Mostafa,
Donald Trump is a Buffoon!
But he is a Buffoon with a finger on the nuclear button. As a
Television Personality, he was just as obnoxious as he is as president
of the United States, but now he has real power. Railing against
Donald Trump will get us nowhere because he holds far more power in
his hands than we do. Besides, if we spend all our energy and money
in an effort to remove him from the White House, Ted Cruz will cruise
right into the job. Our bigger challenge is how to go about educating
our citizens so they can intelligently build a new and better
government rather than allow the leadership to be commandeered by new
faces from the same old Ruling Class.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/26/18, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello. In this editorial, I concisely comment on some statements that
Donald Trump had made during his address to the United Nations general
assembly on Tuesday. "In two years my administration has achieved more
than any administration had achieved before in history." Thereupon,
diplomats at the hall expressed loud mirth. "Didn't expect that
reaction but that's okay", Trump astoundingly responded to his
audience figurative ridicule. "In other words, the United States is
stronger, safer and a richer country than it was when I assumed office
less than two years ago." In this imperiously surmised assertion,
Donald Trump evinced fallaciously exultant rhetoric, aiming to
somewhat imperil global leadership. He furthermore committed his
speech to disparage Golf leaders, implicitly waving the vital
necessity of coerced military quislingism, so his transgressive troops
may continue to destabilise the region, through expanding soil for
combat and escalating the civil war in Syria. Donald Trump spoke in
gravely unbearable belligerence. He in front of the United Nations
general assembly dismantled globalism. "The United States will not
tell you how to live, or work or worship. We only ask that you honour
our sovereignty in return." What does this mean? How could you honour
the United States alleged sovereignty? You couldn't unless you
submissively defer to its massive autarchy. The United States wants
the world to comply to its injunctions without reservation. The United
States seeks to guard its boundaries, but it doesn't mind unethically
infiltrating on others. The United States brings young people from
across the world to briefly study in American colleges through what
they call intercultural programs. These programs are essentially
funded by the United States government. People who are admitted
through visas of that nature are critically canvased for primarily
political objectives. My spouse went to the States through one of
these programs in the summer of twenty-fourteen. It was a program
dedicated to women leadership. She along with two girls from Egypt in
addition to young women from other Muslim nations, including Lybia,
Jordan and Iraq were admitted to the university of Notre Dame under
what the United States government which funded this program had called
women leadership. Of course, these women went there for entertainment
and shopping. They weren't interested in any academic purposes what so
ever. The United States government knew that nevertheless, it
viciously took advantage of the situation. This is just one simple
instance that I personally encountered in my personal life. Colleges
in theUnited States have to be educationally ostracised because they
allow the government to bring foreign students or those who appear to
be so for farther purposes than academic intercommunication and
contribution. The United States has to seriously wake up and smell the
coffee. Lastly, this damnable nation has no substantial legacy in the
modern arena. It may only be worthy of oppressively privileging the
Zionist entity and wrongfully, fending for its unfair existence.
Mustafa, from Cairo Egypt.
On 9/22/18, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Miriam, freedom of barking, as I'd like to call it doesn't have a
value if it is not expected to make a difference. Also, it is
restricted in the west to speak up against the Holocaust's historical
authenticity. So, if freedom of expression is not allowed in all
fields, including academic ones, then it is demonstratively
fallacious. Could you show me one thesis at a prestigious western
university that reexamines or oppugns the Holocaust's historical
authenticity. You won't find one. Why? Because Jews succeeded in
making this particular subject a taboo. They may have done so through
instilling terror or threatening someone's interest, they're good at
both anyway.
On 9/22/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mustafa
You are confusing issues. Freedom of expression means that people have a
right to say what they think. It also means that people who disagree
with
them, have a right to respond. You are complaining because you do not
agree
with some opinions of some Americans and because you do not agree with
responses of other Americans to things that you believe. If you are in
favor of free speech, it is only fair to criticize those people who do
not
permit others to express themselves openly.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mostafa
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 1:02 AM
To: terri.rupar@xxxxxxxxxxxx; allison.michaels@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Emilly
<amyleblanc01@xxxxxxxxx>; david@xxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxxx;
mdecausmeaker@xxxxxxxxx; sam@xxxxxxxxxx; sharon@xxxxxxxxxx;
kellie@xxxxxxxxxx; lcbelk@xxxxxxxxx; sarahowens@xxxxxxxxxx;
elizabeth@xxxxxxxxxx; samantharosehuskey@xxxxxxxxx;
william.h.hatcher@xxxxxxxxx; jpholdsworth5@xxxxxxxxx; mahloww@xxxxxxxxx;
chuckmarzahn@xxxxxxxxx; tmohlenhoff@xxxxxxxxxxx; yngveke@xxxxxxxxx;
revleonard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; asstpastor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; youth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
children@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nursery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pastor@xxxxxxxxxx; tracy@xxxxxxxxxx; blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rharmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hburgess2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
dan.boone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; charlie.isbell@xxxxxxxxx; chaas0217@xxxxxxxxx;
spidamonki1982@xxxxxxxxxxx; iamspiro8@xxxxxxxxx; ckrugman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pmikeal@xxxxxxxxxxx; bchiles@xxxxxxxxx; adicey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rascal0826@xxxxxxxxxxx; david.burleigh@xxxxxxxxxx;
luther.burney@xxxxxxxxxx;
joshua.carver@xxxxxxxxxx; dennis.clark@xxxxxxxxxx;
scott.mckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx; rjohnson01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rshapard12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mrodriguez16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pherold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; danC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rJones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Victor of Canada
<victor.gouveia@xxxxxxxxxx>;
dgkerwood@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Freedom of expression
Freedom of speech is the right to express your independent opinions and
convictions in public without being restrained, threatened or censored.
Ordinarily, the United States is prejudiciously portrayed as the paragon
of
free expression worldwide. I distinctly destine to pick Americanism
apart.
Each and everyone in many regions across the globe is entitled to opine
his
opinion freely. The United States did not invent the right of free
expression. It is not exclusive to American Constitution or its
amendments.
Freedom of expression is openly practiced therein as long as Islam is
incessantly denigrated.
Nevertheless, if someone oppugned the holocaust or its chronicle's
authenticity, for instance, he is instantly subjected to counterfeit
allegations of antisemitism. This is my endeavour concern of American
double
standard. When a Muslim Commits mass murder, he is unhesitatingly
labelled
with perpetrating terror. However, if a white supremacist committed mass
murder with even higher rate of fatalities, he is classified as a
demented
and atypical individual. I have no idea, how to illustrate this plain
contradiction? How could you be fairish and oppressive simultaneously? I
respect decent Americans. Be that as it may, as to Americanism, how
could
you consistently be guilty, jury and judge concurrently? Freedom of
expression is the major factor by which the United States is allegedly
portrayed with unprecedented prodigy. However, freedom of expression
therein
seems to somewhat be infructuous. So for instance, as to America's
longstanding crisis of culpably perennial fatal mass shootings, the
National
Rifle Association blocks any congressional bill which aims to relatively
rectify the pitiful situation. For them, the subject is just
unforfeitable.
Thence, freedom of expression resembles emptied rhetoric at some point.
If
your freedom of expression doesn't allow you to enact freely, your words
may
equate some bunch of barking dogs.
Who cares if the dog barks at him? In other words, if the National Rifle
Association listens incautiously to periodical congressional criticism
of
irrepressible munition across the nation, what is the significance of
their
critique then? What is the point of congressional authorities being
critical of unrestricted gun mongers?
I urge you folks to ponder on my proposition. Yes, here in Egypt,
freedom
of
expression is perfectly missing. If someone spoke against Sisi's regime
or
his coup based governance, he is emphatically subjected to scathingly be
detained, imprisoned and ruthlessly excruciated. We recognise that and
we
fairly admit freedom of expression total absence. This is quite
unfortunate
but factual. We couldn't deny it or wrongly fend for the military based
dictator.
However, we strenuously strive in the cause of favourably retaining its
prosperity. Liberal media may have spoke against Donald Trump and his
policies of implementing racial disparity in addition to farther major
catastrophes hitherto, they are not able to alter the way he
deliberately
perpetrates cruelty. So for instance, as for the issue of remanded
children
because their parents immigrated illicitly, why haven't they been just
expatriated along with their families? The media brought the subject
briefly
and then, closed the file while the prob hasn't yet been resolved.
Principally, the conception of unequivocally free speech in the United
States is an enormous fib. Do you know what is really free in the
States?
It
is greed and corporal establishment. This vividly reflects the dominance
of
patrician landholders of the American South as of pastoral panel and
other
chiselers. Who could have spoke out against Israel's brutality which is
relentlessly imposed on decently innocent civilians as of women and
children
in the congressional arena? There is no one member in the Congress who
could
have spoke in the favour of Palestinian refugee crisis unless he aims to
infinitely lose his seat. Is this what you ironically call freedom? I
believe it is crucial to sincerely reconsider the American portraiture
of
free expression and measure that according to actual information. Is
American vision of free expression sufficiently genuine? I won't answer
this
question for now.
I'll rather leave it at your hand, so you could have a chance to think
about
it and come up with the proper answer. I destine to considerably expand
the
discussion of this subject because it is of mutual interest. I at least
think so. Thank you for reading, Mustafa Almahdy.
Best wishes, it is always hope that gives meaning to life.
___________________