I wonder after listening to the Pelosi speech in congress back in 2006 (below), just how she can look people in their eyes and allow Schumer and others to so disregard the CONSTITUTION that they are willing and able to change the Democrat Party to a Socialist platform.
As far as I am concerned Schumer and Pelosi by openly acknowledging a Democrat Socialist/Progressive agenda are now in a very dangerous anarchical position and they have finally crossed that last line in the sand. They have allowed their hatred and spite for the current president to override our laws and actually have shown the country their stacked deck of cards.
The communist laws passed should now be resurrected. If it walks, quacks, and acts like a duck regardless of its “label” IT IS A DUCK.
8 CFR PART 313 — MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR ANY OTHER TOTALITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS
Sec. 313.1 Definitions.
-Advocate includes, but is not limited to, advising, recommending, furthering by overt act, or admitting a belief in a doctrine, and may include the giving, lending, or promising of support or of money or any thing of value to be used for advocating such doctrine.
-Advocating Communism means advocating the establishment of a totalitarian communist dictatorship, including the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism, in all countries of the world through the medium of an internationally coordinated communist revolutionary movement
Sec. 313.2 Prohibitions.
Sec. 313.3 Statutory exemptions.
Sec. 313.4 Procedure.
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1424, 1443.
Damn–how far into the acid pool of socialist slime the Democrat Party has fallen in ten years.
It’s time for ALL who are pushing radical terrorism, Anti-American socialism, or Sharia style law be brought to trial no matter what party or government agency.
It’s Time to Retire the ‘Progressive’ Label
by Joe Simonson
July 28, 2017
‘Socialist’ is a more accurate description of today’s Democratic base.
Over and over again, political pundits and journalists make constant reference to the Democrats’ “progressive base.” Without heavy progressive turnout, we are told, the House won’t flip in 2018 and Democrats will have to endure the most painful, humiliating victory Tweetstorm from President Trump.
This is likely true, but it raises an important question: What exactly is a “progressive” at this point?
The group of voters currently holding Democratic leaders (and let’s face it, donors) hostage has made it clear that the party’s next nominee for president must adopt certain policies, such as single-payer health care and a nationwide $15 minimum wage, to secure their support.
Such policies will likely be sold by the press and Democratic leaders as a “Strong Progressive Agenda,” or something similar. Yet such a description is vague at best and deceptive at worst. After all, Senator Bernie Sanders mainstreamed many of these policies in last year’s Democratic primary campaign, not as a Democrat but as an Independent who proudly calls himself a “democratic socialist.”
Despite his outsider status, Sanders still received over 43 percent of the votes cast in his campaign against Hillary Clinton. And according to a poll done in 2016 by American Action Network, nearly 60 percent of Democratic primary voters viewed socialism as having a “positive impact on society.”
So one must ask why so many insist on using an outmoded nicety like “progressive.”
Of course none of this makes the efforts by Democratic-party officials and their allies in the media to shy away from the “S” word any less disingenuous. When so many members of the party openly celebrate socialism and support socialist candidates, using any other word to describe this political constituency is an act of absurdity.
Read the article HERE.
PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR PEOPLE
BEFORE ANY OTHER INFLUENCES OR IDEOLOGIES.
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act’s stated purpose was “to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes”.
Military Commissions Act of 2009. Amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It was passed to address concerns by the United States Supreme Court. … The court ruled that detainees had the right to access US federal courts to challenge their detentions. (The rest of the law as far as I could see had not been rescinded.)
This bill redefines
unlawful enemy combatant
in such a broad way that it refers to
engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.
Senate Intelligence.gov posted by Legal Resources:
[111th Congress Public Law 84] TITLE XVIII--MILITARY <<NOTE: Military Commissions Act of 2009.>> COMMISSIONS
(a) Protection of Classified Information.–Classified information shall be protected and is privileged from disclosure if disclosure would be detrimental to the national security. Under no circumstances may a military judge order the release of classified information to any person not authorized to receive such information.
(b) Access to Evidence.–Any information admitted into evidence pursuant to any rule, procedure, or order by the military judge shall be provided to the accused.
(c) Declassification.–Trial counsel shall work with the original classification authorities for evidence that may be used at trial to ensure that such evidence is declassified to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national security. A decision not to declassify evidence under this section shall not be subject to review by a military commission or upon appeal.
2054. Synopsis Of Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) See Title 18, U.S.C. App III.
CIPA is a procedural statute; it neither adds to nor detracts from the substantive rights of the defendant or the discoery obligations of the government. Rather, the procedure for making these determinations is different in that it balances the right of a criminal defendant with the right of the sovereign to know in advance of a potential threat from a criminal prosecution to its national security. Each of CIPA’s provisions is designed to achieve those dual goals: preventing unnecessary or inadvertent disclosures of classified information and advising the government of the national security “cost” of going forward.