Millennials, Communism and freedom

First, from the WashingtonTimes.com:

Millennials would rather live in socialist or communist nation than under capitalism: Poll

by Bradford Richardson

‘This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society’

The majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one, according to a new poll.

In the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism,” 58 percent of the up-and-coming generation opted for one of the three systems, compared to 42 percent who said they were in favor of capitalism.

The most popular socioeconomic order was socialism, with 44 percent support. Communism and fascism received 7 percent support each.

Marion Smith, executive director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, said the report shows millennials are “increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”

Thank you very much, American “educators” (I bandy that term quite very loosely), Leftists, Demorats and, naturally, the American Media Maggots for doing such a spectacular job of disseminating your staggeringly-slanted, agendized bias. Your lies are working on the mush-minds of our youth.

“This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society regarding socialism and the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago,” Mr. Smith said in a statement.

This very interesting point:

Millennials were the only age group more likely to say America’s economic system “works against me” rather than “works for me.” Gen Z had the most positive impression of the economy, with 66 percent saying it “works for me,” although many of them have yet to enter the workforce.

On that note, we recently noted 100 years of Communism. From WSJ.com:

100 Years of Communism—and 100 Million Dead

by David Satter

The Bolshevik plague that began in Russia was the greatest catastrophe in human history.

Armed Bolsheviks seized the Winter Palace in Petrograd—now St. Petersburg—100 years ago this week and arrested ministers of Russia’s provisional government. They set in motion a chain of events that would kill millions and inflict a near-fatal wound on Western civilization.

The revolutionaries’ capture of train stations, post offices and telegraphs took place as the city slept and resembled a changing of the guard. But when residents of the Russian capital awoke, they found they were living in a different universe.

And then all the buttery political fun began.

Although the Bolsheviks called for the abolition of private property, their real goal was spiritual: to translate Marxist- Lenin ist ideology into reality. For the first time, a state was created that was based explicitly on atheism and claimed infallibility. This was totally incompatible with Western civilization, which presumes the existence of a higher power over and above society and the state.

Now you begin to see the clouds parting, yes? Western civilization, i.e. more and more citizens in the United States, eschew the existence of a higher power like some tin idol named “godd” or “Bill” or “Berford.” As far as they are concerned, all good things come from The State in terms of our government with one major, vitally-important exception: those damned pesky papers called our “foundational documents” like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They are, like, so totally uncool, dude.

The Bolshevik coup had two consequences. In countries where communism came to hold sway, it hollowed out society’s moral core, degrading the individual and turning him into a cog in the machinery of the state. Communists committed murder on such a scale as to all but eliminate the value of life and to destroy the individual conscience in survivors.

Note this:

In a 1920 speech to the Komsomol, Lenin said that communists subordinate morality to the class struggle. Good was anything that destroyed “the old exploiting society” and helped to build a “new communist society.”

Starting to sound a bit familiar?

This approach separated guilt from responsibility. Martyn Latsis, an official of the Cheka, Lenin’s secret police, in a 1918 instruction to interrogators, wrote: “We are not waging war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. . . . Do not look for evidence that the accused acted in word or deed against Soviet power. The first question should be to what class does he belong. . . . It is this that should determine his fate.”

Then there’s this disturbing part that today’s educators and students miss entirely — perhaps the most disturbing.

Such convictions set the stage for decades of murder on an industrial scale. In total, no fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the regime or died as a direct result of its repressive policies. This does not include the millions who died in the wars, epidemics and famines that were predictable consequences of Bolshevik policies, if not directly caused by them.

The victims include 200,000 killed during the Red Terror (1918-22); 11 million dead from famine and dekulakization; 700,000 executed during the Great Terror (1937-38); 400,000 more executed between 1929 and 1953; 1.6 million dead during forced population transfers; and a minimum 2.7 million dead in the Gulag, labor colonies and special settlements.

To this list should be added nearly a million Gulag prisoners released during World War II into Red Army penal battalions, where they faced almost certain death; the partisans and civilians killed in the postwar revolts against Soviet rule in Ukraine and the Baltics; and dying Gulag inmates freed so that their deaths would not count in official statistics.

If we add to this list the deaths caused by communist regimes that the Soviet Union created and supported—including those in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia—the total number of victims is closer to 100 million.

Then this fact — not a suggestion, but a fact:

That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history.

Yay Communism.

What is it I’ve said for years? “Everybody always thinks they can do Socialism/Communism better than the last guy.” Except: it never works.

Also this, ripped from today’s screaming headlines about the opinions regarding “freedom” (hok-putui, such a nasty word) on today’s university campuses, from of all places the WashingtonPost.com:

A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

by Catherine Rampell

Here’s the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants “safe spaces,” or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech.

Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

We already know about speech being the “same” as violence according to Leftists.

In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.

Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.

The most shocking?

For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred — or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred — may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.

Freedom of speech “important”? Nah.

Since were on the subject of polls, another poll no one else will reveal to you, from my blog post via JihadWatch.org:

51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.

by Robert Spencer

Really, what did you expect? A considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history. But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

51% of Muslims living in the U.S. just this June (2015) told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

These are all clues. These are all indicators of America in the desperate grip of those who wish to tear this country apart from within. Presently there is an active attempt to install mob rule in the United States utilizing not just overt violence, but a highly-funded, organized and systematic undermining, overtaking, eliminating and rewriting of our fundamental founding documents, our history in written form, in oral form, in photographic form and in physical form.

Universities, once admirable towers of higher learning and critical thought now tolerate none of it. The past two generations are shockingly willing to relinquish almost every freedom they possess — to have the government, when it deigns so, to sell those freedoms back. More and more the government is disinterested in such a sale. It simply wants to acquire and keep the power and control.

Is it for this that 500,000 Americans died in the Civil War — so we can become slaves of the government? Do the 1.5 million American deaths during service in war time mean nothing? Must we do it all over again? Historical Alzheimers? Must we go out of our way to prove George Santayana correct anew?

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Communism and Socialism have been tried numerous times in numerous — dozens — of countries in the past two centuries. It always fails. And every new dictator thinks that, in the past, it simply wasn’t “done right.” As I wrote, they believe they are the ones who can “do it right” this time. Then they fail and kill hundreds if not thousands if not millions of their own countrymen.

If there is one lesson the communist century should have taught, it is that the independent authority of universal moral principles cannot be an afterthought, since it is the conviction on which all of civilization depends.

Is the US condemned?

BZ

 

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

Seattle gun tax = less crime

Right?

Wrong.

From FoxNews.com:

Seattle gun tax failure? Firearm sales plummet, violence spikes after law passes

by Dan Springer

When the City of Seattle passed a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition, the measure was hailed as a way to defray the rising costs of gun violence.

But since the tax took effect, those costs have only risen as gun violence in the city has surged. And the tax has apparently brought in much less than city leaders projected it would.

“How much data do you need?” asked Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and member of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”

Oh come on. Let’s be honest because the Leftists certainly won’t. First and foremost, this is another Leftist assault on the Second Amendment, which Leftists despise along with other aspects of the Bill of Rights — to include the First Amendment.

This was how it was portrayed in 2015, with Tucker Carlson responding to Abby Huntsman (ironic?).

You have but to look at and examine a host of violent events in American universities this year and last where speakers were threatened, actually struck, and either physically removed or had their presentations canceled because of Leftist violence and protests.

Leftists and Demorats know that when you have effectively eliminated the Second Amendment you are quite well on your way to eliminating the First Amendment and that is one of their ultimate goals: control of every aspect of your life, including your speech and, literally, your thoughts. When you cannot fight back you cannot stem their tide of monolithic policy, philosophy, suppression and control.

Let me again state the obvious. Those conservative or Republicans who insist the Second Amendment exists to allow good Americans to hunt or sport shoot couldn’t be more wrong. The Second Amendment exists so that good Americans are sufficiently armed in order to stave off attempts by the government to corrupt, arrest, enslave, oppress or subjugate the people of the United States. No more, no less.

Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016. Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of shots fired are up 13 percent, the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent and gun deaths doubled, according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department.

Tucker Carlson spoke last week about the so-called “unforeseen consequences” of the Seattle gun tax with anti-gun activist Mark Glaze which were, of course, entirely foreseeable.

Here’s what Leftists really want to take effect, up to and until they can literally remove your firearms and ammunition from your homes. Don’t think there isn’t already a $1,000 gun tax per firearm in effect. From ATR.org:

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as ‘Role Model’ for States

by John Kartch

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A $1,000 per gun tax should serve as a “role model” for states, according to the governor of the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, which imposed the $1,000 gun tax earlier this month (2016). An idea first endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993, steep gun taxes have now taken hold in Cook County, Ill. the city of Seattle, and now a U.S. territory.

As reported by the Saipan Tribune:

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.

The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that assesses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.

The threat of such a tax serving as a role model for other politicians to impose is not an idle one.

Idle? Hell, it’s admired, embraced and salivated-over. Though a few years old, here is another greatly-admired idea from Demorats and Leftists. You can thank your lucky stars that another President Clinton isn’t occupying the Oval Office.

The government and local entities cannot yet physically confiscate your weapons. But they can certainly tax their sales and restrict and/or limit and tax ammunition as well.

Dave Workman doesn’t criticize the study, but he does think the city council should have predicted the results of the gun tax, such as gun dealers leaving with no drop in gun ownership. As for the gun violence, he says that too should not surprise anyone.

“All these gun control laws affect the wrong people,” Workman said. “The gang bangers don’t go in and buy ammunition at retail, at least not around here. It certainly hasn’t stopped them from getting their hands on firearms.”

Tales from Captain Obvious fail to be read by Demorats and Leftists. They continue to double down on laws oppressing the wrong people. Criminals, on the other hand, by definitions printed in their job descriptions, don’t give a shit about your puny laws.

Finally, Colion Noir dares to speak truth to power and truth to you and me.

Gun control is about one thing only. Removing your freedoms. Ask yourselves: just why is it that even Europeans are wishing they had their own Second Amendment these days?

You know the answer.

BZ

 

Let the silencing of free speech commence

freedom-of-speechBecause, after all, you didn’t think it would stop at the internet, did you?

Silly person.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage

by Paul Bedard

In their biggest threat yet to conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are laying the groundwork to bar companies with even the tiniest foreign ownership from American politics, a move that could ban Fox, the Wall Street Journal and even the New York Times from covering political races or giving endorsements.

In a last-minute submission Wednesday, a top Democrat on the evenly split FEC proposed that the Thursday meeting of the commission begin the process to prohibit companies with foreign ownership as small as 5 percent “from funding expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.”

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Stop right there. Note: “Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.”

said in her submission, “Given everything we have learned this year, it blinks reality to suggest that that there is no risk of foreign nationals taking advantage of current loopholes to intercede invisibly in American elections. This is a risk no member of the Federal Election Commission should be willing to tolerate.”

Under Weintraub’s proposal, entities that reach her foreign ownership target would conceivably be banned from advocating for a candidate’s election or defeat.

Right. It’s okay if we sell most anything to foreign nationals but the precious press — it must be protected so that it may continue to be the pure, unvarnished and unbiased agent for the Left that it was and is. The Leftist bent of the American Media Maggots cannot be diverted for any reason. So, we’ll simply make up as much specious shite as possible since we already recognize the internet has been compromised.

Several media giants have at least 5 percent foreign ownership, some with as much as 25 percent. Included is News Corp, which owns Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times also has foreign ownership, as do many politically active firms like Ben & Jerry’s.

Oh no. American ice cream has been tainted by foreign ownership.

That prohibition could include Fox commentator Sean Hannity or Wall Street Journal editorials. And, according to one analysis, because foreign nationals also are prohibited from making electioneering communications, those media would not even be able to mention Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if just covering them.

Democrats on the commission have been on a three-year campaign to limit the voice of conservative media, stopped by Republican commissioners who have warned that the First Amendment is under attack in the FEC.

Let us not forget that roughly two months ago the DNC was hacked and America learned the DNC was helping CBS to create the poll questions in a bias of clear and obvious proportions.

No. I’m not making this up.

Leftists, Demorats and Progressives really do wish to silence you — unless your speech, writings, opinions and thoughts are completely congruent with theirs. They will brook no opposition, no pushback, not even discussion.

The First Amendment is being attacked, openly, nakedly, right in front of our eyes, hiding in plain sight, because — guess who? — isn’t covering much of it at all.

This is orchestrated, this is purposeful, this is organized, this is an assault on your freedoms and my freedoms. Just wait a few minutes; the FCC will be piling on any moment now in the same manner.

America, are you listening? Are you seeing? Are you comprehending?

I fear you are asleep.

BZ

 

States’ suit in re ICANN: shot DOWN by OBAMA federal judge

free-speech-eliminatedA federal US District Court judge in the Southern District of Texas — nominated by Barack Hussein Obama on January 7th of 2015 — has denied an emergency request by Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada to stay the relinquishment of ICANN control from the US to a globalist body.

Transfer now occurs at midnight.

From UPI.com:

Judge rejects plea from states to stop U.S. from giving up control of Internet

by Allen Cone and Doug G. Ware

GALVESTON, Texas, Sept. 30 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday rejected a last-ditch effort by four states to stop the U.S. government from handing over control of the Internet to an international body when the calendar turns to Saturday.

Judge George Hanks, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied an emergency request by the states — Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada — for a temporary restraining order to interrupt the handover, which was scheduled for midnight Friday.

Attorneys general from the states filed the lawsuit Wednesday.

And there you have it. Your First Amendment protections on the internet surrendered not with a bang, but with a whimper.

The lawsuit argued that the states “will lose the predictability, certainty, and protections that currently flow from federal stewardship of the Internet and instead be subjected to ICANN’s unchecked control.”

The suit says Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet is an illegal transfer of U.S. government property and that it requires congressional approval.

Your grand and glorious Congress had its chance to intervene but decided — mehnot to.

No one forced us to do this. The United States was not under pressure to do so. The US was not sued in some globalist court in order to acquire this result.

It was the decision of one man.

Judge Hanks, however, ruled Friday that the plaintiffs failed to prove that irreparable harm would result from the handover and denied the injunction — clearing the way for the transfer to occur at midnight Friday.

And transfer it will.

BZ