American Health Care Act

Is this plan a good replacement for the ACA or are all the negative comments from the democrats and Trump Haters warranted?

I’d say it’s not good in it’s current form, but has potential.

It sounds like it has the potential to get much better, and it’s probably better than nothing at all. One really good thing is that President Trump said they are very open to negotiations.

He said “It’s going to a big fat beautiful negotiation.”

Paul Ryan seems pretty excited about this bill and so does President Trump. You can find the PDF of the actual text from the new bill herehttps://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/

It’s been explained that this is a three step process for this plan to work. Many changes will happen to this bill as it makes its way through our democratic process. So why is everyone complaining so much? Because they can’t see past phase one, and they are not able to realize what it will be by phase three. There isn’t anything to see yet. Since everything is being negotiated there isn’t anything to see for phase 3. It’s still being drafted. So no wonder there are doubts about what to vote.

If the rest of the plan doesn’t make it through, or if it isn’t what it’s been promised, no one wants to own the mistake. There is way too much riding on this. With seats opening up in 2018 and President Trump’s approval ratings as low as they are, this plan needs to be sparkling perfect.

They really should just scrap the three step process malarkey and write a bill with exactly what they want it to look like in the end. Then let the negotiations begin. It just seems like a better plan to me. I’m not alone on that opinion either.

Costs are supposed to be affected more in phases 2-3, bringing premiums down, because of competition between companies and being able to buy out of state. I keep hearing a lot about costs going up from Democrats and Paul Ryan keeps saying they will be going down.

Democrats are super mad at the defunding of Planned Parenthood and they are very dramatic about the possibility of having less people with coverage. Although with that predicted number they are relying solely on phase one CBO estimates, (Congressional Budget Office). Paul Ryan says that everyone will be offered coverage and the CBO numbers don’t take into account that people now have a choice instead of being made to buy or pay a penalty.

As it sits right now, the bill would allow insurance companies to charge older sicker policyholders up to five times as much as younger healthier ones. It’s not completely clear to me, if that would be something that might change during their phase plan and/or if it’s up for negotiations.

The Medicaid reform section seems a little sketchy and quite confusing. As well as the tax credits based on age and income has left me scratching my head and my brain hurts a little. Haha

Why are they in such a hurry to pass this legislation on healthcare reform? Well here is proof from an article written in November of 2015. This is an emergency issue. They need to fix this before everyone who uses Obama Care has no health insurance.

Obamacare’s Exchanges Begin To Implode via Forbes November 30, 2015

Need proof that Obamacare is imploding? Look to its exchanges.
The largest U.S. insurer, UnitedHealth Group, just announced that it may withdraw from then exchanges in 2017. The insurer currently offers plans in 34 states and covers more than 500,000 people through the online marketplaces. But it’s expecting $700 million in losses on its exchange business this year.
….Premiums and deductibles for policies sold through the exchanges have soared. The young and healthy — who must buy insurance for the law’s finances to work — are spurning coverage altogether.
…the plans available in the exchanges are simply unaffordable.
…or it makes more financial sense to pay the modest tax penalty for going without insurance.
Two years ago, President Obama brushed off criticism of his then-fledgling healthcare law by claiming “the same folks trying to scare people now are the same folks who have been trying to sink the Affordable Care Act from the beginning.”
The law is still fledgling today. And its critics haven’t sunk it. Obamacare has sown the seeds of its own demise.

FNN: Paul Ryan’s FULL PowerPoint Presentation on American Health Care Act (Obamacare Replacement)
Speaker, Paul Ryan Explains The American Health Care Act
Here are the steps that have already happened with the new American Health Care Act and you can keep track of future actions here:
Statement on Introduction of the American Health Care Act
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-introduction-american-health-care-act

One Step Closer: Two House Committees Approve the American Health Care Act
09 Mar 17 Press Release

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/one-step-closer-two-house-committees-approve-american-health-care-act

Speaker Ryan Statement on American Health Care Act CBO Score
13 Mar 17 Press Release

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-ryan-statement-american-health-care-act-cbo-score

Paul Ryan has explained this bill will go through a 3 prong process as it moves through legislation. This is due to the amount of votes they need to get the bill to pass. There are certain things you can not do without a 60+ vote. Republicans have only 52 Senate votes, which is not enough to end a Democrat filibuster. At least four of the Republican votes would not be reliable for a clean repeal bill. Apparently a perfect bill is simply not possible

Reconciliation – Repeal and Replace

  • Repeal as much of Obamacare as possible

Administration Action – Appointees, (Tom Price,) will kill as much Obamacare regulation as possible through administrative rulemaking

Additional Legislation

  • Needs 60+ vote
  • The remainder of Obamacare will be repealed and replaced through a traditional bill. This bill would ideally enact other reforms that cannot be part of the budget reconciliation such as allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. The third phase will be the most difficult since that bill would be subject to a Democrat filibuster.
This whole process is expected to take about 3 weeks.(Sources Speaker Paul Ryan, Rep Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) House Majority Leader & TheResurgent.com)

Republican Health Plan Is Worth a Closer Look via TheResurgent.com March 11, 2017

The first two sections deal with “Patient Access to Public Health Programs” and “Medicaid Program Enhancement.” These sections dealt with reforms to Medicaid. Some of the items included, listed in order with their section number were:

  • Banning Medicaid money for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood (103)
  • Repealing the Medicaid expansion effective January 1, 2020 (112) – The Medicaid expansion was the largest expansion of coverage under Obamacare.
  • Limits the eligibility for Medicaid (114)
  • Creates incentives for states to qualify Medicare recipients more often and penalizes those that carry ineligible people on the rolls (116)
  • The next section, “Per Capita Allotment for Medical Assistance,” also deals with Medicaid reform.
  • Caps Medicaid spending on a per person basis (1903A)
  • Subpart D is entitled “Patient Relief and Health Market Stability.”
  • Repeals Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidy with insurance companies (131)
  • Creates a Patient and State Stability Fund that empowers states to create risk pools for high risk individuals, promote preventive care, reduce costs and reduce out-of-pocket costs for insureds (2202)
  • This section also describes the Continuous Health Coverage Incentive for people who drop their health insurance and sign up again. This is a 30 percent penalty for people who do not have 63 days of continuous coverage in the previous 12 months. This is not a popular provision, but Obamacare’s clause guaranteeing insurability for previous conditions is something most Americans want to keep. If this provision is to be kept, some sort of mechanism is necessary to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. (133, 2711)
  • Amends Obamacare to increase insurance policy options (134)

There are many individual sections of the bill that repeal Obamacare taxes as well. One section of the bill is titled “Repeal and Replace of Health-Related Tax Policy.”

  • Repeals the tanning tax
  • Repeals the tax on prescription medications
  • Repeals the Health Insurance Tax
  • Repeals the Net Investment Income Tax
  • Prohibits tax credits for abortion coverage (02-04)
  • Repeals individual mandate (05)
  • Repeals tax on employee insurance premiums and benefits (07)
  • Repeals tax on over-the-counter medications (08)
  • Repeals tax increase on Health Savings Accounts (09)
  • Repeal of limits on Flexible Savings Account contributions (10)
  • Repeal of medical device tax (11)
  • Repeals the increase in the threshold of the medical income tax deduction. The threshold would return to 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income from the current 10 percent. (12)
  • Repeal of the Medicare tax increase (14)

Section 15 deals with the refundable tax credits for insurance premiums. Section 7529 allows advance payment of the credit. This is a problematic section.

  • Increases the HSA contribution limit to equal the amount of the policy’s deductible and out-of-pocket limits (16)
  • Permits catch-up contributions to HSAs (17)
  • Treats medical expenses within 60 days of the establishment of an HSA as occurring on the first day the account was opened. This would allow HSA funds to be used for a condition that occurred shortly before opening the account. (18)

Senator Cruz Found an Overlooked 1974 Rule That Could Be a Real Game-changer for Repealing Obamacare via Independent Journal Review March 11, 2017

House Republicans left several reforms popular with conservatives out of their health care bill because the parliamentarian is likely to rule them outside the scope of special rules in the upper chamber that prevent a Democratic filibuster.
These special rules hinge on what is known as “reconciliation,” a process which allows legislation that affects the budget but has a limited scope to be passed with only a simple Senate majority, leaving such bills immune to filibuster.
Traditionally, it has fallen to the parliamentarian — who advises the Senate “on the interpretation of its rules and procedures” — to determine what should and should not be considered a reconciliation bill.
According to Cruz, however, a provision in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 would allow Republicans to both drastically increase the scope of their new health care reform bill and still let it fall under reconciliation by essentially bypassing the parliamentarian and leaving that decision up to Vice President Pence.
“Under the Budget Act of 1974, which is what governs reconciliation, it is the presiding officer, the vice president of the United States, who rules on what’s permissible on reconciliation and what is not.
Cruz said this process would allow Republicans to include a number of provisions that would make the health care reform bill much more attractive to conservatives.

The American Health Care Act Is Critical First Step Toward Protecting Patients
via HHS.gov March 7, 2017
With Congress considering reconciliation legislation, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continues its work on the next two steps: taking administrative actions that will create a healthier insurance market and alleviate the burden the current healthcare law imposed on Americans, and supporting work on legislation that will include reforms not permitted under reconciliation, such as purchase of insurance across state lines.
Ongoing Administrative Actions
To relieve the burden of the current healthcare law, HHS has begun key administrative actions, including:

  • Stabilize insurance markets and increase coverage choices beginning 2018;
  • Loosening restrictions so patients have access to lower premium options; and Improving choices for patients and putting downward pressure on prices
  • Future administrative actions help provide more options, give states flexibility for spending their Medicaid dollars, and ensure a stable transition to any law Congress passes.
Further Congressional Action
In addition to the reconciliation bill, HHS supports legislation to take action on other priorities President Trump has laid out for healthcare, including:

  • Increasing competition and choice by promoting the sale of insurance across state lines;
  • Removing even more of the current healthcare law’s regulations on insurance;
  • Reducing out-of-control drug costs; and
  • New legal reforms to cut costs for patients and doctors.

Some states only have one insurer to choose from and by next year there will be none. People will be without healthcare at all. Over 50%-116% increase on Obamacare premiums. Only sick people are buying because healthy ones go without and are not paying into the pool. No money to cover costs.

Lower costs – More choices – Patients in control – Universal access to care 
Eliminate taxes – Stop spending – Eliminate mandates

“Two House committees have now approved the American Health Care Act. Next the bill goes to the Budget Committee as part of an open, transparent process.
“We promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, and now we are one step closer to giving families relief from this collapsing law. That means we are one step closer to going from a government-centered system to a patient-centered system, where you have lower costs, more choices, and greater control over your care.
“And—this is so important—we are one step closer to returning power from Washington back to states, to doctors, and to patients. Let’s come together. Let’s get it done.

The President did say it’s a work in progress, and like everything else there is always room for improvement. They are very open to revisions and new ideas to make it better. This is just a really confusing and vast issue to tackle with so many things that need to be factored in and possibilities that need to be taken into account.

Paul Ryan’s complete policy agenda
…we must move to a better system that embraces competition and choice and actually lowers costs for patients and taxpayers.Introduced this week, the American Health Care Act keeps our promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. I hope you will read the bill online at readthebill.gop.
Our goal is to give every American access to quality, affordable health care. For families, that means lower costs, more choices and greater control.

  • Bill repeals Obamacare – we eliminate Obamacare’s taxes, mandates and spending.
  • Plan ensures a stable transition, continuous coverage with protections for patients w/ pre-existing conditions and kids to stay on their parents’ plan until 26 years of age.
  • Give states more funding and flexibility to support high-risk pools and reinsurance programs, plan takes care of those in need without driving up costs for everyone else.
  • Strengthen Medicaid so that the STATES have the tools they need to take care of their poor and most vulnerable populations at a lower cost.
  • Double the amount you can contribute to health savings accounts to pay for out-of-pocket expenses..
  • An advanceable, refundable tax credit to those who don’t get insurance from work or a government program. Instead of mandates forcing you to buy what the government wants, you will have real choices.
  • Get rid of costly insurance mandates and regulations, to further help choices.

In the weeks ahead, the House will consider this plan through an open and transparent process, including legislation to allow people to purchase health care across state lines.

Will the American Health Care Act Pass? 
via Fox Business March 8, 2017

The American Health Care Act put forth by House Republicans has left the party divided over whether the piece of legislation is an actual repeal of the Affordable Care Act or simply just what Senator Rand Paul called, “Obamacare Lite.”
In a nutshell the American Health Care Act allows adolescents 26 and under to stay on their parent’s plan, preserves the expansion of Medicaid through 2020, eliminates nearly all taxes and subsidies from Obamacare, and gets rid of the mandate that requires individuals to have health insurance or be forced to pay a penalty
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) emphasized the importance of “getting rid of all the mandated regulation and mandated coverages that are in Obamacare” in order to promote “market principles like health savings accounts, easy formation of association of health plans, [and] interstate shopping for insurance.”
“All I know is we had our House Dream Caucus meeting last night and there was strong opposition in that meeting. I don’t think there are the votes there for it now.”
However, he is optimistic about the democratic process and is hopeful of working together to create a product that will ultimately lower the cost of health care.
“Let’s have debates, let’s have amendments, let’s have discussions, let’s hash this out like we’re supposed to in front of the American people with full amendments so we can get to a much better product that I hope in the end will actually bring down the cost of insurance,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Republicans have released their long-awaited plan to repeal Obamacare
via – AMP Business Insider March 6, 2017
Introducing block tax credits for individuals to access health insurance: Instead of the ACA’s tax credits, which adjusted the amount distributed based on income and the beneficiary’s residence, the AHCA would give lump tax credits to Americans. The credits would be based on age, and an individual making over $75,000 or a household making over $150,000 a year would see a decrease in the credit depending on how much he or she made over that limit. Here’s the breakdown of how much each age group would get:

  • Under 30: $2,000 a year
  • Age 30 to 39: $2,500 a year
  • Age 40 to 49: $3,000 a year
  • Age 50 to 59: $3,500 a year
  • Age 60 and above: $4,000 a year

Providing grants to establish high-risk pools and encourage enrollment: Much as with the leaked draft, the AHCA would include a fund for states to institute numerous programs to stabilize the insurance market, most notably “the provision of financial assistance, high-risk individuals who do not have access to health insurance coverage offered through an employer.” This would allow states to establish high-risk pools for people with preexisting conditions, a plan often floated by Republicans. The plan would give states $15 billion in both 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion every year after that through 2026.

Changing the limit that insurers can charge older customers compared with younger customers: Under the ACA, insurers can charge older customers (generally sicker and more expensive to cover) no more than three times what they charge their youngest customers (generally healthier). The Republican bill would shift that to five times the amount.

Effectively defunding Planned Parenthood: The bill prohibits “direct spending” of federal dollars on any “prohibited entity” including those that provide abortions for anything other than the life of the mother, incest, or rape..

Republican health plan clears first hurdles, fate uncertain via Reuters March 9, 2017

The Republican plan backed by President Donald Trump to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system cleared its first hurdles in Congress on Thursday, but its chances for passage looked uncertain and top Republicans scrambled to bring disgruntled conservatives aboard.

The Energy and Commerce Committee voted 31-23 along party lines, with Democrats unified against it, to back the plan after marathon proceedings lasting 27 straight hours. Hours earlier, the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee similarly voted 23-16 before dawn to approve it after working 17 straight hours.
“Despite what you hear in the press, healthcare is coming along great. We are talking to many groups and it will end in a beautiful picture!” President Trump said on Twitter..

How would the American Health Care Act affect cost and access?
PBS Hour News Video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjh5Y27XpE

Conservatives to reveal their own healthcare plan in face of GOP’s ‘Obamacare Lite’
via The Blaze March 7, 2017

According to The Hill, Rand Paul is not letting “Obamacare Lite” happen without a fight, and he has allies. The libertarian leaning senator is teaming up with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to release their own bill to repeal Obamacare on Wednesday, and it’s highly similar to the one that Republicans voted for unanimously in 2015.
….he believes that if there is one thing that will unite Republicans, it’s the repeal of Obamacare.

Congressional Budget Office Report on The American Health Care Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486
CBO Report reflects only the first part of the new health plan. (Phase One.) Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), estimates 24 million decrease in number of uninsured by 2026, and 14 million uninsured by 2018. The report also estimates that the plan will cut the federal budget deficit by 337 billion over 10 years.

CBO scoring says there would be a premium increase for singles of 15%-20% in 2018-2019, but by 2020 would decrease. However, the plan grandfather’s in everyone who is newly covered by Medicaid. CBO numbers assume no one will want their coverage unless it’s a total freebie. Estimates leave out the paragraph section 2202 that provides multi-billion dollar funds that go to each state to identify the sickest people in the individual market and reimburse the insurers for the cost of their care. So that means that the other healthy people will not have to pay increased premiums to make up for the loss and cover the sickest like it does under ObamaCare. This also might be the solution to bring down the costs for the elderly, but that is still unclear and confusing.

The CBO was wrong about their predictions last time of ObamaCare, by 50% and they ignored the problem of the healthier having to fit the bill for the sick and now they are ignoring the solution for that which is written in this bill (SECTION 2202).
via Your World w/ Neil Cavuto – Betsy McCoy Author of “Beating ObamaCare”

‘‘SEC. 2202. USE OF FUNDS. ‘‘A State may use the funds allocated to the State under this title for any of the following purposes:
‘‘(1) Helping, through the provision of financial assistance, high-risk individuals who do not have access to health insurance coverage offered through an employer enroll in health insurance coverage in the individual market in the State, as such market is defined by the State (whether through the establishment of a new mechanism or maintenance of an existing mechanism for such purpose).
‘‘(2) Providing incentives to appropriate entities to enter into arrangements with the State to help stabilize premiums for health insurance coverage in the individual market, as such markets are defined by the State.
‘‘(3) Reducing the cost for providing health insurance coverage in the individual market and small group market, as such markets are defined by the State, to individuals who have, or are projected to have, a high rate of utilization of health services (as measured by cost).
‘‘(4) Promoting participation in the individual market and small group market in the State and increasing health insurance options available through such market.
‘‘(5) Promoting access to preventive services; dental care services (whether preventive or medically necessary); vision care services (whether preventive or medically necessary); prevention, treatment, or recovery support services for individuals with mental or substance use disorders; or any combination of such services.
‘‘(6) Providing payments, directly or indirectly, to health care providers for the provision of such health care services as are specified by the Administrator.
‘‘(7) Providing assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs, such as copayments, coinsurance, premiums, and deductibles, of individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage in the State.

Newt Gingrich said the CBO should be abolished because they are wrong and corrupt. They were completely wrong about their predictions of ObamaCare, and they completely left out analysis of many sections of this new healthcare bill.
via First 100 Days – Day 53

If you’re not going to force people to buy, then less will buy, which is what Paul Ryan suggests could be the reason for the number estimates of less insured under the new plan.

These numbers only reflect phase one, which is the first bill. There is more, (at least one more,) that are planned to stabilize the market. This is just one piece of the puzzle. However, as I said before they really should just get all the good stuff in one bill and then start the negotiation process. That way everyone knows what’s going on right from the start and it seems like it would just be easier.

Sign Petition

Remove health-care subsidies for Members of Congress and their families
https://www.change.org/p/remove-health-care-subsidies-for-members-of-congress-and-their-families?source_location=topic_page

Related Links:

American Health Care Act Summary PDF
House Republicans Deliver on President Trump’s Health Care Promise
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/03.06.17-AmericanHealthCareAct_Summary.pdf

http://paulryan.house.gov/healthcare/ This is where the bill was born. You can see the original text here. As you can see there has been access to this legislation all along and no one was hiding it from anyone.

Health Care Reform – A Plan Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6H3aEob_mo&feature=share
Paul Ryan Introduces The Patients’ Choice Act

How the ObamaCare brawl affects you
Mar. 13, 2017 – 9:25 – ‘The O’Reilly Factor’: Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points 3/13; Plus reaction from Sen. Lindsey Graham
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5358215659001/?playlist_id=933116612001#sp=show-clipsHRC Calls on Congress to Reject the American Health Care Act
via HRC.org March 8,2017
http://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-urges-congress-to-reject-the-american-health-care-act

These are the promises that need to be delivered.
The American Health Care Act: Fact Sheet
http://www.speaker.gov/general/american-health-care-act-fact-sheet
Keeps our promise to repeal and replace Obamacare

7 Provisions To Watch In The GOP’s Proposed Health Care Law – via NPR News
March 7, 2017
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/07/519001659/7-things-to-watch-in-the-gops-american-health-care-act

The American Healthcare Act and the future of Planned Parenthood –
via MPR News March 8, 2017
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/03/08/american-healthcare-act-and-planned-parenthood

The American Health Care Act: What’s in it for you via CBS News March 8, 2017
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/obamacare-repeal-replace-house-republican-plan/

American Medical Association Opposes GOP Health Care Plan
via NBC NEWS MAR 8 2017
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/american-medical-association-opposes-gop-health-care-plan-n730741

Advertisements

Travel Ban 2.0 

President Trump’s Travel “Ban” Executive Order, (I’d rather call it a “Pause,”) has been in limbo for over a month, because courts are trying to sort out the legalities of it all. There are some misconceptions, speculations, differences of opinion and conflicting laws that need prioritizing. I wrote another blog regarding it recently, and you can find it here.

(I can’t seem to blog at the “Speed of Trump.” This man is very ambitious, a work-aholic and there seems to be something new everyday. Sometimes bad and in my opinion, a lot of good.)

The new executive order replacing the earlier one that had the country in an uproar, was signed Monday March 6th, 2017 and is only targeting 6 countries this time. Iraq has been dropped from the list, however extra screening will be added to people leaving Iraq, to make sure nobody has ties to ISIS. Iraq has already agreed to work with the US on this matter so targeting them negatively, would be counterproductive. This order also doesn’t single out Syrian refugees for indefinite suspension, it seems to apply to all refugees and just for a 120 pause. It will not take effect until March 16th and everyone seems to be in the loop on this one with no surprises. (exec order text and memorandum text released 3-6-17)

Buried deep in the executive order is the revoking of the old one regarding this matter, because there is 48 lawsuits against it. They originally said they would fight those suits, but revoking the previous order renders those suits all moot, though it doesn’t make them go away. So now the DOJ will have to apply to all of those courts to have those cases thrown out. – via Fox New “Happening Now” Monday March 6, 2017
(It’s probably in the county’s best interest to do this, as President Trump has a very big agenda on his plate and fighting over the old executive order just takes time away from things he could be doing elsewhere.)

“Of the thousand active counter terrorism cases being lead by the FBI at this time inside the US, 300 are focused on individuals who entered the United States as refugees, and we are also told they come from countries on today’s 6 country list, and others who are outside that region”. via Fox New “Happening Now” Monday March 6, 2017

Legal permanent residence, those with visas and green cards prior to January 21st will be getting priority to stay in the US in this new executive order. It sounds like, it seems this one will be “bullet proof” legal, which can explain why it’s taken so long for it to be rewritten. It also explains for the delay in it being implemented, to give those legal permanent residents, visa holders and green card holders who need to make the necessary arrangements to do so. Info via Fox News “Happening Now” 3-6-17

In the legalities of it all, nobody seems to agree that this is not a muslim ban, even though there are many reasons to denounce that theory. One of which, NOT ALL muslims are affected, only ones that reside in the now six countries from the list. There are 40+ Muslim dominant countries around the world whom of which are not affected. Second there is no mention of a Muslim ban in the wording of the order. And lastly, EVERYONE without a valid visa or greencard before January 21, 2017 or who is not a permanent resident of the US in the countries that are forementioned are affected under the executive order, not just ones whom of which practice the Muslim religion.

The Argument of this Executive Order’s Legality
Many people feel that the reason this order is not legal is because of religious discrimination, it violates religious rights of refugees mentioned. However, shouldn’t the people already on our soil, and the ones that already have been accepted to enter our borders, have precedence over anyone overseas that has no claim to residence in the USA?

During former President Obama’s Administration, a bill was introduced that would give religious discrimination rights to possible migrants heading to the US. It’s called The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016, and it states that no immigrant can be denied admission to the USA based on their religion.

NEW BILL WOULD BAN RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN IMMIGRATION
http://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-ban-religious-discrimination-immigration-458722 – via News Week May 11, 2016

The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with a new section titled “Prohibition on denying admission because of religion,” which stipulates that “notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, an alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of the alien’s religion or lack of religious beliefs.’’

Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants. Sadly, that fear has led some to call for a temporary ban on Muslims immigrating to the U.S., to propose dramatically limiting the number of refugees our nation accepts, and to pursue a host of policies designed to make life difficult for Muslims in America. To close our doors to Muslim immigrants and refugees in need would betray both the First Amendment and our nation’s great history as an open and welcoming land.
Um, no. NewsWeek, you have got it all wrong. Nobody wants to ban Muslims, we want to keep RADICALS out. No one is proposing any policies to oppress Muslims either, so please stop with the fear mongering.

House Passes Upgraded International Religious Freedom Law May 18, 2016
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/house-passes-significant-upgrades-international-religious-freedom-law
(CNSNews.com) – The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act Monday afternoon, which upgrades the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 giving the administration and the State Department new resources to help combat the worldwide escalation in persecution of religious minorities.

Congress Passes Bill Aimed at Addressing Worldwide Religious Persecution
December 14, 2016
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/congress-passes-bill-aimed-addressing-worldwide-religious-persecution
(CNSNews.com) – The House Tuesday passed the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, a bill designed to “advance religious freedom globally,” following approval by the Senate last week and is now headed to the president’s desk.

The bipartisan bill, authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), aims to “advance religious freedom globally through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts, and through stronger and more flexible political responses to religious freedom violations and violent extremism worldwide.”

The legislation requires that the secretary of state “establish and maintain a list of foreign individuals to whom a consular post has denied a visa on the grounds of particularly severe violations of religious freedom” or “who are subject to financial sanctions or other measures for particularly severe violations of freedom religion.”

It also would amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) requiring that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) “make publicly available, to the extent practicable, online and in official publications, lists of persons it determines are imprisoned or detained, have disappeared, been placed under house arrest, been tortured, or subjected to forced renunciations of faith for their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy by the government of a foreign country that the Commission recommends for designation as a country of particular concern for religious freedom.”
It includes a requirement of international religious freedom training for all Foreign Service Officers and also requires that the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom report directly to the secretary of state.

The bill calls for an integration of “United States international religious freedom policies and strategies into the foreign policy efforts of the United States.”

My humble opinion is that everyone should have the freedom to worship or not, in any way they want, as long as it’s not hurting anyone else, and they are not forcing anyone, to do as they do. But we should not be giving rights to people in other countries, and prioritizing these rights above those of our own National Security.

Those that are in agreement with the executive order believe that National Security comes before anything else, so this law, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, has precedence over any other, the law states: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

(That would imply in regards to what the president deems is in the best interest of the United States of America’s National Security, that ANYTHING GOES. It’s his number one job to keep the U.S. safe. I completely agree.)

The original executive order regarding this “Travel Pause”, was implemented hastily and carelessly. There were many people inconvenienced, scared and negatively affected by it. The President should have included exemptions for those people that already had permissions to be here in the USA, such as visa holders and naturalized citizens etc. Most likely had he done that, a lot less protesting and anger would have accrued. We are told that they eventually clarified that those people were exempt and were handled, then released on a case by case basis.

Administration: Nearly 750 people subjected to travel ban after court order
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/320949-reports-nearly-750-people-affected-by-travel-ban-in-hours-after-trumps-order -via The Hill 2-23-17
The federal government said Thursday that 746 people were “detained or processed” during the 27-hour period after a federal judge blocked enforcement of part of President Trump’s travel ban.

The Justice Department on Thursday turned over a list of the names to a group of civil rights attorneys representing plaintiffs suing the Trump administration over the policy.

The lawyers agreed not to make the names public, but a cover letter from the Justice Department obtained by The Hill says “the list includes legal permanent residents.”
The list of names turned over to lawyers also includes travelers with approved refugee applications, valid visa holders and travelers from the seven countries included in the ban who were authorized to enter the U.S….

It’s not clear how many people on the list eventually gained entry into the U.S…….
“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,” the president tweeted on Jan. 30……

The government said last week in a court filing that 44 people arriving from those seven countries were deemed inadmissible on Jan. 27 and 28, The Associated Press reported, and another 97 people were denied entry at land border ports or pre-clearance locations abroad.

The government said at the time that 24 of those people who arrived at U.S. airports and 14 stopped elsewhere were ultimately admitted.

(It was originally reported that only just over 100 people were detained by the executive order in question and the 750 were sent back to where they came from. I’m not sure what exactly the truth is on that considering I’ve seen conflicting reports from various news sources. If you can find proof of what is actually true, leave me a comment of the link, I would love to add the correct info. (Hopefully the new executive order has all these kinks ironed out now.)

The hasty implementation of the this travel executive order was said to be a “surprise to our enemies,” so not to give them time to pour into the country before it was implemented. That’s a good argument, however not a very good excuse for such a horrible cluster of a process. Considering, because of the questionable legalities, it’s done the opposite of what it was meant to do. As well as the fact that they have been taking their sweet time re-writing a new one. The new one is said to be air tight, however they don’t seem to be in a very big hurry now, since it has a delayed effective date of ten days from now. This is probably because the courts “suggested” that it violated rights of those people who are legal and who needed time to make arrangements before implementation.

Report: 1800 refugees from 7 banned nations have entered US since court lifted Trump’s “travel ban” 
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/26/report-1800-refugees-from-7-banned-nations-have-entered-us-since-court-lifted-trumps-travel-ban/ via The Blaze 2-26-17
Data from the State Department recently revealed that at least 1,800 refugees from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Donald Trump’s January executive order on immigration and the U.S. refugee resettlement program have entered the United States since the courts lifted the order’s major restrictions.

According to analysis from the Pew Research Center, of those 1,800 refugees, the majority came from Syria, Iraq and Somalia…..

During the first full week of Trump’s presidency (Jan. 21-27), 870 refugees from the restricted countries entered the U.S., accounting for 43% of all refugee admissions during this time. The following week, Jan. 28 to Feb. 3, refugee admissions from the seven restricted countries all but stopped after Trump’s executive order took effect (excluding two refugees from Somalia and Iraq). They then resumed shortly after the federal courts stepped in.

In all, including refugees from countries with no travel restrictions, 6,095 refugees entered the U.S. during Trump’s first month in office (Jan. 21 to Feb. 17), a period that includes the week before he issued the travel order. Among these refugees, a total of 2,778 were Muslims (46%) and 2,610 are Christians (43%).

In total, Pew found that 2,733 refugees — or 45 percent in total — that entered the U.S. during Trump’s first month in office came from one of Trump’s seven targeted Muslim-majority nations.

The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016, that was passed under former President Obama, seems very unConstitutional regarding the security of the American people. The argument that refugees from these FAILED STATE COUNTRIES are protected under our laws is one that has the potential to step on our own citizen’s civil liberties. If we honored rights to everyone around the world under our Constitution before our own people, we are heading down a very dangerous road. These countries do not have records for background checks, it’s not easy to determine who is friendly with America and who maybe is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is why we need to improve vetting for these countries and that is the whole purpose of this executive order to begin with. But who would know that after the circus that has been made out of it by the media and Sen. Democrats like Chuck Schumer. (Whom was completely on board with the whole idea just two years ago and there is video proof of him saying so. Nothing has changed since then except for the POTUS.)

Trump’s order is a balm for Christians, not a ban on Muslims
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/30/opinions/trump-travel-ban-christians-swain-opinion/index.html via CNN January 30, 2017
In the following days, mass hysteria and an onslaught of misleading news reports have falsely depicted the President’s actions as an unconstitutional ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Those who object to the order have missed both the actual content of the executive order and the fact that the seven Muslim nations most affected — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen — were already identified when Congress passed the “Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.” This act prevented nationals of these countries from traveling to the United States without visas. Muslims from other nations like Indonesia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are not subject to Trump’s 90-day restriction. Therefore, it is not a Muslim ban.

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

Some people argue that restricting refugees from Syria and other terrorist sponsoring nations is heartless because many of the persons admitted are women and children. However, there is a serious problem with this argument: there are more male than female refugees. As Megan McArdle of Bloomberg highlights, Europe’s immigration statistics have shown that only 27 percent of refugees were female in 2015. Additionally, jihadists groups have increasingly used women and children to carry out attacks. Women bombers have been successful because they can get closer to their targets, as they are considered less suspicious. Thus, it makes perfect sense for our government to strongly vet all Muslim immigrants, including the women and children.

President Trump has also been condemned for signaling he will give priority to persecuted religious minorities in the Middle East, which means admitting higher numbers of Christian and Yazidi refugees fleeing beheadings, drownings, and other forms of mass torture. Some critics have mistakenly argued that religion should not be a factor in refugee admissions. However, as attorney David French points out, “Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference… to members of minority religions.”

Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that it was almost impossible for a Christian refugee to escape Syria. According to Abrams, although 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, only one-half of 1 percent of the refugees admitted to the US by fall of 2016 were Christian.

THE U.S. BARS CHRISTIAN, NOT MUSLIM, REFUGEES FROM SYRIA
http://www.newsweek.com/us-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria-497494
Via NewsWeek 9/13/16.
The United States takes refugee referrals from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians there.

Here’s the Fox excerpt:

Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N.

“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”

“They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.

The solution would be to allow Christians, and other religious minorities, to apply directly for refugee status, not through the U.N. U.S. Senator Tom Cotton has introduced legislation doing just that.

Genocide of Christians by ISIL (ISIS)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Christians_by_ISIL
The genocide of Christians by ISIL refers to the genocide[10][11][12] of Christian minorities, within its region of control in Iraq, Syria and Libya by the Islamic extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Persecution of Christian minorities climaxed following its takeover of parts of Northern Iraq in June 2014.[13]

According to US diplomat Alberto M. Fernandez, “While the majority of victims in the conflict raging in Syria and Iraq have been Muslims, Christians have borne a heavy burden given their small numbers.”[14]

On February 3, 2016, the European Union recognized the persecution of Christians by Islamic State in Syria as genocide.[15][16][17][18]The vote was unanimous. The United States followed suit on March 15, 2016, in declaring these atrocities as genocide.[19] The vote was unanimous.[20] On April 20, 2016, British Parliament voted unanimously to denounce the actions as genocide.[21] A similar motion however failed in Canada when it was opposed by the majority of PM Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party.[22]
Christians are being beheaded on sight, raped and tortured, because of their religion and because they won’t submit to Radical Islam. They should have precedence as well should Jews, gays, transgender, women, children, Yazidi and any other minority group/race/religion in the region, because these are the people most vulnerable. These are the people that are dealing with life or death if they don’t find safety.

Boston Judge Unblocks Trump Travel Ban, Asks “Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/boston-judge-unblocks-trump-travel-ban-asks-where-does-it-say-muslim-countries – via Zero Hedge 2-3-17
“The language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion,

“The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”

STATE VERSUS FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION – Nov. 14, 2007
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0621.htm
Many, but not all, state laws addressing immigration are preempted by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so. In this context, state regulation of immigration means a state law or local ordinance that makes a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain. State laws that tangentially affect immigration, such as employment licensing laws that can be revoked for violations of federal immigration laws, are expressly permissible.

Sorry, Governors: The Decision To Let In Refugees Isn’t Really Up To You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-refugees-governors_us_564a4fbce4b08cda348a32c2 via Huffington Post 11-16-15
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution vests the federal government — and not the states — with “power over immigration, naturalization and deportation.”…..

The key statute here is the Refugee Act of 1980, as noted by ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser. That 1980 law declared it to be “the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands.” It gave the president broad power to handle an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation,” such as one involving “grave humanitarian concerns.”…..

“The decision to let a particular person into the United States or exclude them is up to the federal government,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a visiting professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law who writes extensively on immigration law. “There’s no question about that.”

“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy……

Specifically, once a refugee is cleared for admission into the United States, federal law renders his or her presence lawful, and under the 14th Amendment, the individual is protected against a blanket policy that singles out people based on national origin.

Government wants appeal of travel ban put on hold
http://q13fox.com/2017/02/25/government-wants-appeal-of-travel-ban-put-on-hold/ – via FEBRUARY 25, 2017, BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
For more than a century – literally, since 1901 – the Supreme Court has been attempting to sort out when the Constitution applies outside the borders of the nation. In a series of rulings in the first two decades of the 20th Century, now known together as the Insular Cases, the court ruled that residents of U.S. territories beyond the mainland did not enjoy all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but could expect to be protected by the most fundamental guarantees. The process of picking and choosing has continued since then, and the results have been mixed.

Islam was Banned from the USA in 1952 but You’re Not Supposed to Know It!
May 16, 2016
http://thestarsandstripes.info/islam-was-banned-from-the-usa-in-1952-but-youre-not-supposed-to-know-it
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.

That Act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry into the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional means.”

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 212 – GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or

overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other

unlawful means, is inadmissible.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5017.html#0-0-0-220

INA: ACT 219 – DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION 1/

Sec. 219. (a) Designation.-

(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-

(A) the organization is a foreign organization;

(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and

(C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.
In my opinion, our citizens and the people already here in our country come first. You can’t help anyone, if you don’t help yourself first. By improving our vetting process and fixing our own procedures, it only makes us stronger and better able to help those who are coming here to make a better life and escape the horrors of religious persecution and in many cases death. However we can’t have that chaos following them and being brought here.
Some of the other concerns of the legalities and intentions of an executive order of this context from the Trump Administration include:
‘Presidential Candidate Trump’ mentioned implementation of a muslim ban during the presidential campaign. (Although I’m not completely clear about the context of it, BUT I DO KNOW that President Trump realizes the difference between a Radical Islamic Extremist and a peaceful Muslim.) I also KNOW that the reason for this executive order is for the safety of the American people not to ban Muslims. The Muslims that are affected by this order are coming from FAILED STATES, (Contries with no governments or government records of their citizens. This is why a more sound vetting process for these countries is needed.)

7 countries were not the countries that were involved in 9-11, although they were predetermined by the previous administration and are failed states with no governments. Therefore they do not keep records of citizens for background checks.

Concerns that the omitted countries may be related Concernsto business ties with the Trump brand, and that’s why they weren’t included Although just because they aren’t including them now, doesn’t mean they won’t be added in the future. The countries on the list are failed states with no governments or records of their people, so background checks are virtually impossible. Not to mention the information we have about these countries, is not necessarily all the intel that the president has on them. He is privy to much more information. . Although just because they aren’t including them now doesn’t mean they won’t be added in the future. The countries on the list are failed states with no governments or records of their people so background checks are virtually impossible.

Procedural due process claims, which guarantee that people receive advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before they are deprived of liberty or property. (Which is now fixed with this 10 day delay of the new executive order.). Which has been taken care of in the new executive order.

Chuck Schumer Agrees with the travel pause back in 2015. 

 

Please take note of his refugee “props”. It makes me very angry when people accuse others of things they have done themselves.

Immigration explained with gumballs. We can help more people by helping them where they are rather than uprooting them and bring them here.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fnumbersusa%2Fvideos%2F1301927039863988%2F&show_text=0&width=400

Other Related Stories and Reference Links:

https://www.uscis.gov/laws
Trump administration urges appeals court to put travel ban case on hold

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/trump-administration-urges-appeals-court-put-travel-ban-case/ via The Telegraph (UK) 2-25-17

Your Friend Ivanka

 

ivanka
Photo by: Matt Furman Forbes

Ivanka Trump, a successful business woman, very classy with impeccable taste, and a big heart. What’s not to like? She’s been under scrutiny since her father first started his campaign for president and it’s just gotten worse since he won the election. Should she be punished by the media and the left because of their hate for her father? Or should they try to embrace her as an ally, because of the major influence she has on her dad? I think it’s the latter.

Ivanka has already been in her father’s ear about continuing former President Obama’s LGBT Rights Executive Order. (President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace) She also helped organize a meeting this week, with the President, Prime Minister of Canada and some very power successful women to address some of the women’s right issues that have been a concern of the left recently, Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs.

Ms. Trump could have a very powerful impact on the direction of President Trump’s Administration. The President has already said that she always encourages him to ‘do the right thing.’ Her guidance, and caring heart may be just what us women need in the White House. I would suggest we try and “make nice” with her.

It’s a VERY popular theory, and many consider it fact, that President Donald J. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump’s brand has been dropped by many retailers, because of a sales decrease. However, if you do a little digging that might not be the whole story.

As Online Boycott Grows Study Shows Millennial Women Stick With Ivanka Trump’s Brand  OCT 26, 2016 @ 08:00 AM -via Forbes

Each woman surveyed was asked: “In light of Ivanka Trump’s involvement with the Trump campaign for president, how likely would you be to consider buying her line of shoes or clothing?”
They responded as follows:
Extremely Likely 18%
Very Likely 33%
Somewhat Likely 32%
Not Very Likely 11%
Not At All Likely 6%
Meanwhile, a campaign calling for a boycott of all things Trump, including Ivanka’s apparel and shoe lines, has been gathering social media steam.

Inside Ivanka, Inc: $100M Apparel Sales, And A Bid To Move Some Manufacturing Back From China 7/21/2016 @ 12:24PM -via Forbes

The company doesn’t include a breakdown of revenues by brand in its financial filings, but its 2016 annual report notes a $29.4 million increase in sales of Ivanka Trump’s fashion line from the year before.

Most articles paint a dreary picture of a decline in sale at Nordstrom’s and several other companies. They are mostly copy paste articles that use almost the same exact language. I see that kind of thing a lot. Many news sources will pick up the same story and they will basically copy/paste it and then it ends up coming from 10 different places. (But no matter how many pick up the story and publish it, that doesn’t make it true. That is why finding the truth is so hard these days.)

There are reports of a significant gains in sales at stores such as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s. There is also information from the brand itself claiming to have a significant rise in overall sales.

Sales Of Ivanka Trump’s Clothing Line Declined In 2016 February 11, 2017 -via Opposing Views

Nordstrom saw $14.3 million in sales in the fiscal year that ended in January, down from $20.9 million the year before.

Nordstrom is not the only store in which sales of Ivanka Trump’s products are down, according to CNBC. An analysis of email receipts by Slice Intelligence reveals sales of Ivanka’s line are down in a number of online stores, most notably following the 2016 presidential election. Online sales of her products fell 26 percent in January 2017 from January 2016.

Ivanka’s line did see sales growth in a handful of retailers. Online sales from Macy’s grew 30 percent, while sales from Bloomingdales.com grew 9 percent in the fourth quarter. However, growth was still slower this fiscal year compared to the previous year.

Ivanka Trump’s brand takes another hit– via kdvr 2-12-2017

Rosemary Young, senior director of marketing at Ivanka Trump, told CNNMoney last week that the brand was growing and experienced “significant year-over-year revenue growth in 2016.

“We believe that the strength of a brand is measured not only by the profits it generates, but the integrity it maintains,” Young said.

Retailers like Bloomingdale’s, Amazon, Lord & Taylor, Macy’s and Zappos all still carry Ivanka Trump products.

Ivanka Trump has taken a leave of absence from her namesake company since her father won the presidency. She has no formal role in the administration but is expected to have a voice on issues such as women’s empowerment and child care.

Ivanka Trump’s Brand Says Nordstrom Hasn’t Dropped Them Things are getting messy. FEB 4, 2017 6:30PM EST  –via Teen Vogue

… Ivanka Trump brand is refuting the claims made by Nordstrom. On Friday, a spokesperson told Refinery29 that they were still in business together, but their merchandise has simply been moved to in-store only. “Nordstrom ordered both apparel and shoes for the spring, and followed through with the orders on the apparel,” the Ivanka Trump brand claims. “They canceled the shoe order, kept the apparel order and moved the apparel from online into stores. It’s there.”

Nordstrom is still admit about their reasoning for dropping the line saying it’s because a drop in sales, but according to this article:

… a source that claims to be near to the first daughter told Refinery29 that wasn’t the case with Nordstrom. “They couldn’t handle the political pressure, someone new came in, and there was a change in the attitude toward the brand,” they told the website.

Ivanka Trump Doesn’t Flinch As she leads her brand into its next stage, Ivanka reveals how she’s navigating the drama around her father’s presidential campaign. –via Fast Company


“I learned a long time ago that I can’t control the opinions of others or what they project on me. All I can do is live my life, and I’ve tried to do that,” she tells me a few minutes into our interview. It’s a classic Ivanka statement, as if to say, I’m perfectly clear about who I am; it’s not my fault what other people decide to think. It’s easy to understand why she feels that way, and why Ivanka—always poised, always on message—seems to work so hard to keep her image under control.

…Net sales of just the clothing arm of the company were up $11.8 million during the first 6 months of 2016 compared to the first 6 months of 2015 as it sold its products online and at department stores, according to public filings from one of Ivanka Trump’s major licensing and manufacturing partners. Forbes reported that Ivanka’s clothing line generated $100 million in revenue last year, and sales were up $29.4 million from the previous fiscal year. The private company will not confirm specific sales figures, but do say their sales went up 37% last year, and that the growth rate has held pretty steady this year. And the website’s traffic is up 50% over last year, thanks in large part to Ivanka’s heightened public profile.

Is Ivanka Trump’s brand losing its bling? –– via Fox 6 Now and http://www.nbc-2.com/story/34460378/is-ivanka-trumps-brand-losing-its-bling -NBC 2

The brand would tell you “no.” A spokesperson for the first daughter’s fashion label said Wednesday that the brand’s overall sales were up 21% in 2016 compared to the prior year.

… plenty of retailers that are still carrying the brand. A spokesperson said over 800 retailers — including Bloomingdale’s, Amazon, Lord & Taylor, Macy’s and Zappos — all carry Ivanka Trump products.

Even with all these reports of significant rises in income for the Ivanka Trump Company, Nordstrom’s continues to insist that they are discontinuing the brand because of a decrease in sales. However, there is an email from Nordstrom’s sent to their employees floating around, that was allegedly sent two days before their announcement of their decision to quit offering the Ivanka Trump Brand.

Leaked Email May Prove Nordstrom Lied About Dropping Ivanka Over ‘Poor Sales’ 2-7-2017 –via Elite Daily &  Vanity Fair

two days before Nordstrom dropped Ivanka’s line, the company’s three presidents sent an email to all company staff criticizing President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, Daily Mail reports.

The email, obtained by the Seattle-based newspaper “The Stranger,” said,

We literally have thousands of employees who are first and second generation immigrants.

Every one of your unique qualities brings a richness that allows us to better reflect and serve the multicultural communities we’re a part of and ultimately makes us a better company.

We are a better place with you here, no doubt about it.

It’s important that we reiterate our values to all of you and make it clear that we support each of our employees. We will continue to value diversity, inclusion, respect, and you can count on that. (the full email can be read here)

Exclusive — Women Nationwide Cut Up Nordstrom’s Cards, Plan Boycotts After Political Decision to Drop Ivanka Trump Line–via Breitbart

But, in reality, the brand wasn’t performing badly. Nordstrom’s came under political fire from a series of hardcore anti-Trump activists, according to People Magazine.

There are both boycotts of Ivanka Trump’s Brand and Boycotts of the stores that have dropped it.

screen-shot-2017-02-12-at-6-54-36-pmscreen-shot-2017-02-12-at-6-53-34-pm

#BoycottNordstrom Swings From Left To Right After Ivanka Trump Drop – via Investor’s Business Daily 2/03/2017

It was not too long ago that #BoycottNordstrom had a different audience, however, many of whom were concerned about the Trump family’s potential business conflicts of interest….

Grab Your Wallet has been vocal in trying to get shoppers to boycott stores that carry Trump-affiliated merchandise.

Ivanka Trump products are still available at Macy’s (M), Macy’s-owned Bloomingdale’s, Amazon (AMZN) and elsewhere.

Nordstrom shares rose 0.9% to 43.90 in the stock market today, (2-3-17) well off intraday highs of 46.09 as the stock tries to break a downtrend going back to early December.

Macy’s rose 6.5% Friday on continued buyout buzz, after advancing 5.2% on Thursday. Amazon slid 3.5% after reporting weaker-than-expected sales and revenue guidance late Thursday.

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-7-32-00-pm

So what is it? Is Ivanka Trump Brand sales up overall and only down at a handful of stores?

Or is someone on either side fudging the real story? It’s hard to tell. Because of my own personal experience with trusting the mainstream press; I can’t help but question the dozens of articles that are basically copied and pasted over and over from news source to news source that state a negative bias against the Trump name.

President Trump and his Councilor Kellyanne Conway have been under duress for sticking up for Ivanka and stating that she has been treated unfairly by the retailers that have dropped her brand and by the media. Critics are saying that they are using their political positions to further Ms. Ivanka’s success. (Which is unlawful.)

Here’s How Ivanka Trump Responded to Women Boycotting Her Clothing Line October 27, 2016 11:02 a.m – via NY Mag

“Well, the beauty of America is people can do what they like, but I prefer to talk to the millions, tens of millions of American women who are inspired by the brand and the message that I’ve created,” Ivanka said.

She went on to say that her “advocacy of women” started long before the presidential campaign began. “I never politicized that message,” Ivanka added. “People who are seeking to politicize it because they may disagree with the politics of my father, there’s nothing I can do to change that.”

There has been controversy in the past year over a few instances when Ivanka wore her own accessories and apparel on TV for her father’s interview with 60 minutes and Republicans National Convention.

Ivanka Trump’s Company Scrambles Over ’60 Minutes’ Bracelet Criticism -via NBC NOV 15 2016, 1:25 PM ET

A “fashion alert” was initially sent to journalists on Monday by Monica Marder, vice president of sales for Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry. It promoted Ivanka Trump as wearing “her favorite bangle from the Metropolis Collection” on the CBS News show. The bracelet costs $8,800 to $10,800. “Please share this with your clients…” the email said.

….The interview was not the first time Ivanka Trump used her father’s political spotlight to highlight her brand. In July, the former model marketed a blush pink sheath dress she wore at the Republican National Convention. The dress, which retailed at a more affordable $138, quickly sold out.

This past week both President Donald J. Trump, and Kelley Anne Conway, stuck up for Ms. Ivanka and were criticized for breaking the law. It’s illegal to use your political office to promote yourself or friends for profit. Which is a valid law and makes perfect sense. Many in the past have gotten away with doing this though.

The hypocrisy–

The same news sources that were telling me just weeks ago about girl power and striving to be successful women for equality are now very anti-Ivanka Trump. The same news sources that were just telling me that ‘us’ women have to stick together and stick up for each other, are now tearing down one of the most successful women in our country. Not because of something she did wrong, but because of who her dad is, and they don’t like him.

Now hypothetically, what if we were talking about Chelsea Clinton? Say, she has a successful fashion brand, while her father is president. The same father who was caught in many unfavorable acts against women. Not just talk and not just one but many. If the same thing was happening to her right now, how would the woman from “the left” be acting?

Ivanka Trump has focused on empowering women to be successful. She even markets her brand as a celebration of women.
http://ivankatrump.com/about/ via her website

It’s a celebration of women working at all aspects of their lives. Women who transition between their various roles in professional and personal capacities: building careers, raising children, nurturing relationships and pursuing passions.

For instance former President Barack Obama plugged Blackberry at the beginning of his presidency. Some may argue that it wasn’t for his personal gain, however do you know for positive sure that he hasn’t any ties, has never had any ties or friends with ties to that company? I don’t.

Reflections on the Greatest Free Product Endorsement Ever 11/08/2012 @ 9:28AM -via Forbes

January 7, 2009, days before his inauguration and in the face of having to give up his personal phone for security reasons as his predecessors had done, the President-elect said, “I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry. They’re going to pry it out of my hands.” This was a product that was of such great use to him, and represented his connection to the life he was leaving, that he would force his Executive Office of the President (EOP) to change protocol so that he could keep his cherished device. This is the sort of endorsement that companies dream about.

Samsung, selfies and the branding of Barack Obama April 3, 2014 -via Washington Post

During a concession speech in April 2008, Obama spoke in front of a crowd that included someone in an Abercrombie & Fitch shirt. The FITCH part of the shirt was very visible. The company’s spokesperson told the New York Post, “Thanks to the Obama campaign for the great product placement. We wish we had thought of it.”

First Ladies Have Often Made Use Of Their ‘Brands’ Friday, February 10, 2017 -via Valley News

Roosevelt showed up in print and television commercials endorsing bread products, margarine and even the burgeoning airline industry. The latter featured a portrait of Roosevelt seated on a plane, serenely knitting above this quote: “I never cease to marvel at the airplane.” Roosevelt was surprised at her ability to push products, historians recalled, but in the years since the selling power of first ladies has been well documented.

Their position is unsalaried and the work is unofficial, but presidents’ wives have used their platforms to promote worthy causes, promote their husbands — and, sometimes, promote themselves….

Jimmy Carter’s younger brother Billy, who gained celebrity for his boozy, good-ol’ boy likability. In the late 1970s, he endorsed a product called Billy Beer. The cans read: “Brewed expressly for and with the personal approval of one of America’s all-time Great Beer Drinkers — Billy Carter.”

Former First Lady Michelle Obama isn’t innocent of promoting friends either. Read on to her own quote about being happy to give designers a “boost.”

Like Conway, Michelle Obama boasted about ‘boosting’ sale of designers
By EMILY JASHINSKY (@EMILYJASHINSKY) •2/9/17 – via Washington Examiner

In an interview with Vogue, First Lady Michelle Obama explicitly acknowledged that one of the questions she considered when choosing fashion designers was, “Can I give them a boost?”

According to Vogue, Obama remarked, “There are definitely designers that I love, people I love to work with. And who they are as people matters. Are they good people? Do they treat their staff well? Do they treat my staff well? Are they young? Can I give them a boost?”

The implication here, of course, is that Michelle Obama deliberately exploited her position as first lady to “boost” the sales of private businesses.

There are more instances where these sorts of things have happened and I don’t remember anyone making such a mountain out of it. I’m not saying that it’s right to or it’s legal to use your political platform to make money or make money for family or friends. There is clearly a law saying that is illegal. All I’m saying is that it’s not anything new. Why is it a bigger deal when the Trump Administration has done this, rather than the people that have done it in the past? Shouldn’t we hold all persons to the same standards? If the laws aren’t enforced for everyone, only a select few, that is just unethical.

Women around the globe should be very happy that Ivanka Trump is in the White House, especially the women of America and those who aren’t fans of her father. She has a very good and strong influence on him. She’s ambitious, successful and she cares about women’s rights; everyone’s rights. With her in her father’s ear he will always advocate for women, because he will never want to let “his little girl” down.

 

“Travel Ban” Questions Answered

Questions about the controversial “travel ban” executive order answered and explained, with links and videos.

(Update 2-20-17 with Sweden explanation)

It’s not a ban, and it’s not on Muslims. It’s about a region, not a religion. It’s about protection not prejudice. It’s only temporary.

the-new-travel-ban-you-didnt-hear-about-is-against-u-s-citizens

Please read on with an open mind, but not with fear. Inform yourself of what is happening in the world around us. Realize that we need to protect ourselves and our beautiful liberty and freedom.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that ruled to suspend the EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES , is willing to gamble with our lives, because politics is more important to them than upholding our Constitution and protecting our country’s people. They are not doing their job to uphold the laws that are already in place. Full text: 9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban

I’m outraged that the MSM has been lying to us about what this Executive Order really means and making us fear that it means something that it really doesn’t.

Below are all questions I’ve either heard or read in the past few days/couple weeks. I want to see if I can help you answer some of them, if not all of them. Let’s try and “Wade thru the crap” together.

What’s actually happening?

President Trump issued an Executive Order that temporarily restricts people from several countries, that were already identified by the Obama Administration as high risks for terror, until our vetting process, that has been put into place for our safety, is strengthened. This is to protect us, because of the heightened threat of terror that has been happening within our country, and especially in other countries across Europe.

The 9th District Court of Appeals ruled to suspend it. That decision stands, however it sounds like President Trump will be issuing a New Executive Order by next week that will cover all of the “suggestions” The 9th District Court made in their judgement.

//www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/9924ff06-efc8-11e6-a100-fdaaf400369a

Is this discrimination against muslims?

I’ve read this order several times. There is no mention in this order that says it’s a “muslim ban.” The people who have told you that, want to scare you into thinking that we are discriminating against a certain religion, and therefore continue the “Trump Hysteria” and the Nazi dictator narrative. Please don’t let them scare you like that.

Statement to Fox News from Tony Carbonetti, Former Chief of Staff to Mayor Giuliani 1-29-17 “Last night Mayor Giuliani clearly stated several times that the basis for the more extreme vetting was danger NOT religion. However several media outlets have dishonestly mischaracterized this a ban on all Muslims which it was not. This is easily provable since it does not apply to the overwhelming majority of Muslims and countries that are mostly dominated by the Muslim Religion.”Source via “Justice with Judge Jeanine”

Is this even legal?

Yes.  It’s legal.  There has been NO evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. No one has the right to enter The United States of America unless they are a citizen of the country or have proper permissions. There is even a law that states that the President of the United States has the right to suspend the entry of all aliens of any class or impose whatever restrictions he deems appropriate in order to keep the country safe. (see below)

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 – Source Wikipedia

But President Trump has no reason to find that any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the USA?

The countries in question have terrorist groups that kill Americans, Jews and Christians on sight. They put heads on sticks. They are not people that can be reasoned with. Radical Islam is not reasonable. They hate us. These countries also have been sending refugees to Europe and Europe has had many recent terror attacks involving ISIS and radical Islam.

I keep reading over and over again that the refugees have nothing to do with the increased terror attacks, however some have been linked to ISIS. So not only could it happen, it has. The number of refugees entering the region, makes it very easy for terrorists to camouflage as refugees. Even if it’s happened once, that’s too many times. Not only that, but terrorists themselves don’t necessarily have to be the ones committing the crimes to be responsible. They can be badly influencing young or weak minds to do their dirty work for them, in order to fly under the radar.

So with that in mind, I see nothing wrong with precautions to protect our citizens and the valuable lives that are already here on American soil until the vetting process can be strengthened.

Obama Immigration Reform 2014

Speech: Announcing Executive Action [FULL] Today on November 20th

Streamed live on Nov 20, 2014

Immigration Reform 2014 News: In an address from the White House, President Obama chose confrontation over conciliation as he asserted the powers of the Oval Office to reshape the nation’s immigration system.

Read the story here: http://nyti.ms/1F8d0qO

Crazy scary things happening in Europe as they let more and more refugees into their borders. Of course it’s not the refugees, the ones that are fleeing for their lives, the ones that need care, love and support, that are hurting people. It’s the ones that hide among them, and pretend to be harmless, until they can play out their evil deeds.

A woman takes part in a vigil to pay tribute to the victims of the Paris attacks, at Trafalgar Square in London
A woman takes part in a vigil to pay tribute to the victims of the Paris attacks, at Trafalgar Square in London, Britain November 14, 2015. The placard reads “We are united.”  Peter Nicholls—REUTERS

A Timeline of Recent Terrorist Attacks in Europe– Source Time

  • Three men were shot in an Islamic center in Zurich. Russia’s ambassador to Turkey was assassinated at an Ankara art gallery by a police officer who cried “don’t forget Syria!”
  • A large truck plowed through a Christmas market in central Berlin killing 12 and injuring 48 others.
  • Normandy church attack in July 2016.
    On July 26, two men stormed a French church and took five people hostage during morning Mass. They murdered an elderly priest, Jacques Hamel, by stabbing him in the chest and slitting his throat. – In the name of ISIS
  • Nice truck attack in July 2016.
    On Bastille Day, France’s national day, a large truck deliberately plowed into a large celebration in the southern coastal city of Nice. At least 84 people were killed that night; hundreds more were injured. -“radicalized” by ISIS.
  • Brussels bombings in March 2016.
    On March 22, at least 34 people were killed and 190 wounded when three blasts shook Brussels: two at Zaventem airport and one at a subway station near the headquarters of the European Union. ISIS

Terror attacks timeline: From Paris and Brussels terror to most recent attacks in Europe – with disturbing photos

Germany Releases Berlin Attack Suspect as ISIS Claims Involvement DEC. 20, 201

Beyond politics, the assault made plain that Germany, like France and Belgium, is now a primary European target for mass terror attacks. On Tuesday evening, the Islamic State issued a statement through its Amaq news agency describing the driver of the truck as “a soldier.” But the group offered no other details about the driver’s identity, or whether he had directly interacted with it or was just sympathetic to it.

Poll: Europeans Overwhelmingly Against EU Refugee Policy, Believe Refugees Increase Terrorism 08/03/2016

A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows the European public is largely against the European Union’s refugee policy, and thinks increased numbers of refugees will lead to a higher chance of terrorism.

United Kingdom and France show 70%
Germany 67%

Pew’s research also showed half or more of people in eight out of 10 countries surveyed believe refugees will increase the chance of terror attacks at home.

List of Islamist terrorist attacks around the world 1970-Present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Over 250 in just the last 7 years, and at least 6 in the US during that time. That’s almost one a year since 2010.

One a year too many!

Sweden: If you were wondering what President Trump was talking about at his rally on Saturday, February 18, 2017, in Florida, he was talking about the refugee crisis as a whole not one event. Sweden has decided to deny it in their media just as the USA has decided to do. It’s taboo to talk about, and if you do you are labeled a racist, islamophobe etc. just as you are in the USA. But you can not deny the horrible rapes and beatings etc. when you search youtube.

Below is a video from the Tucker Carlson Show. Fast Forward to 22:16 and Tucker interviews a film maker who worked on a documentary about the crisis in Sweden. He has some very familiar things to tell you, and some very horrifying things as well.

watch the video at 22:16

Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/17/17 | Fox News | February 17 2017 Full Show Sweden Immigrant Refugees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeKxz9t2i8E

Feel free to research and see what’s been going on here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sweden+refugee+crime

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sweden+refugees+crisis+2016

 

Trump may have been unclear, but Sweden experiencing a migrant crime wave – Published on Feb 20, 2017

Why is the media in an uproar?

You may have noticed that everytime you turn on your news, they have a new reason to hate, President Donald J. Trump. Sure, there are good reasons to not like Trump, however most of those things all came out during the campaign, (along with some others that were fake news.) I’m not saying to you that everything he says is the ‘God’s honest truth’ but he’s more truthful than any other politician I’ve seen and  he’s more transparent than any other. So far he keeps checking off promises he made during his campaign and that’s something I’ve never seen. He works the office like a regular job and even comes in on weekends! Most of the things he’s done since he became The President of The United States of America have been with the country’s best interest in mind. (But if you have only been watching MSM then you probably either don’t know or disagree, because of the bias you’ve heard. So I guess I’ll save that for another blog. Haha)

I’m sure you have heard President Trump speak out about the media being hateful and dishonest toward him. The media really has been hating on him, since day one. They have not stopped and no matter what he does they will not stop. I have seen him do really wonderful things, that both sides of the aisle have agreed with, at some point and then watched them all complain and protest. The news will turn it all around, omit truths, cause skepticism with no evidence, make negative speculations and then build mountains out of molehills, just to paint him in a dark light. (Go Here To See Everything He’s Been Doing, Working Hard Every Single Day Doing GOOD Things He Promised On The Campaign Trail. -via The White House Website)

This order wasn’t implemented without flaws, (I think we can all agree it could have been handled better, and worded more clearly, with certain obvious exceptions.) The bumpy roll out just gave the media more dirt to make their ‘mountain’. You know like the “when they go low, we go high,” slogan… high actually means making that mountain out of a molehill.  The media and progressive democrats immediately called it a “muslim ban”, a “travel ban” and focused on anything negative they could spin. They even used human props to provoke guilt. The poor American public and our young people have been manipulated by them. They’ve been mislead and guilted. This is what enrages me. This is what I want to protest.

A Pause May Be Necessary (audio)

During a press gaggle in November of 2015, Senator Schumer told reporters that a temporary “pause” on refugees “may be necessary. (You can’t mistake that agitating voice. Definitely Chuckles. Haha) For some reason WordPress doesn’t want to show you the embedded file so if you want to hear you can click, or just see that video below it.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fnumbersusa%2Fvideos%2F1347163015340390%2F&show_text=0&width=400

People that I love have been used as pawns in this war against the Trump Administration. Every article written, every comment read from fake profiles, (YES! FAKE social media profiles, not all but many,) that make scary negative comments about President Trump being some sort of version of Hitler or the devil. Comments that make it sound like he’s been racist and prejudice against a certain religion. Making it sound like he’s taking freedoms away from American citizens, valid visa holders, those who already had permissions to be here, when none of that is even happening. It was all just unclear, and not well administered by a very young Trump Administration. I tell ya, they weren’t doing themselves any favors on that front and hopefully they’ve all learned the lesson from it.

Why is everyone protesting?

People are so confused. There is so much “Trump Hysteria” going on. It’s like an infectious disease that you can catch by watching too much of CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and sometimes even Fox. (That darn Shepard Smith. haha)

Watters Confronts Students Who Ditched Class to Protest Trump 

I had to start doing my own research, because if I just relied on the news for information, I’d be living under my bed!  Just by spending 15 minutes on social media and reading the comments on a few articles makes me want to hide!

I see all kinds of confusion. It only takes one dominant persuasive personality to speak to a few uninformed people, then it spreads like wildfire. The only cure is for another dominant persuasive person to do actual time consuming research, to stay informed and to pass on that knowledge to others. However it’s very easy to get a relapse if you don’t continue to feed your fever with true information.

It is not helping that there are judges trying to fight this order, and democrats that are highly respected within their party that are making comments and actions against it. Their actions are irresponsible and just cause more confusion and division within the country.

Let’s see what Democrats have said about this in the past, in the video below.

Fake news stories are not helping anyone either….

FAKE NEWS ALERT: No, Hijab-Wearing Olympian Was NOT Detained Due To Trump’s Executive Order

According to numerous reports by the left-wing media, Ibtihaj Muhammad, a fencer who made headlines in 2016 for being the first U.S. Olympian to wear a hijab, was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents due to President Trump’s Executive Order. As has become an all-too-common occurrence in the mainstream media, the story turned out to be bogus…

…Despite the breathless headlines and reporting, the media once again went off half-cocked. The Olympian later clarified in Tweet on February 11 that the alleged detention she experienced occurred in December, weeks before Trump even took office.

(Original story: source USA Today https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/97676170/ Muhammad, who is a native of Maplewood, N.J., said she didn’t know if she was held as a result of the Trump administration’s travel ban but is sure the move was a result of her ethnicity.)

I thought we were America! We welcome all immigrants!
How can we turn anyone away?

We are a free country. Our Constitution applies to all of you people of this country that live here and are physically on our soil. However it does not apply to people that live in other countries, if it did, America’s people would suffer severely. We need to put our people that are here first. We aren’t closing the doors forever, and this isn’t the first time we have done this. President Trump isn’t the first president to do this. It’s just the first time people started paying attention.

How can we be so heartless?

I would like to help every single person that is in danger in this whole world, but the reality is I just can’t. American can’t do that either. The best we can do is start to make a difference where we are. Besides, this is only temporary and we can start helping people again once they “quality check” and improve our vetting process. You have to take care of yourself first, before you can be there for others. We are helping plenty now and we will help plenty more in the future, because that’s what we do.

How did President Donald J. Trump come up with this list of countries?

The Trump Administration didn’t come up with the list of countries on this executive order, the Obama Administration did.

Trump’s travel decree: What it means and how it works January 30, 2017

“The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror,” Trump said in a statement on Sunday. “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” noting that there are at least 40 countries that are predominantly Muslim that “are not affected” by the order.

It’s been said that more countries can and/or will be added to the order as intel deems them as a danger to our safety.

Refugee crisis: Why aren’t Gulf states taking them in? -Source: CNN Tue September 8, 2015

 screen-shot-2017-02-17-at-11-06-12-pm
Photo Credit – CNN Tweet by Luay Al Khatteeb

Gulf states are hesitant to welcome refugees because they are concerned about what it would mean for their nation’s security, said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a retired professor from United Arab Emirates University.

He told CNN that there’s a belief that accepting Syrians who are fleeing ISIS only appeases the terror group. It would feed “into the violence in the region, which is already the most violent region on Earth,” he said.

Which is why those countries do not need to be on the executive order. However, they may be added at some point. Remember that we don’t know all of the intel that the President knows. He has a team of professionals that are constantly working on the safety of the American people of which intel we may never hear anything about.

What you are about to read below ARE NOT MY WORDS. So please don’t call me racist, prejudice or an islamophobe. However, I’ve seen way too many things like this, not to show you.

9/11 mastermind: Al Qaeda favors ‘immigration’ to defeat USA – via Washington Examiner 11/23/16

The jailed architect of 9/11 revealed that al Qaeda’s plan to kill the United States was not through military attacks but immigration and “outbreeding non-muslims” who would use the legal system to install Sharia law……. plan is to fill the country with like-minded Muslims through the country’s easy immigration laws and by having babies, and then using the U.S. legal and welfare system to turn the country into a system like Iran.

Fact Check: Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”  Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused immigration to OUR country. (That’s not me saying this, that is in the Constitution.)

US Marine on Trump’s Travel ban – “Something to think about”

Chris Kyle’s Iraqi Interpreter Defends Trump’s Travel Ban

The Iraqi man who worked as “American Sniper” Chris Kyle’s interpreter during the Iraq War says he agrees with President Donald Trump’s travel ban, and he has some strong words for the protesters who are resisting the executive order.
“Just be American. If you love America more than anything else, you will understand Trump’s decision is for your own benefit,” Walker said. “If you disagree with Trump, and you love your country, go back to your country.”
Kyle pointed out that this isn’t a “Muslim ban,” since travel is not being restricted to many Muslim-majority countries.
“These are basic safety concerns that I think anyone would do for their personal home, and I think we need to give the same respect to the country.”

Current Document in question, issued by The President of The United States on January 27, 20017 EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES – Source: TheWhiteHouse.gov

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Used by President Obama in 2011https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

Presidential Proclamation–Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses

SUSPENSION OF ENTRY AS IMMIGRANTS AND NONIMMIGRANTS OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS AND OTHER ABUSES – BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Trump Officials Move to Appeal Ruling Blocking Immigration Order – New York Times 2-4-17

After a Federal District Court in Seattle blocked Mr. Trump’s order nationwide on Friday, the Justice Department appealed the ruling late Saturday, saying that the president had the constitutional authority to order the ban and that the court ruling “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment.”
On Saturday night, as Mr. Trump arrived at a Red Cross gala at Mar-a-Lago, his waterfront Florida resort, where he was spending the first getaway weekend of his presidency, reporters asked him if he was confident he would prevail in the government’s appeal. “We’ll win,” he replied. “For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

Setback for Trump: Appeals court rejects demand to resume travel ban — for now – via CNN

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday.What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place — for now.The Justice Department’s strongly worded court filing lodged a multi-pronged attack on Robart’s decision, emphasizing that halting enforcement of the travel ban “harms the public” and “second-guesses the President’s national security judgment” in the immigration context.”(Robart’s ruling) contravenes the considered judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.“Courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the President’s prospective judgment about future risks. Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process,” the filing said.Justice Department lawyers further argued that the parties who filed the lawsuit — the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota — lack the ability to sue in federal court because their alleged harms are too “speculative.”

The Trump Administration is expected to have a new order ready sometime next week. (2/20-2/24) Trump promises new immigration order as DOJ holds off appeals court http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-executive-order/ February 16, 2017 via CNN

President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to roll out a new immigration executive order next week that will be tailored to the federal court decision that paused his travel ban.

“The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision,” said Trump during a news conference, referring to a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked his travel ban earlier this month.

Here are some interesting facts regarding these countries  Israel visa is refused by all the countries on the Executive Order in question as well as Saudi Arabia. (Maybe they will be added to the new order, because many think they should be. Although they are not taking in refugees, so others have argued that it’s unnecessary to add them.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport

According to the 2014 Visa Restrictions Index, Israeli passport holders have visa-free or visa on arrival access to 147 countries and territories, ranking the Israeli passport 25th in terms of travel freedom.

Limitations on use by Israel
Under Israeli law, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are designated “enemy states” and an Israeli citizen may not visit them without a special permit issued by the Israeli Interior Ministry. The original list was set in 1954, and was updated only once on 25 July 2007 to include Iran. (Not verified). This does not apply to dual nationality holders, as they are free to travel to the aforementioned countries on their other passports.[citation needed]


(For contrast here are the visa requirements for the USA)  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens 

Fake News Alerts – According to Fox – Hannity

These are some pretty funny fake stories. Good for a giggle. (Many people don’t like Sean Hannity, because he’s very conservitive and seems to have a little man crush on President Trump, however he’s really reliable on finding and exposing fake news. Personally I think he’s a riot. I’m a big fan. http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/heres-a-list-of-stories-the-15533284/

SCOTUS Nom-Revenge Filibuster

There is still a bias, and a “negative narrative” being pushed to the American public, that Neil Gorsuch will take away the right to choose abortion, and that he will be an “enemy” to atheists. He’s also being accused of “only being a friend to giant corporations’. I just saw something about him being a “fascist” even. Which is all just fake news, click bait and attempts to smear his reputation to make an excuse for a filibuster. The reason I think this is, because I can prove that Gorsuch has bipartisan appeal.

The Democratic Party made up their minds before they even knew who the nominee was that they were going to block it.

The Republican Party has done something similar to The Democratic Party in the recent past however, there’s is a lot of hypocrisy going on from everywhere. Let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on.

At the end of former President Barack Obama‘s term, (2016,) there was a seat on the Supreme Court that opened when, Antonin Scalia died.

According to History News Network 

“Within hours of the announcement of Justice Scalia’s death Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate Majority Leader, poured cold water on the idea of replacing the justice in 2016. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell wrote in a public statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) insisted that Obama should nominate a replacement for Scalia.” – See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/13194

This is something you may not know. It’s a well accepted opinion, that if a Supreme Court spot opens up in an election year, that the seat should be filled by the new president, so that the people of America have the chance to elect someone that will choose a nominee, that will reflect the citizens values at that current time.

Here is a video of Democrat Joe Biden from 1992. He’s expressing this opinion.

 

Joe Biden – No Supreme Court Pick Until After Election (1992) – “The Joe Biden Rule”

This is the reason that the Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama‘s nomination to fill Scalia’s seat in 2016.

Via an article from the USA News about Barack Obama’s nominee in 2016 -Joe Biden, with a little contradiction to the video above says:

“No one is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes; voting no is always an option,” Biden said. “But deciding in advance to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open. It’s quite frankly an abdication of duty, and one that has never happened in our history.”

The Democrats are still very mad that the Republicans blocked Obama’s 2016 SCOTUS Nominee, even though they have previously argued, that the spot should be filled by the next president, if the spot is open in an election year. (As seen in the video of Joe Biden above. This is often called “the Joe Biden Rule“.)

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said… – via The Washington Examiner 2/14/16 6:29 PM

(Hmmm, so when the Republicans did it in 2016 for 11 months it wasn’t ok. But when Democrats did it for 19, it was? This is hardly a “stolen seat,” like I’ve been seeing in a lot of headlines the past few days.) 

Schumer Warns Trump on SCOTUS Pick – US News

The top Democrat in the Senate is warning President-elect Donald Trump about his eventual Supreme Court choice: Name a ‘mainstream’ nominee or Democrats will oppose the individual ‘with everything we have.’ Jan. 4, 2017, at 1:34 p.m.

After Democrats had their SCOTUS blocked by Republicans for so long in 2016, both sides were frustrated. Now Democrats want to push back for a little revenge. They do not like the fact that, not only did they lose the election, and the SCOTUS spot, but they also lost it all to President Donald J. Trump. They had already made up their minds, no matter who he were to nominate, they were ready to “oppose the individual with everything we have.” Chuck Schumer – source US News

But did you know?????

Flashback: These Current Democrat Senators All Voted To Support Gorsuch In 2006

Source: https://gop.com/flashback-these-current-democrat-senators-all-voted-to-support-gorsuch-in-2006/

On July 20, 2006, Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed By The Senate On A Voice Vote As A Judge On The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. (PN1565, Gorsuch Nomination , Approved By Voice Vote, 7/20/06)

There Are 12 Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch’s Nomination In 2006 And Are Still In The Senate: Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Maria Cantwell (D-OR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), And Ron Wyden (D-OR). (“Senators Of The 109th Congress,” U.S. Senate , Accessed 7/27/06)

Other Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch In 2006 Included Harry Reid (D-NV), John Kerry (D-MA), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), And Hillary Clinton (D-NY). (“Senators Of The 109th Congress,” U.S. Senate , Accessed 7/27/06)

No Senate Democrats Objected To Gorsuch’s Confirmation Or Demanded A Recorded Vote. The Congressional Record , 7/20/06, S8036)

This is quite a different narrative, than Democrats and Mr. Schumer would like you to believe about Neil Gorsuch. It would seem that just a decade ago he had full bipartisan support. How did he go from that, to this horrible narrow minded “fascist” that I keep hearing about on most news sources?


Here is more proof of Neil Gorsuch‘s bipartisan support.

Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch – via The New York Times

“I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration,” wrote acting solicitor general in the Obama administration Neal Katyal in the pages of The New York Times. “Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.”

I don’t think any of this is actually about Gorsuch. If he had been nominated by any other Republican president, he would be having a completely different reception right now. In my opinion, this is more about revenge and a distaste for President Donald J. Trump.

Democrats announce plans to filibuster Gorsuch nomination -source Washington Times

Democrats have already decided they will force a filibuster on Judge Neil Gorsuch, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Tuesday, just minutes after President Trump announced the pick.

“The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.

Republicans could counter with the so-called “nuclear option,” using a shortcut to change the rules and eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold. But GOP leaders have been circumspect on that option.

“When the Senate previously confirmed him to the appellate court, the bipartisan support in the Senate was so overwhelming, a roll call vote was not even required,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “I hope members of the Senate will again show him fair consideration and respect the result of the recent election with an up-or-down vote on his nomination, just like the Senate treated the four first-term nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama.”

Some Democrats have said they are especially wary of Gorsuch’s apparent lack of support for abortion rights and freedom of religion. I can’t say much on the abortion, because he has yet to judge on a case like that, however he has proved to be a judge that will uphold our Constitution and preserve rights for all Americans, including freedom of religion.

Trump’s SCOTUS Pick Neil Gorsuch: On Abortion, Religion, Immigration And More -Source Forbes

screen-shot-2017-02-01-at-5-12-28-pm
Photo Credit – Forbes

Abortion

Gorsuch attends an Episcopal church and cited his faith in his nomination speech, but he hasn’t ruled directly on abortion rights.

He wrote a book on assisted suicide that concluded “intentional taking of human life …is always wrong” and his originalist stance is hard to square with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but he also says it is important to respect precedent.

 

Religion

Gorsuch has ruled consistently in favor of religious rights, joining the Hobby Lobby decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court allowing religious employers to avoid paying for contraceptives.

Everyone is making speculations and causing hysteria. But in my opinion, I don’t think that people should “freak out,” about speculations. I see a lot of that lately.

A fascist would not have had such strong bipartisan support in 2006, by such respected Democrats with in their party.

Here’s What Happened Last Time An Outgoing President Made A Supreme Court Nomination via The Huffington Post

Via an article from The Huffington Post from 02/13/2016 08:58 pm ET | Updated Dec 19, 2016

Just minutes after news broke Saturday afternoon, (2-13-2016), that Antonin Scalia had died at 79, Republicans said they would not confirm President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace the conservative Supreme Court justice — no matter who it is. “Justice Scalia was an American hero,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a presidential candidate and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted Sunday. “We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”

(So as you see they hypocrisy comes from both sides.)

From the same article…

No president in recent memory has faced a Supreme Court vacancy that opened during his final year in office. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing vote, took office during Ronald Reagan’s final year in office. But Reagan had nominated him the previous November. He was Reagan’s third choice — after Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration. And the vacancy he was filling had opened the previous July.

The most recent broadly similar situation occurred in June of 1968 (an election year), when President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had said he would not run for re-election, nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to take over as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Republicans and conservative southern Democrats filibustered Fortas’ nomination, and Johnson eventually withdrew it.

The differences between Fortas situation and Scalia’s passing are:

Fortas was already on the court. The nomination was to make him chief justice. Which would not have changed the court’s ideological makeup. (When Johnson nominated Fortas, he also nominated Homer Thornberry, a judge and former congressman, to fill Fortas’ seat. But when the Senate rejected Fortas for chief justice, Thornberry’s nomination died, too.)

There were also ethical concerns involved. Fortas was criticized for accepting $15,000 for speaking at American University’s law school — money that was provided by corporations

The hypocrisy is pretty thick. My opinion, as a female Libertarian, that seems to lean more right by the day, I think that there are some people being very unreasonable.  It seems more and more everyday, I feel pushed to think Republicans are bad and Democrats are victims. Which is ridiculous. There are no bad guys and no victims. 

If their are any victims they are the taxpayers and voters.  We are paying these people big bucks to go argue like children, instead of getting it done and moving to the next important order of business.  We are paying them to throw temper tantrums and disrespect the president that was FAIRLY elected by the country’s electoral process.

America voted for greatness and change. We won’t get any where, without cooperation. It’s time to put the revenge aside and the “coulda shoulda wouldas” of the election away for a few years and do the work that the American people need, and asked to have done.

Democrats have nothing to worry about withNeil Gorsuch, he has a dazzling resume and is more than qualified. They should be ecstatic. 


Watch out for the crap news out there everyone!




Not everyone knows how this process even works so I thought I’d include this for you.

How the Nomination Process for Supreme Court Justices Works

Who selects the Supreme Court justices?

 

Chuck Schumer’s Crocodile Tears?

This is more about a B.S. detection, instead of just fake news. Although many news sources have been setting the tone, that Chuck Schumer, is devastated about, this new terrorist protection executive order, that President Trump has implemented.

(Actual text to the order,)

If you think President Trump, wasn’t being very nice, when he said, Chuck Schumer was fake crying, about the “refugee pause”. You really should watch this video. It’s very eye opening. Chuck Schumer and anyone promoting the story that, Chuck is in fact genuine about those tears, is manipulating your mind and playing on your emotions.

In my opinion, National Security should not even be a debate, period. According to this video, sounds like that’s what Mr. Chuck Schumer thinks too. However, he’s changed his mind all of the sudden. I wonder why? Could it be because he just doesn’t want to accept the fact that Donald Trump is the President of The United States?

*Notice how there is a small group of refugees standing around Mr. Schumer, in the video above. Is this suppose to make us feel even more guilty? Are these human props to make his statement more impactful? I don’t appreciate tactics like that.  

The press is using, mass hysteria and now guilt to manipulate your perception. They want to use your compassion, your giant hearts, and your need to help others, to make you think  you should be putting these refugees in front of the safety of your family. They are trying to use guilt, to make you think if you don’t, then you are some how a horrible selfish person. Putting the needs of our country and it’s people is not being mean spirited, or un-American. It also doesn’t mean that people’s rights are being violated. If anything it means our right to safety is being preserved.

This is not a violation of religious freedom, because this is not a “muslim ban.” This is a temporary pause, so that we can “quality check” our vetting process as a precaution. This is a pause of a group of countries, not people. These countries have been marked as dangerous, not by the Trump Administration but by the Obama Administration.

This is immigration explained with gumballs. When I first stumbled upon it, I almost didn’t watch it. By the time it was over, my mind was completely blown!

So after watching this video, you can see that helping people where they are; helping them become strong free countries, where they already live; ultimately helps way more people than trying to bring them all here. Not only that, but by bringing the smartest and strongest people here, it takes away from those communities that would benefit by having that person stay and build their society. It also can end up putting a major strain on our communities and population.

Setting up programs to help these refugees in their countries has the potential to help so many more people, and would make such a bigger impact on the world.

Photo credit: Power of Positivity https://www.facebook.com/powerofpositivity/

This update of the vetting process, is not the first thing that Chuck Schumer has been a hypocrite about. Currently, he doesn’t support, President Donald J. Trump’s nomination for SCOTUS, (Neil Gorsuch), even though, Chuck was part of the unanimous vote in 2006, that confirmed Gorsuch for Colo. appeals court judge. (Blog about this to come.)

Flashback: These Current Democrat Senators All Voted To Support Gorsuch In 2006

Source: https://gop.com/flashback-these-current-democrat-senators-all-voted-to-support-gorsuch-in-2006/

On July 20, 2006, Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed By The Senate On A Voice Vote As A Judge On The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. (PN1565, Gorsuch Nomination , Approved By Voice Vote, 7/20/06)

There Are 12 Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch’s Nomination In 2006 And Are Still In The Senate Including: Chuck Schumer (D-NY),

Other Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch In 2006 Included Harry Reid (D-NV), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), And Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Below is the actual text of the executive order that has caused all the controversy and protesting. I just want to note to you that it says nothing about a “muslim ban”. It says nothing about discriminating against people, because of religion or race. There are 40 other muslim dominate countries, that are not on the order. I also want to note that the list of countries was taken from intel that was obtained during the Obama Administration. This order is only temporary, so that we can “quality check,” improve our “vetting” and national security. This is a precaution, put in place for our safety. If this order saves even one of our American citizens or individuals already living in this country. It was worth it.

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES – Text to the actual Order in Question

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

It’s interesting to me the picture, that the press is trying to paint, and the actual reality, is nothing like what they want you to believe. Why am I not surprised? I keep exposing their lies.

 

[Update: 2-3-17 11:18pm: I found this — An open letter to Senator Chuck Schumer http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/01/open-letter-to-senator-chuck-schumer.html

by Ray Starmann is the founder of US Defense Watch. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and veteran of the Gulf War] Definately worth the read. 

Are LGBTQ Rights In Jeopardy?

 

Update: July 27, 2017 See Here for change in Military policy regarding Transgender Persons.

 

I’ve seen a lot of comments on social media of people that do not like Donald Trump as our president, because they are terrified that LGBTQ Rights are in jeopardy. So are they?

NO.

Not that I can find sound evidence of, however there are tons of #fakenews that will tell you otherwise.

Here is the manipulation from the press. I saw this on other sources as well. These stories were printed the day, before President Trump was expected to announce his actions on LGBTQ Rights policies.

Reuters claiming that he probably would NOT protect the rights of #LGBTs.
Another manipulation.
Lies and implications like this are dividing the nation.
They are breaking up relationships, causing tension and ruining families.
I know this, because it’s happening to me and people I love.

LGBT advocates scared, despite White House words on equality
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15F1D7

screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-9-27-34-pm

Photo credit to Reuters

If you search this topic there are all sorts of anti-LGBT rights Trump Administration claims. I had to wade through A WHOLE LOT OF CRAP to find any TRUTH.

Here is officially what is ACTUALLY going on. This is also the promise President Trump made throughout his campaign. Despite the negative claims and scare tactics from the media. Trump announced his executive order to keep in place #LGBTQrights

Obama’s Protections for L.G.B.T. Workers Will Remain Under Trump

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-protections-lgbt-workers.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-9-32-59-pm

Photo Credit: A flag appeared during the New York City gay pride parade in June.
BRYAN R. SMITH / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES

Statement from The White House:
“President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of L.G.B.T.Q. rights, just as he was throughout the election,” the statement said. “The president is proud to have been the first ever G.O.P. nominee to mention the L.G.B.T.Q. community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression.”

Donald Trump’s first 60 min. Interview w/ His Family -Trump Tower Now A Fortress 11-11-16

Here is the actual post from the White House and once I get full text of the actual order, I will post that as well.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/31/president-donald-j-trump-will-continue-enforce-executive-order

screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-9-01-23-pm

Below is all I could find, so far on the original text of the order from the Obama Administration. When I get time to do so, I will do more digging. I had to wade through a lot of crap, just to get even this. There is so much fake news about this subject, it’s ridiculous!!!

Fact Sheet: Taking Action to Support LGBT Workplace Equality

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/21/fact-sheet-taking-action-support-lgbt-workplace-equality-good-business-0

screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-8-58-25-pm

Here is another article and it has a mixture of truth and some bias quotes, including this one. Most likely added to make you doubt that you should feel safe that everyone’s rights will be protected.
*Another manipulation by the media* (Are you seeing the pattern yet?)

Trump continues Obama order protecting LGBTQ federal workers

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trump-continues-obama-policy-federal-workers/

“Donald Trump has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House,” HRC President Chad Griffin said at a news conference hours after Trump signed the order.

Griffin asserted — without providing evidence — that the administration “is still considering an (executive order) that would discriminate against LGBTQ people.”

I have yet to find any real evidence of that claim. I highly doubt this will happen, because it would only raise even more division and drama in the country. It would cause all kinds of protesting and a lot of mad people. (I, personally, would also be very angry, if that happened.)

Not only that, but it would go against the actual promise that President Trump made during his campaign to be supportive of LGBTQ people’s rights. So far, everything he has done since being our President, has been on his campaign check list, with only slight revisions. These revisions were improvements, that should be satisfying the democratic party.

I will update this post as the information is revealed.