segment about Nazi indoctrination is from the documentary, "Hitler's Children." Obama and the Black Nazi Movement  

http://stop-obama-now.net/obama-black...

 Michael Savage: Obama Youth-

Obama to indoctrinate kids on Sep 8, 2009:

On September 8th, the first day of school for many children across America Hussein Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The Daily Paul, has the recommended classroom activities before and after the speech (be warned, if you love the Constitution you will want to puke). If there was ever a day for people to keep their kids out of school, September 8th is the day.

Hail Obama! Ode of the Obama Youth!

  The Obama Youth: Young children singing praise to Barack Obama

 Little children blindly doing what their elders tell them to do. Singing praise to the almighty president of the world, Barack Obama.

School children sing praises 

to their savior Obama

Song 1: Mm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said that all must lend a hand To make this country strong again Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said we must be fair today Equal work means equal pay Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama Yes! Mmm, mmm, mm Barack Hussein Obama 

Song 2: Hello, Mr. President we honor you today! For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!" Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one! The first black American to lead this great nation! Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans To make this country's economy number one again! Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you! And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue! So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick So here's a hearty hip-hooray ---- Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray!

 Children Sing Hymns To Obama

Based on the real Obama-cult song recorded by children who were manipulated into supporting a presidential candidate based on feelings - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0x... and, of course, a clip from the famous movie Cabaret - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9... Idea came from our contributor Red Squirrel who wrote about it in her blog - http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com

 
 

 

 

IRS TO START ENFORCING OBAMACARE'S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

 

IRS TO START ENFORCING OBAMACARE'S 

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE 

PENALTIES WILL BE LEVIED

BY MICHAEL TENNANT

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/27225-irs-to-start-enforcing-obamacare-s-individual-mandate; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced recently that it would start enforcing ObamaCare’s individual mandate with the 2018 tax filing season, the first time the agency has done so since the mandate took effect — and a marked contrast to its policy for 2017.
“For the upcoming 2018 filing season, the IRS will not accept electronically filed tax returns where the taxpayer does not address the health coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act [ACA],” the agency stated in a notice to tax professionals. Paper returns that fail to address those requirements “may be suspended pending the receipt of additional information and any refunds may be delayed,” it added.
The requirements, of course, are that every American either have some type of private or public health insurance or, absent a hardship exemption, pay a penalty. For 2017, the penalty is the higher of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child in the household.

Indicating one’s health-insurance status on one’s tax return has been mandated since 2014, but the Obama administration, in typical fashion, unilaterally decided not to enforce that provision, instead instructing the IRS to follow up with a letter reminding a remiss taxpayer of his obligation. The agency only recently began sending letters to taxpayers for 2014 and 2015.
President Barack Obama reversed the policy for the 2017 filing season, which conveniently coincided with his departure from office. However, his successor’s executive order directing federal agencies to reduce ObamaCare’s burdens on Americans caused the IRS to continue the policy of processing so-called silent returns for another year.
Now, though, the agency says it’s through giving taxpayers a pass on their legal obligations. Taxpayers must respond to the ObamaCare-related line items on their returns or face delays in their processing. “This process reflects the requirements of the ACA and the IRS’s obligation to administer the health care law,” the agency wrote. “Taxpayers remain obligated to follow the law and pay what they may owe at the point of filing.”
“The [earlier] announcement was interpreted by some as weakening of the mandate but really it just said they weren’t going to step up enforcement,” Gordon Mermin of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center told the Associated Press. “Now it appears they are going to increase compliance.”
The IRS says it made the decision to begin enforcing the mandate after discussions with National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson. “In my opinion, rejecting silent returns at the time of filing is the least burdensome approach because the taxpayer would correct the omission immediately,” Olson told Forbes’ Kelly Phillips Erb. “If the IRS accepts a silent return and later corresponds about it with the taxpayer, the taxpayer may be required to spend time and money months later to try to resolve the problem.”
The bad news, then, is that the IRS is demanding that taxpayers indicate their health-insurance status and, if they are uninsured, pay a hefty penalty. The good news is that the only way the IRS can collect the penalty is by subtracting it from the taxpayer’s refund. In addition, there’s very little the agency can do to taxpayers who refuse to state whether or not they are complying with the mandate. “Congress,” Erb pointed out, “didn't give IRS any real ‘teeth’ for enforcement: no jail time, no liens, no levies. That doesn’t mean they won’t come after you with a big, threatening letter and a virtual shaking of the government’s fist at you. And it doesn’t mean they won’t hold your refund.” But it does mean there’s not much harm the agency can visit on taxpayers who aren’t owed refunds, regardless of their insurance status or their unwillingness to disclose it.
All of this could have been avoided had congressional Republicans — and Democrats, for that matter — upheld their oaths of allegiance to the Constitution by repealing ObamaCare once there was an amenable president in office. As long as it remains on the books, Americans will be vulnerable to its enforcement. Depending on the good graces of the man in the White House — even, as we have seen, when he is explicitly opposed to the law — is hardly a substitute for striking such an unconstitutional and dangerous statute.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EXPANDS EXEMPTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS OPPOSED TO OBAMACARE ABORTION PILL MANDATE

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EXPANDS EXEMPTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS OPPOSED TO OBAMACARE ABORTION PILL MANDATE 

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/10/06/trump-admin-expands-exemptions-for-religious-groups-opposed-to-obamacare-abortion-pill-mandate/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 WASHINGTON — The Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) has issued “interim final rules” that would expand 
protections for religious employers who are opposed to the contraceptive
 mandate in Obamacare, also known as the “abortion pill mandate.”

“Upon further examination of the relevant provisions of the Affordable Care Act and the administrative record on which the mandate was based, the departments have concluded that the application of the mandate to entities with sincerely-held religious objections to it does not serve a compelling governmental interest,” the document reads.
It provides numerous reasons as to why the government believes that religious organizations should be granted relief from the requirement, including that many religious employers that had challenged the mandate are not opposed to all contraceptives, but only those that are considered to be potential abortifacients.
“For example, the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby were willing to provide coverage with no cost sharing of 14 of 18 FDA-approved women’s contraception and sterilization methods,” the 163-page document outlines.

Therefore, the accommodation requested—in the view of the government—was reasonable.
“With respect to organizations and entities holding those beliefs, the fact that they are willing to provide coverage for various contraceptive methods significantly detracts from the government interest in requiring that they provide coverage for other contraceptive methods to which they object,” HHS explains.
The department also recognizes that religious nonprofits were wrongfully being treated differently than churches, even though they operate similarly to houses of worship and hire people of faith just like churches do.

“After considering the differential treatment of various religious nonprofit organizations under the previous accommodation, the departments conclude that it is appropriate to expand the exemption to other religious nonprofit organizations with sincerely held religious beliefs opposed to contraceptive coverage,” it writes.
The department further notes that “[s]ome of the religious nonprofit groups challenging the accommodation claim that their employees are required to adhere to a statement of faith which includes the entities’ views on certain contraceptive items,” and such organizations have a right to choose to hire individuals based on whether or not they will respect the organization’s values.
It additionally advises that there are numerous government programs that provide free or low-cost contraceptives for women, and therefore, there is not a compelling government interest to force religious employers to have to provide them as well.
“Various state programs supplement the federal programs … and 28 states have their own mandates of contraceptive coverage as a matter of state law,” HHS explains. “This existing inter-governmental structure for obtaining contraceptives significantly diminishes the government’s interest in applying the mandate to employers over their sincerely held religious objections.”
Pro-life and family organizations cheered the move, stating that people of faith should not be forced to violate their beliefs.
“Although organizations that filed civil rights lawsuits will still need final relief from the courts, it is encouraging to see the Trump administration affirm the principle that all Americans should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment,” said Gregory Baylor of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
“The federal government should never force Christian ministries to violate their faith or face crippling fines in order to continue their mission. We commend President Trump for fulfilling his promise to uphold the religious liberties of these organizations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” also said Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel.
“There’s no other way to describe it: today’s administrative action is a tremendous victory for conscience and religious freedom,” said CeCe Heil of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
As previously reported, in May, President Trump signed an executive order that included a recommendation that HHS consider amending regulations to accommodate the conscience objections to the contraceptive mandate.
Numerous religious businesses, schools and nonprofit organizations had sued the Obama administration over the mandate, with the most high-profile cases being Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Zubik v. Burwell, the latter of which was consolidated from seven lawsuits that included East Texas Baptist University and the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor.