H.R.1745 - Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

Bill

Sponsor:	Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] (Introduced 04/13/2015)
Committees:	House - Ways and Means
Latest Action:	04/13/2015 Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Tracker:

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

1. Introduced
2. Passed House
3. Passed Senate
4. To President
5. Became Law

More on This Bill

• Constitutional Authority Statement

• View subjects

Hide Overview

• Summary (1)

• Text (1)

• Actions (2)

• Titles (2)

• Amendments (0)

• Cosponsors (10)

• Committees (1)

• Related Bills (0)

Text: H.R.1745 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Bill text available as:

• XML/HTML
• XML/HTML (new window)
• TXT
• PDF

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (04/13/2015)

114th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 1745

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 13, 2015

Ms. DeLauro (for herself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Ellison, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Gutiérrez, Ms. Lee, and Mrs. Lawrence) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

---

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act”.

SEC. 2. Assault weapon turn-in credit.

(a) In general.—Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before section 26 the following new section:

“SEC. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.

“(a) Allowance of credit.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.

“(2) YEAR CREDIT ALLOWED.—The amount of the credit under paragraph (1) shall be allowed ¹⁄2 for the taxable year during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and ¹⁄2 in the next taxable year.

“(b) Special rules.—

“(1) WEAPON MUST BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED.—No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the time the weapon is surrendered.

“(2) SUBSTANTIATION REQUIREMENT.—No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the weapon is surrendered.

“(3) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—The taxpayer may elect the application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified assault weapon.

“(c) Assault weapon.—For purposes of this section—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘specified assault weapon’ means any of the following:

“(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

“(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK–47, AK–74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR,

“(ii) AR–10,

“(iii) AR–15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,

“(iv) AR70,

“(v) Calico Liberty,

“(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,

“(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC,

“(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,

“(ix) HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, or HK–PSG–1,

“(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,

“(xi) M1 Carbine,

“(xii) Saiga,

“(xiii) SAR–8, SAR–4800,

“(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,

“(xv) SLG 95,

“(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,

“(xvii) Steyr AUG,

“(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini–14,

“(xix) Tavor,

“(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando, or

“(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

“(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

“(i) Calico M–110,

“(ii) MAC–10, MAC–11, or MPA3,

“(iii) Olympic Arms OA,

“(iv) TEC–9, TEC–DC9, TEC–22 Scorpion, or AB–10, or

“(v) Uzi.

“(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

“(i) Armscor 30 BG,

“(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12,

“(iii) Striker 12, or

“(iv) Streetsweeper.

“(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has—

“(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

“(ii) a threaded barrel,

“(iii) a pistol grip,

“(iv) a forward grip, or

“(v) a barrel shroud.

“(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has—

“(i) a second pistol grip,

“(ii) a threaded barrel,

“(iii) a barrel shroud, or

“(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

“(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

“(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has—

“(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

“(ii) a pistol grip,

“(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or

“(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

“(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

“(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

“(K) A conversion kit.

“(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.

“(2) RELATED DEFINITIONS.—

“(A) BARREL SHROUD.—The term ‘barrel shroud’ means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

“(B) CONVERSION KIT.—The term ‘conversion kit’ means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

“(C) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE.—The term ‘detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

“(D) FIXED MAGAZINE.—The term ‘fixed magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

“(E) FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK.—The term ‘folding or telescoping stock’ means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

“(F) FORWARD GRIP.—The term ‘forward grip’ means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

“(G) PISTOL GRIP.—The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

“(H) THREADED BARREL.—The term ‘threaded barrel’ means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).

“(d) Termination.—This section shall not apply with respect to any weapon surrendered during a taxable year beginning more than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.”.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the item relating to section 26 the following new item:

“Sec. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

---

Congress.gov

Site Content

• Legislation
• Congressional Record
• Members
• Committees
• Committee Reports
• Nominations
• Treaty Documents
• Legislative Process
• About Congress.gov

Help

• Help
• Contact Us
• Glossary
• Search Tips
• Ask a Law Librarian
• Congress.gov Webinars
• Site Feedback

Resources

• Congress.gov Resources
• Congress.gov on Twitter
• THOMAS Site
• U.S. Code
• GPO FDsys
• Law Library of Congress
• Guide to Law Online
• In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress blog
• Teacher Lesson Plans
• State Legislature Websites

House Links

• House.gov
• Floor Activities
• Representatives
• Committees
• Hearings (Video)
• Votes
• Bills to Be Considered
• Leadership
• History, Art & Archives
• More House Resources

Senate Links

• Senate.gov
• On the Senate Floor
• Senators
• Committees
• Hearings (Schedule)
• Votes
• Leadership
• History, Art & Statistics
• More Senate Resources

• Legal
• Accessibility
• Help
• Contact Us
• External Link Disclaimer
• USA.gov

• Library of Congress
• Copyright.gov

Repatriation Of Gold From Fed Suggests Historic Vote Of No Confidenc

Repatriation Of Gold From Fed Suggests Historic Vote Of No Confidence

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/06/2015 19:00 -0400

inShare

 

Submitted by Seth Mason via Solidus.Center blog,
Since 2012, there’s been an unprecedented call from foreign nations to repatriate their gold from Federal Reserve vaults in the U.S. This is an incredible development given many countries’ 71-year reliance on the Fed as a custodian for their bullion. Over the last few years, countries including, but not limited to, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Ecuador, Finland, Switzerland, Venezuela, and Romania have either formally requested repatriation of their gold or are in discussions with the Fed about it. Some of these nations, mind you, have held more than 50% of their entire reserves of bullion in the U.S. since 1944, when the Dollar became the world’s reserve currency.
Something huge must of happened in the last few years to prompt such action. That something may be a break in foreign gold holders’ trust in the Fed as a custodian of their precious metals.
There’s evidence that, in recent years, the Fed has been leveraging some of its foreign gold holdings to lower skyrocketing gold prices as part of its grand scheme to “engineer” an economic recovery from the 2008 Financial Crisis. This is to be expected. After all, the Fed has spent the past 7 years throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the chronically-ill American economy and its epidemic of long-term unemployment and underemployment: It’s bailed out the Too Big to Fail banks to the tune of $14 trillion. It’s printed more than $4.2 trillion. It’s crushed down interest rates to zero and has kept them there. Naturally, the good people at the Eccles Building would include leveraging their foreign gold holdings in their campaign to prop up the economy. After all, high gold prices are a proxy for fears about the future of the economy, and prices reached generational highs in late summer 2011–3.5 years into the Fed’s post-crisis “recovery”.
(Interestingly, gold prices began their long journey downward from their summer 2011 peak just after the Economic Cycle Research Institute called a double dip recession and the Bureau of Economic Analysis–if you believe government data–reported that we narrowly missed a second recession due to GDP growth hovering just above zero.) Gold prices are supposed to rise when economic data are bad!
So, if the Fed has been leveraging its foreign gold holdings in order to lower the price of bullion, it’s quite possible that it simply doesn’t have in its possession the amount of foreign gold it should. Again, this isn’t a stretch. In fact, it’s Occam’s Razor: Hypothecation is a common practice in the precious metals world, and, recently, the Fed has been flat-out refusing foreign nations from auditing their gold and will only return large holdings on installment plans.
Pretty suspicious behavior, particularly given the long history of foreign nations continuing to store their gold in Fed vaults during times in which repatriation would have made more sense.
Consider the following:
The Fed became a popular custodian of foreign gold during World War II, when threats of appropriation of valuable assets by invading empires were an unfortunate reality in much of the Allied world. In 1944, through the Bretton Woods Agreement, much of the globe came to the consensus that the U.S. Dollar would become the world’s de facto reserve currency and that the Dollar would be backed by foreign and domestic gold physically held by the Fed.
Then, in 1971, Bretton Woods was repealed, and the Dollar was decoupled from gold. One would think that the foreign nations that held gold at the Fed would have recalled much of their bullion at this time. Not only was the gold not needed to back the world’s reserve currency any more, but the threat of appropriation by foreign empires had diminished significantly. Three decades had passed since WWII, the Khrushchev Era of the Cold War had ended years earlier, and the West had begun to develop diplomatic and trade relations with the Soviet Union and China. But, despite these favorable conditions for repatriation, few nations called for it. It wasn’t worth the cost or effort: The price of gold at the time was at an inflation-adjusted 20th Century low of $210. (2015 dollars – See chart at end of article. Prices likely higher due to use of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, whose methodology has been altered several times to discount inflation.)
But the financial incentives for repatriation significantly improved by the end of the 1970s, to say the least. By January 1980, with the Fed’s home country mired in stagflation and shocked by an oil crisis, the price of gold skyrocketed to an all-time record inflation-adjusted high of $2100 (a record that remains today, even after the Financial Crisis). Decades removed from the threats of appropriation of WWII and early Cold War-era empires, the late ’70s and early ’80s would have been a great time to repatriate bullion from the Fed. But there were simply few calls.
More astonishingly, there were few calls for repatriation in the early 2000s, when Alan Greenspan’s post-tech bubble recession and Al-Qaeda’s devastating attacks on the world’s then-largest financial complex–LOCATED JUST BLOCKS FROM WHERE THE FED WAS HOLDING THE GOLD–sent bullion prices skyrocketing. If there were an ideal time for mass calls of repatriation, it was then. But the calls just didn’t come.
Nor did they during the 2008 Financial Crisis, an event which plunged the U.S. into its worst recession since the Great Depression and sent gold prices skyrocketing again…after a 10 year run-up since Greenspan’s tech bubble. Nor did they come when it appeared that Greece’s collapse was imminent and was going to jeopardize the future of the EU. Nor did they come when it appeared that the U.S. was going to go over the Fiscal Cliff.
No, they’ve only come recently, during a period of time in which the possibility that the Fed has been depressing gold prices has come to light and in which the Fed has been suspiciously prohibiting foreign nations from auditing their gold.

(Click to enlarge chart.)
Given all of this history, the recent massive calls for repatriation suggest that foreign gold holders have lost trust in the Fed as a custodian of their precious metals.

Average:

5

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

HOW TO PROVE THAT OBAMA'S FATHER IS FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS, via Fair Use A...

Masonic High Priests - Blood Sacrifice Rituals & Devil Worship

Masonic High Priests - Blood Sacrifice Rituals & Devil Worship

Here are the bills that MassResistance filed this session in the Massachusetts Legislature

All of these bills were written by MassResistance and filed on our behalf.

POSTED: April 17, 2015

Effective Parents' Rights Opt-In Bill

Official title: An Act Regarding Parental Notification and Consent.
Bill #: H439  Committee:Joint Committee on Education

Sponsor: Rep. Joe McKenna Co-sponsors: Reps. Jim Lyons, Shawn Dooley, Marc Lombardo, Donald Humason, Angelo D'Emilia, Donald Berthiaume, Randy Hunt, Kevin Kuros, Nicholas Boldyga
What it does: This bill amends the current parental notification law, Ch. 71 Sec. 32A, written by Parents' Rights Coalition (now MassResistance), expanding upon it and modernizing it to address current conditions. This includes: (1) expanding the range of subjects covered from merely "human sexuality issues" which is poorly defined, to include specific issues actually introduced to children in Massachusetts schools; (2) granting parents the "opt-in" option (similar to other curricula in the schools) instead of "opt-out", which has proven unworkable; (3) allowing a religious exemption to school staff; and (4) removing the Department of Education as the arbiter of disputes.
The bill will effectively help parents deal with the LBGT agenda in the schools by giving parents the right to decide what their children are introduced to regarding sexuality, homosexuality, transgenderism, and similar issues which are now being presented to children in schools across the state. The current notification law does not work and makes it difficult, intimidating, and embarrassing for parents and children in the areas where it does apply. This bill is very specific rather than vague to avoid creating loopholes, which has happened with the current law. More importantly, it changes the current "opt-out" to "opt-in" -- like every other elective in the schools. (Currently, "sexuality" is the only opt-out subject in school curricula.)
Why it's needed: The current law, passed in 1996, has loopholes, unworkable sections, and limitations that have rendered it ineffective. The vagueness of the current law has been cited in court cases as giving schools the leeway to expose a broad range of often graphic sexual, homosexual, and transgender subjects to kids -- even in elementary school -- without parents' knowledge or consent. In recent years this has expanded from "curriculum," into counseling sessions, assemblies, special events, unplanned "teachable moments," and student "gay" clubs -- which the current law does not cover

This situation has become extremely frustrating to parents. For example, in 2006 David Parker, father of a kindergartner, brought a federal civil rights case against the Town of Lexington regarding presenting of homosexual and transgender issues to their 6-year-old son without their knowledge or consent. After nearly three years, the federal judge ruled against them because of the limitations of the current law. Schools have used that ruling to accelerate the homosexual and transgender programs in K-12, free to ignore parents' wishes and religious beliefs.

The "opt-out" mechanism in the current law is easily subverted by school officials in various ways: The schools publish the notifications in unusual places; they make the process onerous and inconvenient for parents; they make it embarrassing and humiliating for children to be taken out of the classes. "Opt-in" is the only fair approach.

Also in the current law, the Department of Education is the arbiter of disputes; that has proven to be a complete disaster because the bureaucrats in the (pro-LGBT) DOE invariably side with the schools over parents. Thus, parents across the state have demanded more rights and protections.

To our knowledge, this is the most effective bill of its kind ever introduced in the US. Unfortunately, homosexual groups in Boston have reacted hysterically when this bill was introduced in the past -- and we predict a similar reaction this time!

Text of bill:

AN ACT REGARDING PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Chapter 71, Section 32A of the General Laws is hereby revised as follows:

Section 32A. Human sexuality education; Requirements for parental notification and consent.

Every city, town, or regional school district, vocational school district, or charter school presenting, implementing, or maintaining school programs involving human sexuality issues and behaviors shall adopt and implement a written policy ensuring parental/guardian notification of such school programs and a description of their content.

All such school programs shall be offered only in clearly identified non-mandatory elective courses, units, or activities in which parents or guardians may choose to enroll their children through written notification to the school, in a manner reasonably similar to other elective courses, units, or activities offered by the school district.

The school shall make available instruction materials and related items with adequate advance notice to parents, guardians, educators, school administrators, and others for inspection and review. Through written request prior to a related special event or assembly held at school, parents or guardians shall be allowed access to monitor its content.

No public school teacher, administrator, or staff member shall be required to participate in any such school programs that violate his religious beliefs.

The term "human sexuality issues and behaviors" includes but is not limited to: sexual education, human reproductive system, pregnancy, contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, gender re-assignment, sex change, opposite-sex hormone treatments, sodomy, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, fornication, bestiality, pansexuality, pederasty, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, bondage and discipline, and sadomasochism. It also includes issues, concepts, and relationships deriving from those issues and behaviors, including but not limited to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender stereotype, alternative parenting models, and non-traditional marriage and family constructs.

The term "school programs" includes but is not limited to any school sanctioned activity, or portion thereof directed toward students, whether on or off campus, whether during or outside school hours, whether organized, presented or directed by school employees, agents of the school, students, volunteers, outside presenters, or others.

Such school programs include, but are not limited to, classes, curriculum, assemblies, outside speakers, workshops, theater productions, recognized student clubs, teacher/staff organizations meeting in the school including students, private or non-private counseling sessions, materials displayed or available in staff offices or classrooms, teachable moments, suggested or recommended (non-required) reading lists or assignments, videos, exhibits, posters, displays, public announcements, and handouts.

Bill to protect children from intrusive school surveys on personal issues

Official title: An act regarding surveys in public schools schools.
Bill #: H382  Committee:Joint Committee on Education

Sponsors: Rep. Colleen Garry  Co-sponsors: Reps. Keiko Orrall, Nicholas Boldyga, Jose Tosado, Benjamin Swan; Sen. Ryan Fattman
What it does: Requires parental notification and consent for questionnaires, surveys, and similar evaluations given to schoolchildren regarding certain private, personal and family issues.
Why it's needed: Currently, thousands of students in middle schools and high schools are asked to fill out surveys on private, personal issues without their parents’ knowledge or consent. The surveys include questions about heterosexual and homosexual activity, sexual orientation, drug use, criminal activity, personal questions about family members, suicidal feelings and attempts, violence, etc. See some sample questions HERE. (Note: Most states are administering similar surveys.)

A major concern has been the psychologically intrusive nature of these surveys, which radical groups use to soften childrens' perceptions of dangerous activities. For example, a battery of questions asking "how many times" a child has engaged in certain sex acts or drug use may make the child believe he is abnormal if he is not doing it at all.
And by using leading questions, the surveys also create misleading "statistics" to persuade politicians to design state policies around, and to give radical special interest groups more taxpayer money for school programs. The surveys are not scientifically grounded –- relying on self-reporting by teenagers -– yet are being used to design state policies.
Many of these are administered by the Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Education (Youth Risk Behavior Survey) and the Dept. of Public Health (Mass. Youth Health Survey). About 9,000 students took the state surveys in 2011. In addition, many local school systems administer these (or similar) surveys on their own. This bill would make all such surveys "opt-in" by parents.
This bill would also prevent school personnel from administering similar individual "mental health screenings" without parental consent.

Text of bill:

AN ACT REGARDING SURVEYS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Chapter 71 of the General Laws is hereby revised as follows, with the addition of Section 32B:

Section 32B. Student surveys regarding personal or private issues; Requirements for parental notification and consent

No student in any public elementary or secondary school, without the prior written consent of the parent or guardian, shall be requested or required to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation concerning personal issues including, but not limited to: (1) emotional and psychological concerns or issues, whether concerning the student or his family (including “mental health screenings”); (2) sexual behavior and attitudes; (3) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating or demeaning behaviors; (4) feelings of victimization; (5) suicide attempts or ideation, or self-abuse; (6) birth control or abortion; (7) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondent has family relationships; (8) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those with lawyers, physicians, therapists, and ministers; (9) political affiliations; or (10) income.

This will apply to all such surveys whether from a state or federal agency, whether administered in a classroom setting, by a school counselor, a school nurse, or school-based health center staff member. All such screenings, surveys, analyses, and evaluations shall be shall be made reasonably available with adequate advance notice to parents, guardians, educators, school administrators, and others for inspection and review prior to being administered.

Bill to eliminate the "Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth"

Official title: An Act protecting children and parents
Bill #: H2781  Committee: Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Sponsor: Rep. Marc Lombardo Co-Sponsor: Rep. Jose Tosado
What it does: It repeals the law which created the "Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth". That law was passed in a particularly dishonest manner -- as a budget item in 2006, in order to avoid having to hold a public hearing and normal debate -- because of the extremely offensive and controversial nature of this Commission.
This Commission includes homosexual and transgender activists from across the state who work unsupervised with public school children K-12 designing and leading homosexual and transgender related programs events in schools and off campus. The Commission advances homosexual, bisexual, and transgender programs in the public schools (including “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs in middle and high schools) and also directs teens to GLBT advocacy and support groups (BAGLY, GLSEN, PFLAG, GLAD). The horrible things this commission has done with children are almost beyond description.

Why it's needed: Many of these Commission-promoted activities are extremely graphic, explicit, and dangerous, and often include other homosexual, transgender, and even sadomasochist activists mingling with kids. There is no oversight to this commission, and their activities over the last few years have outraged parents and even public officials. In 2010 one adult commission member was arrested for soliciting homosexual sex from a minor. Earlier, another commissioner faced accusations of soliciting sex from college students. In 2009, the Commission even had "Mr. Boston Leather" (a homosexual sadomasochist) greet teens (and hand out his "business card") at the BAGLY prom ending Youth Pride Day.

Other examples of the many events with children by Commission members include this "Youth Pride" parade and the distribution of this dangerous flyer, along with homosexual condoms.

Incredibly, this state-funded Commission directs millions of dollars of taxpayer money. While $100K of state funding in FY2013 is earmarked specifically for the Commission (staffed mostly by volunteer LGBT activists), most of their efforts are funded in larger unspecified amounts and implemented via the Departments of Education and Public Health and other state agencies. One of its member sub-groups, BAGLY, also receives separate funding.

Thus, in addition to its work with schools, the Commission advocates and coordinates radical GLBT programs throughout many state agencies. No other state has such a commission, and Massachusetts should not, either.

Text of bill:

RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 3 of the General Laws is hereby amended by repealing Section 67.

Two girls at an off-campus "Youth Pride" event put on by Commission members. Kids were bussed from their schools to attend. [MassResistance

Alexa Caught Fixing Rankings to Target Anti-Obama News Sites?

• \

Internal data suggests public figures are being manipulated
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
May 5, 2015

Internal traffic data from Infowars.com suggests that Alexa is fixing its rankings system to target conservative and anti-Obama administration news websites while artificially boosting the rankings of pro-government leftist media outlets.

The controversy first arose last year when both Infowars and World Net Daily noticed that despite internal traffic reports from several different sources showing that traffic was on the increase, Alexa’s publicly available statistics showed a massive and unexplained drop-off in traffic from August 2014 onwards.

Alexa rankings are important because they gauge the popularity of news websites that compete with each other as well as providing analytics for potential advertisers.

Alexa is owned by Amazon, which has numerous close ties to the Obama White House. Amazon hired Obama’s former press secretary Jay Carney earlier this year, while the administration also supported Amazon during a Supreme Court hearing last year on workers’ rights. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is a staunch Democrat. Obama personally visited an Amazon center just six days before Bezos bought the Washington Post.

Infowars has now confirmed that the huge drop off in traffic reported by Alexa seen in the graph above directly contradicts Alexa’s own internal traffic reports, which clearly show that Infowars’ web traffic did not significantly change during the period from August 2014 onwards.

Infowars’ internal data from Google analytics also contradicts the drop off shown in Alexa’s public rankings.

One explanation for the rankings change that has been suggested is that although traffic for each of these websites has stayed the same or risen, the inclusion of a number of new websites in Alexa’s system has collectively pushed older sites down the charts.

However, the same trend would be expected for other news websites, whether they slant left or right, but this isn’t the case.

Indeed, virtually every major leftist or pro-Obama website has seen a drastic increase in its site ranking since August 2014, a rise that is almost perfectly inverse to the plummeting site rankings of conservative websites as reported in Alexa’s public data.

Alex Jones: “It’s clear that starting on October 1st 2014, Libertarian minded sites ratings artificially plunged and Obama supporting sites were artificially raised. These are unfair trade practices and deception being executed against the people and need to be questioned.”

Check out Alexa’s public rankings for pro-Obama/leftist news websites over the past year and compare them to Infowars.com.

Also note how Alexa has downgraded other conservative websites.

Although conservative sites have recovered some of their traffic in the last month, the drop since August 2014 is noticeable across the board.

Again, in the case of both World Net Daily and Infowars, this public data is contradicted by more detailed internal data pulled from Alexa’s own system.

In addition, it was widely reported that 2014 was a huge year for the Drudge Report, which the news aggregator being the , “No. 1 site of referral traffic to the Daily Mail, CNN, Fox News, Roll Call, Breitbart, The New York Times, National Journal, USA Today, Associated Press, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and POLITICO,” according to a study by Intermarkets.

Also remember that in the case of MSNBC, the network’s viewing audience figures continue to plummet, making the drastic increase in traffic to the MSNBC site as reported by Alexa even more perplexing. PBS also continues to hemorrhage viewers.

“It smacks, at first glance, like a deliberate effort to destroy and discredit alternative news sites – especially those that don’t grovel at the feet of government and seek to be the watchdogs the American press are supposed to be,” said WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah when the issue first arose.

“How does one explain the disparity between the recent gains on Alexa by statist, pro-government, pro-status quo, establishment sites and the precipitous drops on Alexa by the anti-establishment alternatives?” he added.

If the huge drop in traffic for conservative websites, which began last year, was merely a result of Alexa changing how it collects data, then why hasn’t a similar fall been seen for leftist news websites and why does Alexa’s own internal data contradict their public rankings?

Watch the video below in which Alex Jones delves further into the mystery.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.