The totalitarian left, whether socialists, communists, or fascists pretending to be anti-fascist, is coming closer to power in the United States today. If Joe Biden wins in November and the democrat party takes the Senate and keeps the House, a laundry list of items will be immediately on the agenda:
Eliminating the filibuster. Sen. Schumer has already stated eliminating it is on the table. This will turn the Senate into the House without any need for consensus. and provide the opportunity for all kinds of mischief, including the following.
Giving citizenship to around 20 million people who have entered the country illegally, after blocking all President Trump’s attempts to fix the issue over his first term.
Packing the Supreme Court by adding additional seats.
“Hate speech” is a term used by fascists, socialists, communists and other authoritarians to shut people up – when they can’t win an argument that involves liberty vs control, they want people to be shutdown and shut up. It is a slippery, subjective concept that allows those defining it to silence those with whom they disagree.
Always look to see who the arbiter of what is “hate speech” and you’ll see who will benefit from it in terms of wealth and power.
Interesting, now Fauci is admitting that that public health officials lied about the effectiveness of masks to preserve supplies for first responders. Of course anyone with any common sense knew they were lying about it earlier this year. Of course, anyone with any common sense knew they were lying about it earlier this year.
TheHill: “[Fauci] also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE. [Fauci] explained that public health experts “were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”
The CDC, WHO, and “officials” have been lying from the start. It is just nice (well, maybe not nice, but validating) to hear Fauci say what everyone with above a room temp IQ knew when the surgeon general and all the health officials were saying (among other things), “masks aren’t effective” and then 6-8 weeks later say they are. It wasn’t a question of new data, it was a question of self-serving lying by public officials which undoubtedly cost people their lives.
So, in short, “Fauci lied, people died.”
One wonders how much they were they also lying about in the Coronavirus Task Force meetings to the VP, President etc?
Who orchestrated this lie? Will there be hearings?
Why did the CDC and others lie about it? Why politicize it by lying?
Dear President Bravman, I am completely disgusted to read that “A professor at Bucknell University tweeted out last week that he wished death on Rush Limbaugh,”(https://www.thecollegefix.com/professor-wishes-death-on-rush-limbaugh-attacks-republicans-on-social-media/ ) particularly after insinuating that a US House of Representatives member should be hanged last year. First as an alumni, seeing Bucknell’s name in the context of Michael Drexler wishing death on someone in a news article that is circulated worldwide is deeply disturbing. Does anyone, let alone a professional, want to have their alma mater brought up in such a manner? Does Bucknell have plans to prevent such events in the future? Do professors have any standards that they must follow, like morality clauses in professional athlete contracts, so as to avoid painting the University in a bad light? When you see patterns of public behavior of a person wishing death on people, there should be a concern on how it reflects upon the institution and professors should, frankly, have better judgement than to do so without the need of contract terms. A second concern is, of course, about current students and faculty at Bucknell. If someone is publicly wishing death to at least several people, I would be concerned about their stability as it relates to on-campus violence against people with whom Drexler disagrees whether they are students, faculty, administrators, or even alumni. What is Bucknell doing in order to promote a safe campus environment that is open to viewpoints, particularly those that are anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist, – in short anti-authoritarian – and pro-liberty? I am concerned that someone wishing death on people and publicly calling Professor Riley (no relation) a “white supremacist skinhead” (from the article) might be temperamentally unfit to be educating students safely. I have to say that during my four years at Bucknell, not only did none of my professors ever wish death upon anyone or call students or other professors names, neither did the swim coaches, administrators, staff or anyone else with whom I interacted. The head swim coach (Dick Russell) insisted that when we went to swim meets, both home and away, we “look neat and clean” (nice shirt, (often) ties, no scruffiness) because we were “representing Bucknell”. Professors today should have as much sense as he did. Which leads to my next question.
How lax are the current hiring standards that Bucknell is hiring and promoting to tenured professor people who are immature and immorally evil that they would wish death on someone in a public forum where they are associated with Bucknell? Does Bucknell do anything to promote tolerance among faculty members and promote mental health of faculty members who are advocating violence among sitting members of Congress, calling other faculty members vile names and wishing death on public figures? Seeing some of the anti-free speech protests on campus recently makes me concerned about the direction the University has taken, but I do commend the school for standing up for free speech such as allowing Heather Mac Donald to speak last year. A University should be about civil discourse, not vile names, threats and the like whether or not you disagree with someone or not. Thanks,
New Hampshire Democrats prefer Socialist to Clinton – and Clinton to Trump in the 2016 election. So much for “LIVE FREE OR DIE.” Perhaps New Hampshire needs to change their motto to “Free stuff or die”.
One other question about the so-called “New Hampshire Advantage” in trust law. If you are considering setting up a trust in New Hampshire advantage, make sure you have a flee clause in there because if the state goes left, “free money” from trusts domiciled in NH will no doubt be a big target.
Attorneys and clients who want to use NH for their trust, make sure you are prepared.
However, it should be noted that the same philosophy that is behind Warren’s quest for a wealth tax, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s quest for a 70% top marginal rate is the same ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it’ philosophy that Lincoln fought in the old Democrat South. Likewise, the same promise of ‘free’ stuff was at the base of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler’s promises when they came to power. (Obviously not the concentration camps.)
Harkening back to previous comments about the difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of a Whim ( http://rights.com/2000/11/20/the-rule-of-law-or-the-rule-of-whim/ ) Federal district judge James Robart of Seattle’s recent ruling embodies the difference between the rule of law and the rule of whim.
Federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
When the judiciary ignores the law, the meaning of the “law” is lost. We are then no longer a country of laws, not men, we are a country of men’s whims, not law.
“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.” – sent to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta by former Clinton administration official Bill Ivey on March 13, 2016.
“I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will.” “None of us should accept that the government or a company or anybody should have access to all of our private information. This is a basic human right. We all have a right to privacy. We shouldn’t give it up. We shouldn’t give in to scare-mongering.”
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
Obamacare architect, democrat, and fascist Jonathan Gruber brags about trying to trick the American people by hiding the motivations and mechanics of Obamacare from the American people.