|
|
4/16/2018 ATTACK OF LEFT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM, WHICH LEFT ALSO HATESRead NowThe left has always advocated “freedom” so long as what you believe conforms to what the left believes. The primary force within a leftist movement is the requirement of conformity which is also a requirement of tyranny. This is why the left teaches to demonize and destroy anybody who would disagree with their core beliefs. If you disagree with killing the unborn child, with the individual pursuing their dreams, with individuals being self-reliant, and with the adherence to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, then you are a bigot, greedy, sexist, racist, and all the other typical demonizing politically correct phrases taught by Alinsky and used by the left.
The Broward County School District has decided it won’t allow conservative activist Charlie Kirk to speak at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, despite an invitation from students there who are apparently sick of gun-grabbing zealots like David Hogg dominating the school’s public image. And it’s hard to believe Kirk’s “wrong view,” his pro-gun message, didn’t play a role — no matter the school district’s spin. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the decision to not allow Kirk’s speech was announced Thursday by a Broward County schools spokeswoman. The statement pretended the call did not reflect on Kirk’s pro-gun views. “The school’s administration has met with the student organizers and advised them that non-school sponsored, student-initiated guest speaker assemblies/meetings are not permitted to take place on campus,” the statement said. Kyle Kashuv, a Stoneman Douglas student who has emerged as a voice for Second Amendment rights after the deadly Feb. 14 shooting at the school, immediately questioned the reasoning for the decision. Kashuv pointed out that Miami Heat star Dwayne Wade paid a visit to the school March 14 without objections from the administration. In fact, a CNN report on Wade’s visit suggests the NBA star got the red-carpet treatment. Wade has formed a personal relationship with the family of Joaquin Oliver, one of the victims of the massacre, according to the Sun-Sentinel. But he’s also an outspoken advocate for gun control, and even donated $200,000 toward the March 24 “March for Our Lives” gun control rally in Washington, which featured speakers like Hogg and other Stoneman Douglas students. Once again, we learn that the First Amendment is not applied universally but selectively, so in reality the demand for free speech within the First Amendment is determined to be outdated and ignored. This is a direct threat to freedom. Freedom of Speech is critical to a free society and a direct threat to those who seek a tyrannical society. “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved,” wrote Founding Father Benjamin Franklin in The Pennsylvania Gazette. In James Madison’s view, a free republic depends ultimately upon public opinion. A Constitution could divide power this way and that, but in the end, it is the people, and only the people, who rule. And for the people to rule wisely, they have to be able to communicate with one another — freely, without fear of reprisal. Thus, freedom of speech and press were not, for Madison, merely God-given rights. They were preconditions for self-government. Any who would restrict the freedom of speech or the free exchange of ideas, including the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats), the Broward School Boards, Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and others are supporting tyranny over freedom. It truly is that simple for the restriction of the free exchange of ideas is support for conformity, a requirement of any tyrannical State.
0 Comments
Our founders told us that “Freedom would cease to exist if you take from those who would work and give to those who would not.” Marx on the other hand said that, “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.”
The United States became the freest and the most prosperous nation when it adhered to the advice of our founders. As the pendulum has swung in the United States to the belief that it is compassionate to share wealth through government mandate, our number of government reliant people has soared. The Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) have promoted the Marxist concept of giving based on need and not production or effort because it creates a tremendous voting bloc for them. Once the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have convinced different blocs that they as individuals are incapable of taking care of themselves and need the government to provide for them, the convinced individual becomes a permanent vote for the collectivist movement and becomes a permanent vote against advancing freedom and the economy. Trump is making a concerted effort to change this misconception that the individuals in these blocs are incapable of being self-reliant. The more self-reliant the individual becomes the more societies problems such as homelessness, crime, and broken families are reduced. The collectivist movement has never produced freedom and prosperity. The individualist movement has always increased freedom and prosperity. The Trump administration is seeking to completely revamp the country’s social safety net, targeting recipients of Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance. Trump is doing so through a sweeping executive order that was quietly issued earlier last week — and that largely flew under the radar. It calls on the Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture and other agencies across the federal government to craft new rules requiring that beneficiaries of a host of programs work or lose their benefits. Trump argued with the order, which has been in the works since last year, that the programs have grown too large while failing to move needy people out of government help. “Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence,” it states. The order is directed at “any program that provides means-tested assistance or other assistance that provides benefits to people, households or families that have low incomes.” Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have blasted the effort, arguing the order blends the issues of welfare and broader public assistance programs in a deliberate way they say is intended to lower support for popular initiatives. “Welfare” has historically been used to describe cash assistance programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) and liberal activists say the Trump administration is seeking to expand the definition of welfare to mean food stamps, Medicaid and other programs as a way to demonize them. “This executive order perpetuates false and racist stereotypes about certain groups supposedly taking advantage of government assistance,” House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement reacting to the order. The same old tired arguments are being advanced against this order. It has always been the predominant theme of the Marxist/Progressive movement to enslave the individual so they become a permanent vote as opposed to liberating and enabling the individual so they become self-reliant, law-abiding, and productive citizens. Comrade Obama, devoted Marxist and hater of American values and principles, was an even more successful head of state than we realized during his regime. Obama accomplished more of what he wanted to accomplish than any holder of the head of state in office in recent memory. He was certainly more successful than Clinton, daddy Bush, or W.
Obama promised he would fundamentally transform the United States from a free and independent society based on Individualism to a Marxist tyrannical state with all the elements of the Collectivist societies of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Bloc, Mao’s China, and Castro’s Cuba. What is an undisputed fact is that Obama was schooled under the tutelage of Frank Marshall Davis, a documented member of the Communist Party of the United States. Obama continued his education and indoctrination in communism at Occidental and near Columbia University. It is still unproven if Obama ever matriculated at Columbia, but it is documented that he associated with many of the self-proclaimed communists who were professors at Columbia. His continued association with known and documented communist followers such as Jarrett, Axelrod, and Ayers continued when Obama went to Chicago to study community organizing under Saul Alinsky’s methods, and then practicing community organizing utilizing the Alinsky methods. Comrade Obama accomplished much during his regime. He increased the concept of “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs” by promoting higher taxes, larger fines, and increased fees. The number of those claiming disability under social security, welfare users, and food stamp recipients increased dramatically. The Obama regime imposed stifling regulations on American businesses and greatly increased central planning and negating the attributes of the free market system. What we are learning now is that Obama was extremely successful in creating the fore runner of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat by putting into place a “deep state” within the entire executive branch of government. Obama was also extremely successful in creating a judiciary that ignores rule of law and practices arbitrary law. The impact of putting into place the fore runner of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat within the executive branch and creating a judiciary intent on implementing arbitrary law is much more difficult to reverse than are the anti-business and anti-constitution regulations and executive orders. We are learning that the “deep state” runs deep and is just as dedicated to fundamentally transforming the United States to a Marxist tyrannical state as is Comrade Obama. Obama is a true and devoted Marxist. He had just one goal when he took office. He was extremely successful in moving the United States closer to becoming the communist state he so desperately desires. The hatred for those of us who oppose a communist tyrannical state and support a free and independent nation visualized by our founders runs deep. If Hillary had won the election, the transformation would have continued unabated. We have a short reprieve. Freedom Loving Americans must support every measure to rid our government of the entrenched “deep state” and get rid of all judges who support arbitrary law. Paul Ryan was a total failure as Speaker of the House. I did not agree with all the double crosses Ryan pulled on Freedom Loving Americans by promoting big and intrusive government while claiming he was for limiting government spending, limiting the role of government, and supporting the Constitution. Even though I have no respect for Ryan and his deceitful tactics, that is not the reason I view him as a failed Speaker. Those are the reasons I view him as a skilled “useful idiot” of the Collectivist agenda.
Ryan failed as House Speaker because he continued to run the House in the same way Pelosi ran the House. Ryan criticized Pelosi for the very same tactics he employed as Speaker. Of course, why would we expect anything different from Ryan. It is difficult to remember when Ryan did what he said he would do. Ryan criticized Pelosi running the house in secret. He also denounced her for passing huge bills without giving the members of the house adequate time to read much less digest what was in the bill. Ryan did not publicly state that the bill must be passed to learn what was in the bill, but that is exactly what he did. Ryan denounced Pelosi because she would not allow amendments to bills or even allow debates and discourse on the floor concerning bills. Ryan did exactly the same. Bills were not debated and developed in committee with the public testifying but were Pelosied by trusted party members behind closed doors. Ryan denounced Pelosi on the way budgets became a thing of the past and omnibus continuing resolutions the normal way of doing business with totally unrelated and politically sensitive issues being buried in these massive bills. Ryan failed miserably as House Speaker because there was no difference as to how the House was run under him than how it was run under Pelosi and frankly under Boehner. All three of these people were more concerned with party politics than they were with running the House in an orderly manner; using committees to write bills including the budget, conducting meaningful and open discussions with amendments to the bills being voted on, and limiting the scope of a bill by requiring that only issues pertinent to the essence of the topic of the bill be included. Yes, Ryan failed. If the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) regain the majority in the House, expect more of the same. If the Republicans maintain the majority, we will see if the Republican party is truly concerned for the well being of the United States and elect a Speaker who will conduct the people’s business in an open and transparent way, forcing individual Representatives to vote on specific issues as opposed to voting on huge omnibus bills with all issues included. If somebody like Kevin McCarthy is elected to be Speaker, nothing will change. Let us hope the Republicans will put country above party. Even a quick look would say that we have traveled a good way down the road to where we will truly be a Marxist Tyrannical state ruled by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Those who support the Collectivist movement have been taking us down that road mile by mile for at least the last one hundred years.
Those who are familiar with the principles of collectivism, and I do not mean a bumper sticker understanding, understand that several things have to be accomplished, according to Marx in order to reach that state where we are under complete control of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat so that we can then be transformed to a classless society that is totally conforming and totally equal, socially, politically, and financially, where all are free of personal financial responsibility because all will receive based on need and not effort, production, or contribution, and the state becomes god and controls all aspects of peoples lives and interests. A major step toward this totally harmonious and classless society, according to Marx, was the ability of the state to confiscate the personal assets of each citizen. This concept is now embedded in the mind of the American citizen to where a person like Bernie Sanders is praised for his open declaration that recent tax cuts that are benefiting Americans must be reversed because it is essential that to reach the glorious state of tyranny, individuals cannot receive anything except that which is rightfully determined by the state to fulfill the needs of the individual. The road to harmony must include dominance over the minds of the individual by the state or collective so all will conform to the ideology that the state is god and thus is always correct. We are told by the Collectivist today that the overwhelming enemy of the people is global warming, cooling, or change (you pick whichever because the science of the left can prove whichever you prefer). The real purpose of this climate story is a distorted rational for the purpose of distributing wealth from the evil imperialist states, primarily the United States, to the oppressed nations. The collectivist is also demanding total conformity to the concept that the murder of unborn children is done for the purpose of protecting the health of women. The Marxist ideology has promoted the ideas that the individual life is expendable for the purpose of promoting the perceived good of the collective, the murder of unborn children is not in any way immoral since morality is totally relevant and based only on what promotes the collectivist movement, and the murder of the unborn child promotes the decline and eventual downfall of the family which is totally contradictory to the collectivist movement since all children who escape abortion are the property of the state and it is only the state who has the right to teach a child values of any kind. The state must be the dominant force during the breakdown of the present society so that the new glorious classless society that is totally harmonious in its conformity and equality can be built. The “deep state,” about which we read, is the forerunner of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” Today we see that “deep state” determined to upset a duly elected President who opposes and has exposed to some degree that “deep state.” The “deep state” now dominates both the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Both law enforcement pretenders violate rule of law by establishing their own rules and applying their rules or actual law they see as beneficial to their cause, differently depending on political and ideological leanings of the individuals. The fabricated investigations of the Trump administration versus the non-investigations of the recent Marxist regime is totally revealing that the DOJ and FBI have abandoned “rule of law” and are intentionally advancing the United States down that road to tyranny. Sovereignty of the people has no applicability today. The members of the executive and the judicial branches of our government have assumed the role of the sovereign. Members of the executive branch determine what we the people have a right to know about the workings of the “deep state.” When our representatives exercise their constitutional duty of oversight, the members of the “deep state” assume the role of sovereign and tell the people’s representatives that they are willing to reveal only what the “people” have a right or purpose to know. The judicial branch has extended their constitutionally mandated duty of issuing rulings on questions of law to becoming not only sovereign of all issues regarding the lives and interests of the individual, but also have assumed the role of the legislative branch to make law. The representatives of the American citizen have abdicated their role of being the only branch with the constitutional authority to make law and extended that sacred role to the judicial branch through rulings and the executive branch through regulations and executive orders. How far have we traveled down “The Road To Tyranny?” Today the people are no longer sovereign but have assumed the role of servant to the dictates of the “state.” We are no longer a country with limited government but have a large all-powerful government that dictates the lives and the interests of the people. The all-powerful government has assumed the position that all assets are the property of the state and it is the function of the state to determine what the individual can keep so the state can redistribute based on their definition of need. The executive branch and the judicial branch have become the main branches for making law, a role that the constitution gave only to the legislative branch. A well-entrenched “deep state” or Dictatorship of the Proletariat exists within the government and is openly operating within the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, and the EPA. The Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) openly supports the suspension of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution including the Bill of Rights. This same political party that supports in total the collectivist movement which takes us down the road to tyranny, also openly advocates the idea of total conformity to their ideology by supporting groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter who exist for the sole purpose of eliminating free speech, free assembly, free thought, and elimination of rule of law. This same faction of the American public openly advocates for virtually every principle endorsed by Marx and Engels to fundamentally transform a free and open society to a classless society that is totally conforming and totally equal. We have traveled quite a distance down that road to tyranny. It is no secret that the collectivist movement headed by Obama and Holder disdains all law enforcement. This element has encouraged those groups who believe the only good police officer is a dead police officer. Obama and Holder hold Black Lives Matter in high esteem even though the purpose of Black Lives matter is to kill police officers and aid others who do. Obama, Holder, and Marxist/Progressives financially, legally, and emotionally aid Antifa even as Antifa attacks any police officer who would perform their sworn duty of protecting the rights of the American public.
The State of California has determined that private business is bad for the State of California. By their egregious taxes and regulations, the legislators have told those businesses that call California their home that they are not welcome in California because they are direct participants in the evil system of American Capitalism. Now it would appear the California legislators are telling police officers their lives do not matter and it would be better for them and their families if they resigned as police officers. Yes, this state that believes it is more important to protect a plastic straw than protect the lives of individuals from being knowingly affected with the deadly disease of aids is saying that the police officers are no longer allowed to act reasonably in situations where their lives are in danger but must exhaust all other efforts before using deadly force. The lives of police officers are now in greater danger than ever before especially with Obama, Holder, Sharpton, and other Marxist/Progressives who despise law and order, make excuses and tell lies about the many situations where police officers were being attacked with deadly force and the situation was that they use deadly force, or they would have been killed. The new standard for police officers who believe they are in imminent danger is not reasonableness but would only allow officers to shoot if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force.” What a ridiculous standard. This opens the door for the collectivist movement and their minions, the many attorneys who also hate law enforcement to debate reasonable alternatives in the courtrooms and media outlets. Never forget the police officer has, in most cases, less than a second to decide. If the police officer is wrong than they are dead. Yes California legislators, you have driven business from your borders, now drive police officers from the inherently danger position of protecting the public form your goal of protecting those you believe have suffered injustice. A great article that explains the real reason for the second amendment. It does apply today, perhaps even more than in the days it was written and ratified.
When the Founding Fathers approved the “right to bear arms” and the 13 newly formed states agreed to ratify the Second Amendment, the reason couldn’t be clearer: An armed citizenry is a free citizenry. Yet despite the clear historical evidence showing the true intention behind the Second Amendment, liberals continue to mislead the public by asserting the founders believed the Second Amendment only protects guns necessary for everyday life in the 18th century, such as hunting rifles, or that the founders believed these constitutional protections apply only to militias, not to individuals. These notions are nothing more than left-wing delusions, carefully crafted by people who in their pursuit of power and “public safety” have become desperate to take away law-abiding citizens’ centuries-old rights to own and operate guns. As Richard Brookhiser, a historian and author of “What Would the Founders Do?,” concluded in his book’s section on the Second Amendment, “The founders lived among guns; they would never make them illegal; they would subject them to necessary laws, following [William] Blackstone. And they broke their own laws when honor demanded it.” What the founders said about gun rightsAmericans in the 18th century needed weapons to hunt, protect themselves from wildlife, and defend their lives and property from criminals. Gun ownership was common, and there was virtually no fear governments might restrict guns because of their potential danger around the household. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment, like all amendments in the Bill of Rights, was to protect the people from an out-of-control national government. Thomas Jefferson, writing to William S. Smith in Paris, explained his view in crystal-clear terms, writing, “what country can preserve it’s [sic] liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let [sic] them take arms.” In Noah Webster’s important “Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” authored in 1787, the famous writer and editor wrote, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence [sic], raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Samuel Adams said during Massachusetts’ Constitution ratification convention in 1788, “The said Constitution [will] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms …” What about militias?In a recent opinion article for the New York Times, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued the Second Amendment, contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions, was never intended to protect individual gun owners’ rights, but rather only the rights of organized militias. This argument has become increasingly common in left-wing publications in recent decades, but as you’ll read in a moment, it’s totally out of step with what the Founding Fathers believed when they wrote the Second Amendment. In the 18th century, militias were not like the modern-day National Guard. They were much more comparable to today’s small-town volunteer fire departments. In times of distress, individual members of the community would gather together to defend their towns, bringing their own arms with them. This is incredibly important to understand: In the 18th century, militias were composed of individuals from the community who owned their own guns. Without individual gun ownership, militias could never have existed. This proves Stevens’ argument about militias is totally false. In 1788, at Virginia’s Constitution ratification convention, George Mason stated plainly, “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Also in 1788, Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms. … To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” In 1789, James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” said, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” The most important rightThe Second Amendment is truly precious. From this one protection, all other liberties are made possible. Without it, liberty only exists so long as those with weapons, the government, permit the people to have freedom. Despite this seemingly apparent reality, left-wing activists are now working feverishly to convince the people the founders never intended for the Second Amendment to protect Americans against intrusive federal gun laws. The purpose of this deceitful strategy is to confuse and undermine liberty by persuading those Americans who do care about the original intent of the Constitution that only the government and militias deserve the right to own weapons. This plot must be thwarted and their arguments must be rejected whenever they arise. If we fail, the liberty we now enjoy will eventually be stolen away from future generations. Justin Haskins (@JustinTHaskins) is executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute. For the last many years, the American people have been told that North Korea is a threat to the Untied States, South Korea, and Japan. We have been told that the only way to control North Korea as a nuclear threat is to cajole and appease them. Daddy Bush, Clinton, G W Bush, and Obama said that we must sign meaningless agreements with them, giving them money and other incentives so they would keep their promise not to develop nuclear weapons and systems of delivery. The response was predictable, we delivered, and they did not keep their promise but used our aid for further development.
When President Trump told the North Koreans, the United States would not negotiate, and they were in danger of imminent attack, the cajolers and appeasers screamed how reckless and irresponsible this new policy and was. Fast forward to today. The North Koreans have initiated a sit-down meeting and they have promised to stop any development in the meantime. The North Koreans are even taking steps to act like they have a desire to live responsibly in the world. President Trump has said this is good, we will talk, but your reputation precedes your goodwill gestures and the United States has not withdrawn the right to protect ourselves and our allies. It appears the cajolers and appeasers were wrong. For the last many years, the American people have been told that we must appease all the countries who are sending their overflow of people into the United States illegally. Daddy Bush, Clinton, G W Bush, and Obama even encouraged these people to cross our borders illegally and live in our society taking full advantage of the foolish and collectivist policies of our welfare or give away programs. The American people have been told that this is a compassion approach to aiding others in breaking our laws. The collectivists did not tell us that their real reason for encouraging and aiding illegal immigration was to enhance illegal voting and increase the odds of the collectivist in their quest to fundamentally transform the United States into a totalitarian Marxist state. We were recently notified that a large group of people desiring to break our immigration laws and enter the United States Illegally was moving through Mexico and being aided by the Mexican government. In prior years our government officials did nothing to stop these movements, and even encouraged these criminal intents that always culminated in these people becoming criminals by breaking the laws of the United States. Not anymore. President Trump explained to the American public, the Mexican government, and these aspiring criminals that the United States no longer adheres to arbitrary law as we did under Daddy Bush, Clinton, G W Bush, and Obama, but we now adhere to rule of law as is declared in our Constitution and our heritage. Yes, President Trump said the United States Military will be at the border and if the Mexican government and others continues to aid these aspiring criminals, “Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen.” We have learned that “An official from Mexico’s National Institute of Migration said that Mexico plans to disband the caravan by Wednesday and that some vulnerable people, such as pregnant women or those with disabilities, would receive humanitarian visas.” Also, the remaining members will be expected to leave Mexico within 10 days or apply for permission to remain in Mexico for a month. It would certainly appear that the policies of the Collectivists, the Globalists, Daddy Bush, Clinton, G W Bush, and Obama did not have the best interest of Americans at the core of their policies but instead were intent on promoting the Collectivist and Globalist ideas of the EU that borders should no longer exist. Government is the threat to the freedom of people. It is government that becomes tyrannical and dictates how people are to live their lives and what interests and beliefs they can and should have. This is why the colonists fought the War for Independence; they wanted to be in control of their own lives and interests. Patrick Henry told us this when he said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
When people began to call for government or society to control others’ lives, these same people are saying that the government has the right to control all aspects of their lives as well. We must always remember that government is just a group of people. The natural tendency of people in government is to have their ideas and beliefs placed on the lives of all others. Those on the left believe their ideas are best and all people should adhere to what they believe will benefit the collective. Those on the right believe that an individual should be able to live his life as he believes is in his best interest so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Nikki Glasser, who lists herself as a comedian, expresses this so clearly. Glasser is obviously of the collectivist persuasion believing she knows how Trump Jr. and his wife should conduct their lives because it is what she believes and what she has determined would be in the best interest of the collective. She tweeted a week or so ago that Trump Jr. and his wife had five kids and then went on to say that nobody should be allowed to have five kids. This is absolute tyranny and demagoguery. This is the collective dictating the lives and the interests of others based on the belief that this policy would be in the best interest of the collective and totally ignoring the wishes and the desires of the individual. The reality of tyrannical statements such as Glasser made, is that within the collectivist movement, others will be joining that same tyrannical line believing that they have the right to dictate even the size of a family to the individual. This is the exact reason the colonists fought the British; the colonists wanted to be able to decide for themselves how many children they could have. It is this insidious creep of these collectivist dictates that must be recognized and reversed so our journey down “The Road To Tyranny”will be reversed. 44 Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) Including then Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Exempted Pakistani IT Aides From Background Checks.
Every one of the 44 House Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later made “unauthorized access” to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks, according to congressional documents. All of them appear to have waived background checks on Imran Awan and his family members, even though the family of server administrators could collectively read all the emails and files of 1 in 5 House Democrats, and despite background checks being recommended for such positions, according to an inspector general’s report. The House security policy requires offices to fill out a form attesting that they’ve initiated background checks, but it also includes a loophole allowing them to simply say that another member vouched for them. Among the red flags in Abid’s background were a $1.1 million bankruptcy; six lawsuits against him or a company he owned; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records. Public court records show that Imran and Abid operated a car dealership referred to as CIA that took $100,000 from an Iraqi government official who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities. Numerous members of the family were tied to cryptic LLCs such as New Dawn 2001, operated out of Imran’s residence, Virginia corporation records show. Imran was the subject of repeated calls to police by multiple women and had multiple misdemeanor convictions for driving offenses, according to court records. If a screening had caught those, what officials say happened next might have been averted. The House inspector general reported on Sept. 20, 2016, that shortly before the election members of the group were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.” A pair of closely-held reports on Imran Awan, his brothers Abid and Jamal, his wife Hina Alvi, and his friend Rao Abbas, said, “the shared employees have not been vetted (e.g. background check).” “Shared employees” means they were all hired as part-time, individual employees by individual members, cobbling together $165,000 salaries. Jamal began making that salary at only 20 years old, according to House payroll records; Abid never went to college, his stepmother said; and Rao Abbas’ most recent job experience was being fired from McDonald’s, according to his roommate. (“Whether they had formal training or not, they were trained on the job by Imran,” one of Imran’s lawyers said.) Imran Awan routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. The secret server was connected to the House Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra, now California Attorney General. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation. Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network. Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2022
Categories |
RSS Feed