FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. CO

Sat., Sept.23, 2017

~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~ God Bless America~

Don and Mel --- Forever Young

Busted...Chinese banks cut off Hermit Kingdom, amid pressure from Trump administration. Hail to their chief. Why are they so happy?

Congress seeks to defund Planned Parenthood with Graham-Cassidy bill

Abortion, Affordable Healthcare Act, Defund Planned Parenthood, Graham-Cassidy Bill, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, U.S. Senate

September 20, 2017 (Population Research Institute) — Last week, pro-life lawmakers launched a last-ditch effort to ‘repeal and replace Obamacare’ and defund Planned Parenthood before the end of the 2017 fiscal year.

On September 13, Senators Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina; Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana; Dean Heller, R-Nevada; and Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin jointly unveiled their plan for health care reform. Former Senator Rick Santorum has been instrumental in spearheading the initiative and working with members of Congress to adopt the policies outlined in the bill.

The proposal provides an innovative solution for health care reform by subsidizing health insurance through the allocation of block grants to state governments. The measure will give states more say on health care policy. Like the House bill and the failed Senate bills proposed earlier this year, the Graham-Cassidy bill would protect unborn lives and the conscience rights of millions of Americans.

The proposal would block the vast majority of federal funding for Planned Parenthood for the period of one year. As the nation’s most prolific abortion provider, Planned Parenthood terminates the lives of more than 320,000 unborn children every year. For the past two years, the organization has been the center of controversy surrounding their alleged trafficking and sale of the body parts of aborted babies.

The Graham-Cassidy proposal would even go one step further than the Senate bills from earlier this year by also prohibiting tax-free contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) from being used to pay for health care plans that include abortion coverage.

Senate lawmakers have until September 30 to pass the bill for the 2017 fiscal year. If lawmakers fail to meet the September 30 deadline, they would still be able to bring up the same bill after the 2018 fiscal year appropriations bill is passed, but the pro-life provisions in the bill would have to wait for another year before being implemented.

As a reconciliation bill, the Graham-Cassidy measure only needs 50 votes to pass in the Senate. However, both Senators Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, have already come out against the bill, leaving Republicans with no margin for error in garnering support. Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, who sank the Senate’s effort to pass the so-called ‘skinny bill’ in July, has expressed optimism for the bill but has fallen short of endorsing it. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) plans to have a preliminary assessment of the bill by sometime next week.

On the issue of health policy more generally, the Graham-Cassidy bill proposes to give the states more say in setting the rules for health care policy, permitting states to apply for waivers on several ACA regulations. States would be able to decide if they want to reduce costs by allowing health insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions or for other reasons and would allow states to set the minimum essential benefits that insurers must provide.

States would be able to manage their health care plans more conservatively or liberally as the political climate may dictate with some left-leaning states likely to transition to a single payer option under the Graham-Cassidy bill, according to Avik Roy in an article published with Forbes. Senator John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, has proposed an amendment to the Graham-Cassidy bill prohibiting states from using block grants to create single payer systems.

The Graham-Cassidy bill would increase the annual maximum tax-free contribution individuals and families can make to their HSAs. Citizens over 55 years of age would also be able to make catch-up contributions to their HSAs. The proposal would eliminate the individual and employer mandates and would repeal the Obamacare medical device tax. Unlike the House bill, the Graham-Cassidy bill would not penalize individuals for a lapse in coverage, a policy change that is helpful in ensuring that low-income or unemployed Americans are not penalized but one that could also increase the cost of health insurance overall.

Under the Graham-Cassidy proposal, block grants given to the states for the purposes of subsidizing individual and small group health plans would gradually replace the ACA individual premium tax credits, cost-share reduction payments, and Medicaid expansion. The Graham-Cassidy bill would allow states to introduce high-risk pools to help individuals with expensive health conditions gain access to affordable insurance. However, states would have to elect to create high-risk pools with the block grants provided to them by the federal government and it is uncertain whether such pools would be sufficient to cover at-risk individuals. A nationwide entitlement-based high-risk pool would assure that persons with expensive health conditions are able to receive affordable care.

Like the ACA, the Graham-Cassidy bill prohibits insurance companies from turning away applicants for pre-existing conditions or current health status. Individuals will also be eligible to remain on their parents’ health plans up to 26 years of age.

The bill will provide more equitable distribution of federal funding for health care across the states. Under the ACA, federal funding is matched to state funding, allowing wealthier states to gain access to proportionally more federal funding than less wealthy states.

The Senate proposal appears poised to improve financial accountability for health care. According to Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in a released statement, “Getting money and decision-making out of Washington — and into the hands of governors who are legally bound by balanced budget amendments in their state constitution—is a giant step forward.” The bill would end limitless entitlement spending authorized under the ACA, forcing states to only spend money budgeted for, encouraging states to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

With the elimination of cost-sharing payments and premium tax credits, however, it remains unclear how the proposal will impact the health insurance market, particularly for low-income Americans. There could also be hidden risks to local state economies and national cohesion by allowing states to so differentially regulate on a large sector of the economy.

While Americans continue to debate the merits and drawbacks of the Graham-Cassidy health care reform proposal, all Americans can agree that any health care policy must, and in a fiscally responsible way, be attentive to the health care needs of all Americans, most especially the sick, the poor, and the unborn.

Laws to close loopholes in the ACA are greatly needed to protect the conscience rights of millions of Americans from being forced to purchase, or to subsidize through federal taxes, health care plans that include abortion coverage.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), federal subsidies can be used to finance health care plans that include coverage for elective abortion, contrary to long-standing federal policy under the Hyde Amendment which prohibits this practice for federal appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Despite pro-life opposition at the time the ACA was being debated in 2010, pro-abortion Democratic lawmakers ultimately blocked the bi-partisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment which would have mandated Hyde-like protections for the ACA.

Instead, the ACA stipulates that federal money should be deposited into an account separate from the abortion portion of the health care plan and itemized as a separate charge on the customer’s bill. Pro-lifers have long criticized the maneuver as little more than an accounting gimmick, allowing for federal funds to nonetheless subsidize health care plans that pay for abortion procedures.

In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that several insurance companies were not itemizing the abortion surcharge. The GAO found that Washington Health Benefit Exchange was not even collecting an abortion premium as stipulated by the ACA and was forced to modify their billing practices and notify the IRS of the amount the Exchange owed for failing to segregate funds.

While the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for health care plans that include abortion coverage in all 50 states, the ACA forced several states to pass laws in order to opt out of funding abortion plans in the exchanges. Only 25 states so far have laws in place to restrict ACA federal subsidies and premium tax credits for insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In some states, every health care plan offered through the exchanges includes coverage for elective abortion.

The Graham-Cassidy bill, by way of contrast, would prevent funding for abortion in health care plans in all 50 states.  It would protect the conscience rights of American living in states such as California, New York, and Oregon, whose state governments have passed laws forcing insurance companies to include coverage for elective abortion in all state-specific health care plans sold in these states.

Will the Graham-Cassidy bill succeed in a politically divided Senate? Stay tuned.

Trump signs executive order targeting trade with North Korea

Trump: 'Rocket Man' Kim Jong Un is on a 'suicide mission'

by Gabby Morrongiello

NEW YORK – President Trump took executive action on Thursday to crack down on individuals, banks, and businesses that are involved in trade with North Korea, as his administration seeks to further pressure Pyongyang into abandoning its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"Foreign banks will face a clear choice: do business with the United States or facilitate trade with the lawless regime in North Korea," Trump said during a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. "It is unacceptable that others financially support this criminal, rogue regime."

Trump said his executive order, announced shortly after Chinese officials said the country had instructed its banks to strictly enforce international sanctions against North Korea, will "cut off sources of revenue that fund North Korea's efforts to develop the deadliest weapons known to humankind" by directing the Treasury Department to target those conducting trade in "goods, services, or technology" with the communist regime.

"The order also includes measures designed to disrupt critical North Korean shipping and trade networks," the president added. "This is a complete denuclearization of North Korea that we seek. We cannot have this as a world body any longer."

The president's announcement came as he and his counterparts from Japan and South Korea planned to discuss a path forward that deals with the Kim Jong-un's increased aggression in the region without taking military action.

"In the last three weeks, two times North Korea launched ballistic missiles over Japan and they conducted six nuclear tests," Abe said during the luncheon with Trump, Moon and senior officials from all three countries. "The scale of the tests was beyond the scale of the Hiroshima bombs."

"This is an intolerable, outrageous act," he said.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters late Wednesday that North Korea has seen "fuel shortages" due to international sanctions passed by the UN earlier this month.

"We knew that these sanctions are going to take some time to be felt because we knew that the North Koreans... had basically stockpiled a lot of inventory early in the year when they saw the administration coming in, in anticipation of things perhaps changing," Tillerson said at an evening press conference with reporters.

The 15-member U.N. Security Council passed fresh sanctions on Sept. 12 to increase economic pressure on North Korea by capping its oil imports, ending overseas laborer contracts, and halting its joint ventures with other countries.

"We are done trying to prod the regime to do the right thing, we are now trying to stop it from having the ability to do the wrong thing," U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley had said at the time.

North Korean officials have compared the goal of the sanctions – to get leader Kim Jong Un to stop his nuclear pursuits – to "a delusion tantamount to expecting foolishly that the ocean would dry up."

But Trump has declined to back away from threatening further action if North Korea does not comply with international demands to end its nuclear program. In remarks to the U.N. on Tuesday, the president said that if the U.S. is "forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

"Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime," the president said in one of the most notable lines of his speech.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will hold a press conference to discuss implementation of the latest executive order following Trump's meeting with the leaders from Japan and South Korea.

Sharyl Attkisson explains what we are up against

By Thomas Lifson

This is easily the read of the day.  Sharyl Attkisson is the bravest reporter of her generation, so much of a threat to people with access to the capabilities of our intel agencies that she was spied upon and worse. Today she faces the ugly truth about what recent reports (if true) reveal:

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.

She goes on to review a number of instances of us being lied to about spying, about spying on journalists, and then gets to her personal experience in fighting back against an actual hack she experienced while at CBS News:

I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating the computer’s microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.

We survived the government’s latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There’s another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department of Justice — like the Obama Department of Justice — is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.

Sharyl is fighting back, and is not shying away from what she sees, though she wisely avoids terms like deep state or establishment. She is reporting:

It’s difficult not to see patterns in the government’s behavior, unless you’re wearing blinders.

·    The intelligence community secretly expanded its authority in 2011 so it can monitor innocent U.S. citizens like you and me for doing nothing more than mentioning a target’s name a single time.

·    In January 2016, a top secret inspector general report found the NSA violated the very laws designed to prevent abuse.

·    In 2016, Obama officials searched through intelligence on U.S. citizens a record 30,000 times, up from 9,500 in 2013.

·    Two weeks before the election, at a secret hearing before the FISA court overseeing government surveillance, NSA officials confessed they’d violated privacy safeguards “with much greater frequency” than they’d admitted. The judge accused them of “institutional lack of candor” and said, “this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

Alabama Special Election: Where Does Judge Roy Moore Stand on the Second Amendment?

86

0

by AWR HAWKINS

Where does Judge Roy Moore stand on the Second Amendment with the September 26 special election for the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in Alabama approaching?

Moore is the anti-establishment, pro-God candidate who previously served as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. On the campaign trail, his support for the Second Amendment has been as loud and clear as his support for the rule of law.

On August 4, Breitbart News reported that Moore was asked about his stance on the Second Amendment during a Chambers County Republican Club event. According to Roll Call, Moore responded by saying, “We carry,” pulling a lightweight concealed carry revolver out of his wife’s purse. He later added, “I will uphold the Second Amendment.”

Moreover, Moore opposes an “assault weapons” ban or a ban on “high capacity” magazines, and he is against an expansion of background checks because he knows such an expansion is unenforceable without a gun registry. World history–and contemporary history in the state of California–prove that gun registration is a crucial step in undercutting the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

According to AL.com, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) summarized Moore’s pro-Second Amendment positions when it endorsed him, saying:

Judge Roy Moore has proven to be a strict constitutionalist and has given good reason to believe he’ll be a gun rights champion and vocal supporter of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Senate. [He] opposes expanded Brady Registration checks, calling them a national gun registration. He is also a steadfast opponent of high capacity gun magazine bans and bans on so-called “assault weapons.”

NAGR also observed that Moore’s anti-establishment mindset means he will not sit idly by and watch President Trump’s pro-gun agenda wither on the vine. Rather, he will be a pro-active senator who pushes pro-gun legislation while also seeking the repeal of gun controls that hamper law-abiding citizens’ exercise of Second Amendment rights. This was evident in a September 12 Breitbart News exclusive in which Moore stressed that the vote on national reciprocity for concealed carry should immediately transpire.

National reciprocity was introduced in the House on January 3, 2017, and shortly thereafter in the Senate. The common man has been waiting since then for a vote but has been denied by the same establishment that backs Moore’s opponent, Luther Strange.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) supports Moore and stresses that he is the key to pushing national reciprocity across the finish line. GOA Chairman Tim Macy said, “Judge Moore has long been an articulate — and uncompromising — champion for gun rights. And he will fight just as hard for gun owners in the U.S. Senate. There are few men I trust more than Judge Moore.”

GOA stressed that Moore will also help secure passage of the Hearing Protection Act, an act designed to remove the cumbersome requirements that often prevent the common man from acquiring a suppressor for his firearm. Although suppressors are legal in more than 40 states, the ruling class has maintained constraints around them that include paying the federal government a $200 tax on each suppressor purchase and requiring purchasers to be photographed, fingerprinted, and registered in a government database. In short, the common man is treated like a criminal when he goes to buy a suppressor that will protect his hearing while hunting and/or sport shooting. Moore supports doing away with the federal suppressor tax and the other cumbersome acquisition requirements.

The bottom line is that Moore is a Second Amendment juggernaut who portends freedom via a broader exercise of Second Amendment rights for the common man.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

WALL STREET WARREN: Senator Pays A Secret Visit To The Big Bankers

Elizabeth Warren was on Wall Street, and not to protest.

Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images      By EMILY ZANOTTI

She may be famous for calling out "big banks" from the Senate floor, but America's pre-eminent Harvard diversity hire, Elizabeth Warren, is changing her tune now that she needs to raise money for a mid-term presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren has been making the rounds on Manhattan's Lower East Side, meeting with some of the nation's most powerful money men — but it wasn't to conduct a sit-in in their office hallways, or instruct them in the benefits of a progressive tax system that punishes the wealthy, or even to beg for student loan forgiveness. She was there to make peace, ostensibly so that the big banks she loves to hate won't be too aggressive in challenging her fledgling presidential run.

According to The New York Times, Warren met with static when she began to approach New York financial executives, but, nevertheless, she persisted. She even met privately with JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, a man she regularly rakes over the coals in public speeches.

“Maybe even more striking than invoking Scripture, the scourge of Wall Street is spending some time with bankers," the NYT reported. "She attended a party fundraiser in July at the summer residence of a former UBS executive, and earlier this summer she met privately in Washington with JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon.”

That should be unwelcome news to anyone who believes Warren is somehow the anointed progressive alternative to President Donald Trump.

The situation has become so confusing for some Wall Street types, according to the NYT, that they've been openly discussing Warren's two-timing, calling her out for saying one thing to her constituents and acolytes, and another to Wall Street Bankers, and claiming that Warren is far less critical of Wall Street financial practices in private than she is in public.

“I think Senator Warren’s views are more pragmatic; I think she is very different in a conversation than when she’s on the stump,” said UIBS executive Robert Wolf, who hosted the Hamptons party Warren attended over the summer.

There's a clear reason for the about face: Warren needs to court major donors if she intends to run in 2020, and Hillary Clinton's former donor base is a natural fit. But Wall Street never feared Clinton, who cashed their checks regularly, both as a private citizen and as a presidential candidate. Warren, conversely, needs to assure these same donors that she does not intend to make good on her public promises to break up big banks, jail Wall Street bigwigs, and restructure the American financial system to benefit the 99%.

Aaron Hernandez Had Severe CTE; Daughter Sues NFL, Patriots

Tests conducted on the brain of former football star Aaron Hernandez showed severe signs of the degenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and his attorney said Thursday that the player's daughter is suing the NFL and the New England Patriots for leading Hernandez to believe the sport was safe.

In a news conference at his offices, Hernandez's attorney Jose Baez said the testing showed one of the most severe cases ever diagnosed.

"We're told it was the most severe case they had ever seen for someone of Aaron's age," Baez said.

Dr. Ann McKee, the director of the CTE Center at Boston University, concluded that the New England Patriots tight end had stage 3 of 4 of the disease, and also had early brain atrophy and large perforations in a central membrane.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston on Thursday claims that the team and league deprived Avielle Hernandez of the companionship of her father. It is separate from a $1 billion settlement in which the league agreed to pay families of players who suffered brain damage because of repeated head trauma while playing football.

CTE can be caused by repeated head trauma and leads to symptoms like violent mood swings, depression and other cognitive difficulties. Hernandez killed himself in April in the jail cell where he was serving a life-without-parole sentence for a 2013 murder. His death came just hours before the Patriots visited the White House to celebrate their latest Super Bowl victory.

CTE can only be diagnosed in an autopsy. A recent study found evidence of the disease in 110 of 111 former NFL players whose brains were examined.

CTE has been linked with repeated concussions and involves brain damage particularly in the frontal region that controls many functions including judgment, emotion, impulse control, social behavior and memory.

A star for the University of Florida when it won the 2008 title, Hernandez dropped to the fourth round of the NFL draft because of trouble in college that included a failed drug test and a bar fight. His name had also come up in an investigation into a shooting.

In three seasons with the Patriots, Hernandez joined Rob Gronkowski to form one of the most potent tight end duos in NFL history. In 2011, his second season, Hernandez caught 79 passes for 910 yards and seven touchdowns to help the team reach the Super Bowl, and he was rewarded with a $40 million contract.

But the Patriots released him in 2013, shortly after he was arrested in the killing of semi-pro football player Odin Lloyd, who was dating the sister of Hernandez's fiancee. Hernandez was convicted and sentenced to life in prison; the conviction was voided because he died before his appeals were exhausted, though that decision is itself being appealed.

A week before his suicide, Hernandez was acquitted in the 2012 drive-by shootings of two men in Boston. Prosecutors had argued that Hernandez gunned the two men down after one accidentally spilled a drink on him in a nightclub, and then got a tattoo of a handgun and the words "God Forgives" to commemorate the crime.

Professor Exposes What’s Holding Down Minorities – It’s NOT What Liberals Claim

Ben Baker

There are many African Americans struggling to make ends meet in our society and liberals claim to be fighting for them.

The Federalist Papers reported that noted economist Walter E. Williams believes the issue facing African Americans isn’t racial repression like the Left claims, but a much deeper issue. It’s the collapse of the traditional family structure.

Walter E. Williams works at George Mason University as a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He recently wrote a lengthy article detailing the issues facing black Americans in society.

He starts off by criticizing the Left’s notion that minorities are struggling in the US because of “a legacy of slavery, racial discrimination, and poverty.” While certainly terrible things, Williams claims these are not the primary sources of the difficulties African Americans are facing.

According to Williams, “The No. 1 problem among blacks is the effects stemming from a very weak family structure. Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes and end up in prison. They are also likelier to live in poverty-stricken households.”

He cites an interesting statistic to prove his point that the collapse of the family, not racism, is at fault. Williams claims that in 1960 there were only 22 percent of children raised in single parent homes. That number skyrocketed to 70 percent of black children growing up in single parent homes in 2010.

Another statistic he uses states that 11 percent of black children were born to unwed women in 1938. That number has similarly jumped to 75 percent.

He uses these two facts to make perhaps his boldest statement in the article, “the black family was stronger the first 100 years after slavery than during what will be the second 100 years.”

Williams states that black families with two married parents have only an 8 percent poverty rate, whereas their unwed single counterparts have 37 percent in poverty. This is perhaps the clearest indicator that traditional families lead to decreased poverty among black Americans.

The claims Williams puts forth are echoed by Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, who believes a traditional family is key to avoiding poverty, as reported by Newsweek. According to Lowry, the three steps for economic success require graduating from high school, maintaining a full-time job or have a spouse who does, and waiting to have children until married and after the age of 21.

According to Lowry, another problem facing black Americans is the sense of helplessness instilled by the Left, who deny “the moral agency of blacks, who are often depicted as the products of forces beyond their control.”

This is the argument put forth by Williams in his article. He believes that the Left is what is causing the most damage to the potential of black Americans: “The most damage done to black Americans is inflicted by those politicians, civil rights leaders, and academics who assert that every problem confronting blacks is a result of a legacy of slavery and discrimination. That’s a vision that guarantees perpetuity for the problems.”

The assault on traditional families and the pervasive feeling of helplessness are the greatest threats to black Americans’ success in the US. Though there may be fringe elements of society who advocate racism, this is not the primary obstacle to escaping poverty and achieving happiness.

We as Americans, regardless of race, need to hang on to traditional values, such as family, if we wish to remain successful and happy in life.

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus articles

that is all articles This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.

You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/09/httpift_22.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: