Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Clock Boy Stuns Country With MASSIVE Announcement

BREAKING: Bomb-Clock Boy Stuns Country With MASSIVE Announcement… WE WERE RIGHT

Our worst fears about the Muslim boy who made a “clock” and brought it to school may have just been confirmed via a tweet sent on Monday from his personal account in which he re-tweeted a Dallas headline stating that the boy and his family were heading to Qatar to participate in an event sponsored by the Qatar Foundation for Education.

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, the patriarch of the family, said in a statement about the invitation: “The last few weeks have been truly life-changing for my son Ahmed and for our family.”

According to the family, they were invited by the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development. The organization, which routinely gives to educational causes, is related to the Qatar Foundation International Institution.

QFI recently granted $75,000 to the Arabic Immersion Magnet School in the Houston Independent School District for “Arabic language activities and Arab cultural events for students, teacher professional development, educational resources, promotion of the Arabic language, community outreach, and curriculum development to promote the educational mission of the Arabic Immersion Magnet School.” (H/T Breitbart)

QFI was founded by Al Jazeera creator Sheik bin Al Thani and is very closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Promoted Links by Revcontent

The now famous Mohamed was offered “a tour of Education City, a five-square-mile cluster of universities and think tanks in the Qatari capital, Doha.” Ahmed’s father stated that he wanted to take the boy on a pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city, Mecca, while they were in the Middle East.

After immersion in their “roots” the family claims they will finally retrieve the clock that Irving police repeatedly asked the family to pick up more than a week ago.

According to his uncle Aldean Mohamed, the boy needs his clock-in-a box “to take to the president,” who tweeted Ahmed a White House invitation.

The first place this “innocent” student visits out of the country after all of his media attention is a Muslim state at the invitation of an organization with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hmmm.

Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about this boy’s planned travels.

Tuesday, September 29th, 2015



Sent from my iPhone

Regulated out of Existence: Off-Gridders Forced back on the Grid, Camping on own land Illegal

Regulated out of Existence: Off-Gridders Forced back on the Grid, Camping on own land Illegal

This article was originally published by Robert Richardson at Off Grid Survival.

offgrid-th

It’s something we’ve reported on many times in the past – government agencies trying to regulate Off-Grid living out of existence. Throughout the country, local zoning officials have made it impossible for people to go off the grid, in many cases even threatening them with jail time for not hooking into local utilities.

Because of zoning laws that target the off-grid lifestyle, many off-gridders have moved to areas in the Southwestern United States to escape overzealous zoning officials. But this week, off- gridders were dealt another blow in an area of the country that has become a magnet for people looking to live a more self-reliant lifestyle.

Is Costilla County, Colorado Banning Off-Grid Living?

There is a battle brewing in Costilla County, Colorado

offgrid1

During the last couple of years, Costilla County, Colorado has seen a huge influx in people moving into the San Luis Valley – must of who have moved there to live off the grid. A combination of cheap land, lax zoning regulations, and a community of self-reliant individuals has brought in a large number of off-grid homesteaders into the area. But that life-style is now being threatened as government officials move to make it illegal — something that is becoming a real problem for those who are looking to buy rural land.

Costilla County, Colorado Bans camping on your own Land; Zoning Officials attempt to make people hook back into the grid.

offgrid2

Last week tensions reached a boiling point, as a scheduled county commissioners’ meeting in San Louis, Colorado, turned into an ugly shouting match between sheriff deputies and off-grid homesteaders. The conflict comes as the county is attempting to ban camping, and force off-grid home owners back on to the grid.

Twenty-year resident Paul Skinner summed it up at the planning commission meeting, “We are residents who have come to live off the grid. It’s all our land.” … “These are harsh economic times. We have nowhere to go.”

“We’ve been regulated out of life,” resident Robin Rutan told CPR. “I came here because I couldn’t live by the codes [in other regions]”

offgrid3

One of the issues that is causing the biggest outcry is the county’s refusal to issue camping permits, which the county is now requiring residents have if they are living in an RV, or camp-style home. This is a big problem for off-gridders, many of whom either live in RVs, tiny-homes, or tents as they build their permanent homes.

Other changes to the code would require water, sewer and electricity to be installed prior to building permits being issued – something that local residents say specifically targets those who came here to live off-the-grid.

Local Residents Shares why they moved to the area, and how the county is attempting to move them out.

Self-Reliant Lifestyle Being Targeted for Extinction

offgrid4

From the White House using race to change national zoning laws and define who can live in certain neighborhoods, to global corporations using eminent domain to steal homes, to the city of Seattle trying to ban single-family homes, there is a war on self-reliance brewing. It’s becoming harder and harder for independent, freedom-minded people to find somewhere to live without having to worry about government intrusion. It seems freedom loving Americans are under attack from every direction.

I’ve covered story after story…

Follow Off Grid Survival via their RSS Feed or Facebook Page.



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, September 28, 2015

HOUSE SPEAKER CANDIDATE DANIEL WEBSTER

EXCLUSIVE — HOUSE SPEAKER CANDIDATE DANIEL WEBSTER DETAILS PLAN TO REFORM CONGRESS IN 100 DAYS: ‘I’M THE ONLY ONE PROMOTING’ A ‘PRINCIPLES-DRIVEN PROCESS’

AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL)
, a candidate for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives against House Majority Leader 
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
, tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview exactly how he plans to reform Congress.

“I have one desire: That is to have a principle-based, member-driven Congress. Period. That’s what I want,” Webster said via phone over the weekend.

Really, right now, the default of every legislative body I’ve been to—and I’ve been to a lot of them—is a power-based system as opposed to principle-based. That works too, you can do it that way where a few people at the top of the pyramid make all of the decisions. We’d rather see a flattened down pyramid of power and spread out the base so every member has an opportunity to be successful.

Webster, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives before his election to the U.S. House, ran against at the beginning of this Congress. He was nearly successful in forcing the race to a second ballot, which would have ultimately in all likelihood cost Boehner his speakership. But Boehner survived to begin this Congress, and as Boehner has failed throughout the year he has lost more and more support among Republicans to the point where he has resigned to avoid an vote to oust him.

Webster, along with McCarthy, have declared their candidacies for the Speakership.

Webster says he wants to substantively change the way business is done by pushing power out of the Speaker’s office out to the American people. McCarthy has yet to lay out for the public how he would do business if elected, but initial indications show that McCarthy will likely have to cooperate with the more conservative wing of the conference if he wants to survive in leadership.

Conservatives, through Ohio ’s House Freedom Caucus and Iowa ’s Conservative Opportunity Society, have enough votes to deny anyone who won’t cooperate with them the Speakership. They do not, however, have enough votes to elect a conservative as Speaker of the House. But that doesn’t mean their power, used smartly as both major collectives of conservatives have indicated they will do, can’t influence the process.

Webster views his plan for making a member-driven, principle-based system rather than a power-based system as much better for the long haul for a troubled Congress.

“In doing that, it creates—not only do you push down the pyramid of power, but you also create an opportunity to make decisions based on principle,” Webster told Breitbart News.

If you don’t, power and principle cannot co-exist. You can either have one, or you can have the other. But not both. Principle says it’s not who put forth an idea. It’s not the position of the person who put forth an idea, it’s not the longevity of the person or the party of the person. That’s not what it is at all. In a power system, that’s the way it works. But in a principle system, it’s what it says. So an idea is judged on what an item, a bill, an amendment—whatever it is—says as opposed to who the sponsor is.

Webster laid out for Breitbart News how, as Speaker of the Florida House, he did exactly what is aiming to do in the U.S. House.

“I changed that system in Florida when I was the Speaker of the House—I was the Minority Leader, I saw for 16 years the way a power system works,” Webster said.

We’d wait until the last day or two and then we’d put forward the only option there is and then everybody has to stomach it—and you’ve got to run these created exponential train wrecks. And they’re done purposefully to create the outcome you want it to be. A principle system says, ‘no, you know what we ought to do? We ought to do the most important issues first rather than wait until the end so there is more time to vet the issues.’ And in the end what happens? You have a much better policy with less unintended consequences because there’s more eyes, more opportunities, more discussion, more amendments, more debate—all of those things lead to a more principled approach to every issue. That’s it. That’s what I’d like to do. That’s totally different from where we are right now.

Webster said that everyone from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans—ranging from Democratic National Committee chairwoman 

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
to —can attest to the success of his vision for the House should run.

“I think you could ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I think you could ask Bill Posey—both of whom were there [when I was Florida House Speaker]—I think they both would tell you the same thing. It could work,” Webster said.

To succeed in leading this way, Webster says, it’s all about dealing with major problems up front—rather than waiting until deadlines to handle the nation’s most pressing issues. That means no more crisis to crisis governance, the style of leadership Boehner used to employ. That starts with the appropriations process and getting the government off these wild ride omnibus spending bills and Continuing Resolutions that kick the can down the road.

“The key is to take up the most important issues first. Instead of squandering the first hundred days, if we began with the Appropriations process—we began with the Appropriations process, that’s number one. If you’re an Appropriations Committee member, you’d work day and night,” Webster said.

You’re going to work hard—they do work hard now, but they’re going to have to work harder up front. They’re going to have to produce bills. And as you’re producing them, you’re going to tell the Senate that there’s not going to be any CRs—there’s not going to be any CRs. That’s our position, get ready to negotiate with conferees. Keep pushing and pushing, as the bills come out get ready to go. That’s the Appropriations process—and I think that the earlier you do it, the more opportunity you have to come up with a conference-able bill.

Secondly, Webster says, it’s about taking up reauthorization bills early and then getting them into the best possible shape before sending them to the Senate and eventually to the president.

“Second, there are so many things that run to the edge which are the reauthorizations. They go right to the edge and finally you do a CR there,” Webster said.

Somehow, it’s 10 or 15 or 20 years before you do anything right after all these short term extensions. Instead, we ought to lay out a plan and say okay, here’s the ones we should do right away. Some might take longer. But you lay out a plan and say a three-year plan or a two-year plan and say this is what we can do. We can do the transportation packages like the highway bill and the water bill and we can do some of these other areas—a farm bill—whatever it is, we lay out a schedule and we put that committee to work to do that. And in the end there’s a stick—and the stick is we’re going to enforce the rule. You cannot fund a provision that has not been reauthorized. If you don’t put it in place now, and you wait and say  if you don’t get them done by this day and this time, then we’re going to enforce it. And I think that becomes the stick phase to get this done.

Thirdly, Webster said, Congress needs to return to regular order where member bills are taken up in committees and there aren’t new rules written for every bill—like what has happened under Boehner’s leadership—so the process is fair to everyone.

“And then thirdly, you begin with the committees meeting and taking up member bills using the current rules as opposed to meeting and writing rules, passing a rule for one bill, voting on the rule for one bill then taking up the bill and debating that, maybe amendments maybe not depending on how controversial it is and then finally we vote on whatever amendments there are plus the bill,” Webster said.

Instead, you follow the rules that just say the bills that come out of committee, the chairman picks out the important ones and you start with the ‘A’ which I guess would be Agriculture. And you get a bill and as you move through them in alphabetical order, and you get actual bills coming out of committee then you vote them and then you start all over again. You begin running through member bills. Those three things are allowed when you have a plan up front and you have a schedule for all these authorizations that need to take place.

Webster said these principles-driven rather than power-driven solutions to a broken Congress are “only a novel idea because we don’t do it that way.”

“But it’s really—people talk about regular order,” Webster said. “You combine all of those things, some people talk about regular order on one bill. We’re talking about regular order for the entire session and that’s what it would be.”
Webster aims to have, within 100 days of being elected Speaker should he get the job, most of this done.

“I want to do a good portion of what I just said within 100 days,” Webster said.

He said this should be very easy for members to support, and the only reason anyone hangs on to the old way of doing business is because Boehner’s way was “institutionalized.”

“The reason the other system is easy to hold onto is because it’s been institutionalized,” Webster said. “It’s not just the members, it’s the institution itself. It’s become lethargic and it’s become power-based and it’s become adopted as the status quo. And so, you’re not just fighting individual members in certain positions—you’re fighting the institution itself. But it’s the right thing to do.”

Webster knows he is the underdog against McCarthy, but could pull out a victory should the American people rise up yet again—or should McCarthy aim to resort back to business as usual. McCarthy could nip any challenge in the bud by making significant concessions to conservatives, things he’s not yet formally done though he has—sources tell Breitbart News—made significant efforts to make inroads with conservatives in the early stages of this process.

“I realize that there is—that I would start at a disadvantage, because I don’t have a position now,” Webster said. “But I believe in what I just told you. I have the opportunity to promote that and I hope I can—but calling is it. You have to call—and that’s a big explanation, what I just gave you, to get people to support you but I’m still pressing on.”

When asked if the public can help him with this long shot bid to fix Congress, Webster said yes—if people call their Congressmen and “tell them to vote for Daniel Webster.”

“Tell them to vote for a member-driven, principles-based process. I think I’m the only one promoting that—actually, I’m sure I am,” Webster said.



Sent from my iPhone

Boehner Betrayed His Party

Boehner Betrayed His Party

In The Arena

Why the Speaker's resignation is great news for conservatives.

By Michael A. Needham

“We want to give Boehner a governable majority so the crazies you hate will be irrelevant.”

This is how the Washington Republican Establishment talks to its K Street allies. It’s a quote from last October when a Republican campaign operative told the business community why it was important for Republicans to capture 245 House seats. The establishment isn’t focused on marginalizing liberal lawmakers trying to grow the size and scope of government. They want to marginalize conservative lawmakers fighting to keep the reasonable promises they have made to their constituents.

Story Continued Below

The friction of the last several years has not been about differences in tactics. It has been about deep and irreconcilable disagreements over the goals the GOP should pursue. It has been a dispute over how much the center-right should try to disrupt the status quo. Armed with his 245-seat majority, Speaker John Boehner opted against pursuing any reform agenda. He ignored the hopes and dreams of those Republican voters who delivered the GOP control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and instead pushed the agenda of Washington’s ruling class.

The legislative history validates this thesis. 

Those within Speaker Boehner’s tight-knit circle will point to the “accomplishments” of the past nine months as reasons why he’ll be missed. But take a look what the House has done this year and it’s not hard to understand conservatives’ frustrations with the Speaker’s leadership: a permanent “doc fix” that increases Medicare spending over the next two decades by $500 billion and took crucial leverage for Medicare reform off the table forever; a House-passed reauthorization of No Child Left Behind despite the objections of conservatives advocating reforms to eliminate Department of Education mandates. Not a single Republican ran on these priorities in 2014, yet aside from small-ball bills addressing business community concerns like authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline, they’ve been the central pillars of the Republican agenda.

But it could have been worse. Despite his best efforts, the Speaker wasn’t able to roll conservatives on some of his biggest priorities. For years, he hoped to cut a “grand bargain,” trading spending cuts for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases. Conservatives would not let him, and pressure from the grassroots forced the House instead to work toward the 2011 Budget Control Act, a package of cuts-only reforms that the Speaker has only tried to undermine ever since. And on comprehensive immigration reform—code-talk for amnesty—the Speaker never hid his views: “I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue. And I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground.” As recently as last September, Speaker Boehner told Hugh Hewitt that he was trying to “create an environment where you could do immigration reform in a responsible way next year.” It’s taken years of dedicated opposition by conservatives to prevent the Speaker’s push for amnesty from coming to fruition. 

These were the fights John Boehner wanted to pick. Yet when conservatives have pressed Speaker Boehner to advance their own priorities, they have faced resistance from leadership every step of the way. 

After President Obama’s reelection, Speaker Boehner told ABC’s Diane Sawyer that “the election changes” the GOP’s approach to Obamacare. “It’s pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare is the law of the land,” Boehner said. While he might have been previewing the Chamber of Commerce’s new strategy, he certainly wasn’t echoing the sentiment of his rank-and-file members or the party’s conservative base.

In the aftermath of the president’s unlawful executive amnesty, Speaker Boehner rightly condemned President Obama for his “legacy of lawlessness” and declared that “Republicans are left with the serious responsibility of upholding our oath of office.” Less than three months later, after giving up the fight, the Speaker adopted President Obama’s talking points about funding for the Department of Homeland Security and said that “with more active threats coming into the homeland,” Congress could not use the power of the purse to fight for the Constitution.

Republican lawmakers and their constituents are watching the same disinclination to uphold their oath of office and use their constitutional prerogatives play out on Planned Parenthood. Although Speaker Boehner himself was remarkably cautious in his public statements, one his aides suggested any real attempt to defund Planned Parenthood could “damage the pro-life cause.” It was a polite and delicate intimation of agreement with Senator Mitch McConnell, who said earlier this month that President Obama “made it very clear he’s not going to sign any bill that includes defunding Planned Parenthood, so that’s another issue that awaits a new president.”

The Speaker and his allies consistently criticize the conservatives who demand these fights and dismiss their complaints as tactical objections, not policy disagreements. But when leadership in Congress consistently chooses to expend its energy primarily on achieving non-conservative policy over the objections of conservatives—and to do all it can to avoid picking conservative fights—the disagreement isn’t about tactics. It’s a conflict of strategy born of a conflict of policy visions. 

Here’s the reality: In the past, politicians could afford to tell their constituents one thing and do something else entirely in office. The rapid advance of technology, however, has made that far more costly. Politicians and lobbyists no longer hold a monopoly on information. In fact, the ability of constituents all across the country to connect with one another and disseminate information means they can be more informed on both policy and process than some lawmakers. 

In other words, the balance of power is starting to shift. The challenge for the Washington establishment—in which Speaker Boehner was firmly entrenched—is how to adapt to such a radical and empowering change in the political landscape. In the long run, the last year of turmoil in the GOP will prove to have been immensely positive. You had a Speaker who decided he was going to ignore the decentralizing influence of digital communication and try to govern with an iron fist ignoring the will of his voters. And that model has proven to be a complete failure.

Speaker Boehner’s decision to step down empowers rank-and-file lawmakers to embrace the conservative grassroots and increases the likelihood the party will actually fight for conservative policy priorities and our Constitution. But that will not happen through inertia. It will take the concerted effort of lawmakers, staffers and conservative constituents to ensure the meaning of the moment is not lost.

No one should need an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants to succeed in this great nation. We have a chance to take back America, but it will require the Republican Party to fight for all Americans, not the powerful and well-connected.

Michael A. Needham is CEO of Heritage Action for America.

Authors:
Michael A. Needham 


Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Clockmeister Ahmed meets Turkey’s pro-Sharia PM at UN, claims Texas are “racist”

Clockmeister Ahmed meets Turkey’s pro-Sharia PM at UN, claims Texas are “racist”

Meanwhile, as Ahmed goes around meeting the powerful and famous and is being showered with gifts by Microsoft and others, his family is claiming he was “severely traumatized” and has lawyered up. But didn’t he just say getting arrested was “kind of cool.”?

The scam widens.

Ahmed Mohamed and Davutoglu

“Obama’s ‘Cool Clock’ Muslim Boy Claims Racism to Foreign Audience at UN,” by Neil Munro, Breitbart, September 26, 2015:



The Muslim American boy championed by President Barack Obama is using his new worldwide fame to accuse Texans of racism and anti-Muslim discrimination.

“My dream is to raise consciousness against racism and discrimination,” he said at a New York press event with Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu, according to an article in the Turkish newspaper, HurriyetDailyNews.com.

“DavutoÄŸlu, who is New York for the 70th United Nations General Assembly, has met with 14-year-old student Ahmed Mohamed, who was detained at school by the police in Texas when a teacher thought a clock he had made was a bomb,” the newsite said.

“Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting with DavutoÄŸlu, Mohamed said he was excited to meet the Turkish prime minister [and] said he wanted to raise awareness against racism and discrimination,” said TodaysZaman, a Turkish newspaper that support’s Turkey’s Islamist governent.

The boy tweeted out a picture of his meeting with the prime minister, and his observant Muslim wife, Sare DavutoÄŸlu, who was wearing an Islamic hood.

On Sept. 14, teachers and police in Irving, Texas, detained and questioned Mohamed about a box and wiring he brought into his High School.

The boy’s device was a commercial 120-volt alarm clock, first dismantled and then placed in a case where the screen could not be seen by any users. The boy also left the clock’s innards exposed, so when the power-cord was plugged in, the clock could electrocute anyone who reached inside the case to turn the alarm on or off. The device’s intended purpose was so obscure, in fact, that puzzled police and teachers thought it was a hoax-bomb.

The police skepticism likely was raised because of the recent attempt by two men — both observant Muslims — to machine-gun a large group of attendees at an art exhibition in nearby Garland, Texas. The men were successfully killed by a policeman who was standing guard in the correct expectation of an attack by Muslim men.

Two days after the police briefly detained the boy, and amid a social-media hurricane of progressive claims that Irving’s police were motivated by racism and dislike of Islam, Obama publicly congratulated Mohamed via a Sept. 16 tweet. “Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great,” Obama tweeted.

DavutoÄŸlu is the Islamist prime minister of Turkey, who is working with President Recep ErdoÄŸan to roll back the secular reforms imposed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s and 1930s. For example, his new government rules require students to study the Koran in school.

He is also trying to reassemble Turkey’s Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by World War One. “We will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power,” he said in 2013.

In March, DavutoÄŸlu insisted that the recent criminal murder of three “young Muslims” in North Carolina was caused by “Islamophobia,” which is a term used to suggest that dislike of Islam’s ideas is evidence of insanity. He used the claim to back his argument that Turks in America and Turkish-Americans “defend shared humanitarian values shoulder to shoulder, together with other Muslim Americans and those who are against racism.”

Stay on top of what's really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.



Sent from my iPhone

Friday, September 25, 2015

HIV AMONG HOMOSEXUAL MALES, Especially African-American

Fast Facts

  • Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men bear a disproportionate burden of HIV.
  • From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 20%.

photo of two menGay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

The Numbers

New HIV Infections

  • In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

HIV and AIDS Diagnoses

  • In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.
  • In 2013, gay and bisexual men accounted for 55% of the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS among all adults and adolescents in the United States. Of the estimated 14,611 gay and bisexual men diagnosed with AIDS, 40% were blacks/African Americans; 32% were whites; and 23% were Hispanics/Latinos.
  • By the end of 2011, an estimated 311,087 gay and bisexual men with AIDS had died in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic, representing 47% of all deaths of persons with AIDS.
  • In 2011, CDC data showed that 80.6% of MSM with diagnosed HIV infection were linked to care, 57.5% were retained in care, 52.9% were prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 44.6% had achieved viral suppression.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2010
This chart shows the populations most affected by HIV in 2010. In that year, there were 11,200 new HIV infections among white men who have sex with men (called MSM); 10,600 new HIV infections among black MSM; 6,700 new infections among Hispanic/Latino MSM; 5,300 new infections among black heterosexual women; 2,700 new infections among black heterosexual men; 1,300 new infections among white heterosexual women; 1,200 among Hispanic/Latino heterosexual women; and 1,100 among black male injection drug users.

Source: CDC. Estimated HIV incidence among adults and adolescents in the United States, 2007–2010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012;17(4). Subpopulations representing 2% or less are not reflected in this chart. Abbreviations: MSM, men who have sex with men; IDU, injection drug user.

Prevention Challenges

The large percentage of gay and bisexual men living with HIV means that, as a group, gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of being exposed to HIV. Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV and that HIV prevalence increased with increasing age.

Many gay and bisexual men with HIV are unaware they have it. Even though the NHBS study showed that the overall percentage of gay and bisexual men with HIV who knew of their HIV infection increased from 56% in 2008 to 66% in 2011, there were still many who did not know they had HIV. Among those infected, only 49% of young gay and bisexual men aged 18 to 24 years knew of their infection, whereas 76% of those aged 40 and older were aware of their HIV infection. Fifty-four percent of black/African American gay and bisexual men knew of their infection, compared with 63% of Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 86% of white gay and bisexual men. People who don’t know they have HIV cannot get the medicines they need to stay healthy and may infect others without knowing it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that all gay and bisexual men get tested for HIV at least once a year. Sexually active gay and bisexual men may benefit from more frequent testing (e.g., every 3 to 6 months).

Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. For sexually active gay and bisexual men, the most effective ways to prevent transmitting or becoming infected with HIV are to be on antiretroviral medications (to either treat or prevent infection) and to correctly use a condom every time for anal or vaginal sex. Gay men are at increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and CDC recommends that all sexually active gay and bisexual men be tested at least annually for these infections and obtain treatment, if necessary.

Having more sex partners compared to other men means gay and bisexual men have more opportunities to have sex with someone who can transmit HIV or another STD. Similarly, among gay men, those who have more partners are more likely to acquire HIV.

Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services.

What CDC Is Doing

CDC awarded $55 million over 5 years to 34 community-based organizations to provide HIV testing to more than 90,000 young gay and bisexual men of color and transgender youth of color with the goals of identifying more than 3,500 previously unrecognized HIV infections and linking those who have HIV to care and prevention services. Additionally, CDC’s MSM Testing Initiative seeks to identify at least 3,000 MSM with HIV who were previously unaware of their infection and link at least 85% to care.

CDC is aligning surveillance and program activities more closely. For example, more people living with HIV should be linked to care, receive continuous care and antiretroviral treatment, and achieve a suppressed HIV viral load—the most important goal for maximizing a person’s health as well as reducing the risk of transmission. By increasing the reporting of CD4 and viral load data across the country, CDC will aid health departments and clinicians in monitoring treatment progress toward viral load suppression. Currently, CDC estimates that only 25% of the 1.1 million individuals with HIV have their viral loads adequately suppressed.

CDC supports biomedical approaches to HIV prevention. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which involves taking antiretroviral medications prior to becoming exposed to HIV, can reduce the risk of HIV infection in individuals at substantial risk of infection. Post-exposure prophylaxis, which involves taking antiretroviral medications soon after possible exposure to HIV, also plays a role in HIV prevention, but should be not be considered a primary means of HIV prevention. Also, while HIV treatments can dramatically improve the health of HIV-positive persons who are treated, they also have prevention benefits: individuals whose HIV viral loads are suppressed have a greatly reduced chance of transmitting the virus to their partners.

Through its Act Against AIDS campaigns, CDC aims to provide MSM with effective and culturally appropriate messages about HIV prevention. The Reasons/Razones testing campaign features Latino gay and bisexual men sharing their reasons for getting an HIV test. Testing Makes Us Stronger encourages black gay and bisexual men to get tested for HIV. Let’s Stop HIV Together focuses on raising awareness of HIV and AIDS and combatting complacency and stigma by increasing support for people living with the disease. Start Talking. Stop HIV. encourages gay and bisexual men to communicate about testing and other HIV prevention issues.

CDC also funds state and local health departments and community-based organizations to support HIV prevention services for MSM.
Read more about CDC activities to reduce HIV risk and improve the health of MSM.

a The term men who have sex with men (MSM) is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates a behavior that transmits HIV infection, not how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
b New HIV infections refer to HIV incidence, or the estimated number of people who are newly infected with HIV each year.
c HIV and AIDS diagnoses are the number of persons diagnosed with HIV infection and the number of persons diagnosed with AIDS, respectively, during a given time period. The terms do not indicate when the persons were infected.



Sent from my iPhone
#DrChurch, member of Harvard Medical School faculty,  Expelled from major Boston hospital for telling the truth about LGBT behavior.

Hospital appeal panel pronounces Dr. Church “guilty.”

Chilling implications for society.

POSTED: Sept 12, 2015

A special appeal panel at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston has upheld the hospital administration’s earlier claim that a physician’s statements to colleagues and staff about the dangers of homosexuality constitute “discrimination,” “harassment,” and “unprofessional conduct,” and that Bible verses regarding homosexuality are similarly “offensive” and discriminatory.

Supporting Dr. Church -- and telling the truth -- outside of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Dr. Paul Church has been a urologist on the BIDMC staff for nearly 30 years and is a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty. He has done research on diagnosing prostate and bladder cancer. He has also spoken on the subject of high-risk sexual behaviors. 

In recent years he voiced concerns to colleagues about the hospital’s aggressive promotion of LGBT events and activities. That angered the hospital administration. 

Expelled from staff for bringing up uncomfortable medical facts

 Recently, Dr. Church was expelled from the staff of BIDMC after he posted  medical concerns about the dangerous practices of homosexual behavior, also two Bible verses, on the hospital’s internal Internet portal. 

The hospital did not dispute the truth of Dr. Church’s statements, nor claim that he ever discussed these matters with patients. But they stated that his concerns constitute “discrimination,” “harassment,” and “unprofessional conduct” and may not be discussed.

Read the timeline here.

Appeal denied

Dr. Church requested an internal appeal of his expulsion, as the hospital bylaws allow. On July 29th and 30th, an appeal hearing was held before a special medical panel. On Sept. 9, Dr. Church was notified that the panel voted to uphold the hospital’s earlier decision. The panel also prepared a report explaining its decision, but the report is considered “confidential” according to hospital by-laws and has not been made available.

What this means for all of us

A frightening thing is happening in America’s medical community. Public health is under assault by the pro-homosexual movement. In a manner that can almost be considered demonic, medical truth that could affect millions of people is being censored by “educated” doctors obsessed with the lies of political correctness. It brings to mind the mentality of medical people who continue to defend Planned Parenthood after the unspeakable horrors that have been revealed. As always, along with this mindset goes a near-pathological hatred of Judeo-Christian religious belief. Good people must stand up to this.

There’s also a certain Kafkaesque nature to this. The hospital is using the serious expulsion procedure against Dr. church that’s normally used against physicians who abuse patients or commit some kind of malpractice. Its case is built on a strange dictum that nothing can be posted internally that “could offend” any staff member. But at that same time, the hospital continued to email Dr. Church their pro-LGBT material, even after he asked to be taken off the list, which he (and others) said they found to be offensive. The hospital sees no contradiction at all. This is the brave new world we are entering.

Part of the BIDMC expanse in Boston.

What’s next?

The expulsion must be voted on by the hospital’s Board of Directors, which would likely uphold it, but could also modify or reject it. 

However, according to the by-laws, Dr. Church can first ask the Board to conduct an “appellate review” of the hearing panel’s recommendation. There is a separate process for that. However, Dr. Church must show that the panel acted improperly, arbitrarily, with prejudice, or with disregard for the evidence presented. Dr. Church has indicated that he can show that, and that he will seek such a review in the next week.

Did MassResistance’s leafletting of the hospital help?

We think it was very important. On various occasions over the past month, MassResistance activists have protested and heavily leafletted at BIDMC. Almost no one knew about Dr. Church’s expulsion, and lots of people were quite shocked and upset. From other information we received, we are confident that the hospital management received considerable negative feedback about this. But in this case, their continuing obsession with cooperating with the LGBT movement and their internalized disdain for traditional religious values may have been too much to overcome – for now.

Continued news blackout in Boston

This is a textbook case of why the mainstream media should not be trusted.

In Boston, the mainstream media has continued its blackout of the Dr. Church issue. In general, the Boston media reports on anything controversial. But we suspect that the issue of the dangers of homosexual behavior is something they don’t want to discuss in any unbiased manner – and they simply believe that any discussion of it is “homophobic” and not worth reporting. For example, The Boston Business Journal, a relatively small publication, actually did report on it, but depicted Dr. Church as posting "anti-gay comments."

The Boston GlobeBoston Herald, and the Boston office of the Associated Press all acknowledged receiving information about the Dr. Church issue, and all have declined to write about it, despite multiple calls. Nor have any Boston TV stations picked it up.  

Probably most disappointing is that Boston’s “conservative” radio talk show host, Jeff Kuhner of WRKO 680 AM, has refused to bring it up it on his show, despite numerous requests. Given the wide range of conservative topics he brings up on his show, this is very unsettling. 

The national mainstream media has also stayed away from the story. Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and even the Blaze received material but declined to act on it.

Being reported around the world by pro-family news sources

It’s been left to the national pro-family conservative press to carry the ball on this. WorldNetDaily, LifeSiteNewsThe New AmericanAmerican Family Association,, American Family Radio, and many websites and blogs have faithfully covered this, including the Association of American Physicians.

And around the world, we’re finding a surprising amount of interest, from Hong Kong to Britain and beyond.

Even in Hong Kong they're talking about this. But the Boston news media won't touch it.

Continuing the fight

We see this as a much larger outrage that will have national implications if allowed to go on unabated. We are not letting up on our fight to support Dr. Church, one of the most courageous people in America right now, in his stand against what is truly the culture of death. 

Please sign the petition in his support, if haven’t already.  And if you can join us in the local struggle in the Boston area, please let us know. We will have further action coming very soon!



Sent from my iPhone