Today, March 23rd 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 "Dark Matter", which contains documentation for several CIA projects that infect Apple Mac Computer firmware (meaning the infection persists even if the operating system is re-installed) developed by the CIA's Embedded Development Branch (EDB). These documents explain the techniques used by CIA to gain 'persistence' on Apple Mac devices, including Macs and iPhones and demonstrate their use of EFI/UEFI and firmware malware.

If you have an Apple product, and you care whether your personal privacy is being violated, you should read the full Wikileaks Press Release: https://wikileaks.org/vault7/darkmatter/?cia

Just how much government intrusion into their personal privacy will the American public tolerate in their lives? I guess we will all find out.

-----------------------------
[quote=lpnmajor] So, this horrible and terrible leaker is under arrest, yes? After all, leaking classified material is a felony and a FAR more serious crime than colluding with an enemy of the State - as was expounded upon at length by the GOP at Monday's hearing.
------------------------------

You guys are unbelievable. Did you even read the full story, or do simply react like a rabid dog when something does not fit your version of reality?

I will not repeat the points made by America Only.

Time will tell if this story proves to be true. If this turns out to be the case, then it will prove what many have alluded to in the recent past, that the FBI and our nations security apparatus, dig up dirt on our political leaders, judges, newspaper reporters, etc., all in an attempt to co-opt them, and black mail them into submission in the famous tradition of J. Edgar Hoover.

What does it mean when the FBI has had this information for over two years, and nothing was done. It also raises the question why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes "blew off" FreedomWatch founder Larry Klayman when he tried to meet with him to present this information. Instead, he announces to the public that there was no evidence of Trump being electronically surveilled. It was only when Nunes was threatened by Klayman going public did he make his announcement yesterday (covering his own ass).

This story, has the potential to turn Washington upside down.

Well Folks, if this story has legs, the American public will (should) be getting their pitchforks out, and demanding a full "draining of the swamp".

by ZeroPointNow
Mar 22, 2017 10:37 PM

The same day House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes gave a press conference disclosing that President Trump had been under "incidental surveillance," Attorney and FreedomWatch Chairman, Larry Klayman, sent a letter to the House Committee on Intelligence imploring them to pursue the claims and evidence presented under oath at a Washington DC FBI Field Office by his client - CIA / NSA Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery - who Klayman claims "holds the keys to disproving the false claims... ...that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped"

When Montgomery attempted to deliver this information through the appropriate channels two years ago, the former CIA and NSA contractor wasn't given the time of day:

[W]hen Montgomery came forward as a whistleblower to congressional intelligence committees and various other congressmen and senators, including Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, like Comey, once had a reputation for integrity, he was “blown off;” no one wanted to even hear what he had to say.
As a result, Montgomery went to attorney and FreedomWatch founder Larry Klayman - who then approached the FBI:

Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia. There he laid out how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.

Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed “up close and personal” this “Orwellian Big Brother” intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.

He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.

Given the fact that the FBI had Montgomery's testimony and evidence for over two years, Klayman traveled to Washington DC last Thursday to meet with Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask FBI Director Comey why the FBI hadn't pursued Montgomery's evidence. When Klayman arrived to speak with Nunes, he was "blown off" and instead shared his information with committee attorney Allen R. Souza - who Klayman requested in turn brief Nunes on the situation.

During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee’s complicity in keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent cover-up of the Montgomery “investigation.”

And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey’s feet to the fire about the Montgomery investigation?

Klayman has detailed all of this in a NewsMax article, followed up with an official letter to Chairman Nunes today, requesting that he question Comey on Montgomery's evidence. Perhaps this explains Nunes' impromptu press conference today admitting that Trump's team was under "Incidental Surveillance" before making his way to the White House to discuss with the President.

So - we know that evidence exists from a CIA / NSA contractor turned whistleblower, detailing a massive spy operation on 156 judges, the Supreme Court, and high profile Americans including Donald Trump. See the letter below:
https://twitter.com/ZeroPointNow/status/844807289622061056/photo/1
https://twitter.com/ZeroPointNow/status/844807384929263616/photo/1
https://twitter.com/ZeroPointNow/status/844807504374640641/photo/1

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/bombshell-cia-whistleblower-leaked-proof-trump-under-systematic-illegal-government-s

Alber wrote:
To Establish a Universal Health Care System in the... (show quote)
--------------
I can understand why you want to take the insurance companies out of the mix, but why a universal health care systems, and not a free market system with the individual in charge. I look at medicare, medicaid, and the VA system of healthcare, and I think we can do better.

Do you really have faith that a government run Universal Health Care system would be better than the one proposed by Rand Paul? Have you looked at his proposal, and if so, please tell me why you think a Universal Healthcare system would be better.

lindajoy wrote:
Buffalo, I believe you over anyone else about this... (show quote)
---------------------
What I find ironic is that the title of this post says "Healthcare - Fixed. (S222 & S554). I have reviewed the 20 some replies and, correct me if I am wrong, not one person has addressed the replacement alternative that Rand Paul has proposed, which is S-554.

If the Ryan bill does not make it out of the House, then an alternative proposal will need to be considered. There are several competing plans out there, including Paul's S-554. I've read the highlights, and unlike the Ryan plan, it is simple to read, easy to understand, and employs "free market" principles, which is perhaps why no one gives this a chance to be adopted.

For those of you who are interested, here are the specifics of Paul's plan:

The Obamacare Replacement Act (S. 222) Sen. Rand Paul, M.D.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

Here are the highlights from the full 1,500 word bill condensed down to the most consequential provisions:

Repealing Obamacare

Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.

Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions

Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
Restores HIPAA protections which guarantee those within the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.

Equalize the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance

All individuals are able to exclude the premium amount from their taxable income (previously only individuals who received health insurance through an employer were able to).
Universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes regardless of how an individual obtains their health insurance.

Expansion of Health Savings Accounts

Provides individuals the option of a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an HSA and removes the maximum allowable annual contribution.
Eliminates the requirement that a participant in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible health care plan
Allows prescription and OTC drug costs to be treated as allowable expenses of HSAs.
Allow purchase of Health Insurance from HSA Account
Allows qualified expenses incurred prior to HSA establishment to be reimbursed from an HSA as long as the account is established prior to tax filing.
Allows an account holder’s HSA to rollover to a child, parent, or grandparent, in addition to a spouse.
Creates Bankruptcy Protections for HSAs as Retirement Funds
Expands allowable HSA expenses to include equipment for physical exercise or health coaching, including weight loss programs and dietary and nutritional supplements
Allows HSA funds to be used for periodic fees paid to medical practitioners for access to medical care and pre-paid physician fees

Pool Reform for the Individual Market

Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for the purposes of purchasing insurance.
Amends the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to allow individuals to pool together to provide for health benefits coverage through Individual Health Pools (IHPs). These can include non-profit organizations so long as the organization does not condition membership on any health status-related factor.
Requires that the IHP will provide insurance through contracts with health insurance issuers in fully insured plans and not assume insurance risk with respect to such coverage. Allows the IHP to provide administrative services to members, including accounting, billings, and enrollment information.

Interstate Market for Health Insurance

Allowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state.
Exempts issuers from secondary state laws that would prohibit or regulate their operation in the secondary state

Association Health Plans

AHPs allow small businesses to pool together across state lines through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their employees and their families.
Amends ERISA to define AHPs and allow for their treatment as if they were large group single employer health plans

Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers

Provides new flexibilities to states in their Medicaid plan design, through existing waiver authority in current law.
This provision would allow states to make changes to their Medicaid plans without interference from Washington.
As you can see, Rand Paul’s Obamacare Replacement Act is a win-win for Republicans and President Trump who are desperate for a solution. Instead of waiting around another year like Paul Ryan suggested might happen they get a quick fix immediately. This bill will stop the Obamacare’s unraveling and begin repairing the damage the law has caused to the healthcare industry and insurance markets. It can’t wait any longer. As soon as Obamacare is finally repealed it must be replaced, and Rand Paul’s bill is the most comprehensive measure for accomplishing that.

Ron Paul wrote an article (link attached at end of post) that is the spark of this post.

Health Insurance and Healthcare are two different things. You typically buy homeowners insurance to cover a major property loss such as fire, hurricane damage, etc. The same can be said for car insurance. If your car is involved in a major car accident, or a tree falls upon the car and totals it, insurance will cover a catastrophic loss. Yes, you can purchase comprehensive insurance that covers less major damage, but the cost of the policy is related to the amount of your deductible. A $250 deductible policy costs a lot more than a $500 policy. You don't expect your car policy to cover routine service items like oil and filter changes, tire rotation, balancing, etc. So why should we expect health insurance to cover routine doctor visits, blood analysis, colds and flus, routine aches and pains, etc.

We have gotten away from the concept of health insurance which covers catastrophic illnesses, while routine and all non-catastrophic health expenses are the responsibility of the individual.

Paul Ryan's American Health Care Act fails to repeal some of the more onerous Obamacare regulations and price controls.

"Two particularly insidious Obamacare regulations are guaranteed issue and community ratings. As the name suggests, guaranteed issue forces health insurance companies to issue a health insurance policy to anyone who applies for coverage. Community ratings forces health insurance companies to charge an obese couch potato and a physically-fit jogger similar premiums. This forces the jogger to subsidize the couch potato’s unhealthy lifestyle.

Obamacare’s individual mandate was put in place to ensure that guaranteed issue and community ratings would not drive health insurance companies out of business. Rather than repealing guaranteed issue and community ratings, the House Republicans’ plan forces those who go longer than two months without health insurance to pay a penalty to health insurance companies when they purchase new policies."

A much better solution to this issue I believe, is the one proposed by Rand Paul.

Without getting into a full blown discussion of Rand's plan, he addresses the issue of Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions by Providing a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage. He also restores HIPAA protections which guarantee those within the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.

I love the idea of his expansion of Health Savings Accounts which grants the individual more control over the use of his health savings dollars.

Take a look at the site below for a full explanation of Rand's plan. What are your comments on how it compares to Paul Ryan's plan?

https://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/healthcare-obamacare/everything-need-know-rand-paul-obamacare-replacement-act/

Ron Paul Article Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-20/ron-paul-obamacare-repeal-or-obamacare-20

Thanks for clarifying. I was scratching my head on this one!

Larry the Legend wrote:
Two bills have been introduced in the US Senate; o... (show quote)
----------------
I'm glad you explained that the first bill was the repeal. The bill S.554 states "- A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017." Unless you read the entire bill, and know all the intricacies of Obamacare, I would be hard pressed to know this was the repeal bill.

After reading the replacement bill, it sounds like a simple, well thought out bill, that allows individuals individuals to take control of their health insurance needs without government interference. This is a good thing.

It is difficult to find any detailed analysis of this proposal. I suspect that one of the major complaints we will hear will be from those that were added to the medicaid roles (15 million individuals?). Will they remain on medicaid or be removed off medicaid's role if Paul's bill were to be enacted?

Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
Surprise, surprise, Al. br br We knew he was, now... (show quote)
-------------------
Don, you know this, and I know this, but let's see how many other readers on OPP will say this information came from "Infowars", and we all know this is fake news! Unless, it was printed in the NT Times...... ah oh..... it was in the NY Times.

Discovery can be a wonderful thing!

From The New York Times:

The court documents included Monsanto's internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment. In one email unsealed Tuesday, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive, told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were actually written by Monsanto. "We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak," Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this.

From Bloomberg

The boast was made during an April 2015 phone conversation, according to farmers and others who say they've been sickened by the weed killer. After leaving his job as a manager in the EPA's pesticide division last year, Jess Rowland has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing the company of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. "If I can kill this I should get a medal," Rowland told a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager who recounted the conversation in an email to his colleagues, according to a court filing made public Tuesday. The company was seeking Rowland's help stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, according to the filing.

From the good people at DeSmog Blog

For example, why did the EPA determine in 1985 that glyphosate should be classified as a group C carcinogen — possibly cancer-causing in humans but lacking sufficient studies of humans and animals — only to reverse that decision six years later? Did it have anything to do with Monsanto's influence over the agency, or did new studies emerge that cast doubt on previous conclusions? The latter seems less likely considering the fact that the bulk of independent research has reached the same conclusions about the existence of a probable link between Roundup's glyphosate and cancers. Another question that these documents could finally answer is why the EPA has been constantly at odds with the majority of the scientific community over the potential dangers of glyphosate. If, in fact, Monsanto was submitting ghostwritten research to the agency, which then failed to do its own testing, that might explain why the EPA has never found a link (beyond the original determination in the 1980s). The answers to those questions may appear during the ongoing trials against Monsanto and as more documents are released from the trial.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53906/monsanto-glyphosphate-roundup-epa/

============
I'm not sure you will be thanking me once you attempt to read it.

------------------

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44785.pdf

---------------
No, I have not read the bill, have you? I will so so when congress, in it's infinite wisdom, writes a bill in "plain language" that the average consumer can read and understand. You should not need to be an attorney to make sense of proposed legislation. Years ago, the government required banking institutions to use "plain language" in their consumer lending transactions. Typically, the logic that applies to those that congress regulates, is not deemed suitable to apply to congress itself.

You level the charge of "false accusations". What are they? Why don't you enumerate them in detail? Enlighten us please?

Is it the one that removes limitations on deductions for Insurance Company executive compensation? That reversal will reduce the tax bill for health insurance companies while incentivizing higher pay for insurance employees.

Or, is it the one that states: "The bill also reduces the types of medical coverage Medicaid policies are required to cover — the type of flexibility insurers have sought in order to cover less health care costs."

Perhaps you are referring to the deep cuts in Medicaid over time.

While this article did not refer to government mandates. I have read that Ryan's plan not only keeps a government mandate on what must be covered in an insurance policy ( the kitchen sink), which will make policies unaffordable for most, he even maintains federal subsidies for insurance companies. And he introduces a brand new price fixing scheme. Ryan has certainly revealed himself to be a foe of free markets and a fan of crony arrangements, notwithstanding his rhetoric to the contrary.

Approximately 30 countries are refusing to accept the deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes in the U.S., according to Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar.

While these countries are refusing to accept the deportations of these criminals, the U.S. government is still issuing visas and student visas to citizens of those countries, according to the Texan congressman. There is already a law on the books which allows the U.S. to hold visas from a country that is not taking back its criminals, but according to Cuellar, the U.S. is not enforcing it.

“We’re not enforcing it, which is amazing. So now my intent is to go back to our committee on appropriations and affect their funding until they do that,” Cuellar told Sharyl Attkisson, host of Full Measure, in an interview.

Cuellar, a Democratic member of the House Committee on Appropriations, told Attkisson that the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity can only be held for a certain period of time before they must be released.

“That means you’re releasing criminals into our streets because those countries refuse to take back those criminal aliens,” said Cuellar. “That’s wrong. And especially I think it’s even worse that this is already on the books, and we’re still issuing business tourist visas and student visas to countries that refuse to take back their criminal aliens. That’s wrong, and we’re hoping to change that.”

So, President's Trump's next executive order should be to start enforcing the "law on the books which allows the U.S. to hold visas from a country that is not taking back its criminals".

I'm quite sure, that the vast majority of those countries would soon have a change of heart, and change their position on this issue, sooner rather than later.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/18/30-countries-are-refusing-to-take-back-illegal-immigrants-convicted-of-serious-crimes/

JUST HOURS BEFORE House Speaker Paul Ryan held a press conference to sell his health care overhaul legislation — using a PowerPoint presentation mocked for misrepresenting basic facts — he was doing something he’s much better at: fundraising.

The two things were related. The Thursday morning breakfast fundraiser he attended was hosted by a lobbying firm working to unwind the Affordable Care Act on behalf of health insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield, one of the big winners of Ryan’s proposed legislation.

The breakfast, according to an invitation, was sponsored by McGuireWoods PAC, the political action committee for the lobbying firm McGuireWoods. Blue Cross Blue Shield pays McGuireWoods $120,000 a year to lobby on changes to health reform, records show. Attendees of the event paid were asked to pitch in as much as $10,000.

Ryan’s American Health Care Act (AHCA), which rolls back most of the revenue-generating provisions of the ACA, reduces premium subsidies, and imposes deep cuts to Medicaid, has largely been panned by medical professionals, health policy experts, and political advocacy groups from across the ideological spectrum.

But the bill enjoys enthusiastic support from some corners of the health care industry — primarily health insurance firms and medical device companies that directly benefit from the legislation.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group that lobbies on behalf of health insurance companies, wrote a letter to Congress on Wednesday praising much of the AHCA.

“The proposed legislation includes a number of positive steps to help stabilize the market,” wrote AHIP president Marilyn Tavenner, citing the bill’s provisions on “continuous coverage” and added flexibility for “health plans to offer consumers more choices.”

Alissa Fox, the senior vice president for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, another health insurance lobby group, also provided a statement praising the bill.

The ACHA includes a special 30 percent premium surcharge insurers can charge anyone who has gone without health coverage for at least two months. The bill also reduces the types of medical coverage Medicaid policies are required to cover — the type of flexibility insurers have sought in order to cover less health care costs.

As we reported earlier this week, insurance lobbyists are particularly fond of a tax change made by the Republican health bill that removes limitations on deductions for executive compensation. That reversal will reduce the tax bill for health insurance companies while incentivizing higher pay for insurance employees.


The ACHA would also permanently repeal the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device tax, which was imposed by Obama’s health reform law. AdvaMed, the lobby group representing the largest medical device firms, released a statement commending the Republican-led House Ways and Means Committee for the repeal of the tax.

While some media outlets praised Ryan’s “wonky” style and use of bar graphs to make his case for the bill on Thursday, many reporters noted that the speaker stumbled when asked basic questions about the legislation.

Ryan notably called the ACA system of younger, healthier people helping to subsidize the insurance of elderly, sick patients a “fatal conceit.” But that general principle — of high- and low-risk consumers alike pooling their resources — is a fundamental element of all health insurance programs. Ryan also “made a series of misleading statements,” noted Politico’s Danny Vinik, who pointed out that the speaker cherry-picked data to exaggerate ACA premium increases.

Despite the perception of Ryan as a policy expert — a brand carefully manufactured by friendly D.C. reporters — the speaker has devoted himself to relentless fundraising. Records show Ryan spent much of the year flying to resorts and huddling with lobbyists to raise huge amounts of cash to maintain his party’s control of the House of Representatives. The Team Ryan joint fundraising committee, hosted by McGuireWoods on Thursday morning, is allowed to raise as much as $244,200 per person.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/09/paul-ryan-fundraised-with-health-insurance-lobbying-firm-just-before-his-powerpoint/