Posted by Hank Jordan at the Tea Party Command Center. May 3, 2017
Mr. Massingale went on line last night, a matter a fact all night long, 90% of our team is on line, and while searching Obamacare information, a Obama Presidential Scandal came into view. Paul Ryan’s buddy X- President Obama is a Pedophile. This is of course not listed as Fake News, but cold hard facts about the people involved in Obamacare.
A transcript from a 1997 speech shows Office of Safe Schools chief Kevin Jennings in the U.S. Department of Education expressed his admiration for Harry Hay, one of the nation’s first homosexual activists who launched the Mattachine Society in 1948, founded the Radical Faeries and was a longtime advocate for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA.
“One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” the transcript shows Jennings saying, “who started the first ongoing gay rights group in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society. It took him two years to find one other person who would join.
“Well, [in] 1993,” Jennings continued, “Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before.”
WND has reported several times on Jennings’ homosexual activism, including his founding of the organization “Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network,” which advocates for homosexuality in public schools.
Most recently, he admitted that he now knows he should have reacted differently two decades ago when he was a teacher and he was approached by a 15-year-old student who admitted he had a sexual relationship with an older man.
“The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts …
Jennings’ response was to suggest using a condom, although the student’s statement probably revealed, at a minimum, statutory rape.
His perspectives and activities have come under scrutiny because of his office, where he now is responsible for creating and implementing programs that make public school classrooms across America “safe.”
The comments about Hay are significant because of Hay’s extreme positions regarding homosexuality.
For example, according to the website for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, Hay told the organization in a 1983 speech: “I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”
The statements from Jennings are being reported by Americans for Truth, an activist organization that works to expose the actions and statements of the nation’s homosexual advocates.
It was just days earlier that a spokesman for President Barack Obam…
Americans for Truth chief Peter LaBarbera told WND the statements were transcribed from a tape of Jennings’ address before a “Looking to the Future” panel at GLSEN’s Mid-Atlantic conference Oct. 25, 1997, at Grace Church School in New York.
Jennings describes how “being finished” with his work might “some day mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say, ‘Yeah, who cares?’”
“Close your eyes for a second and think, ‘What would the world look like if we were through with our work? If we were done. If we could close the doors on 27th street [GLSEN’s New York City headquarters], and shut down the chapters, and disband the board. What would be happening?’” he questioned.
“This is the only thing that can stop us, is if we believe that our dreams cannot come true,” he continued.
Then he praised Hay.
“Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not – they were right, he was crazy. You are all crazy. We are all crazy. All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [blank] old way it is now. It’s the people who think, ‘No, I can envision a day when straight people say, ‘So what if you’re promoting homosexuality?” Or straight kids say, ‘Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?’”
He suggested conference participants “think how much can change in one lifetime if in Harry Hay’s one very short life, he saw change from not even one person willing to join him to a million people willing to travel to Washington to join him.”
A spokeswoman in Jennings’ division at the U.S. Department of Education declined to respond to WND’s request for comment today. A spokesman at the federal agency’s office of public information said he would have to check before responding. No subsequent call or e-mail was received.
Besides Hay’s endorsement of a “relationship” between teens and adult homosexuals, in 1994 he gave another NAMBLA address that cited the “growth and change” in the previous years.
“By far, gays’ and lesbians’ greatest strides were in the dimensions of gay consciousness and in our breathtaking discoveries in the richness and diversity of gay spirit. It is in the realm of gay spirit where all the groups comprising the gay and lesbian community currently are being challenged to take great leaps, to expand their self-visions and potential horizons,” he said. “In this period, my beloved Radical Faeries moved to perceive that our lovely and beautiful sexuality is the gateway to spirit. Perhaps NAMBLA might consider expanding its parameters also.”
According to the archives of Concerned Women for America, when Hay died in 2002, no mainstream media outlets reported his advocacy for the pedophile activities of NAMBLA.
Hay also urged that NAMBLA, which advocates for the elimination of any “age of consent” restrictions, be considered mainstream in America.
“NAMBLA’s record as a responsible gay organization is well known. NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every major gay and lesbian march. … NAMBLA’s call for the abolition of age of consent is not the issue. NAMBLA is a bona fide participant in the gay and lesbian movement. NAMBLA deserves strong support in its rights of free speech and association and its members’ protection from discrimination and bashing,” he said.
According to the Americans for Truth website, the incident involving the 15-year-old was just one among a series of egregious behaviors by Jennings.
Another was the “fistgate” scandal in which his organization led discussions at a seminar where “young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions, including ‘fisting,’” the website said.
Yet another was Jennings’ address in a New York City church on March 20, 2000.
He said: “Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—] ’em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!”
Jennings is among a number of Obama “czars” who have become controversial, including Van Jones, the ex–Green Jobs Czar who quit in the middle of the night after being found to have called Republicans an obscenity and being linked to the idea that the U.S. government was behind or at least allowed 9/11.
Harvard professor Cass Sunstein, confirmed by the Senate as the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management, was exposed for his belief that animals should be given legal rights like humans.
Technically, Jennings is not one of Obama’s “czars,” who are special advisers accountable to no one but the president. Jennings was named to a post in the Department of Education. However, his hiring did not require legislative oversight, such as the Senate vetting process required for other appointees.
WND previously reported on a speech Jennings gave in 1995 outlining his manipulation of words to obtain his aims.
Excerpts have been posted on the website of MassResistance, where chief Brian Camenker has worked to oppose the demands of homosexual activists.
In the speech, Jennings described how he was concerned about being described as promoting homosexuality, so he chose to campaign on the idea of “safety” instead.
“If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids,’” he told the conference.
He continued, “In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”
WND reported earlier when it became known Jennings was appointed.
Jennings also wrote the foreword for a book called “Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling.”
As Paul Ryan stands next to his Homosexual Pedophile Man-Boy Lover, promoting one of the largest scams in American History the Healthcare Bill. Which is is by the way nothing more then a Pharmaceutical Investment Opportunity, so that Tax Cuts for the Rich Investors of Obamacare get a break. The whole system is falling apart. Pharmaceutical Companies are making Billions, and still the system is taxing Americans around $200 Billion per year.
These are the numbers…
In early March, GOP leaders Kevin Brady and Paul Ryan unleashed their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, publishing proposed legislation in the form of the American Health Care Act. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its score of the plan, and two of the primary criticisms that emerged from the report were as follows:
The plan results in an $880 billion tax cut over the next decade, with at least $274 billion of the cuts going directly into the pockets of the richest 2%, and
Medicaid would be cut by an equivalent $880 billion over the next decade, making it more difficult for low-income taxpayers to procure insurance.
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 21: House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks to the media after after a House Republican closed party conference attended by U.S. President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill, on March 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. President Trump urged House Republicans to support his American Health Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Yesterday, the GOP released amendments to its health care bill, and in response to the shortcomings highlighted by the CBO report, the changes to the bill would add more tax breaks for the rich and further slash Medicaid funding.
Yup, you read that right. But as counterintuitive as it may seem, there is a method to the GOP’s madness, as yesterday’s changes 1) make it more likely the bill will pass the House and potentially, the Senate, and 2) it brings within reach the bigger prize being sought by Republican leaders: tax reform.
American Health Care Act: Original Version
A full discussion of th original bill designed to repeal and replace Obamacare can be found here, but in this piece I’ll cut to the headlines.
Recommended by Forbes
The plan would repeal nearly all of the taxes created under Obamacare, including the following:
The individual mandate would disappear retroactive to 1/1/2016. Thus, individuals would no longer be penalized for failing to obtain coverage.
The employer mandate would disappear retroactive to 1/1/2016, meaning employers with more than 50 employees would no longer be penalized for failing to cover those employees.
The net investment income tax and additional Medicare tax, which were used in part to fund the tax credits used to subsidize insurance premiums of low-income taxpayers, would be removed effective 1/1/2018. More on this later.
The premium tax credit would remain in limited form until 2020, but would not be available for any plan that covers abortion.
In place of the premium tax credit, the American Health Care Act would enact a new credit that would focus less on income levels and more on age, ranging from $2,000 for those under 30 to $4,000 to those over 60, with phase-outs beginning at $150,000 of taxable income (if married, $75,000 if single).
The new law also makes the following changes to the insurance industry:
The federal matching rate for adults made eligible for Medicaid by Obamacare would be reduced to equal the rate for other enrollees in the state beginning in 2020.
The bill appropriates funding for grants to states beginning in 2018.
It removes the requirement, beginning in 2020, that insurers who offer nongroup plans cover at least 60% of the cost of covered benefits.
It requires insurance companies to charge an extra 30% for premiums if the applicant has not been covered for a period of 63 days in the previous year.
Allows insurers to charge elderly applicants five times what it charges younger applicants (current law provides a cap of three times the premiums for younger taxpayers).
The Congressional Budget Office was tasked with scoring the plan, and the results weren’t pretty. The CBO found that by eliminating the taxes discussed above, the plan provided an $880 billion tax cut. And because the net investment income tax and additional Medicare tax, by definition, are only imposed on the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers, those taxpayers would stand to save $274 billion over the next ten years. In addition, the plan would cut Medicaid spending by $880 billion, and most importantly, leave 24 million more taxpayers uninsured by 2025 compared to the projected uninsured under Obamacare.
As you might imagine, the threat of 25 million people voters losing insurance over the next decade spooked some Republicans that would have otherwise been itching to tear down Obamacare. And since the GOP will need 51 votes in the Senate to pass the bill — and Republicans own only 52 seats — they will need complete party buy-in to get the bill done. After the CBO’s score was released, the rhetoric coming out of the Senate was that enough Republicans had jumped ship to put the bill’s passage at significant risk.
Amendments to the Bill
Due to it’s lukewarm reception, amendments were made to the American Health Care Act last night. And in the face of the CBO’s depressing report, the most significant change made by the GOP was to….wait for it….accelerate the tax cuts for the richest 2%.
That’s right…the response to the unfavorable CBO scoring was to repeal the net investment income tax — which assesses an additional 3.8% surtax on items like interest, dividends, rents and royalties of taxpayers earning more than $250,000 (if married, $200,000 if single) — and the 0.9% Medicare tax — which assesses an additional surcharge on earned income in excess of those same thresholds — retroactive to January 1, 2017, rather than wait for 2018 as the original bill proposed.
If you find yourself confused as to why the GOP would answer a negative CBO report by adding an additional $85 billion tax cut for the rich by moving the repeal date of the net investment income tax and additional Medicare tax forward one year, then you’ll really be scrambling to understand that one of the other major amendments to the bill further cuts Medicaid by, in part, allowing states to add a work requirement.
The official reason given for accelerating the tax breaks was to stimulate the economy. Because the net investment income tax is imposed on most sales of stock and business interests, GOP leadership suggested that repealing the taxes effective to January 1st of this year would incentivize taxpayers to sell their assets in 2017, rather than wait until 2018 when the repeal of the net investment income tax would save them 3.8%.
That argument rings a bit hollow, however. If the GOP were concerned solely with motivating taxpayers to sell their assets in 2017, the bill could have simply made the repeal of the two taxes effective on the date it is signed into law. After all, three months of 2017 are already done and dusted; it’s not like taxpayers can retroactively change their behavior and start selling stocks for January through March.
As a result, there has to be another reason the GOP saw fit to add an additional $85 billion tax break in the latest amendments to the health care bill. And in fact, there are three:
First, by accelerating tax breaks for the rich and further limiting Medicaid funding, the GOP hopes to make the bill more attractive to far-right conservatives who love the former and loathe the latter. If such moves swing even one Republican Senator who may have believed the original bill to be too liberal, $85 billion in lost tax revenue and some negative publicity will be a small price to pay if it means the bill may ultimately receive the required votes in the Senate.
Second, the additional tax breaks could have simply been placed into the bill as negotiating leverage. For example, if the bill moves to the Senate, the Senate could once again push back repeal of the net investment income tax and additional Medicare tax until 2018, and then use that additional $85 billion in tax revenue to pay for insurance premium subsidies for the poor or elderly. This may engender more support for the bill from moderate Republicans in the Senate.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly to GOP leadership, if the tax breaks are in fact here to stay, to the extent those larger tax breaks can be contained within the health care legislation, the more likely significant tax reform will be possible later in the year. Why?
The GOP would prefer to use the reconciliation process to push through tax reform, just as they intend to do with the health care bill. The reconciliation process is advantageous because it requires a simple majority of 51 Republican votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 votes normally necessary.
To use the reconciliation process, however, the bill cannot add to the deficit beyond a 10-year window, the so-called, “Byrd Rule.”
By accelerating the tax breaks in the health care bill, it increases the total lost tax revenue as part of that bill to nearly $1 trillion. This, in turn, reduces the baseline against which a subsequent tax reform bill will be measured by $1 trillion. And $1 trillion pays for a lot of tax breaks: up to a 10% reduction in the corporate tax rate, for example. In effect, because $1 trillion in tax cuts would be shifted to the health care bill, it gives the GOP $1 trillion in free tax breaks as part of the tax reform bill before running afoul of the Byrd rule.
To illustrate, assume that the projected 10-year deficit from 2017-2026 was $5 trillion (it is not) BEFORE the health care bill was passed. The health care bill, in total, is more-or-less deficit neutral, meaning that even WITH the $1 trillion in tax cuts, because of the changes to Medicaid spending and the premium tax credits, it won’t add to the $5 trillion projected deficit.
Next, when the GOP takes on tax reform, it will be tasked with again not adding to that deficit, but with $1 trillion in tax cuts having already been achieved through the healthcare bill. That’s not a bad start, particularly when the GOP is hoping to further slash individual and corporate tax rates while eliminating the estate tax.
Whatever their reasons for accelerating the tax breaks in the healthcare bill, as you might imagine, the amendments have done nothing to solve the inequities perceived the first time around with the original legislation. Earlier today, the Tax Policy Center issued a report containing some damning findings about the revised American Health Care Act’s progressivity. Specifically, the TPC determined that under the amended bill:
The average family with less than $10,000 of income in 2022 would be $1,420 worse off, a net reduction of more than 30% of the family’s income. While these families would experience a $210 tax cut — largely owing to the repeal of the individual mandate — the changes to Medicaid and the premium tax credit would cost them $1,630.
The average family with more than $200,000 of income in 2022, however, would be $5,640 better off, a net increase of 1.1% of the family’s income. These families would lose $40 in Medicaid funding and tax credits, but would benefit from the tax breaks — primarily the repeal of the net investment income tax and additional Medicare tax — to the tune of $5,680.
In total, 70.6% of the $1 trillion in tax cuts contained within the bill would fall to the richest 2%, those making more than $200,000 annually.
In total, 75% of the lost federal tax credits would impact families with income of less than $30,000.
In fairness, one of the amendments to the bill would allocate an additional $75 billion to be used to subsidize the insurance premiums of adults aged 50-64 — who were hardest hit by the original version of the bill — but those subsidies have yet to be formalized. Instead, the House has charged the Senate with devising the structure of the additional credits.
Tax breaks for the rich and lost credits for the poor may make for splashy headlines, but they do little to deter the passage of a bill; in fact, in this case they may actually expedite it. If the same Republicans who ridiculed the original American Health Care Act as “Obamacare-lite” jump on board with the new amendments, it may be enough to get the bill passed. And at the end of the day, that appears to be all that really matters to those who authored it.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Member George Soros contributed $2 million to the North American Man Boy Love Association. They are actively advocating for sex with children. Their byline is “Sex before eight or it is too late”. Please tell me how a seven year old can consent to having sex with an adult?