WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment (Continue Reading)
Peter D’Abrosca Big League Politics Jul 31, 2018 Q: ARE YOU GOING TO FIGHT THIS? “A US District Judge in Oregon recently ruled that boys must be allowed to use the girls locker room, showers and bathrooms, and vice versa in public schools throughout the state. According to Judge Marco Hernandez, for children to “see or be seen by someone of the opposite biological sex while either are undressing or performing bodily functions in a restroom, shower, or locker room does not give rise to a constitutional violation.” ….. “It is within Parent Plaintiffs’ right to remove their children from Dallas [Oregon] High School if they disapprove of transgender student access to facilities,” the judge said. “Once the parents have chosen to send their children to school … their liberty interest in their children’s education is severely diminished.” π >>>>>>><<<<<<
Question: If you were a business owner and you had an employee who quit or was fired, would you allow them to keep the keys to your business?
Question: If you changed jobs or were fired from a business, would you expect your previous employer to continue allow you to have the key to their business?
1.Many of the security agents who retire become ‘ lobbyists ‘, a VERY lucrative position.
2. Large contractors who bid on government contracts will not hire a lobbyist unless they have a security clearance.
John Brennan Angry
‘Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced from the daily briefing Wednesday afternoon President Trump has revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan and is considering doing the same for other politically motivated, former officials.
“I have also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by former government officials,” Sanders said on behalf of President Trump. “As part of this review, I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already their lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated.” ‘
For the full statement read below: (Sanders read the statement from President Trump at the opening of a late-scheduled press briefing stating further that the President has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information.)
President Trumps full statement on the revoking of John Brennans security clearance …
“As the head of the Executive Branch and Commander in Chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information. Including by controlling access to it. Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy. Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan’s continued access to classified information.
First, at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan, are not outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior. Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.
Mr. Brennan has a history that calls in to question his objectivity and credibility. In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers. He told the Council on Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing. The CIA’s Inspector General however contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers files. More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community, and all of the facts.
Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television about this administration. Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries which is to sow division and chaos.
More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan’s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended. Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks. Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal interest.
For this reason I have begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials. As part of this review I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated. It is for the forgoing reasons that I have exercised my constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information and I will direct appropriate staff of the National Security Council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination.”