Liberty Wins!!!

[LoveIsTruth]

‘Won’t cover myself up:’ Le Pen Refuses Headscarf, Cancels on Lebanese Grand Mufti




“You can pass on my respects to the Grand Mufti, but I will not cover myself up,” Le Pen told reporters.

http://www.infowars.com/wont-cover-myse ... and-mufti/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Silver]

What this means, is that Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are wrong:

The global elites CANNOT pull the plug on our economy if the people repudiate all the fraudulent debts that were hoisted on them.

As Robert Steele correctly points out, in this country we have enough energy, water and food to be just fine if the people stop being idiots, and repudiate fraudulent debts, and restore justice.

That's a nice theory you have there. Are you willing to put it to the test, to be the guinea pig, the lab rat, the sacrificial lamb? As long as the CFR and other elitists have control of the military, all serious efforts to resist will end in tragedy. Any serious effort to mobilize will also be stopped.

I'm preparing for the worst and watching for some external event that triggers a desire by the rest of us serfs to possess liberty again.

[LoveIsTruth]

Look what happened with Trump. People elected him AGAINST the wishes of the elites.

The same way people should be educated about the true principles of Justice.

[LoveIsTruth]

RFK Jr: Trump Says He Will Not Back Down From Pharma On Vaccine Safety

Trump's son Barron was damaged by vaccines, so Trump vowed to bring the corrupt industry to justice! Yes!

The truth is that Autism is tainted-vaccine induced brain damage in children.



From the Q & A of the Kennedy, DeNiro press conference, Robert F Kennedy Jr. relays the meetings and phone calls he has had with president Donald Trump over creating a vaccine safety commission.

Full Press Conference: Robert De Niro & Robert F Kennedy Jr. Offer $100k Vaccine Challenge

[youtube]5vG_emYtgV0[/youtube]

Is Vaccine-Linked Autism About To Be Exposed?

[youtube]d8G-Lj6JYF8[/youtube]

Trump’s Position On Vaccination Is Spot On: Roger Stone

[youtube]EmZcH2mCfjM[/youtube]

[LoveIsTruth]

[Silver]

Look what happened with Trump. People elected him AGAINST the wishes of the elites.

The same way people should be educated about the true principles of Justice.

Or, more likely, because Trump is still alive, Trump is a tool of the elites.

[LoveIsTruth]

Look what happened with Trump. People elected him AGAINST the wishes of the elites.

The same way people should be educated about the true principles of Justice.

Or, more likely, because Trump is still alive, Trump is a tool of the elites.

They are calling for his death. But by the providence of God, he is still alive. Let's pray for him.

[Silver]

Look what happened with Trump. People elected him AGAINST the wishes of the elites.

The same way people should be educated about the true principles of Justice.

Or, more likely, because Trump is still alive, Trump is a tool of the elites.

They are calling for his death. But by the providence of God, he is still alive. Let's pray for him.

I have prayed for him. I prayed that he would throw off the shackles of the banksters and the elitists and the CFR. Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has not the nerve to do that. In fact, he's stacking his Administration with Goldman Sachs and gazillionaires who complement his many CFR selections. So why would the globalists call for his death? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[LoveIsTruth]

Robert David Steele-Deep State, Pedophilia, and The Plan for Trump to Win

[LoveIsTruth]

I have prayed for him. I prayed that he would throw off the shackles of the banksters and the elitists and the CFR. Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has not the nerve to do that. In fact, he's stacking his Administration with Goldman Sachs and gazillionaires who complement his many CFR selections. So why would the globalists call for his death? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

The fact is they are calling for it. All bankster controlled media almost uniformly against him. Why? Because he is against their satanic agenda. Dah!

[Silver]

I have prayed for him. I prayed that he would throw off the shackles of the banksters and the elitists and the CFR. Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has not the nerve to do that. In fact, he's stacking his Administration with Goldman Sachs and gazillionaires who complement his many CFR selections. So why would the globalists call for his death? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

The fact is they are calling for it. All bankster controlled media almost uniformly against him. Why? Because he is against their satanic agenda. Dah!

Then please explain to me what Gary Cohn is doing as Trump's chief economic advisor.

[LoveIsTruth]

Then please explain to me what Gary Cohn is doing as Trump's chief economic advisor.

I have heard the theory that Trump's brought in some Goldman Sachs people who are actually opposed to the bank's agenda and would help him to take it down. Time will tell.

But net value of Trump's actions against satanic globalist's was very positive so far! May this trend continue and increase!

[Silver]

Then please explain to me what Gary Cohn is doing as Trump's chief economic advisor.

I have heard the theory that Trump's brought in some Goldman Sachs people who are actually opposed to the bank's agenda and would help him to take it down. Time will tell.

But net value of Trump's actions against satanic globalist's was very positive so far! May this trend continue and increase!

You've heard that, have you? Well, for decades the NWO has done no such thing so let history be your guide rather than rumors. Have you heard about Greece's problems? That's the real deal and informative. Do you know Gary Cohn's role in Greece? Considering the debt (which is the opposite of your incorrect thread title) with which America is burdened, having the fox guard our financial hen house portends trouble. Austerity in America? Very possible considering the $20 Trillion in sovereign debt.

What about Wilbur Ross? Do you know how he saved Trump in the late 1990's? How do you feel about cronyism? Did you know that Ross spent 24 years at a Nathan Mayer Rothschild business? Do you know that company is also an enemy of liberty?

[LoveIsTruth]

I know what the man (Trump) done so far. And it has been, on balance, very positive and pro liberty.

Do you know that since the Rothschild's own most of the economies of the world, via front companies, it is very possible that even you, or most people you know, unwittingly work for them?

That is not the point however. The point is actions and principles. What Trump's done so far is very positive on balance. Unheard of in the last 50 years at least! We should celebrate and support such trend. And if we do not, we, unwittingly support tyranny.

Look at what he has done so far: "for every new regulation two to be repealed," end Obama care mandate, end the forced integration of illegal immigration, the move to slash taxes. That is all very positive. If you cannot see it you are blind.

[Silver]

I know what the man (Trump) done so far. And it has been, on balance, very positive and pro liberty.

Do you know that since the Rothschild's own most of the economies of the world, via front companies, it is very possible that even you, or most people you know, unwittingly work for them?

That is not the point however. The point is actions and principles. What Trump's done so far is very positive on balance. Unheard of in the last 50 years at least! We should celebrate and support such trend. And if we do not, we, unwittingly support tyranny.

Look at what he has done so far: "for every new regulation two to be repealed," end Obama care mandate, end the forced integration of illegal immigration, the move to slash taxes. That is all very positive. If you cannot see it you are blind.

While Trump talks a big game, Obamacare for example, it's still not repealed and neither has a replacement been presented. You have absolutely zero proof that American citizens will be freer in their medical care choices after some new plan is offered. Don't worry. What I'm saying will be crystal clear for you some day.

[LoveIsTruth]

While Trump talks a big game, Obamacare for example, it's still not repealed and neither has a replacement been presented. You have absolutely zero proof that American citizens will be freer in their medical care choices after some new plan is offered. Don't worry. What I'm saying will be crystal clear for you some day.

The executive order suspending Obama care penalties is already in force. So "someday" has already come, and you missed it ;)

[Silver]

While Trump talks a big game, Obamacare for example, it's still not repealed and neither has a replacement been presented. You have absolutely zero proof that American citizens will be freer in their medical care choices after some new plan is offered. Don't worry. What I'm saying will be crystal clear for you some day.

The executive order suspending Obama care penalties is already in force. So "someday" has already come, and you missed it ;)

It's embarrassing how you adamantly say things like they are reality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-2 ... bad-stocks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During his campaign, Trump vowed to America's middle class that he would get rid of (since then the phrase has been amended to "repeal and replace" for various reasons) Obamacare as soon as he got into office. Well, Trump is out of his 30 day honeymoon, and the confusion and chaos over the future of Obamacare has never been greater, to a large extent due to growing pushback he has been getting in Congress.

Below is an update of the latest developments and progress, or lack thereof, regarding the repeal and replace, or perhaps repair and rename, of Obamacare.

In a nutshell, Congressional Republicans hope to pass legislation by April to repeal and at least partially replace the health insurance coverage expansion under the Affordable Care Act. However, none of the several approaches that have been floated appear able to win a majority in the Senate.

One base case, pitched by Goldman Sachs, is that Congress will enact ACA legislation in Q2 that modifies the tax credits under the law for health insurance coverage and increases state flexibility under Medicaid.

However, this process is likely to take longer than expected, which is likely to delay the upcoming debate over tax reform; this in turn will have adverse consequences for the market, which has already largely priced in substantial passage of Trump's tax reforms even if no details are known yet. More importantly, as Goldman writes in an overnight note, the difficulty the Republican majority is having addressing a key political priority suggests that lawmakers might ultimately need to scale back their ambitions in other areas as well, such as tax reform.

Here are the details on why Trump may have suddenly found himself trapped on next steps when it comes to both Obamacare, and tax reform, courtesy of Goldman's Alec Phillips:

The outcome of congressional Republican plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is as hard to predict as any legislative issue we can recall. For the last several years, congressional Republicans have sought to repeal the law, and now have the potential to do so. However, despite holding a majority in both chambers of Congress, Republicans appear to lack a majority for any particular option currently under consideration. The disagreement relates to substance—whether to continue the expansion of subsidies under the ACA but in different form or to substantially reduce subsidized benefits to the pre-ACA level—and process—whether to repeal first and enact a replacement program later, or to do both in the same legislation.

The original Republican strategy was to address the law in two phases. The first phase was to repeal most of the fiscal provisions via the reconciliation process, which allows passage in the Senate with only 51 votes, and therefore potentially only with Republican support. These provisions would take effect with a delay, preserving the status quo for perhaps two years. In the second phase, Congress would enact a replacement program to provide some continuation of the coverage provided under the ACA, with the details to be determined during the two-year transition period.

This two-stage approach would theoretically have two advantages over addressing the issue in one piece of legislation.

First, it would have allowed congressional Republicans and President Trump to quickly follow through on a key campaign priority, without spending much of the first year of the new term, when political momentum is greatest, sorting out the details of any replacement.
Second, it would have allowed repeal to pass via the reconciliation process with only 51 votes—presumably only Republican votes—but the replacement to pass under regular order with 60 votes. This would allow for changes to insurance market regulation and other non-fiscal policies that cannot be addressed via the budget reconciliation process.
Some centrist Republicans, particularly in the Senate, have signaled support for a substantial continuation of expanded benefits and have called for at least some elements of the replacement program to be included in the repeal legislation. By contrast, some conservative lawmakers support repeal of the law with limited replacement of the current subsidies. Republican leaders have taken a position that is in between these approaches.

Exhibit 1 contrasts the current program with three proposals: the legislation that Congress passed and President Obama vetoed in 2015; legislation introduced by Republican Sens. Cassidy (R-LA), Collins (R-ME), Isakson (GA), and Moore-Capito (WV), and the approach that House Republican leaders outlined on February 16.

Exhibit 1: Many proposals but little agreement


Source: DHHS, Congressional Budget Office, House Ways and Means Committee, Office of Sen. Collins

The outcome of this debate is hard to predict, but certain changes appear more likely than others:

Coverage mandates are likely to disappear. The mandates on individuals to obtain health insurance and on employers to provide it look very likely to be repealed. Most Republican proposals would repeal them, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has already announced that they will not enforce the penalties as a result of President Trump's recent executive order.
Tax hikes and tax credits are likely to change, but timing and details remain unclear. There is general agreement among congressional Republicans that most if not all of the new taxes used to fund part of the cost of the coverage expansion should be repealed. However, it is unclear whether these taxes will be repealed retroactively for 2017 or prospectively. It is also possible that at least one of the taxes—the so-called Cadillac tax—might be modified rather than repealed entirely; instead of imposing a 40% excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance plans starting in 2020, Republican leaders appear to be contemplating capping the exclusion for employer-sponsored benefits instead. This would have a similar effect to current law, which should reduce the offer of high-cost plans to employees and increase their taxable wages instead, but changes in how the tax is applied could affect the incidence of the tax and the amount of tax revenue it generates.
Changing the Medicaid expansion is likely to be the hardest to pass, but “repeal” may not be able to pass without addressing the issue. 20 Republican senators represent states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility, and many of them support allowing “expansion states” to continue to receive 90% of the cost of covering the new population, as the ACA calls for. However, 32 Republican senators represent states that did not expand, and many of them object to the spending increase. Ultimately, the way out of this political impasse may be to provide states additional flexibility to use federal Medicaid funds, with a gradual equalization in funding for expansion and non-expansion states.
Regulatory changes and Medicare reimbursement cuts are off the table in the near term, we believe. For entirely different reasons, two areas of the ACA are likely to remain unchanged in the near term, at least as far as Congress is concerned. First, the cuts to Medicare reimbursement that were used to offset part of the cost of coverage expansion look very likely to be maintained, with neither party seemingly interested in repealing them. Regulatory changes, such as the 3:1 limitation on variation in premiums based on factors like age, are unlikely to change as a result of near-term legislative efforts, since they are politically popular and, more importantly, probably cannot be addressed via the reconciliation process because they do not directly affect federal spending or revenues.
For the health care sector, the current political debate reinforces the view that most of the current health subsidies are likely to be maintained regardless of the specific changes that Congress agrees upon. As noted above, it seems likely that Medicaid subsidies will be largely maintained over the near term and, while tax credits for private insurance plans will be modified, we would be surprised if the overall amount of subsidy spending declines considerably. In fact, it is possible that overall ACA-related spending could increase slightly, if Congress tries to increase support among non-expansion states by temporarily increasing their subsidies to the level that expansion states receive. It is also worth noting that if congressional Republicans pass ACA repeal legislation along party lines, some other policy changes that might be the subject of congressional horse-trading would be less likely, such as initiatives to control pharmaceutical prices, would be less likely since bipartisan support would not be needed.

More broadly, the difficulty congressional Republicans are having in addressing the ACA raises two important issues for the rest of the agenda, and fiscal policy in particular. First, the longer this debate takes to resolve, the less capacity congressional Republicans will have to address other issues such as tax reform or infrastructure. Not only will lawmakers need to set priorities in order to focus political attention, but the same committees responsible for much of the ACA legislation—the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee—are also responsible for tax reform and potentially infrastructure if financed through the tax code.

Here is the part where traders should tune in:

Delays in addressing health legislation are also likely to set back tax reform procedurally. The ACA repeal/replace bill is being addressed as part of the FY2017 budget resolution, which would have normally passed last year but which Congress passed several weeks ago in order to create a procedural pathway for passage of ACA repeal legislation via the budget reconciliation process, which allows it to pass with only 51 votes in the Senate. Once the ACA legislation is enacted, congressional Republicans hope to pass the FY2018 budget resolution, which will lay out tax and spending plans for the coming ten years and provide a second set of reconciliation instructions, this time for tax reform. Since Congress follows whatever budget resolution has passed most recently, passing the FY2018 resolution before the ACA bill has passed would remove the procedural protections from the repeal/replace bill, subjecting it to a 60 vote threshold in the Senate.

Congressional leaders hope to pass ACA repeal/replace legislation by April, which would allow them to stay nearly on track with the usual timing of the annual budget resolution—that process usually starts in March and ends in April or May—and would allow them to try to provide some clarity to health insurers ahead of May when they need to indicate their intent to provide benefits in the health exchanges in 2018. Passage in April could also increase the support for additional funding or other changes to stabilize the health exchanges for 2018; the most likely vehicle for such changes is the upcoming appropriations legislation, which needs to pass by April 28 to avoid a government shutdown.

If ACA legislation does not pass by April or so, congressional leaders have several other options. One option is simply to delay the FY2018 budget resolution until the ACA repeal bill has passed, whenever that occurs. This is the simplest strategy, but resolving differences among Republicans could take several more months. An alternative would be to use the current reconciliation instructions to pass tax reform, and the FY2018 instructions to address the ACA, flipping the sequencing of the current approach. However, for technical reasons it would be difficult to use the current reconciliation instructions to pass tax reform, in our view, so congressional leaders might consider this only as a last resort. Another third possibility would be to roll ACA repeal/replace together with tax reform creating one bill that could be passed via the FY2018 reconciliation process. While this is procedurally possible, the complexity of combined ACA and tax reform legislation would reduce the probability of substantial changes in either area, in our view.

* * *

Beyond the issues of timing and process, the current situation highlights the difficulty that congressional Republicans are likely to encounter in trying to make significant structural reforms on a party-line basis. If legislation addressing a longstanding political priority like Obamacare repeal is having difficulty attracting 51 votes in the Senate, it suggests Republican leaders will need to scale back their ambitions on other issues too, including tax reform. Ultimately, we continue to expect an expansion of the deficit of around 1% of GDP, with nearly all of this coming in the form of tax cuts. However, as we noted recently, the current debate suggests that tax legislation might not be finalized until late 2017 or early 2018. Along with the potential for a phased-in tax cut, this would likely spread the growth effects between 2018 and 2019.

[LoveIsTruth]

You have a point. However:

MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
...
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... order.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Silver]

You have a point. However:

MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
...
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... order.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's some impressive wording. I wonder if some people need to redo their tax returns because they sent in a check for the amount of the penalty for not having health insurance in 2016. Have you seen any news on that?

[LoveIsTruth]

Leftists Triggered Over Kellyanne Conway Putting Her Feet on a Couch

[LoveIsTruth]

Unreported: Record 1,500 Pedophile Arrests Have Been Made Nationally Since Trump Took Office


President Donald Trump issued an executive order giving the FBI extra power to crack down on human trafficking offenses.

Read more.

[LoveIsTruth]

Trump Owns The Disorder On The Border

President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to secure the United States border is happening.

[LoveIsTruth]

Dutch Donald Trump: Europe Facing Existential Crisis As Billion Muslims Pour In

"Open boarders" sold by the corrupt elites is actually forced integration, which is unjust.

This guy is brilliant!!

(I like how he sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger meaning the accent.)

"That is the biggest mistake we’ve made – open borders, and no demands on new immigrants to assimilate or to integrate. We will cease to exist.”

He placed the blame fully on the establishment elite, who he says created the concepts of multiculturalism and open borders.

“They are fighting against our mere existence.”

Read more.

[LoveIsTruth]

That is nice.

• I do support Trump's idea to stop crime committed by illegal aliens.
• I do support Trump's idea to abolish US export taxes. Excellent!
• I do support Trump's idea to stop forced integration of illegal immigration (i.e. forcing communities to accept illegal aliens that do not support the same values).
• I do support Trump's idea to lower taxes for companies and for the middle class. (Because public taxation of private property is theft and legalized plunder, and therefore is unjust).
• I do support Trump's idea to slash regulation. (Because public regulation of private property is unjust. You have no right to "regulate" what is not yours. It is a violation of private property and therefore of justice. The only regulation private property can justly have is that the property of no one is to be violated).
• I do support Trump's idea to bring corrupt and wicked vaccine industry to justice. (Because they are poisoning our children with intentionally tainted vaccines.)
• I do support Trump's idea to legalize health insurance competition across state lines. Because to forbid such competition is unjust.

However

• I do not support Trump's idea to raise import taxes. Because that is immoral and unjust. You have no right to tax that which is not yours. It is legalized plunder, and thus a reason enough to forbid it; but moreover, it will increase the prices of products in the country for the consumers. So ultimately it is the consumers in this country that will indirectly pay the tax. All of this is UNJUST, because it is legalized plunder, and thus is legalized evil.
• I do not support Trump's idea to massively increase military spending, because it is already more than the rest of the world combined, with at least half of it stolen and wasted already.
• I do not support Trump's idea to FORCE American companies to buy American, because that is unjust. You have no right to regulate that which is NOT yours. That is a violation of private property and thus a violation of justice. Example: Forcing the pipeline builders to use American pipes is not only unjust (which is a reason enough to oppose it), but it will also raise the price of the pipeline which increase in price will be passed onto the consumers. That is a violation of private property and therefore of justice.

[LoveIsTruth]

How to Identify Fakes