Friday

Concerns over Trump against Hitler - Part 1

There's been talk from many different people about how Trump is like Adolf Hitler. Don't believe it? I can hear all of his supporters groaning and complaining at full blast now, so calm down all. Again, I deal in reality and facts....so let's take a look at this doing fact checking. Now I've tried my best to get websites from Trump and the presidency where facts are about the wall. Unfortunately its not that easy.

The Wall:
Hitler
Credit - The yellow is Hitler's Border wall
Yes, they both wanted a wall. Hitler got his wall called the Atlantic Wall. Trump wants his wall along the Mexican border.

What was the Atlantic Wall? It was an extensive system of coastal defense and fortifications built by Nazi Germany between 1942 and 1944 along the coast of continental Europe and Scandinavia as a defense against an anticipated Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe from the United Kingdom during World War II.

Hitler's rationale was in "ordering additional men to the Islands and having decided the defences were inadequate, lacking tanks and coastal artillery, the Organisation Todt (OT) was instructed to undertake the building of 200-250 strongpoints in each of the larger islands." Take from the Atlantic Wall website.

Trump
While Trump isn't planning, or his public reasoning anyway, to build his wall for anything other than "national security of the United States.  Aliens who illegally enter the United States without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety." People are probably going to say these aren't the same things. Fine, then how would to take the next statement in the same document?

"Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a)  secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism;"
Credit The wall being considers and temporarily put up is the black line

This document is off the White House's website from an executive order folks. If you don't believe me then click on the links above and see where they go. I hate to tell you, they are both using the same reasoning for a wall but its just along very different borders.

Its a Match: Trump's rationale is very much like Hitler's if you take a look at each of these statements. Its for the defense in either regard.


Press Restrictions and Freedom of the Press
Hitler
There are more than one website which goes into how Hitler controlled the newspapers and radio. Before he was in power, he had controlled about 3 percent of the media. When he got into power, he decided what was to be written and by whom.  One history museum puts it like this:
Credit  - The last paragraph is almost the same as Trump's fake news comments
"Newspapers were greatly used by the Nazi Party to spread the party line. Newspapers were commonly purchased in an era that pre-dated television and along with the cinema and radiowas the primary mode of spreading information – information that the Nazi Party wanted to control. Hitlercame to power on January 30th 1933 and almost immediately set out plans that would give the Nazis total power over all newspapers. Once Chancellor, Hitler was in a position to implement from a propaganda viewpoint what he had written about in ‘Mein Kampf’".

It continues:
"...The Nazi regime deployed the radio, press, and newsreels to stoke fears of a pending “Communist uprising,” then channeled popular anxieties into political measures that eradicated civil liberties and democracy. SA (storm troopers) and members of the Nazi elite paramilitary formation, the SS, took to the streets to brutalize or arrest political opponents and incarcerate them in hastily established detention centers and concentration camps. Nazi thugs broke into opposing political party offices, destroying printing presses and newspapers."

Trump
Almost since the start of Trump's nomination, he's gone around bad mouthing reporters and the press. However, since he's took his oath as president where he gave his allegiance to protect our constitution, he's come right out and said "Fake News" that many times, its all you heard for MONTHS. Journalism is taking facts, putting some information around it and telling it how you see it. What the information is, is dependent on how the person or organisation see's what they are writing. This being said, there's always something that it factual about the news no matter what. 

This being said, if you take a look at the first amendment, it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 

I can hear people now saying "It says Congress NOT President get your facts right." I am looking for factual information but as you can imagine its tough. One article I found says: "As Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1789, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” and this is why so many are concerned about this step Trump has been taking and balancing on. In fact, many other presidents, starting with George Washington, have used the press to communicate to the people and a good reason why its there. This is the reason why there is a Press Secretary, so the president can get out his message. It is normal for one side to be upset what others write about it. I know I've watched over many different administrations and that's normal and the reason why the first amendment is there. 

Now getting back to "It says Congress NOT President" comment. If you remember the President takes an oath that states "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." and is part of Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution. It says preserve, protect and defend the Constitution not go after people who try and use this freedom. 

It does say "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" and "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." 

And according to Article 2, Section 1 of the US constitution, he cannot get rid of or cancel out our first amendment rights. Nice try. And he has tried to limit and get rid of the free press. Trump "suggestion that the FBI should “consider putting reporters in prison” has been decried as a dangerous new assault on press freedom and prompted a call to action by American journalists who have been jailed in the US for their work." which is trying to limit the press by jailing them for doing their jobs within their rights. Note: This isn't exactly what I had in mind but it does cover Trump's Tweet about the fake news and controlling the news. 

In fact, Nixon tried the same tack.
Credit

Its a Match:
If you look at what Hitler did when he controlled the newspapers and what Trump says in the video above, its the same thing just different words. The problem is Trump doesn't have control of the media (meaning newspapers, radio and TV) but if he could, the way he's talking it would be the same thing as what Hitler did and what Trump has been trying to do - control what's being shown on TV. From cancelling the Press Secretary's briefings, to calling everything in site "fake media" he's trying to control what's going on with what's being released. However, the people who follow him do not see this as the same thing. If you can't believe this then look at what he's been doing - rejecting all news media to have a sit down interview with him; however, only one channel he does this for - Fox News. Talk about control and I'm wondering if he's got stock or some other investment within this company to give them unprecedented access to the President. Its something worth thinking about. 



Part 1 Conclusion
As you can see, by using facts, there IS an eerie parallel between them. I'm not saying they are the same, but if we're not careful the US has serious reasons to be concerned because we could end up having the same problem as Germany back in the 1930's and 1940s. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Retreat/Reveille & Respect

Every night no matter where you are, the forces play retreat, also known as reveille, which you are supposed to stop what you're doing, be quiet and face the sun/where the flag is.

Its a sign of respect. Respect. Such a small word really but it means so much.

Respect is defined as:

  • a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
  • due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
  • admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
  • have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).

As a Navy brat, I grew up knowing what the sign is and how to show it respect.

Then you come to today where this person is supposed to be a role model. This is what you call a role model and deserves respect?


This isn't respect. If you don't believe me, look at the definition of the word. This is a way to make everything about Trump, his ratings and disrespecting our forces which is why we perform this ritual. 

This, below, is what you call respect even if you don't know what it is. 


As you can see, there is a HUGE difference between having respect and not. Knowledge and not. 

This is why I don't respect Trump. This is why respect is earned and he hasn't earned mine. 

Not. 
At. 
All. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday

To Knee or not to Knee: What's it about – THAT’S the question!

The United States or American is full of people telling it like it is. That’s fine, it’s written in our rights. Have you EVER read the First Amendment? 
As from the US Courts website: 

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech includes the right:
  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
  • West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
  • Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
  • Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
  • Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
  • Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
  • Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.
  • Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  • United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
  • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  • Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  • Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Credit
As you can see people have expressed their opinions in different ways. Protests about different things peaceful as well as violent. Some peaceful ones are:
  • The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom — August 28, 1963
  • An anti-Vietnam War protest in Washington DC — November 15, 1969
  • The Solidarity Day march in Washington, DC — September 19, 1981
  • The Anti-Nuclear March in New York City’s Central Park — June 12, 1982
  • The Million Man March in Washington, DC — October 16, 1995
  • The March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation — April 25, 1993
  • The Million Woman March in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — October 25, 1997
  • Protests against the Iraq war in America's largest cities— February 15-16, 2003
  • The March for Women’s Lives in Washington DC — April 25, 2004
  • Montgomery Bus Boycott - Montgomery, Ala.- 1955
  • Delano Grape Boycott - Delano, California - late 1960s
Yes, sometimes it’s gotten violent, but then people have come out to calm them down. Here are some violent ones: 
  • Police militarization and the death of an unarmed teen sparked riots in Ferguson, Missouri - August 9, 2014
  • The LA riots were the largest and most well-chronicled in American history - April 29, 1992
  • The little known riot of 1835 that shaped the American political landscape - August 1835
  • The Democratic National Convention riots that forever changed the public's perception of government Chicago, Illinois - summer of 1968
  • The Watts riots of 1965 were a pivotal point in the African-American Civil Rights Movement - August 1965 
  • The riots that paved the way for LGBT rights Greenwich Village   - June 28, 1969
  • The "Battle In Seattle" that was the precursor to the Occupy movement - November 1999
  • The riots that were a turning point for Latino culture in America  East LA - June 1943
  • Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 Wilmington, North Carolina - November 10, 1898
  • New York City Draft Riots New York - July 13, 1863
  • Battle of Blair Mountain southwest West Virginia  - August 1921
  • Richmond Bread Riots Richmond, Virginia - April 2, 1863
  • Battle of Athens Athens, Tennessee - August 1, 1946
  • Shays’ Rebellion  Springfield, Massachusetts - January 1787
All of these are because a group of people had something to protest against. In later years, usually within hours the president comes out and as people usually look up to him and agree the violence went too far but eventually it stops. 


With Trump? Nope. He tells us fault is on both sides even if one side wasn’t violent and had come looking for the nonviolent side.  Then he goes on to almost praise white supremacists? (Credit for first video below is from Time)


When Trump’s coming out didn’t seem to do anything but fuel this on, he spoke out again (see Trump's Twitter account for credit).


And this, as you can tell, is a scripted Trump. On many sides...hmmm what sides are they?
Since then, you can tell if it’s scripted he still gets his point across but its hidden. When it’s not scripted? Anything can happen.

Kneeling Protest
The latest thing Trump decided to take on was the kneeling in the NFL. In 2015, it was widely brought up when one of the players knelt in protest against rights he wanted to draw people’s attention to.

Credit Pictured is Colin Kaepernick, right, and Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers kneel in protest
People went up in arms and it was talked about. It was brought up as being disrespectful. However, it’s within our rights as American citizens.

The First Protest which Becomes Kneeling

Did you know the first protest was not kneeling, but sittingon the bench? It wasn’t noticed for 2 weeks. Yes, 2 weeks. Kaepernick (pictured above) did it for two weeks before being asked about it. He reasoning, which hasn’t changed, was due to how certain races were being treated and he was doing it in protest. He talked to his team and it was decided kneeling would be more respectful than sitting on the bench, so the next time he knelt, which is where the picture above was taken in Week 1 of the 2016 NFL season.

When Kneeling becomes political
Throughout the 2016 NFL season it was talked about, but people could see where he was coming from and it wasn’t violent or flashed in people’s faces. In fact, the only reason why it was brought up was because someone asked the question about why he did it.

Now we come to the 2017 NFL season. No one was talking about kneeling or anything until….



And then another followup.

This appeared. Then things went haywire. All of a sudden a calm, silent protest went to un-American and unpatriotic to say a few of them.  Now kneeling meant you didn’t respect the men and women who serve the country or the country itself. What the hell? It was never meant a protest or anything to do with the USA.

The kneeling thing was due to rights of a certain group of people moron. All it takes is a bit of research instead of spouting off at the mouth without looking it up or talking to the person who started it all. 

It was NEVER to do with America or the services of the USA. However, because of Trump’s tweet, and how uneducated and how forgetful people are, the so called president has made into this firestorm that never SHOULD have been.

In fact, my father, I and my family have all served in the military. My father, nephews, and uncles went in and signed up and did the time, but it was my family who kept the household going and dealt with moving, and all of their emotional crap when they got home. In fact, even after serving my father is still like he’s in the Navy, by the way it controls life, what he says and does. The way I look at it my father got out after serving his 20, but he’s in it for life.

Guess what? His family, even though we never signed on, is in it for life too. Trump did get one thing mostly right in a tweet. 


I've said this before, although the US has had some problems (but what people/country don't?), America was great and didn't have to become it again. It WAS great until Trump got in. 

By having Trump come out and say what he did? He dirtied that institution and everyone, including its families, which have served as much as the soldiers which signed on.

In a past blog, I’ve asked, when do you draw a line in thesand and stated I had enough with giving into the chances. If I hadn’t drawn a line then, I would now.  

Nothing should touch the soldiers, submariners, SEALs and many others which have freely given their lives and the families who have given up their loved ones either by death or by service, like mine has. Nothing. You use them to make a point felt, like this person has, and it’s a cheap shot that didn’t need to be done.

I thought I was the only one that felt this way…until others let their blood cool and spoke out as well.


Credit


From Facebook
My hat’s off to these people and I would gladly stand beside them in honor. Trump? I will never stand beside him. Ever.

Trump and laws on hiring/firing

Then Trump went even further in one of his next tweets. Misleading people as to the real reason why the kneeling was happening. 


Seriously? Fire people for protesting? And the main public servant is using his position to influence businesses? Crazy. I had to close my eyes, shake my head at this one. Then I asked myself could he do this? Was it against the law?

This is where it gets tricky. Why? Because Trump is playing with those First Amendment rights I've outlined at the start. To use a political magazine who deals with the law:
"If the president’s words are designed to trigger the legal suppression of citizen speech, he may likely be violating the First Amendment."
Then it goes on to say: 
"The president has also engaged in a verbal campaign designed to suppress speech that offends him. We know that speech cannot be censored merely because it is offensive."
This is the tricky part. Is he trying to censor speech (in a way) to limit the treatments of minorities? Or how the author of the article puts it:
"In some ways, Trump’s behavior is even worse than the Rhode Island commission’s. Whereas the commission aimed to suppress obscenity, a category of expression without legal protection, Trump’s ire is directed at core political speech protesting law enforcement’s unfair treatment of minorities. Trump’s allies have already begun organizing boycotts (for example, a “Turn off the NFL” campaign) to give teeth to the president’s intemperate attacks."
And what Trump IS doing IS working. I cringe again. What IS saving him?
"For all Trump’s braggadocio, there is no indication that he is invoking the law enforcement apparatus of the federal government to harass or sanction NFL players who are taking a knee."
Instead he's turning to the sports - NFL, NASCAR, Golf, etc to do his dirty work for him. Trump is using his marketing skills, and people's emotions, to get them to do his bidding. Its not law enforcement but business enforcement and marketing he's using. I wonder if in the future, he'll start awarding contracts to businesses, which are investigated (they are when dealing with the government) but will have an added line which is - did they kneel or how did they feel about it added in. Using this will be an excuse not do business, and in turn means costing businesses money, with them. Great influencer and its all done behind the scenes where no one will see it. 

I suggest more about this topic, read the article or else this would be even longer. 

For now, I turn on the news and start to see waves of people kneeling. Why? They are supporting their colleagues' freedom of speech. Again it’s within their rights. This does change the reason why people started the whole kneeling thing, but still the overall idea of why the kneeling started – in protest.
Credit

Credit

What people have taken it as?

Some think it disrespects the flag, anthem and its soldiers and again I cringe. Other's say this is what they, the veteran's, fought for - to have rights. 

The people who think this is disrespectful are just so wrong, but they are following a person, who by rights we should respect and follow but in this instance that doesn’t deserve the respect or to be followed – Trump.

In fact, LeBron James couldn't have said it any better.

There IS always this outlook to this whole situation as well (Credit):

Respect
People have even said, Trump deserves our respect. Really? First we have to start with what respect is. 
The definition of respect is:
  • a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
  • due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
  • have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).
  •  a way of treating or thinking about something or someone. If you respect your teacher, you admire her and treat her well.

And I was brought up that respect is earned. This person does NOT fit within the definition of respect and certainly hasn’t earned it.

Why put this on here?
Why do I put my opinion here? Because I've been verbally attacked and abused over social media. People do NOT what to hear facts, they want to hear what Trump, the salesperson and marketer tells people. He makes a play on people's emotions and not the facts. His facts are always tissue paper thin, but he gets away with it because he then insults people and plays on others emotions. He's done this for years in business, which is the way its done. Government, as he's finding out, is another ballpark altogether. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Trump – Chances and Vote for him I did NOT

Above has 4 people no longer working with Trump Credit for Picture
When Trump first won as President, I gave him a chance and tried to hear him out. However, the way he spoke and what he said, I took as very offensive. I think I’ve even put on this blog I’d take everything he said wrong and back it up with facts, but when someone spews so much misleading and false things, there was NO WAY I could keep up. I have better things to do with my time.

This being said, I was hopeful the power he now had gone to his head and hopefully, it would calm down and he’d become better. I gave him a chance. Then another. He then started calling people names. Then another chance.  He then started to fire anyone whoseemed to either not give him answers, someone to blame and then it got to the pointof not going to do what he said even if he was put there as a balance of powerby our founding fathers.

But when do you draw the final line in the sand and say “You’ve had enough f0cking chances!” and throw up your hands and give up? Yes, I got to this point within 5 months of his term. I gave up because he appeals to people’s feelings by spewing feelings and not facts. By calling people names and not facts. (Video below from YouTube.) Only he can tell you the insults. This is not someone I'd want to represent the USA, but here he is. Talk about unprofessional!

Could I have done the same as Trump does? Have I had the same name calling without facts done to me?  In person? Online? I hate to say it, but yes to it all. I’ve had people walk up to me once they hear my voice and ask me what the hell you [meaning me] the American people were thinking? Trump, really? I’ve overheard things when I worked temporarily in a job stating how can we trust her, she’s an American, she voted him in. Trump’s not trustworthy and he’s crazy. I’ve had sad looks thrown my way by people who have known me for twenty years.

My only comeback? I. Did. Not. Vote. For. Trump. This stuns people and I could tell by the mouths that fall open, the eyes that get wide.
Credit What people look like when I tell them. But my face looks like this when they approach me too.
I’ve had people and have seen world leaders online say the USA is a joke. Or the USA is becoming a joke. Or what is going on in the USA? And many other comments of the like and each one I have to agree with. The USA is now the laughing stock of the world when we used to be looked upon as great.

“Make America Great Again” how in the world can you say this when everyone considers you nothing but a joke? In fact, America has had its problems. This is true, but at least we still had some kind of standing other than “You’ve got to be kidding right?” My own answer? A grown.  A covering of my eyes with both hands and shoulders hunched over in defeat.

Credit
However, I believe this is the largest hurdle I have to employment which is very sad. How else can I explain that I’ve had job offers until they seen my educational history where it lists I grew up in New York USA. Then all of a sudden I’ve had jobs disappear into thin air right in front of me. It’s very scary and I feel very defeated. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday

The new US President & Planned Parenthood

As you can see by the posts in this blog, normally, I post only to say yes there's an election and this is how each person feels on each issue. I clearly get the information from their own websites and from their own mouths. If something seems cut in the video then I disregard it. Its fair and simple.

Then I can look at the issues without all the white noise and such from everyone. Then I make my choice. Again fair and simple. Usually its time for hope...
Taken from here

Then I usually don't post about them. I might say I didn't like this or that the president or Prime Minister said or did, but that's usually how far it goes. This time its different for the recent US elections.

Why?
Hell I give anyone and everyone chances. I figured ok, I didn't vote for the guy but I'll give him a shot - then spend time sitting there with my mouth hanging open as he goes on and on about how great he is and how he won. Yes, we all get that - now can you tell us what you called everyone here to talk about? After about 5 minutes I get board but keep an ear out for an actual piece of information - like what he called everyone here to talk about. I had done this on 2 separate occasions. And after each I still didn't know what he had wanted to say. Unless it was look at me, I'm great and I won. Yes, we got that part already established. It gets very frustrating.

After that, I was and am done. Especially after reading his tweets. If you were to take a pebble every time he says - I'm great, look at me, I won, I'm fantastic (and you can insert any other adjective word with the same meaning) - then add a pebble and add another one and soon you will get a pile. I can see him saying it once but every time? (note: I didn't watch his congress statement and its for the statement/rants/etc prior to this time.

Abortion Stand & Planned Parenthood
One of the first things he decided to go for was Planned Parenthood. As a Roman Catholic, I am against abortions just because someone got pregnant. Too bad, you did the deed now you sow the seed. Its a life just after implantation in my book.

However, to get rid of Planned Parenthood just because of abortion? Do people even know exactly what Planned Parenthood does? Everyone equates Planned Parenthood with abortion. I've even had people state

"Just like the abortion thing, the executive order does not stop abortion it stops the government from paying for it for the purpose of family planning. I agree with it 100% why should I pay for someone I had nothing to do with to have an abortion just because they decide they don't want a child. You maybe ok with bull shit media, I myself am not and look at the true facts of this stuff."

Yes, this is an exactly quote from a friend in the US. It floored me by how they didn't know the laws and how, even in this day and age, they didn't even do research on it.

I agree, the government should not pay for the purpose of family planning. The friend and I both agree. However, what Planned Parenthood does and can pay for with federal funds? Its not these types of abortions my friend outlines.

From me - Full Disclosure
I did have an abortion. Did I want one? NO WAY. Did I fight not to have one? YES and was overruled. So why did I have one? Because it was an ectopic pregnancy and if I did not have it, I would have died. As I've said to a few friends, if I had become pregnant after the new president's legislation comes into effect, I would be dead and my husband a widow. Keep reading and I will explain.

How can I be sure Planned Parenthood doesn't spend money on this?
Its as easy as looking up the Hyde Amendment. The what amendment I can hear you asking and saying. Yes, people there is an amendment called the Hyde Amendment.

From the Congress' website:
"Hyde Amendment Codification Act - Prohibits the expenditure for any abortion of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law.

Prohibits the use of federal funds for any health benefits coverage that includes abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, and plans receiving federal funds must keep them segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician."

Henry Hyde
This law has been around since September 30, 1976 and was put there by the House of Representatives (voting was 207-167). It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois
and this information was taken from Wikipedia.


Which is exactly what my friend and I both agree on.  However, for some reason, people are under the impression Planned Parenthood uses federal funds on all types of abortions - those outlined above and the type my friend mentions. Reality? They can't or else their funding would be denied.

The New President's legislation - H.R. 7
The president had said during the debates that any abortions should be. Then he tried to change them up a bit during the rallies. However, have you actually read what the legislation he signed (Yes, the president had moved swiftly on this one) is actually about? The legislation is called H.R. 7 is titled

"No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017

January 24, 2017
(House)

H. R. 7 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017
(Rep. Smith, R-New Jersey, and 47 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 7. The legislation would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law to be expended for any abortion, or for direct payments to insurers for health benefits coverage that includes coverage for abortions. H.R. 7 also would prohibit the purchase of abortion coverage with matching funds from federally subsidized programs, including Federal and State Medicaid funds. The legislation would not relate to the treatment of any complication caused by or worsened by an abortion, nor to the treatment of abortions in the case of rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother. This bill would continue to prohibit the Federal government from paying for affected procedures with the taxes of Americans who find abortion morally or religiously objectionable."

Yes, this is the legislation that he signed in everyone.  Again it says "the legislation would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law to be expended for any abortion". Remember I told you I'd be dead and my husband a widow? I wouldn't have been able to get federal help if I had no funds to get an abortion. This meant I couldn't have an abortion. This meant I would be DEAD.

When Trump first started to sign things and they outlined them on White House's website, it was easy to find. However, when I went to look for them for this post? Not so easy to find. I'm only throwing it out there - was it on purpose or was it to bury it? The change in the website is quite huge.

All the legislation and links go to government websites. Don't believe me though - google H.R.7 or no taxpayer funding for abortion or even Hyde Amendment.   You will get the information and see how correct I am...

As for the bull shit media, well some of it is and some isn't bull shit. This when I quoted is not bull shit unless you think I didn't get it from Congress and the White House's websites - unless you think what they put on their websites is bull shit?

Most people who know me, know I tell the truth and I don't screw around. Lately, I don't have the time or energy to screw around or any reason to lie. To me, information and knowledge is power. Those without the information needs to get the power which is why I wrote this post.

Edited to add:
As of  March 6, 2017, Trump now says hes willing to fund Planned Parenthood if they stop abortions. Here is the article. My question is - what type of abortions? Then again he could change his mind too...he's good like that.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)