Libertarian doctors start their own clinic, post all their prices online, and charge way, way, way less than everyone else
Can you imagine what would happen to the price of gasoline, if you couldn’t see the price until after you put it into your car? The price would skyrocket like crazy.
Same thing with groceries, clothing, and well, pretty much anything.
Right now, health care is the only industry where most customers don’t get to see the prices until after the service has already been provided. This is why prices are so absurdly high.
The health care clinic in this article and video is completely different. They list all of their prices online, so customers can see how much everything costs before they actually get the service. As a result, the prices charged by this clinic are way, way, way less than what everyone else charges.
This is a wonderful policy.
In my opinion, the government should require all health care providers to post all of their prices online.
Here’s an article and a video about this particular clinic:
Starbucks recently announced that it will hire 10,000 refugees worldwide over the next five years.
I agree with Starbucks.
It is extremely important for refugees to be assimilated into their new home. Besides learning the language of their new home, obtaining a job is the most important part of this assimilation.
Refugees – real refugees, that is – are fleeing from horrifying atrocities that most of us cannot comprehend.
A real refugee is someone who is very much opposed to the policies of the country from which they fled. A real refugee does not try to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
For example, consider this story of real refugee Brigitte Gabriel:
Brigitte Gabriel, born October 21, 1964, is a conservative American journalist, author, political lecturer, anti-Islamic activist, and founder of two non-profit political organizations, the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. She has given hundreds of lectures and frequently speaks at American conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Christians United for Israel, Evangelicals, and Jewish groups.
Her sometimes controversial statements include that Islam keeps countries backward and that it teaches terrorism.
Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She recalls that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family’s house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food. She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers.
According to Gabriel, at one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine.
Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She says of the experience:
“I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen…These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped.”
Brigitte Gabriel is a real refugee. She has assimilated very well. She has not tried to turn the U.S. into the same kind of hellhole form which she fled. I support letting real refugees like her into the U.S.
I will gladly support the U.S. taking in one million real refugees like her each and every year.
By comparison, a fake refugee is someone who refuses to assimilate, and instead, tries to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
There are plenty of fake refugees living in the city of Hamtramck, Michigan. The reason that I call them fake refugees instead of real refugees is because instead of assimilating into their new home, they are passing laws that force their way of life on to the long term residents of their new home.
According to this article from the Washington Post, Hamtramck is the first Muslim majority city in the U.S., and Muslims make up the majority of its city council. So far, this Muslim majority city council has done at least two things to force the rest of the city to adopt the Muslim way of life.
First, the city council banned business owners within 500 feet of any of the city’s mosques from obtaining a liquor license.
Secondly, the city gave all of these mosques an exemption from the city’s noise ordinance, so they can use electronic amplification to loudly broadcast the Muslim call to prayer five times a day, every day. Residents who live near these mosques have complained that this wakes them up at 6 a.m.
It is because of these two things – things where the Muslims have used the government to force their way of life on to unwilling participants – that I refer to them as fake refugees instead of real refugees.
If liberals want U.S. citizens to be more tolerant of refugees, then I suggest that liberals put an end to this kind of nonsense, instead of supporting it, as they currently do.
I support taking in real refugees – the kind who want to assimilate, and who would never try to turn their new home into the kind of hellhole from which they have fled.
I have nothing against real refugees who want to practice Islam on their own, without forcing it on to unwilling participants.
But when fake refugees use the government to force their way of life onto the long term residents of their new home, such as by banning liquor licenses in their new home, and by using electronic amplification to loudly force their call to prayer into the homes of unwilling participants who are trying to sleep, then no, I don’t want them – these fake refugees – in our country.
If liberals want people to be more welcoming to refugees, then liberals need to acknowledge this distinction between real refugees and fake refugees.
There’s a video at the link where they interview this brave hero, but it’s not a YouTube video, so I can’t imbed it. But here’s a picture of this awesome guy from his interview:
Armed Citizen Who Threw Wallet to Distracted Suspect: ‘That’s When I Lit Him Up’
January 29, 2017
An armed citizen, who was in Detroit’s E&S Carry Out Shrimp Shack during an alleged robbery, says he threw his wallet on the floor, and when the robbery suspect looked away to retrieve it, the citizen shot him.
The incident occurred around 5:45 p.m. on January 21.
According to ClickonDetroit.com, the armed citizen is a concealed carry permit holder going only by “Dennis” to protect his privacy. He was in the Shrimp Shack with his girlfriend, Latanya, when an alleged armed robbery suspect came in and ordered everyone to hand over their “cash.” Dennis and his girlfriend “and another customer started throwing their money and wallets on the floor.”
The suspect allegedly pointed his gun at Latanya’s face but was distracted by the wallets on the floor and looked away to pick them up. Dennis used the brief distraction as an opportunity to draw his own gun and shoot the suspect in the stomach.
Dennis said, “When I saw he had the gun in her face, and I threw my wallet down and keys, he turned to look and get the money, that’s when I lit him up.” He then “kicked the robber’s gun away” and tended to the wounded suspect until first responders arrived.
Following the incident, Dennis made clear that he did not have a specific plan to distract the suspect, but he took advantage of the situation when the distraction occurred. He added, “Even though you give them everything, they’ll still shoot you, and I wasn’t going out like that.”
WWJ reports that Detroit police said Dennis will face no charges for his actions; he “acted in self-defense.”
Apparently, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman has never heard of the Boston Marathon bombing, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the D.C. snipers, etc.
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman recently tweeted the following question:
“Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?”
I usually say that asking questions is a good thing, because I am very much in favor of curiosity and learning.
However, for a New York Times reporter to ask such a question in the year 2017 is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. For this person with this job to ask this question in this year proves that this New York Times reporter is completely clueless as to what has been happening in this country for the past decade and a half, and thus, is not qualified to hold the job of a New York Times reporter.
For the record, here are some terrorist attacks that happened in the U.S. after the 9-11 attacks, and involved at least one perpetrator who was an immigrant:
Trump’s immigration ban is already harming American science
Iranian scientists have been a major boon to everything from Mars exploration to Ebola-fighting to advanced mathematics.
January 29, 2017
Samira Asgari had been preparing for the trip for months. She had just earned her Ph.D. from a Swiss university and was ready to start a postdoctoral fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, studying how a person’s genes affect our response to tuberculosis. But on Saturday morning, at Frankfurt Airport, she was intercepted by an American consulate, who stopped her from boarding her plane to Boston. “He said that it’s the U.S. government who issues the visa, and if they change their mind, the visa isn’t valid,” she says.
They had indeed changed their mind. On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering America under any visa, for at least 120 days. Asgari, who is Iranian, was sent back to Switzerland. Having given up her apartment in anticipation of the move, she has nowhere to stay. To make matters worse, her luggage is missing.
Liberal hypocrites never complained about how Obama’s Syrian refugee policy discriminated against Christians
Liberals – justifiably so – have been complaining about how Trump wants to discriminate against Muslim immigrants.
However, these same liberals were completely silent when Obama discriminated against Christian immigrants.
However, on November 30, 2015, it was reported that during the previous two weeks (i.e., the two weeks immediately after Islamic terrorists murdered 130 people in Paris) of the 132 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration had admitted into the U.S., 100% of them were Muslim, and 0% of them were Christian.
But there was not a peep from liberals about this religious discrimination.
In May 2016, the Obama administration admitted 1,035 Muslim refugees from Syria into the U.S., but only two Christian refugees from that same country.
Again, silence from liberals regarding this religious discrimination.
From early to mid August 2016, the Obama administration admitted 1,575 Muslim refugees from Syria into the U.S., but only 12 Christian refugees from that same country.
And again, no complaints from liberals about this religious discrimination.
Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi is a Muslim preacher from Syria who has called for homosexuals to be executed. In March 2014, Obama gave him a visa so he could spread his message to mosques in 17 U.S. cities.
This one is especially concerning. Why did Obama want this guy in the U.S.?
For a lot more nonsense like this from Obama, please see this blog post that I wrote, which is called “Here are 36 reasons why I would not be surprised if Obama wanted Iran to destroy Israel.”
Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal
January 27, 2017
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.
While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.
Video shows the U.S. president groping a woman. But the President is Clinton, not Trump, so the political left is perfectly OK with it.
Here’s a video of the U.S. President groping a woman, when he mistakenly thought the camera was turned off.
If this was President Trump, the political left would, justifiably so, be very upset.
But it’s not President Trump. It’s President Clinton. And to those on the political left, that makes it perfectly acceptable.
Also, note the ABC News logo on the bottom right corner. The video’s description at YouTube refers to the video as “uncovered ABC footage,” which suggests that it was never aired at all, on any local or national news broadcast. If this had been Trump, the national mainstream media would be playing this clip all across the country, day and night, for a very long time. But since it’s Clinton, that kind of media exposure didn’t happen, so almost no one knows about it. Media bias at its finest.
Linda Sarsour organized the recent women’s march.
Below is a screen capture of a tweet that she made, which says the following:
“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”
And this woman is a role model for millions of U.S. women?
In my opinion, that’s pretty scary.
She also made this tweet, which says
“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”
and this tweet, which says
“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”
and this tweet, which says
“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”
So there you have it. Millions of U.S. women support a woman who wants the U.S. to adopt a legal system that bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s.
Of course, immigration patterns prove that women overwhelmingly prefer living in the U.S. over Saudi Arabia. I’ve never heard of any woman who was born in the U.S. who chose to permanently move to Saudi Arabia. But I have heard of plenty of women who were born in Saudi Arabia who chose to permanently move to the U.S.
Sarsour herself was born in Brooklyn. I’m glad she was born in the U.S., because she has far more rights and freedoms here than she would in Saudi Arabia. It’s too bad that she mistakenly thinks that women women are better off in Saudi Arabia than in the U.S. I hope she will reconsider her position.
Huffington Post says it’s “Islamophobic” to say women’s march organizer Linda Sarsour supports Sharia law, but doesn’t mention her tweets that support Sharia law
The Gateway Pundit recently published this article about Linda Sarsour, who organized the recent women’s march against Donald Trump. The article states that Sarsour supports Sharia law, and as evidence, includes these two tweets:
The Huffington Post responded by publishing this article, which says that the Gateway Pundit and other websites had
“… deployed classic Islamophobic tactics in trying to discredit Sarsour, claiming… that she supports the spread of Sharia in the U.S….”
Nowhere in that article does the Huffington Post actually say anything about Sarsour’s two tweets.
Saturday Night Live writer Katie Rich says of Donald Trump’s 10-year-old son: “Barron will be this country’s first homeschool shooter”
Katie Rich, SNL writer, smears Barron Trump as ‘country’s first homeschool shooter’ on Twitter
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Saturday Night Live writer Katie Rich is taking heat after targeting President Donald Trump’s preteen son in an Inauguration Day tweet.
“Barron will be this country’s first homeschool shooter,” Ms. Rich, 33, wrote from her Twitter account Friday amid festivities surrounding Mr. Trump’s swearing-in.
The jab was visible on the writer’s Twitter page for around three hours Friday before Ms. Rich deleted the tweet and set her account to private.
Screenshots of the comment continued to circulate online through Saturday morning, however, spurring condemnation and calls for Ms. Rich’s termination.
“Sick jokes about a 10 year old are classless and go way too far,” opined Twitter user Parker Waters, a self-described photojournalist from New Orleans.
“If you look way, way, up, you can almost see the low road,” Toronto Star columnist Lorrie Goldstein said in a tweet of his own directed toward Ms. Rich.
Barron Trump is not homeschooled, in fact, but attends Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School in New York City. He and his mother, Melania Trump, are expected to stay in Manhattan until his semester ends in the spring.
A petition on Change.org calling for NBC to fire the writer from Saturday Night Live had garnered more than 500 signatures by Saturday morning. Ms. Rich’s Wikipedia page, meanwhile, was briefly vandalized to describe her as a “talentless hack that bullies 10 year olds.”
Efforts to reach NBC for comment Saturday were not immediately successful. The network is slated to air a new episode of SNL late Saturday night.
Mr. Trump has frequently critiqued both NBC and SNL in recent months amid being regularly parodied on the long-running comedy program by actor Alec Baldwin.
“Saturday Night Live is the worst of NBC. Not funny, cast is terrible, always a complete hit job. Really bad television,” Mr. Trump tweeted after last week’s episode.
After 8 Years Of Unbroken War, Obama Hands Over Conflicts To Trump
January 18, 2017
Among the many things President Obama will be handing off to his successor this week: stubborn wars in three separate countries.
Obama came to office eight years ago vowing to end U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet President-elect Trump stands to inherit the nation’s longest war ever in Afghanistan, as well as renewed fighting in Iraq that has spread to Syria.
The outgoing president was reminded of the persistence of those wars at the pomp-filled farewell ceremony the Pentagon put on for him him earlier this month at a nearby military base.
“Mr. President, we’ve been at war throughout your tenure,” said Gen. Joesph Dunford, chosen by Obama in 2015 to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “That’s a period longer than any other American president.”
That’s right: Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure.
217 people who used Trump’s inauguration as an excuse to commit violence, arson, vandalism, etc., could each get 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine
I hope that each and every person who used Trump’s inauguration as an excuse to commit violence, arson, vandalism, etc., gets the maximum penalty that the law calls for. And if that ends up being 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, then so be it. Actions have consequences.
These are federal charges. If they try to skip out on bail, there will be serious consequences from law enforcement. They could get raided at home in the middle of the night, or at their place of employment, or at their school. They’d best show up at their appointed court date.
Many Arrested Inauguration Day Protesters Will Face Felony Rioting Charges, Prosecutors Say
January 21, 2017
WASHINGTON (CBSNEWS/AP) – Most of the approximately 230 protesters arrested on Inauguration Day will be charged with felony rioting, federal prosecutors said.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the offense is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. The office said most of those arrested will be released without having to post bail and must return to court in February.
A first group of 10 men appeared in Superior Court just before 3 p.m., and their lawyer entered a not guilty plea on their behalf. A judge released all of them on the condition they not get re-arrested in the District of Columbia.
Interim D.C. police chief Peter Newsham said Friday that 217 people were being charged with rioting.
The arrests took place in a four-block stretch of downtown Washington around the time of President Trump’s swearing-in ceremony.
The arrests came after some protesters created chaos. Windows of downtown businesses were smashed, and police deployed pepper spray and “sting balls” against the crowd.