Connect with us

News

OPINION: Should Trump Definitely Yank Brennan’s Security Clearance After What He Just Said?

What do you think?

Published

on

I am of the opinion that once you leave office, if you abuse your former position by going overtly political to support a party or to enrich yourself, your security clearance should be revoked. I have heard that it is normal for an official to keep their clearance for three or four years after departing office… sometimes longer. A security clearance paves the way for an official to land a high-paying position once they leave office. It was never intended to be used to leak information or dig up dirt on opponents. Once that trust has been violated, their clearance should be negated immediately.

In the last week, President Trump has threatened to yank the security clearances of those such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and James Clapper, as well as others. Why? Because they have hit the media circuits to conduct political hit jobs against a sitting president. Something unheard of until the Trump presidency. All of those in question served under Barack Obama. These people are actively undermining Trump no matter what he does. Media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are paying them huge sums to be political analysts. They still have their high-level security clearances in place which allows them to access sensitive data and information pertaining to the Trump administration. It should not be allowed.

Not only has John Brennan called President Trump treasonous, he has obstructed and maligned Trump at every turn. The latest concerns tariffs. He is demanding a “smarter” and “more sophisticated” approach to Iran and China. “Using tariffs as a blunt force instrument against allies and partners is not only short-sighted but also plays into the hands of Russia and China,” Brennan wrote on Twitter. “Same is true with bombastic rhetoric against Iran. We need to be smarter, more sophisticated, more strategic.” Russia, China, and Iran are all enemies of this country. Two of them are brutal communist regimes and the other is a murderous theocracy that is the greatest purveyor of terrorism on the planet. So, of course, Brennan would defend them and attack the President of the United States instead.

Trending: Patriots Former Tight End Martellus Bennett Just Made Sickening Allegation About Trump

Brennan didn’t stop there either. He replied to the president on Twitter when Trump called tariffs “the greatest.” It’s obvious here that Trump is trolling his opponents, but let’s put that aside for a moment. “Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs,” Trump wrote. “It’s as simple as that.” I am not a fan of tariffs. I believe they mired us in WWII. However, it may be time for them. For far too long, we have been on the short end of trade on the global stage. It should be a level playing field and Trump is trying to accomplish just that. I personally support what he is doing here.

If you are wondering why the strongest nation in the world would allow this to happen over time, I have one word for you… ‘corruption’. Certain politicians get very wealthy by looking the other way on trade. They are paid handsome sums by other countries if they will allow trade to be in favor of their country as opposed to America. Not caring who gets what as long as they get a big payday, these individuals grease the skids for those such as China to unequally benefit from foreign trade with the United States. When Trump came on the scene that all changed and those who have been compromised are in a panic over it. These people comprise what is known as ‘The Swamp’.

Remember, after Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Brennan called it “nothing short of treasonous.” “Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???” he tweeted. I have never seen a former official behave in such a treacherous and vicious manner in public against a sitting president.

Brennan’s remarks have ticked off Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who said he pitched the idea of revoking the former official’s clearance at a Monday meeting with Trump. “Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees,” Paul tweeted out following the meeting.

Reporters in the White House press room were stunned at the announcement that the revocation of security clearances was being contemplated, with one journalist asking White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if Trump is simply suppressing the free speech of officials “for saying things about him that he doesn’t like.” “I think you’re creating your own story there,” Sanders said, adding that Trump “doesn’t like that people are politicizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant not to be political.”

President Trump is seriously considering yanking the security clearances of Brennan and other former officials. I think he should do so immediately before even more damage is done here by what I call enemies of the state and of Americans in general. After Brennan went off on tariffs being imposed by the president, he has shown that he will do anything to smear Trump. Even if that means supporting countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. He should definitely have his security clearance revoked after what he just said. In fact, it should have been done long ago. The White House is looking into revoking the security clearances of former CIA, FBI and ODNI chiefs, arguing that their “baseless accusations” against President Trump amount to monetizing and misusing the privilege. It’s impossible to argue with that at this point.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.