Product Placement | Breakfast at Tiffany's Ice Cream at Pelosi's | image tagged in memes,nancy pelosi,refrigerator,fridge,freezer | made w/ Imgflip meme maker


What really lurks behind their façade of concern for the “people” and the “oppressed.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Poet Sylvia Plath’s slur against women, that they “adore a fascist, the boot in the face, the brute,” is more true about progressives, with one big difference: they want to be the ones wearing the boot. Behind their façade of therapeutic concern for the “people” and the “oppressed” lies something that Vladimir Lenin was honest enough to express in 1906: the lust for “power, which is totally unlimited by any laws, totally unrestrained by absolutely any rules, and based directly on force.”
Thankfully, those impulses so far have been checked by our Constitutional order, which was created to inhibit the concentration and excesses of power that threatens citizen freedom. But as we have seen over the last century, at times of crisis the technocratic progressives have chipped away at those Constitutional guardrails and serially encroached on our freedoms. The current virus crisis is the latest opportunity for the Dems to indulge their inner despots.
We’ve all seen the catalogue of overweening unilateral diktats enforced by police power coming down from Democrat governors. Under the guise of enforcing social distancing in order to slow the spread of the disease, governors have quickly violated the Bill of Rights: closing gun stores at the same time they release felons from prison; shutting down church services while leaving liquor stores open; criminalizing the right to peaceful assembly; arbitrarily deeming some economic activities as “essential,” like abortion clinics and pot dispensaries, while proscribing others like buying paint or vegetable seeds. Even our freedom of movement that doesn’t endanger others, such as surfing alone or playing with our children in a deserted park, has been interdicted by overzealous police.
At one level, this permanent temptation to seek and abuse power is part of human nature, as both our Judeo-Christian and Classical traditions recognized. The story of the Fall in Genesis is about choosing power to exercise our free will as we see fit, over being obedient to our Creator: “Ye shall be as gods,” Satan lies to Eve. The Greeks invented tragedy to make the same point about power. Success and achievement lead to hubris that makes us cross the lines defining our humanity and its limits. Instead we believe we can be like gods and use our power to tyrannize our fellows: “Hubris breeds the tyrant,” as Sophocles said of Oedipus.
On a more mundane level, we have all experienced the effects of power-hunger, from playground bullies to arrogant bosses, from despotic teachers to power-drunk cops, from petty tyrants at the DMV to Stalinoid school administrators. But progressivism and its leftist cousins go far beyond that all-too-human tendency to abuse power. It endorses an ideology predicated on the assumption that those properly trained in the “human sciences” can be trusted with expanded power, for their aims are the fruit not of unscientific religion, tradition, practical wisdom, or common sense, but of reason and science. As such, the progressive policies are self-evidently true and rational, and anyone who resists them are like flat-earthers to be reeducated, ostracized, or if necessary eliminated, but at least subjected to the superior knowledge of the technocratic elite.
Of course, these ideas are diametrically opposed to those of the Founders. Our Constitution reflects the truth that humans, no matter how rich or smart or well-born, are subject to the lure of power and will seek to increase their own at the expense of the rights of others. So in addition to divided government and federalism, which block the excessive concentration of power, the Bill of Rights was made part of our governing document as another check on tyranny.
However, since the 1880s, the progressives in theory and practice have been weakening these defenses against encroaching power. They “demystified” individual rights by denying that they are “unalienable,” given not by flawed men but “endowed by their Creator,” and bestowed by “nature and nature’s God.” Rather, rights are created by men to serve particular circumstances at particular times. Progressive theorist Mary Parker Follett, for example, in 1918 wrote that the individual “unalienable rights” now needed to be augmented by “social rights” bestowed by a government guided by the “most vital trend in philosophical thought and by the latest biologists and social psychologists.” These technocrats can then set to work “creating all the rights we shall ever have.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt went much further in reducing and subordinating our rights to the ideology of the federal government and its “managerial elite.” In a 1932 campaign address, he claimed the “age of enlightened administration has come,” and called for the “modifying and controlling of our economic units,” which in turn “may in some measure qualify the freedom and action of individual units within the business.” Twelve years later Roosevelt turned to the expansion of “rights” that government need to create to ensure “equality in the pursuit of happiness.” His “Second Bill of Rights” included everything from a “useful and remunerative job” to a “decent home” and a “good education.”
Achieving these utopian aims required first that the core principle of the Constitution, unalienable rights beyond the power of the government, be revised. As progressive historian Charles Beard said in 1912 in these chilling and prophetic words, “The doctrine that the individual has fundamental personal and property rights which are beyond the reach, not only of the majority but of the state itself, can be sustained on no other theory than that of anarchy. It rests upon a notion as obsolete and indefensible as the doctrine of natural rights.” Beard was seconding progressive champion Herbert Croly, who in 1909 had called for “an increasing amount of centralized action and responsibility,” which would require we discard “the strong, almost dominant, tendency to regard the existing Constitution with superstitious awe, and to shrink in horror from modifying it in even the smallest detail.”
Over the subsequent century this ideology has fueled the expansion of the federal government at the expense of civil society and individual rights. The current “woke” socialists have made no secret of their demands for greater government power at the expense of individuals in order to achieve “social justice” and “equality.” Thus it’s no coincidence that many of the despotic orders coming from blue-state governors target the unalienable, enumerated rights in the Constitution such as the First and Second Amendments.
What makes these assaults on our rights so dangerous is that they are consequences not just of the eternal human lust for power reflective of our flawed human nature, but of an ideology that legitimizes that dangerous desire by dressing it in the lofty rhetoric of “social justice” and “equality.” Thus tyranny is rationalized and justified by the professed boons that it will deliver, such as “flattening the curve” of coronavirus infection based on incomplete “expert” knowledge about the virus’s lethality. Lenin at least was more honest about the nature of his tyranny:  in 1906 he defined dictatorship as “nothing other than power which is totally unlimited by any laws, totally unrestrained by absolutely any rules, and based directly on force.”
We need to remember this history of progressivism in America so that we understand how deeply engrained these ideas have become. Our despotic governors are not just prey to their flawed human nature, but are legitimized by an ideology that is founded on the need to limit our unalienable rights in order to create a more “just” world. These dangers, then, are systemic and opportunistic, finding in crises an opening for further encroachment on our liberties, and further aggrandizement of progressive power. These ideas, then, require a much more vigorous pushback, and a more concerted effort to dismantle the deep-state institutions that enforce these assaults on our freedom and autonomy.
The protests in various states like Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky against these overweening, arbitrary, and unconstitutional rules and orders perhaps signal the beginning of such a pushback by citizens. But most important will be the presidential election in November. If we the people make the wrong choice then, we may lose our last chance to restore the Constitution’s safeguards of our freedom.





Pastor Shahram Hadian, at a Drive In Church service in Spokane, WA during the COVID lock-down, calls forth courageous pastors to stand against tyranny! We Need a Black Robed Regiment Again!

This drive-in service was hosted by Hope2Spokane, and was a joint service between Hope2Spokane, Truth in Love Ministry, and Covenant Church in Spokane.
Rise Up!!
Please like, share, and email this video to your contact lists- it’s time to stand up as a courageous generation of believers and pastors!!


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
“The Pakistani doctor graduated in 2016 from the Riphah International University in Islamabad which supposedly produces professionals with Islamic morals and ethics.”
Now that’s a point to ponder. How did a man who studied “Islamic morals and ethics” get the idea that he had to kill for Allah, and that even Muhammad wanted to kill and be killed (cf. Qur’an 9:111)? Counterterror authorities and analysts should closely examine that question. But they won’t, because they’re indefatigably committed to a fiction.
An update on this story. “‘I want to kill again and again’, says Pakistani doctor arrested in the US on charges of terrorism: Read details,” OpIndia, April 18, 2020:
On March 19, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had arrested a 28-year-old Pakistani doctor and former Mayo Clinic research coordinator named Muhammed Masood at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport for providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). If proven guilty, he may serve up to 20 years in prison.
Masood had also pledged his allegiance to the extremist Islamic terror outfit, besides expressing his desire to execute ‘lone wolf attacks’ in the United States. He was living in the country for 2 years, at the time of arrest, on an H-1B visa.
The Pakistani doctor graduated in 2016 from the Riphah International University in Islamabad which supposedly produces professionals with Islamic morals and ethics. He worked at the Pakistan Railway Hospital, Federal Government Polyclinic Post-Graduate Medical Institute and the Government of Punjab’s Healthcare department in Rawalpindi before joining Mayo Clinic in Minnesota in the US as a research trainee in February 2018.
During the investigation, FBI officials found that Masood was the encrypted Social Media Platform (SMP) user ‘BB’ who wanted to travel to Syria and help the ISIS carry out their acts of terror. In the United States Vs Muhammed case, the FBI officials furnished computer records and conversations between two reliable sources that the Pakistani doctor mistook for as ISIS commanders. Vicious Plans of the Pakistani Doctor
‘BB’ aka Muhammed Masood wanted to use his medical knowledge to work as a frontline jihadist and help the ‘mujahideen'(terrorists) on ground zero. He also wanted to be trained in weaponry. During his conversation with one of the sources, the Pakistani doctor revealed that he hated smiling at the Kaffir (non-Muslim/infidel) passing by but he did so nevertheless to avoid making them suspicious.
Masood also desired to study engineering and help transform small drones that could be purchased online into ‘suicide bombing drones’. He believed that ‘Qiyamah‘ (the day of judgment) was near and thus wanted to do jihad. The ISIS sympathiser also wanted to carry out “lone wolf” attacks in the United States….
In order to persuade Masood into exposing his dangerous mindset, a confidential source informed him that he might have to kill people for his ‘Iman’ (Faith) and asked whether he was willing to do such a thing. The Pakistani doctor replied, “I want to kill and get killed, again and again. This is what even Prophet Mohammed wished. Allah will protect its people.” Reportedly, he was in search of the ‘Truth‘ and was motivated to commit acts of terror after he began listening to one Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki. The Inspiration
Al-Awlaki was a Muslim Cleric in Virginia who also worked as a recruiter and planner for Al-Qaeda, a dreaded terror organisation. He was the source of ‘motivation’ for at least three 9/11 hijackers, and a former American Army Major turned mass shooter in Texas named Nidal Malik Hasan. Al-Awlaki who was killed during an airstrike in 2011 also prepared a Nigerian Islamist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bomb Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in December 2009.
The Muslim cleric has left behind his Facebook page and several Youtube videos that continue to radicalise Muslims and inspire acts of terrorism. Reportedly, the Saudi news organisations refer to him as the “Bin Laden of the Internet.”
The story of Muhammed Masood was no different. He supposedly learnt from the lectures of Al-Awlaki that ‘Dawla al-Islamiyya’ in Iraq was the epitome of Truth. When the Pakistani doctor met one of the FBI sources who he mistook as ISIS commander, he said that one must know the direction in which the arrows of the Kaffirs are pointed. Masood emphasised that he understood the infidels better after moving to the United States and that he was sick of the place. The Arrest of the Pakistani Doctor
Masood had resigned from his job at the Mayo Clinic on March 17, 2020. He also sold most of his personal belongings online, including, office chair, mattress, and shoe rack. The outbreak of the Wuhan Coronavirus, however, marred the plans of the Pakistani medic. He had booked a flight to Jordan from O’Hare International Airport in Chicago. His mistake was that he shared the itinerary with the FBI source….


Joe Biden and His Gift for Gaffes
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
U.S.A. –-( Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden has plans for American gun owners that are spelled out in a 3,100-word agenda found on his campaign website that includes a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” background checks on all gun sales and transfers, restrictions on the number of firearms someone can buy in a month, “safe storage” and enough other red tape to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a heavily-regulated privilege.
This coming Saturday, April 25, “Team Joe” is planning a “Service Outreach Unity Leadership (S.O.U.L.) of the Nation” event to recognize the efforts of “our communities’ heroes.” A message on his website says, “When Joe launched our campaign a year ago this Saturday, he said that this election is about more than just politics – it’s about the soul of this country. That is true now more than ever before.”
The former vice president, now said to be considering a female running mate since he is virtually assured of winning the nomination—which a majority of Democrats appear to favor, according to a recent Rasmussen survey—insists he will follow “constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.”
Here are some of the highlights found in his campaign literature:
  • Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns.
  • End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (This could be a direct threat to such places as Midway and Brownells, Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s.–ed.)
  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons, his agenda says. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
  • Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy. (Critics of this policy say it went after military veterans who had problems with finances.)
There is much more in Biden’s scheme, such as holding firearms manufacturers responsible for illegal acts committed by people using one of their firearms. Another provision will “Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs…to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.”
It’s all spelled out in detail, in 3,167 words, and there is nothing in this narrative about Biden “hoping” to do anything. At several points, the document says “Biden will.”
To accomplish this, he’s going to want a running mate who agrees with, and will adhere to, his policies. The recent Rasmussen survey, conducted April 12-13 with a margin of sampling error at +/- 3 percentage points, says 61 percent of likely Democratic voters “believe it is important for Biden’s running mate to be a woman or person of color, with 35% who say it is Very Important.”
Does that mean most Democrats are more interested in political correctness than they are in performance? Here’s an excerpt from the Rasmussen report:
“But when given a list of seven top potential vice presidential nominees, Democrats rate most about the same. The possible candidates and their levels of support are: Bernie Sanders (15%), Kamala Harris (14%), Elizabeth Warren (13%), Amy Klobuchar (12%), Stacey Abrams (11%), Michael Bloomberg (7%) and Pete Buttigieg (5%). Thirteen percent (13%) of Democrats prefer someone else, and 11% are undecided.” By no small coincidence, Klobuchar is being touted as Biden's “safe pick” in a Washington Examiner piece.
In its introduction, the Biden doctrine emphasizes that he “has taken on the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the national stage and won – twice. In 1993, he shepherded through Congress the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established the background check system that has since kept more than 3 million firearms out of dangerous hands. In 1994, Biden – along with Senator Dianne Feinstein – secured the passage of 10-year bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again.”
Perhaps “victory” means different things to different people. Since 1993, the NRA reportedly raised its membership by at least 50 percent, and that era has seen the emergence of other rights organizations as powerhouse groups, specifically the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and various state-level organizations. Millions of gun owners were energized during the Clinton and Obama administrations when Biden and his Capitol Hill colleagues went after gun rights.
Indeed, it was a SAF case—McDonald v. City of Chicago—that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, providing the opportunity to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. That opened the legal floodgates allowing dozens of legal actions challenging the kinds of gun laws Biden and his contemporaries favor.
Near the top of his agenda, Biden says he will “Get weapons of war off our streets.” There are all kinds of proposals to make it more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to remain “law-abiding.”
There is little, if anything, about locking up criminals. Instead, one finds this:
“There are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities without turning to incarceration. For example, Group Violence Intervention organizes community leaders to work with individuals most likely to commit acts of gun violence, express the community’s demand that the gun violence stop, and connect individuals who may be likely perpetrators with social and economic support services that may deter violent behavior.”
On the heels of a mass shooting rampage in Canada, a nation with some of the strictest gun laws in the hemisphere—laws the gun prohibition lobby would like this country to emulate, were it not for the pesky Second Amendment—Biden’s gun control agenda is unlikely to win any converts in the firearms community, and it will give U.S. gun owners plenty to think about as November draws closer.
About Dave WorkmanDave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.


Wow, folks, Trump does it again! The president has announced that he is suspending all immigration into the United States in response to the coronavirus as well as in an effort to protect American jobs. That’s right! President Trump has gone and done the once unthinkable; he is officially halting any and all immigration into the United States. We’re going to take a look at the president’s executive order and we’re going to see how it’s nothing less than one of the final nails in the coffin of a dying leftwing globalism; you’re going to absolutely love it!


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Missouri on Tuesday became the first state to sue China for damages related to “the enormous loss of life, human suffering, and economic turmoil” resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, for which the state holds China responsible.
Filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, the suit follows a number of federal class-action cases by private groups, including one in which a Florida group claims China knew “COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic, yet slowly acted, proverbially put their head in the sand, and/or covered it up in their own economic self-interest.”
It also comes after 22 Republican members of Congress Monday urged the White House to bring China to the International Court of Justice (ICIJ).
Officials familiar with the matter informed Fox News that the state’s economic shutdown has cost Missouri approximately $44 billion, in addition to the 5,963 COVID-19 cases and 215 deaths the state has experienced.
“In Missouri, the impact of the virus is very real — thousands have been infected and many have died, families have been separated from dying loved ones, small businesses are shuttering their doors, and those living paycheck to paycheck are struggling to put food on their table,” said Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt in a statement.
The lawsuit’s text makes clear that the plaintiffs hold China responsible for the outbreak. “The repeated unlawful and unreasonable acts and omissions of” China, Missouri’s lawsuit reads, “have been injurious to — and have significantly interfered with — the lives, health, and safety of substantial numbers of Missouri residents, ruining lives and damaging the public order and economy of the State of Missouri.”
Sources say that beyond extracting financial reparations from the communist nation, Missouri hopes to bring to light facts about how China handled the pandemic and even about the virus’ origin. “An appalling campaign of deceit, concealment, misfeasance, and inaction by Chinese authorities unleashed this pandemic,” the suit continues.
During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak, Chinese authorities deceived the public, suppressed crucial information, arrested whistleblowers, denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence, destroyed critical medical research, permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus, and even hoarded personal protective equipment — thus causing a global pandemic that was unnecessary and preventable.
Among the several claims of wrongdoing leveled at China within the suit is the accusation of an “emerging theory on the origin of the virus ... that it was released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying the virus.”
Officials are becoming increasingly convinced that the coronavirus escaped into the general population from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The United States has launched a full investigation to determine whether that is the case.
The Missouri suit seeks to demonstrate how China’s actions led to the viral outbreak and how its government worsened the spread, in part by failing to properly alert the world community about the true nature of the virus’ human-to-human transmission at the onset.
Another overarching allegation put forward in the suit is that China worked to hoard personal protective equipment (PPE) needed for treating coronavirus patients, which led to it “going 'from being a net exporter of personal protective equipment, as it is the largest producer in the world, to a net importer.'”
The suit, led by Schmitt, names a number of other defendants in addition to the People’s Republic of China, such as various state agencies and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is listed in an effort to go around restrictions placed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
The FSIA limits Americans’ ability to sue foreign governments. Missouri officials hope that by suing the CCP along with the official government, they will be able to avoid FSIA hurdles. They also maintain that their suit meets certain FSIA exceptions, such as one for commercial activity.
The commercial activity exceptions are also being attempted by at least two private-class actions suits against China. A law firm involved in one of those suits praised Missouri’s efforts.
“This filing by the state Attorney General of Missouri demonstrates the validity of our class action lawsuits vs. People's Republic of China, the CCP and other entities,” said Jeremy Alters of the Berman Law Group. “Our case is about holding China, the CCP and others accountable in Court. It will take all of us united to right this horrible wrong, and together we will.”
The suit calls on the defendants to “cease engaging in the abnormally dangerous activities, reimburse the cost of the State's abatement efforts, and pay compensatory and other damages.”
Backlash against China has grown in the United States, where many lawmakers, particularly Republicans, seek to hold the authoritarian state accountable.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has gone so far as to introduce legislation that would amend FSIA to make it easier for Americans to sue China. “By silencing doctors and journalists who tried to warn the world about the coronavirus, the Chinese Communist Party allowed the virus to spread quickly around the globe,” Cotton said in a statement. “
“Their decision to cover up the virus led to thousands of needless deaths and untold economic harm,” he added. “It’s only appropriate that we hold the Chinese government accountable for the damage it has caused.”


One suit is seeking $20 trillion; Missouri is suing the bio-lab in Wuhan