Edward Cline's Blog, page 7
December 19, 2016
The Stockyards of Diversity
The murderous montage of Diversity
Daphne Patal, in her September Gatestone
article, “How
Diversity Came to Mean ‘Downgrade the West’,” which discusses the degrading
of college education to conform to politically correct subject matters to be
studied, opens with
There was a time, within living memory, when the term multiculturalism
was hardly known. More than twenty years ago, Peter Thiel, cofounder of
PayPal and in late July speaker at the Republican National Convention in
Cleveland, wrote a book with fellow Stanford alum David Sacks called The
Diversity Myth: ‘Multiculturalism’ and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford
(1995).
The book’s title refers to the pretense that embracing “diversity”
actually promotes diversity of all types, a claim commonly heard to this
day. Thiel had been a student at Stanford when, in January 1987,
demonstrators defending “the Rainbow Agenda” chanted “Hey hey, ho ho, Western
Culture’s got to go!” This protest led to the infamous “revision” (i.e.,
suppression) of the Western Culture requirement at Stanford, replaced with a
freshman sequence called Cultures, Ideas, and Values, mandating an emphasis on
race, gender, and class.
Later in her article, Patal notes that
Furthermore, “multiculturalism” did not involve greater emphasis on
mastering foreign languages or carefully studying cultures other than those of
the English-speaking world. Instead, work in literature and culture programs
was (and still is) done increasingly in English and focused on contemporary
writers. Nor did multiculturalism, any more than the word diversity, mean
familiarizing students with a diversity of views. Rather, as [Elizabeth] Fox-Genovese
summarized it, it meant requiring students “to agree with or even applaud views
and values that mock the values with which they have been reared.” And
all this, she observed, was being accompanied by rampant grade inflation.
So, if anyone thought that “diversity” simply
meant several individuals of various ethnic or cultural backgrounds being by
happenstance squinched together into a group, or that “diversity” was similar
to a bird aviary in which dozens of different species flitted around in an
enclosed space, he would not be far off the mark. There have been dozens of TV
and movie series and films that flaunt not only their racial diversity, but
their cultural and sexual diversity, as well (i.e., the early and later
manifestations of Star Trek).
A diversity-rich cast, albeit no Muslims
For example, The Walking
Dead, at several points in its seven-Season-old broadcast, has featured
blacks as well as whites, Koreans, Hispanics in leading and central roles, as
well as Indians (or perhaps Pakastanis, it was never explained),
“gender-breakers,” “mixed” couples, the disabled (in wheelchairs), and the
“under-aged” (e.g., pre-teen children shooting guns at zombies and the living).
The most recent Seasons of the series have introduced lesbian and gay couples,
as well as overweight characters.
The most conspicuously absent group are
Muslims; they appear neither as living survivors of the apocalypse nor as
zombies, neither as bearded imams nor as women in burqas or hijabs. I do not
think their absence is an oversight. I do not think it is a stretch of the
imagination to assume that the producers were warned off casting characters as
living or dead Muslims. Or perhaps, being so diversity-conscious, and sensitive
to the sensitivities of Muslims, the producers decided not to “defame” Muslims
or Islam with such risky casting, and warned themselves off the idea. I contacted Scott Gimple, The Walking Dead’s
“show runner,” on his Facebook page, with the question, but have received no
response.
One is left to hypothesize if the producers
of The Walking Dead are voluntarily or consciously casting the series as
“diverse” as possible (there is, after all, a finite number of under-represented
groups), or are they under an obligation to become diversity-obsessed by federal or state law, in
alliance with gender
and ethnic groups? The Walking Dead, as well as House of Cards, another lavishly produced
and racially and gender-conscious TV series, , get tax-rebates in Georgia and
Maryland respectively, where they are filmed, and so “diversity” is too likely a
condition of the tax-breaks.
Another diversity-rich TV series. Most of its villains are "white"
One might object to the foregoing analysis with
the claim that these and many other TV and film productions reflect the true
diversity of Americans. But, do they? If they did, why the current
Marx-inspired campaign against “white privilege”? Why the vile, but also
hysterical campaign to “deconstruct” whites so that they feel “guilt” about
being white, and apologize profusely for having created Western Culture and civilization,
which somehow “oppress” non-whites of every race and creed?
The leftists have gone to great lengths to
connect racial “identity politics” with political “identity politics,”
contending that it was the “white” vote that got Donald Trump his presidential
victory, (when the evidence was clearly obvious when in numerous videos one saw
the racial composition of Trump’s rallies. While the attendance was mostly
“white,” large swathes of the audiences were black and “Asian.”)
The British Film Academy of Film and
Television Arts (BAFTA) has issued new diversity guidelines to be
eligible for nomination. Donna Edmunds on Breitbart London exposes the farce.
"From
2019 onwards, nominations for the awards of ‘outstanding British film’ and
‘outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer’ will need to
conform to the BFI’s Diversity
Standards, established two years ago to increase representation of
minorities within British film," reports Breitbart London.
According to
the BBC, the nominated films must show they have improved diversity within at
least two of four categories to qualify. The categories are: "On-screen
characters and themes; senior roles and crew; industry training and career
progression; and audience access and appeal to under-represented
audiences."
BAFTA has
said the changes were "a flexible and achievable model, which the whole
industry can adopt as a shared language for understanding diversity." Under
these new standards, the James Bond hit Skyfall could not have won the
BAFTA for "Best British Film" in 2012.
Toni Morrison, a black
American poet and winner of the
Pulitzer Prize and the American Book Award, in addition to the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the National Humanities Medal, and the Nobel Prize in Literature, and finally,
the PEN/Saul
Bellow Award for Achievement in American Fiction, is vested in identity and
race politics. Were it not for the current campaign to denigrate whites, she
would have nothing of substance to say, except, perhaps, on the issue of police
having to shoot black men, "People keep saying, 'We need to have a
conversation about race.' This is the conversation. I want to see a cop shoot a
white unarmed teenager in the back. And I want to see a white man convicted for
raping a black woman. Then when you ask me, 'Is it over?’, I will say yes.”
But,
weighed down with all those awards (and by a modest amount of money), she has
nothing to say about blacks targeting whites for horrendous
crimes. And while she insinuates that whites were at root somehow
responsible for all the violence against blacks, she conveniently forgets that
blacks, if anything, share that history. Among other convenient omissions, for
example, black gangs have established records in Chicago of the number
of blacks, including children, who were killed during their internecine
warfare. There were black slave owners in America from the 17th century on up
through the Civil War; call it Antebellum “black privilege.”
Henry
Louis Gates Jr. in a 2013 article in the Root,
reveals that
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows
that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original
states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since
Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain
the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of
white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in
Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland
owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat
Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,”
Halliburton wrote.
Sheldon M. Stern, in “It’s Time to Face the Whole
Truth About the Atlantic Slave Trade,” discusses how black African tribes
captured uncountable other blacks and sold them to European and American slave
traders. His article does not even touch
on the Islamic
slave trade.
Finally, Paul Joseph Watson, in his InfoWars
column of August 16, “Hillary’s
VP: Whites Must Become a ‘Minority’ to Atone for Racism,” quotes Tim Kaine,
speaking to a black Baptist congregation,
“I’ve never been treated badly in life because of my skin color or my
gender,” Kaine told a group of black Baptists in New Orleans. “I think the
burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put
ourselves in a place where we are the minority.”
The “burden” that Kaine mentions obviously means taking on “white
guilt,” despite the fact that – even at the height of slavery – only 1.4% of
whites in America owned slaves. White people were also victims of far more
brutal and longer lasting oppression under the Barbary slave trade….
According to Alicia
Powe, Kaine’s comments emphasize how the left has employed “toxic identity
politics” to “perpetuate class warfare and the narrative of an unjust America,”
with whites demonized as the scapegoats.
It should also be emphasized that no living
black was ever a slave, and no living white was ever a slave owner, either
(except, metaphorically, the Democrats, who, as far back as Lyndon Johnson,
wished to imprison and maintain blacks in their welfare state “plantation”).
But, the issue is one of collectivism.
It is herding individuals, defined by their skin color, and now also by their
political affiliations (Trump supporters are “deplorable”), into warring power
blocs, to relegate individuals into amorphous conglomerations of races responsible
for individual achievements or crimes. To the Left’s agenda, “diversity” is a
value to be implemented, by force, harassment, and statute, if necessary, and
achieved regardless of reason, individual values, and innocence.
Diversity puts a premium on the act of
discrimination in social associations (such as on American
bakers who, for religious reasons, are punished by Federal or state
regulatory laws for refusing to accept gays as customers, or who fire or refuse
to hire Muslims who insist on
wearing their “religious” garb in their stores), by tar-brushing the act –
irrational or not – as a prohibitive offense to be punished, discriminated
against, and banned. All individuals who, rightly or wrongly, do not wish to
hire or associate with blacks or Muslims are automatically branded as “racists”
or “bigots.”
However, Muslims as a group may not be
targeted for discriminatory practices because their acts of
discrimination against infidels and women are allegedly religiously based and
therefore beyond moral judgment. Acts of discrimination based on Christian or
secular beliefs, however, are
discouraged, vilified, or prohibited.
The phenomenon has now been expanded into the
subject of “white privilege,” which in essence, is a contrived but open assault
on Western values on college campuses,
and in Western achievements in general. Most Western advancements in
philosophy, technology, science, the arts, and the rule of law and politics
originated in Europe, which was mostly and incidentally “white.” Thus the
legacy of civilized life is an inherited instance of “white privilege.” Or are
we still waiting for the news of a Minnesota Somalian to claim that he and
his fellow collectivists perfected the probes of Ceres or Pluto?
Or devised a new bypass surgery
technique by an Afghan or Syrian or Palestinian (other than in a machete or
knife attack)?
Just how many offended groups or groups
feeling “unsafe” from or “triggered” by words or someone’s freedom of
expression can there be, such as black and brown people, sexual assault
survivors, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ people, people with low incomes, people with
differing abilities, undocumented immigrants, and anyone that is systematically
targeted along identity
lines?”
Then again, blacks who can be called “middle
or upper class income blacks,” or Asians who excel in science or technology in
school, do not consciously identify with such groups. They are automatically pigeon-holed
by their enemies, who wish to herd them into the stockyards of “diversity”
ready for the smearing or slaughter. Their goal is death.
Aristotle was “white.” But he promulgated
reason. Kepler and Copernicus were “white.” But they helped to define the solar
system. Isaac Newton was “white.” But he developed the laws of physics. Anna Hyatt
Huntington was “white.” But she created heroic statues. Each of these
achievers was a pursuer of and a product of Western values.
I am white, too. Lump me into a group with
these prominent, “white privileged” whites. But, I don’t claim their
achievements, nor would they claim mine. Don’t call me “white privileged.” My privilege
is my mind together with my values. The haters of “white
privilege” have no minds and no values. They are nihilists.
December 17, 2016
George Soros: "The Spawn of Satan"
To judge by the
frequency with which Super Billionaire and Super Villain George Soros’s name
appears in non-MSM news, you would not be far off the mark in concluding that
he would rather not be President of the United States. He definitely wants to be
the power behind the Oval Office throne. There he would be able to exercise the
same malevolent power by proxy, without having to submit to more public
scrutiny than he does now. He would not need to take responsibility for his
disastrous policies, but rely on a front man and patsy to take the heat. His appearance
in the press (or what is left of it that has not been compromised by bias and the
fabrication of “news”) is entirely involuntary; he certainly is not conducting
a campaign to make his influence visible.
Soros is a kind of Barkilphredo, the jester,
meddler, and malevolent schemer and manipulator in Victor Hugo’s 1869 novel, The
Man Who Laughs (L'homme qui rit) whose sole purpose is to make everyone
miserable and a vehicle for his own elevation as a power in the courts of James
II and Queen Anne.
In my 2007 five-part focus
on the rise of Barack Obama and role of George Soros in influencing American
politics, “Night of the Long Knives,” I wrote in its Postscript:
In the New York
Magazine article,
"Money Chooses Sides," note the composition of the photograph that
accompanies it. I do not think it is accidental. I do not know if the photographer
(or even Obama himself) intended the tableau, but of all the pictures doubtless
taken of the event, this was the one selected by the magazine's editors to
illustrate Obama's influence. Their motive may have been mockery of the guests
or unintended adulation of Obama. That is irrelevant. The picture captures the
essence of Obama's appeal.
Which is mindless,
insatiable envy of a person vying for political power, and an echo or their
elitist mindset. “We are the superior
guides and molders of the hoi polloi.
That black fellow can certainly speak, the masses don’t dare not vote for him!”
The first four Parts
can be seen here,
here,
here,
and here.
Starting with his Open Society Foundation organization,
George Soros founded or funds four other Progressive and collectivist
movements: MoveOn, Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and America Coming Together
(now defunct, it targeted George Bush’s presidency in 2004, and promoted Barack
Obama’s career that year.
Human Events published an article in 2011, “Top
10 Reasons George Soros is Dangerous,” and remember that since 2011,
Soros’s “funding” has ballooned to include Hillary Clinton’s bid for the
presidency and Jill Stein’s campaign in the aftermath of Clinton’s defeat by
Trump for recounts in the three states that Trump won (Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania) .
Soros started the Open Society Institute (now
the Foundation) in 1993 as a way to spread his wealth to progressive
causes. Using Open Society as a conduit, Soros has given more than $7
billion to a who’s who of left-wing groups. This partial list of
recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN,
Apollo
Alliance, National Council of La
Raza, Tides
Foundation, Huffington
Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the
American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women.
Soros once said that removing President
George W. Bush from office in 2004 was the “central focus of my life.” He
put his money where his mouth is, giving $23.58 million to various 527 groups
dedicated to defeating Bush. His early financial support helped
jump-start Barack Obama’s political career. Soros hosted a 2004
fund-raiser for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and gave the
maximum-allowed contribution within hours of Obama’s announcement that he was
running for President.
George Soros has now added a domestic
terrorist organization that did not exist in 2011, Black
Lives Matter. Breitbart reported in August in its “real news” column, “Hacked
Soros Memo: $650,000 to Black Lives
Matter,”
The documents further confirm that the Open
Society last year approved $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and
support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter
movement.”
The information was contained in a detailed
69-page Open Society report on the agenda of an Open Society U.S. Programs
board meeting held in New York October 1 to October 2, 2015.
The report directly states the Open Society
views the Baltimore unrest last year as a crisis that can be utilized to carry
out the organization’s agenda.
Same gesture, same lies
George Soros’s tentacles are everywhere. He
has not only supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but now is funding Jill Stein’s
campaign for recounts of general election votes to tilt the Electoral College
so that Clinton wins not only the popular vote but the College’s vote.
Baxter Dmitry’s Your News Wire
article of November 26th noted that,
Jill Stein’s fundraising campaign to pay for
re-counts in three key swing states has been exposed as a George Soros and
Hillary Clinton plot to steal the presidency from Donald Trump.
According to the official fundraising page, the “Stein/Baraka
Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our
elections” however it has been revealed that George Soros, the globalist
billionaire well known for his donations to Black Lives Matter and the tens of
millions he has given Hillary, is almost singlehandedly funding the campaign.
Investigators became
convinced Jill Stein’s fundraising operation was not the organic, grassroots
campaign it has been promoted as after they noticed that funding came in at an
absolutely perfect $160,000 per hour. That is odd enough, but the
donations continued full speed at the exact same rate through the middle of the
night while the country was asleep.
Jim Stone, the researcher who was tipped off
about the pre-shipped
Newsweek cover featuring “Madam President” Hillary Clinton, reports on the fundraising
data that proves the Jill Stein campaign is not what the public has been told
it is:
“A bot is pulling cash from a central
fund, and giving it out at a pre-determined rate.
‘This pattern was nailed with precision up
until noon CST, and then they shut it off right around 2:30 before it could hit
the next “waypoint” at 6:10 PM. Just back calculate. She hit 4,000,000 at noon.
She started it up at 1:30 the day before. That is 22.5 hours. Divide four
million by 22.5. It comes out to 177,000 dollars an hour. A few people chipped
in during the day, to add a little to the top of what the bot continuously ran
at – 160,000 an hour
‘Ok so she has so far raised almost 4.5
million on THANKSGIVING DAY and the night before. FIGURE THE ODDS when her
entire campaign did not hit 3 million. Yet she did THAT on THANKSGIVING??!!??
…. Jill Stein now has
the money she needs to initiate the recount. Where did the funds come from? Soros.
Despite spending the whole election season mocking Trump’s claim that the
election could be rigged, mainstream media is now pushing the narrative that
the votes were hacked – even in Pennsylvania where that’s not even possible.
What is about to
happen could possibly cause a civil war.
Jilted Jill is aiming high for that recount
The Alexander
Higgins site confirms Soros’s involvement as Jill Stein’s sugar daddy.
According to the post a donations to Jill
Stein’s election recount campaign are being made at a steady rate of $160,000
on the hour every hour of the day.
The constant rate of donation, 24 hours a
day, suggests that a computer program is being used to post the donations as
opposed to real people making grassroots donation.
However, the donations are being reported
as grassroots donations from a myriad of online supporters to help her verify
the integrity of the election.
However, if real individuals are in fact making
the actual donations the rate of the donations should drop over night when
internet traffic is low.
The rate should then steadily pick up during
the course of the day up and then culminate during the “internet rush hour”
when usage peaks, which is usually between 7 and 11 PM.
So, what is he after that is of paramount
importance to him, that George Soros is willing to invest multiple fortunes to
guarantee the triumph of politicians amenable to the emasculating of America?
Power? The monster is worse than any fictional character people may be familiar
with, such as Frank Underwood of The House
of Cards, the long-running political series. While Underwood is a monster
who wants to achieve power in a Washington, D.C. we are of familiar with,
thanks to the MSM and their antithesis, “real news” sites
Soros is a worse monster who wants to reduce
America into a third-rate nation that would have no specific identity.
Progressivism would eradicate the individualistic character of the country,
would make everyone dependent on the state of sustenance, and would divide the
whole country into a “diversity” of ethnic and “cultural” satrapies governed by
subservient Gauleiters. “White” satrapies would be at the bottom of the
heap.
While Frank Underwood
wants to rule over a country that still exists, George Soros wants a country
that no longer exists. He is especially hateful – a rather mild term to
describe his pathological state – of Israel, and wishes, together with Iran, to
see it destroyed. He is not afraid of Islam. It is a tool of conquest and
destruction that serves his purposes. He is happy to see Europe succumb to
Islam.
Soros has funded the
invasion of Europe by savages and “migrants” in order to see Europe as we know
it destroyed and governed by savages. It is Soros who last year and the year
before paid for thousands of “migrants” to have cell phones, route maps to
countries to invade, money to spend, and clothes and shoes to wear.
Nick Hallett in his
November 2nd Breitbart article, “Soros
Admits Involvement in Migrant Crisis: ‘National Borders Are the Obstacle,”
observes
Billionaire investor George Soros has
confirmed he wants to bring down Europe’s borders, following the accusation
made last week by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Last week, Mr. Orban accused Mr. Soros – who
was born in Hungary – of deliberately encouraging the migrant crisis.
“This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by
people smugglers, and on the other by those (human rights) activists who
support everything that weakens the nation-state,” Mr. Orban said. “This
Western mindset and this activist network are perhaps best represented by
George Soros.”
Mr. Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming
his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr. Oban’s actions in
strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx
“undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national
borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Mr. Soros added.
“Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national
borders as the obstacle.”
George Soros is not particularly concerned
about the “refugees.” They are merely tools in the destruction of the West, in
Europe and in America. He would not have any of them living next door to him.
Nor is Soros particularly concerned about
facts and “fake news.” Soros has a reverse “Midas touch” by which anything he
pours money into begins a process of irreversible rot. If something comes to
his attention that he frowns upon, he will give it money. Lots of it. Now that
the “fake news” issue has arisen – chiefly after Hillary Clinton lost the election
because, as her supporters in and out of her campaign have alleged, her
conservative opponents spread damaging “fake news” about her and her political
record and congenital lying – George Soros has become involved in scouring the
Internet of “fake news” that the Internet’s left-wing doyens do not like.
Breitbart reported December 16th, in Aaron Klein’s article “George
Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed Stories,” that
The International
Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news
websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with
“third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of
principles.
Facebook says that if the “fact checking organizations” determine
that a certain story is fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to
the Facebook announcement, “there will be a link to the corresponding article
explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News
Feed.”
IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A
cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is
openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
Poynter’s IFCN is
also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it
has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides
Foundation. Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the
U.S.
Klein’s article describes what can only be
called an alliance of Soros-connected organizations poised to filter out and
report facts the leftists who populate these “charities.” They comprise a kind
of “super Snopes” cabal, when Snopes
itself has been discredited as a “fact checker” after having been caught in a
series of bias-loaded denials of facts and truths.
George Soros wishes to demolish European
values, not preserve them. He wishes to demolish ALL Western values, and to see
Europeans and Americans swamped by migrants and “refugees” who bring their
primitive “customs” and practices to civilized countries to see them elevated
to positions of “superiority” over Western values precisely because they are primitive. He wishes to
see Westerners defer to and bow to savages and thus enable their own
destruction. That would be with the assistance and encouragement of Western
cultural relativists and Marxists. The “refugees” and “migrants” – aka invaders
– would become a new protected class, while Westerners would not be protected,
because that would be “white privilege” or “cultural imperialism.”
What George Soros is
after, is not anything so innocent or banal a thing as power. The fictional Frank
Underwood is a mere villain. The very real George Soros is after the
satisfaction of destruction for destruction’s sake. That makes him a nihilist.
George Soros is, to borrow a biblical and literary reference, the spawn
of Satan.
Standard villains
pursue material values. George Soros pursues the non-material value of nothingness, of
desolation, of the skeleton of a civilization he never contributed to, and is
dedicated to destroying.
December 14, 2016
Viva la difference? Islam vs. “Radical” Islam?
On December 12th,
Judith Bergman, in her Gatestone column, “Europe:
Illegal to Criticize Islam,” wrote:
In Finland, since
the court's decision, citizens are now required to make a distinction, entirely
fictitious, between "Islam" and "radical Islam," or else
they may find themselves prosecuted and fined for "slandering and
insulting adherents of the Islamic faith."
I would like some state-appointed or free, independent Islamic scholar
-- Western or not -- to explain with a straight face to me and to the world,
the essential, fundamental differences between Islam and "radical
Islam" or "extremist" Islam. If Islam is not just a bizarre, death-worshipping
"religion," but basically a collectivist ideology bent on total
submission of its adherents and of the world, moved by a gnawing appetite for total
and universal domination, what are the salient, distinguishing differences? How
would one explain the differences, say, between “ordinary” Communism and
"radical" Communism, or between “ordinary” Nazism and a benign "moderate"
Nazism?
You can’t list those distinguishing differences. They don’t exist. Islam
is a one-size-fits-all system, from your footwear to your hairstyle to your
diet.
Islam is “radical” because, as both a “religion” and as a political
ideology, it prescribes total submission of the individual – indeed, of society
– to the arbitrary and wholly irrational rules, permissions, prohibitions, and
punishments of its “creed,” otherwise known as Sharia Law. Just as Nazism and
Communism required the total submission of the individual to the state, Islam
requires the total submersion of the individual to the caliphate.
Islam is essentially, and readily admits, totalitarian – root branch,
and twig.
Bergman, writing about Terhi Kiemunki, a Finnish writer, was found
guilty of "slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith," and
noted that,
Finland is the
European country most recently to adopt the way that European authorities
sanction those who criticize Islam. According to the Finnish news outlet YLE, the Pirkanmaa
District Court found the Finns Party politician, Terhi Kiemunki, guilty of
"slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith" in a blog
post of Uusi Suomi. In it, she claimed that all the terrorists in Europe
are Muslims. The Court found that when Kiemunki wrote of a "repressive,
intolerant and violent religion and culture," she meant the Islamic faith.
During the trial,
Kiemunki was asked why she did not make a distinction between Islam and radical
Islam. She replied that she meant to refer to the spread of Islamic culture and
religion, and that she "probably should have" spoken of radicalized
elements of the religion instead of the faith as a whole. Kiemunki was fined
450 euros. Her lawyer has appealed the verdict.
That was Kiemunki’s
unfortunate omission. But, let us not forget late critic of Islam, Oriana
Fallaci. She excoriated Islam, setting fire to the whole tree. Srdja Trifkovic
in her Chronicles article of December 13, “Europe’s
Submission,” wrote,.
The writing on
Europe’s wall was clear a decade ago, when the late Oriana Fallaci—for decades
Italy’s best-known journalist—was indicted in the Italian city of Bergamo for
“hate crimes” and “defaming Islam.” Fallaci, a self-described “Christian
atheist” and a leftist, in the aftermath of 9/11, had become an outspoken foe
of Europe’s Islamization. Her 2002 book The
Rage and the Pride caused a sensation. It is not just the Western
culture and way of life that the jihadist hates, she wrote. Blinded as they are
by cultural myopia, the Westerners should understand that a war of religion was
in progress, a war that the enemy calls Jihad, which seeks the disappearance of
our freedom and our civilization
The late Oriana Fallaci
Quoting Fallaci,
Bergman writes that Islam wants to annihilate, she wrote,
“. . . our way of
living and dying, our way of praying or not praying, our way of eating and
drinking and dressing and entertaining and informing ourselves. You don’t
understand or don’t want to understand that if we don’t oppose them, if we
don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight, the Jihad will win . . . And with
that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morals, our values,
our pleasures….”
A decade later, the
evidence that Fallaci’s grim forecast was correct is everywhere we look. In
France in 2013, Ivan
Rioufol, a respected author and Le Figaro’s columnist for 30 years, faced criminal charges for insulting Islam. Renaud Camus,
one of France’s most prominent writers, was charged with “incitement to
racial hatred” in 2014, found guilty, and ordered to pay a 4000-euro fine for
warning of the danger of the “Great Replacement,” the colonization of France by
Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, which threatens to
“mutate” the country and its culture permanently. In Germany, Lutz Bachmann,
the founder of the Pegida anti-Islamization movement, is currently on
trial. So is Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France. The list goes on.
In Finland, and
practically everywhere else, to fail to distinguish in public statements
between Islam and “radical” Islam is to be tarred with the brush of
“Islamophobia,” surely a pejorative, meaning having an “irrational” fear of
Islam. It is in wide use in every Western country and is used by the MSM to slander
anyone critical of Islam. But, anyone who knows a smidgen about the origin and
practice of Islam is justifiably and rationally fearful of Islam, especially Discover
the Networks notes:
if
he is an “infidel.” Where did the term come from?
The term
“Islamophobia” was invented
and promoted in the early 1990s by the International
Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad -- who was with that
organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected
IIIT's ideology -- now reveals
the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is
nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of
Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its
very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing
them.
This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood's "General
Strategic Goal for North America," by which the organization aimed to
wage "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands
... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other
religions."
"We have nothing to fear but Islam itself."
Members of the
British press can be charged with “Islamophobia” or worse if a writer
identifies a terrorist or a criminal who has raped or murdered a Briton as a
Muslim (its current term is the euphemism“Asian”). Nevertheless, the European
Union has ordered the UK press to append blinders to its journalists (surely
not a precedent by now). Europe-Israël, in a column on November 18th, {“European
Union Orders British Press NOT to report when terrorists are Muslims,” reported,
According the
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council
of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist
violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
Some traditional
media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive,
discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance,
published an article in April 2015 entitled “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to
stop migrants”, in which the columnist likened migrants to “cockroaches”…
ECRI is basing its
report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside
University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after
terrorist’s attacks.
A whirlpool of bowed zombies
Politically Correct
writing acts as a privately or government mandated “governor” on
thinking, stopping writers and modern reporters from committing the “sin” of
“Islamophobia” or “hate speech.” Giulio
Meotti in his Gatestone column of December 6th, “The
West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship,” elaborated:
Under this politically
correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First,
freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is
an "insult." Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities,
especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and
Christians….
There is no better
ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in
fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of
the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture…..
Political
correctness is also having a huge impact on big business: Kellogg's withdrew advertising from Breitbart for being
"not aligned with our values" and Lego dropped advertising with Daily Mail, to mention
just two recent cases.
The Indonesian Iterates
Politically
Correctness has no bounds, no demarcation lines. Everything is fair game to warp,
subvert, and destroy, from wedding cake bakers to Halloween costumes to national
security. To date, there have been no Muslim walkers of zombies on The
Walking Dead . The producers of that TV series do not dare show any. But
then, most Muslims are already “walking dead.” Perhaps the producers sense
that. The irony is something to relish.
Au contraire, Mr. Obama. Islam
is eminently slander worthy.
Judith Bergman, in her Gatestone column, “Europe:
Illegal to Criticize Islam,” wrote:
In Finland, since
the court's decision, citizens are now required to make a distinction, entirely
fictitious, between "Islam" and "radical Islam," or else
they may find themselves prosecuted and fined for "slandering and
insulting adherents of the Islamic faith."
I would like some state-appointed or free, independent Islamic scholar
-- Western or not -- to explain with a straight face to me and to the world,
the essential, fundamental differences between Islam and "radical
Islam" or "extremist" Islam. If Islam is not just a bizarre, death-worshipping
"religion," but basically a collectivist ideology bent on total
submission of its adherents and of the world, moved by a gnawing appetite for total
and universal domination, what are the salient, distinguishing differences? How
would one explain the differences, say, between “ordinary” Communism and
"radical" Communism, or between “ordinary” Nazism and a benign "moderate"
Nazism?
You can’t list those distinguishing differences. They don’t exist. Islam
is a one-size-fits-all system, from your footwear to your hairstyle to your
diet.
Islam is “radical” because, as both a “religion” and as a political
ideology, it prescribes total submission of the individual – indeed, of society
– to the arbitrary and wholly irrational rules, permissions, prohibitions, and
punishments of its “creed,” otherwise known as Sharia Law. Just as Nazism and
Communism required the total submission of the individual to the state, Islam
requires the total submersion of the individual to the caliphate.
Islam is essentially, and readily admits, totalitarian – root branch,
and twig.
Bergman, writing about Terhi Kiemunki, a Finnish writer, was found
guilty of "slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith," and
noted that,
Finland is the
European country most recently to adopt the way that European authorities
sanction those who criticize Islam. According to the Finnish news outlet YLE, the Pirkanmaa
District Court found the Finns Party politician, Terhi Kiemunki, guilty of
"slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith" in a blog
post of Uusi Suomi. In it, she claimed that all the terrorists in Europe
are Muslims. The Court found that when Kiemunki wrote of a "repressive,
intolerant and violent religion and culture," she meant the Islamic faith.
During the trial,
Kiemunki was asked why she did not make a distinction between Islam and radical
Islam. She replied that she meant to refer to the spread of Islamic culture and
religion, and that she "probably should have" spoken of radicalized
elements of the religion instead of the faith as a whole. Kiemunki was fined
450 euros. Her lawyer has appealed the verdict.
That was Kiemunki’s
unfortunate omission. But, let us not forget late critic of Islam, Oriana
Fallaci. She excoriated Islam, setting fire to the whole tree. Srdja Trifkovic
in her Chronicles article of December 13, “Europe’s
Submission,” wrote,.
The writing on
Europe’s wall was clear a decade ago, when the late Oriana Fallaci—for decades
Italy’s best-known journalist—was indicted in the Italian city of Bergamo for
“hate crimes” and “defaming Islam.” Fallaci, a self-described “Christian
atheist” and a leftist, in the aftermath of 9/11, had become an outspoken foe
of Europe’s Islamization. Her 2002 book The
Rage and the Pride caused a sensation. It is not just the Western
culture and way of life that the jihadist hates, she wrote. Blinded as they are
by cultural myopia, the Westerners should understand that a war of religion was
in progress, a war that the enemy calls Jihad, which seeks the disappearance of
our freedom and our civilization
The late Oriana Fallaci
Quoting Fallaci,
Bergman writes that Islam wants to annihilate, she wrote,
“. . . our way of
living and dying, our way of praying or not praying, our way of eating and
drinking and dressing and entertaining and informing ourselves. You don’t
understand or don’t want to understand that if we don’t oppose them, if we
don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight, the Jihad will win . . . And with
that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morals, our values,
our pleasures….”
A decade later, the
evidence that Fallaci’s grim forecast was correct is everywhere we look. In
France in 2013, Ivan
Rioufol, a respected author and Le Figaro’s columnist for 30 years, faced criminal charges for insulting Islam. Renaud Camus,
one of France’s most prominent writers, was charged with “incitement to
racial hatred” in 2014, found guilty, and ordered to pay a 4000-euro fine for
warning of the danger of the “Great Replacement,” the colonization of France by
Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, which threatens to
“mutate” the country and its culture permanently. In Germany, Lutz Bachmann,
the founder of the Pegida anti-Islamization movement, is currently on
trial. So is Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France. The list goes on.
In Finland, and
practically everywhere else, to fail to distinguish in public statements
between Islam and “radical” Islam is to be tarred with the brush of
“Islamophobia,” surely a pejorative, meaning having an “irrational” fear of
Islam. It is in wide use in every Western country and is used by the MSM to slander
anyone critical of Islam. But, anyone who knows a smidgen about the origin and
practice of Islam is justifiably and rationally fearful of Islam, especially Discover
the Networks notes:
if
he is an “infidel.” Where did the term come from?
The term
“Islamophobia” was invented
and promoted in the early 1990s by the International
Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad -- who was with that
organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected
IIIT's ideology -- now reveals
the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is
nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of
Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its
very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing
them.
This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood's "General
Strategic Goal for North America," by which the organization aimed to
wage "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands
... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other
religions."
"We have nothing to fear but Islam itself."
Members of the
British press can be charged with “Islamophobia” or worse if a writer
identifies a terrorist or a criminal who has raped or murdered a Briton as a
Muslim (its current term is the euphemism“Asian”). Nevertheless, the European
Union has ordered the UK press to append blinders to its journalists (surely
not a precedent by now). Europe-Israël, in a column on November 18th, {“European
Union Orders British Press NOT to report when terrorists are Muslims,” reported,
According the
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council
of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist
violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
Some traditional
media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive,
discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance,
published an article in April 2015 entitled “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to
stop migrants”, in which the columnist likened migrants to “cockroaches”…
ECRI is basing its
report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside
University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after
terrorist’s attacks.
A whirlpool of bowed zombies
Politically Correct
writing acts as a privately or government mandated “governor” on
thinking, stopping writers and modern reporters from committing the “sin” of
“Islamophobia” or “hate speech.” Giulio
Meotti in his Gatestone column of December 6th, “The
West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship,” elaborated:
Under this politically
correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First,
freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is
an "insult." Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities,
especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and
Christians….
There is no better
ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in
fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of
the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture…..
Political
correctness is also having a huge impact on big business: Kellogg's withdrew advertising from Breitbart for being
"not aligned with our values" and Lego dropped advertising with Daily Mail, to mention
just two recent cases.
The Indonesian Iterates
Politically
Correctness has no bounds, no demarcation lines. Everything is fair game to warp,
subvert, and destroy, from wedding cake bakers to Halloween costumes to national
security. To date, there have been no Muslim walkers of zombies on The
Walking Dead . The producers of that TV series do not dare show any. But
then, most Muslims are already “walking dead.” Perhaps the producers sense
that. The irony is something to relish.
Au contraire, Mr. Obama. Islam
is eminently slander worthy.
December 10, 2016
The Grateful Dead of Dhimmitude
Wilders: “I
will never be silent.”
Geert Wilders, the larger-than-life Dutch politician who dared say
what was on his mind about the Islamist invasion of the Netherlands (“too many
Moroccans?”), has been convicted of the “crime” of “hate speech” by a Dutch
court.
And what is “hate speech”? “Hate speech” is any criticism of a member of a “minority” or the “minority”
itself that can range from an emotional tirade to an innocuous comment or
remark about Muslims or the race of a Muslim. Or even posing a question about
the minority. One can be found guilty of “hate speech” by uttering a truth,
such as: “Islam is not a race.”
Wilders asked a rhetorical question of his auditors about the presence
and behavior of Moroccans in the Netherlands.
As the Telegraph
reported:
The
case was based on almost 6,500 official complaints after Wilders led a
party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking
whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.”
The crowd’s response
of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organized, said a judge at the secure court at
Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the
boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech.
The leading judge read out in court:
“It doesn’t matter
that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to
criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the judge. “The message that
evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work…The
group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”
Wilders is a member of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was created in
2006, and campaigned to "limit the growth of Muslim numbers" in the
Netherlands, taking nine out of 150 seats. His party wants to ban the Koran,
shut all mosques and asylum centers, and take the Netherlands out of the EU. At
the moment it is leading in the polls for a general election in March 2017.
What brought the suit against Wilders on were the offended feelings of
Moroccan Muslims, who did not like being singled out for “discriminatory”
speech.
In court, the judge
called his behavior “unworthy” of a politician, and said there was no question
that the case was political, as Wilders claimed.
The case, which has
taken 20 months to reach a verdict, comes three months before Dutch general
elections and Wilders’ PVV is currently leading in some polls.
Michiel Pestman,
lawyer for some of the complainants who helped bring the case, said: “There is
a debate in the Netherlands about whether this has given Wilders free
publicity, but he has to pay his lawyers. It’s a unique decision. This is the
first time that a court has said that minorities need special protection and
even a politician should be very careful about what he says.”
Dutch Judges of Geert Wilders
Elianne van Rens, Henry Stone House, and Sijbrand Wreath
Not Wilders’s Moral or Intellectual Peers
Hey, people, reality check here. If you keep sending someone to trial
because he exercised his freedom of speech, of course he’s going to get “free
publicity” – unless the government conducts a secret trial and suppresses any
information about it.
Emerson Vermaat of Pipeline
wrote in 2014:
January 22, 2014 -
San Francisco - PipeLineNews.org - Violent and dangerous Moroccan youth gangs
are on the rise in multicultural Holland. The Dutch city of The Hague has a
reputation of being a decent city where embassies and prestigious international
courts such as the International Court of Justice and the International
Criminal Court are located. It is also the city where the King of the
Netherlands resides. Parliament is located here as well.
But organized crime
is rampant is this city, especially among second-generation Moroccan immigrants
and minors. It is costing the Dutch tax payer millions of euros every year,
apart from all those decent people who have been robbed and attacked by these
arrogant juvenile frequent offenders. Too often, lenient judges release the
offenders after a few days or weeks – and the untouchable youth gangsters are
quite aware of this. They are laughing at their many powerless victims,
rediculing them. The police are also quite unhappy about it.
It was on the early
morning of Tuesday, January 14, that about two hundred policemen forcefully
entered the homes of eleven members of a notorious
Moroccan-Antillean/Surinamese youth gang in suburbs of The Hague. The gang was
at least seventy-two members strong and those who were arrested – ten Moroccans
and one Antillean – were considered to be dangerous hardcore members. “We
allowed them to operate freely for about one year in order to gather more
evidence,” Jozias van Aartsen, mayor of The Hague, told a Dutch TV reporter.
“Otherwise, people will blame us when these youngsters will be released after a
week.”
Arutz
Sheva reported in 2023:
At the request of
the Freedom Party (PVV) led by Geert Wilders, a debate took place in the Dutch
Parliament plenary on the “Moroccan problem.” PVV parliamentarian Joram van
Klaveren began by stating that the Netherlands has a “Moroccan problem,” which
also touches on Islam.
He mentioned that
65% of Dutch Moroccan male youths have police files. Dutch Moroccans are 22
times more suspect of property crimes accompanied by violence than other
Dutchmen. He further stated that anti-Semitism and homophobia are widespread
among Moroccans.
Hillary Clinton and her MSM cohorts would classify any mention of
Moroccan (or Turkish, or Syrian, or Afghani crime statistics in Germany or
Sweden) as “fake news” intended to denigrate or defame various Muslim ethnic
groups, to be suppressed or banned altogether. Clinton does not cite the MSM as
a purveyor of “fake news,” but any independent blog spot exercising its freedom
of speech by reporting the news that the MSM ignores or refuses to report, that
is, any news that puts a dent into the elitists’, Progressive grip on the
political establishment and demotes the MSM’s credibility to zero.
The
Hill reported on December 8th:
Hillary Clinton on
Thursday decried the spread of fake news online, calling it an “epidemic” that
Congress should take action against.
“The epidemic of malicious
fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year —
it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,”
Clinton said during a speech on Capitol Hill.
Some Democrats have argued
the spread of anti-Clinton fake news online contributed to her electoral loss
to Donald Trump….
“Lives are at risk — lives of
ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs,
contribute to their communities.”
“It’s a danger that must be
addressed and addressed quickly,” she said.
Clinton,
of course, was a practitioner of “fake news” when she blamed the Benghazi
incident and the murder of four Americans on a video which mocked Mohammad and
had the video maker jailed. It later came out that the video had nothing to do
with the attack on the compound. It was just Muslim killers doing what comes
naturally to them. She,
with the likes of Brian
Williams, is responsible for many instances of “fake news” that later had fatal
consequences for thousands.
“Fake
news” is any news or observation that is not couched in politically correct
terms.
It’s
hard to even convince the dhimmified of the fatal consequences of their
policies. One of the most shocking instances is the German/European Union
bureaucrat (a legal advisor to the European Commission) whose daughter,
19-year-old Maria
Ladenburger, was raped and murdered in October on her way home from a party.
This was not “fake news.” What was the reaction of the grieving family? To ask
sympathizers to donate funeral money to an organization that aids invading
migrants at the invitation of Angela Merkel.
The Daily
Mail reports:
Her family, in an obituary
notice after her cruel death, asked for people to donate money to charities,
including those which work with migrants.
The killing is the biggest jolt to Mrs. Merkel's plans for integration
since the frenzied sexual assaults of New Year's Eve in Cologne when mobs of
immigrant men sexually molested and robbed hundreds of defenceless women.
The anti-immigrant
Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been quick to piggyback on Hussein K.'s
arrest to highlight what it says are the dangers of unregulated immigration. It
calls Maria a 'victim of Merkel's welcome culture.'
Hussein K. was born in Ghazni
in Afghanistan and came to Germany as an illegal unaccompanied minor in
November 2015. [He was 16 when he committed the crime.]
In numerous posts on the
Internet he liked to present himself in the guise of a gangsta rapper: hair
slicked back with gel, jogging pants and training shoes.
Maria Ladenburger, an expendable daughter
The poisonous
effects of politically correct thinking are so evident here in the girl’s
parents’ reaction in the form submitting to Islam in the way of virtually apologizing for their
daughter’s murder. The obituary notice clamors for attention because it mixes
grief with submission. It as much as says: “The
horrendous murder of our daughter by a criminal migrant will not deter us from our duty to aid and console all
criminal migrants.” This is how altruism leads to abject selflessness. Duty
trumps value.
Geert Wilders
is under no obligation to be kind to Moroccans or to utter anything civil to or
about them. It is they who wish to see him defeated and destroyed. It is they
who sued to try him for “hate speech.” Muslims in every country employ “hate
speech” against the West and against non-believers, but politically correct
mores protects their “right” to defame and insult non-believers and secular
society. As Giulio Meotti points out in his Gatestone article of December 6th,
“The
West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship,”
There is no better ally of
Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact,
want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the
Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.
Politically
correct speech has as its nefarious partners now the prohibition of speech and actions in public discourse critical
of homosexuals and LGBTs, as well as Muslims and Islam as politically protected
classes and political powers. The rot began as early as 1995 (see my “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism” from 2013 (originally
published in 1997, about how academia has sanctioned and propagated the
shackling of thought and speech, also known as censorship).
Geert Wilders
will not surrender to politically correct speech. He has made that clear. He
will not become one of the “Gratefully Dead Dhimmies of Europe” – meaning that
a person would rather submit to Sharia Law than stand up for Western values of
liberty and freedom of speech, meaning that a European (and many an American)
would rather go through life with their heads bowed and their eyes downcast,
afraid to defy and fight the savages who rape their daughters, defecate
in their churches as they do in Sweden, beat up anyone who looks like he is
a non-believer, harass Westerners in their own country, and even kick
women down subway stairs. “I’m grateful to be alive,” say the dhimmies. But
for how long his judges, not his peers, may ask themselves? And their children?
How
Wilders will have the last laugh come the elections.
long will they be able to live? Such as Maria Ladenburger?
The Netherlands have
become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me:
You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence
convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and
liberty are stronger than you. And so am I….
And to people at
home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For
centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is
our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of
speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished….
Millions of Dutch
are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which
only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our
country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected
politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so
long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger….
Today, I was
convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts
to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But
they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of
millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak
the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who
will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count
on it: I will never be silent….
December 1, 2016
Follow My Leader
Negan a post-apocalyptic
Cult figure
With all apologies to Terence Rattigan, I have appropriated the title
of one of his earliest and unpublished plays. This is a post I’ve been wanting
to write for a long while, but other writing priorities kept cropping up.
In the anarchic apocalyptic milieu of The Walking Dead ,
the hit TV-AMC series, which I have ceased watching regularly, the few heroes
who dominated the series for a few years and who were the main attraction (for
me, at least) have been demoted from taking life-preserving actions and moral
certitude to mere “guest appearances.” I have also stopped viewing it because a
new element has been introduced, one that violates my own story-telling
premises. Namely, giving evil center stage as the prime mover of the action.
The prime mover is Negan, in this instance, a kind of warlord who runs
an army of thugs and killers out of his Sanctuary, raids peaceful communities
of survivors, and demands half of what they have as the price of not
slaughtering them. Negan brandishes a baseball bat wreathed in barbed wire. In effect, those who submit – literally, Islam
style – to Negan become his slaves. Beginning with the last episode of Season 6
and the brutal, raw beginning of Season 7, the glib malevolence of Negan is
repulsive to me.
I won’t recap the story line up to this point. What has fascinated me
has been how Negan’s army – the “Saviors,” obeys his every command and whim.
And most of his army is armed, variously with spears (manufactured by a subject
agricultural community), pistols, and automatic rifles. I often asked myself,
“Negan wields a mere baseball bat and maybe a pistol under his belt, and wields
psychological hegemony over his followers. But his followers are armed and
could kill him in a second. Why do they tolerate his head-bashing tyranny, when
they could easily free themselves of his dictatorship?
I made this point but did not pursue it in another column, “Hillary
and Negan: Parallels in Evil,” from October 2nd. I noted in it, and also in
the continuation of that same column, “Parallels
in Evil: Part II,”
Negan is a vile, evil character
who debuted in April at the end of Season Six of The
Walking Dead. Negan is a brutal tyrant who lords over an enclave of plague
survivors and likes to smash victims’ heads with a baseball bat sheathed in
barbed wire. He has a policy of extortion that requires other, productive
enclaves to give him half of what they have in exchange for his not raiding,
raping, enslaving, and killing their inhabitants and trashing their communities….
And here is…an uncensored
version of how he terrorizes, humiliates, and taunts his captured victims.
Please excuse the language. This version was recorded from a TV. I do not know
its source. It is compelling because Negan expresses Hillary’s malevolence, and
Negan’s foul language has also been captured elsewhere as Hillary’s. Negan is the real Hillary Clinton’s fantasy
surrogate. It is what she is at the core. Negan is artfully glib, almost
poetic, as Hillary is consistently plastic and artificial.
What might mystify people reading a history of Nazi Germany or Red
China is why uncountable millions would bow voluntarily and without hesitation
to a single allegedly charismatic person such as Negan, Hitler, and Stalin,
when a simple revolution would overpower the creature.
The answer is that these millions, once they have gotten over their
fear and doubts, become comfortable
with tyranny. Or they become so amenable to it that they remain clueless and
ignorant of what else might be possible to them. Memory of their previous lives,
as relatively free men, fades and vanishes. All that is left to them is to obey
Negan because his looters policy allows them to continue living.
In one episode, Negan gives a hubristic speech to the mob claiming
that his “Saviors” are saving civilization. His mob swallows that line with a
collective straight face.
The Walking Dead Hitler
in action
Of course, The Walking Dead
(TWD) is, on the surface, a dramatization of emergency
ethics. Emergency ethics is a temporary set of moral rules that can govern
one’s decisions and actions. A nickname or metaphor for emergency ethics is “lifeboat ethics.”
Unfortunately, the subject has been monopolized by left-wing environmentalists
and other confusing writers. In this instance, the circumstances are the collapse
of civilized society because most people become flesh-eating zombies while they
are alive or after they die.
Garrett
Hardin wrote 1974 about the concept of “Spaceship Earth”:
No generation has viewed
the problem of the survival of the human species as seriously as we have.
Inevitably, we have entered this world of concern through the door of metaphor.
Environmentalists have emphasized the image of the earth as a spaceship
-Spaceship Earth. Kenneth Boulding (1966) is the principal architect of this
metaphor. It is time, he says, that we replace the wasteful "cowboy
economy" of the past with the frugal "spaceship economy"
required for continued survival in the limited world we now see ours to be. The
metaphor is notably useful in justifying pollution control measures.
Unfortunately, the
image of a spaceship is also used to promote measures that are suicidal. One of
these is a generous immigration policy, which is only a particular instance of
a class of policies that are in error because they lead to the tragedy of the
commons (Hardin 1968). These suicidal policies are attractive because they mesh
with what we unthinkingly take to be the ideals of "the best people".
What is missing in the idealistic view is an insistence that rights and
responsibilities must go together. The "generous" attitude of all too
many people results in asserting inalienable rights while ignoring or denying
matching responsibilities.
For the metaphor of
a spaceship to be correct, the aggregate of people on board would have to be
under unitary sovereign control (Ophuls 1974). A true ship always has a
captain. It is conceivable that a ship could be run by a committee. But it
could not possibly survive if its course were determined by bickering tribes
that claimed rights without responsibilities.
Bowing to Satan or to Negan or to Allah
Does it matter which to a cultist?
See what I mean? Go ahead and parse the passage. I won’t.
Aside from fighting off “zombies” or “the walking dead,” the core
group of survivors in TWD must also deal with marauding looters and killers and
the irrational foibles of members of its group.
Ayn Rand wrote about emergency ethics
in The Virtue of Selfishness that:
An emergency is an
unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under
which human survival is impossible — such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a
shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the
disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land,
to put out the fire, etc.). [Currently, the unlimited immigration of illegals
and Muslims into the U.S., which certainly qualifies as an “emergency” because
on the one hand, Muslims adhere to an ideology hostile to American values,
which ideology requires the subornation and overthrow of the Constitution and
the institutionized violation of individual rights, and on the other hand
illegals who come to attach themselves to the welfare state and who have no
allegiance to America as a free, unbalkandized
country].
By “normal”
conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things,
and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or
in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible
for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to
return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature,
an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.
It is only in
emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who
values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow
passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean
that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his
fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles
they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the
seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save . . . .[Italics
mine]
Emergency ethics are not normal ethics by which to live.
The U.S. has no moral duty to help strangers of whatever character, be
they refugees from the Mideast or from south of the border. But our government,
and that of many European nations, has inversed the altruist ethics vis-à-vis
emergency ethics to invite the ethically lame, the barbarously halt, and the
primitively savage to engulf their civilized societies with the consequence that
the “immigrants” not only imperil indigenous citizens, but form political blocs
to alter the political structures of those countries. Taking the suicidal
altruistic inversion further (altruism, straight up, shaken not stirred), the
code commands the governments to protect the invaders based on their “needs,”
and not its own citizens and to punish or penalize citizens who resist or criticize
the destruction of their values and societies. To become “Islamophobic” or “illegalphobic”
is deemed a wrong not to be countenanced or tolerated.
Why do whole populations – or armies of “Saviors” – submit to the
commands of their dictators? The answers
– and there have been numerous answers – are various. One student of the
phenomenon, Geotz Aly, a lecturer at the University of Frankfurt, posited that
Germans warmed up to Hitler because he was a “good provider”:
To do so, he gave
them (Germans) huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today
anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a
single German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his
12 years in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also — in
great contrast to World War I — particularly pampered soldiers and their
families, offering them more than double the salaries and benefits that
American and British families received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a
"warm-hearted" protector, says Aly, author of the new book
"Hitler’s People’s State: Robbery, Racial War and National Socialism"
[TC: I cannot find it on U.S. Amazon, try this
German link] and currently a guest lecturer at the University of Frankfurt.
They were only too happy to overlook the Third Reich’s unsavory, murderous
side.
Financing such home
front "happiness" was not simple and Hitler essentially achieved it
by robbing and murdering others, Aly claims. Jews. Slave laborers. Conquered
lands. All offered tremendous opportunities for plunder, and the Nazis
exploited it fully, he says.
Negan – like Hitler – had to ensure the loyalty and obedience of his
Saviors by distributing the loot from others to sustain their relatively above-bare
sustenance existence (save places to sleep, food, other “necessities,” and
diversions). Ian
Kershaw, the prominent historian, on the other hand, noted that submission
to Hitler was not by all means universal.,
The referendum that followed on 19 August
1934, to legitimize the power-political change that had occurred, aimed at
demonstrating this identity. "Hitler for Germany -- all of Germany of
Hitler" ran the slogan. As the result showed, however, reality lagged
behind propaganda. According to the official figures, over a sixth of voters
defied the intense pressure to conform and did not vote "yes." In
some big working-class areas of Germany, up to a third had not given Hitler
their vote. Even so, there were one or two tantalizing hints that Hitler's
personal appeal outstripped that of the Nazi regime itself, and even more so of
the Party. "For Adolf Hitler yes, but a thousand times no to the brown
big-wigs" was scribbled on one ballot-paper in Potsdam. The same sentiment
could be heard elsewhere.
Beneath the veneer
of Führer adulation constantly trumpeted by the uniform propaganda of the mass
media, there are numerous indicators that Hitler's appeal remained far less
than total, even in what later memory often recalled as the "good
years" of the mid-1930s. One example of strong criticism leveled at Hitler
can be seen in a report from the Gestapo in Berlin in March 1936. Hitler's
toleration of the corruption and luxury life-style of the Party big-wigs at a
time when poor living standards still afflicted most ordinary Germans was, the
report noted, heavily criticized. "Why does the Führer put up with
that?" was a question on many people's lips, noted the report, and it was
evident "the trust of the people in the personality of the Führer is
currently undergoing a crisis."
The wholesale surrender of Germans (and of Italians to Mussolini, and
of Argentines to Peron, of the Chinese to Mao, etc.) to Hitler can be ascribed
in part to a pathological absence of individualism among the masses, and a dire
absence of any kind of self-esteem among them as volitional men, that is, of
the view that individuals were responsible for their own beliefs and actions,
and not a dictator or a strongman like Negan.
Mass submission to a “leader” also incorporates the psychological
phenomenon of a cult, in which individuals see their salvation and mental and
material contentment in the form of an irrational obsession with a “leader,”
who can solve all problems and work astounding miracles. It would be easy to
picture Hitler or Negan as infallible, and not to be questioned or criticized, and
not just from fear of him. Islam treats Mohammad that way; Mohammad is seen by Muslims
as infallible, and their relative mental and material well-being depends on
their dependence on that infallibility. As many Germans became psychologically
dependent on Hitler, and would resist or refuse to question his actions even
when they were disastrous, so the Saviors refuse to question the “practicality”
of looting or destroying the productive who made it possible for them to eat
and thrive.
The mass surrender of Americans to Hillary Clinton during the 2016
election is another case in point. Even though it is virtually common knowledge
that she is corrupt and is a congenital liar and that her policies would, like Obama’s,
leave them impoverished, and also in danger from ISIS, they’re obsessed with
her, and won’t let her go. Their identities have substance only in reference to
her image, to her icon. The fruitless and pointless Jill
Stein recount effort is demonstrable of that obsession. Clinton is a kind
of cult figure, as well. The violent Social Justice Warriors and her meeker
followers are not so much for her as against everything she isn’t.
They wish to follow their leader into oblivion like a million lemmings.
November 25, 2016
“Hate Speech”: Then and Now
John Adams, who signed the Sedition Act
It is interesting that a number of signatories of the Declaration of
Independence later in their careers took actions that jeopardized the
foundations of liberty, and specifically of freedom of speech, or the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
The greatest enemy
of liberty is fear. When people feel comfortable and well protected, they are
naturally expansive and tolerant of one another’s opinions and rights. When they
feel threatened, their tolerance shrinks. By 1798, the euphoria surrounding the
American Revolution, the sense of common purpose and a common enemy, was gone. Everyone
agreed that the new nation, founded amid high hopes and noble ideas was in
danger of collapse. The one thing they could not agree on was who to blame. (p.
1)
What went on in the mid- to late-1790s has reverse parallels today.
Where the Mainstream Media (MSM) today, by its own admission, intervened to
slander, libel, and smear presidential candidate Donald Trump (now the
President-Elect), to aid in and guarantee the election of a criminally
irresponsible, scandal-rich, unstable Hillary Clinton, the Democratic
candidate, the writers and newspapers of the 18th century came under vicious
attack from the government and the Federalists, the party of John Adams, who as
President signed the Alien and Sedition
Acts passed by Congress. The MSM failed ingloriously in its efforts. But
Adams, who was the main target of criticism by “Republican” (the name of the
early Democratic Party) writers and newspapers, unleashed the dogs of
censorship on them when he
signed the Alien and Sedition Acts on June 18th, 1798.
The Sedition Act outlawed what one could call the 18th century
equivalent of “hate speech.” It was impermissible and punishable now to hate
President John Adams (the second President after George Washington) and the
Federalists and their national and foreign policies, and to voice one’s anathema
for them in print or vocally. Those who did so and drew the attention of large
numbers of people were arrested and jailed. Adams and the Federalists would not
otherwise have heard or read the dissatisfaction but for informers who reported
the transgressions to Adams and his political allies.
A history of that time, Liberty’s
First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech ,
by Charles Slack, came my way
and further educated me on the pernicious consequences of the Sedition Act of
1798 and the scope of the evil. The consequences and injustices were wider than
I had previously imagined. As Slack points out, one need not have been a conspicuous,
widely known opponent of Adams, the Federalists, and the Sedition Act to attract
the attentions of the 18th century speech “police.” An idle, disparaging remark
overheard and reported by a neighbor could land the speaker in jail and earn an
enormous fine, as well.
Here is the key section of the Sedition Act under which several men
were prosecuted and jailed for “blaspheming” the government, President Adams,
and other individuals in the government.
An Act in Addition
to the Act, Entitled "An
Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States."
SEC.
2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or
publish, or shall cause or procure to be
written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist
or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and
malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or
either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the
United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of
the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them,
into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of
them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up
sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations
therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of
the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of
the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to
resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any
hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or
government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the
United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. [Italics
mine]
Although Adams
signed the Alien (or “Naturalization” Act), but did not enforce it, it was the
Sedition Act that drew the chief attention and ire of its foes and was the tool
Adams used to retaliate against his and his administration’s vociferous
critics. It is the Sedition Act that is the focus here.
Associate Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Chase, who
presided over the prosecution
of men for violating the
Sedition Act
The Alien and
Sedition Acts were promoted and passed by the Federalists in Congress, who were
the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Federalists also
dominated the Supreme Court. All the men
tried under the Sedition Act were tried by Federalist appointees. The legislation was
passed because Adams and many Federalists thought that a war with France (and
possibly another with Britain) was imminent, and so extraordinary restraints on
speech and the press were justified. French privateers raided American
shipping. The French, once an ally who helped Americans win the Revolution,
were now hostile to the U.S. The French
had undergone a revolution of its own. Its reign of terror
horrified Adams and the Federalists. The French bridled under American
criticisms of the conduct of the revolutionary government and became so hostile
to the U.S. that the government refused to receive or acknowledge the new
ambassadors from America, instigating the X,Y,Z Affair, during
which the French foreign minister’s agents sought to bribe the American
diplomats before negotiations for more amicable relations could even commence. Feeling that war was certain, and smarting
from the Republicans’ criticisms, the Federalists wrote and got passed the
Sedition Act, on July 4th, 1798.
Its known and principal victims, all of
whom argued that the Sedition Act was a violation of the First Amendment
(Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances). There might have been many more victims, but
records from the period are incomplete. The better known, as detailed and
described by Charles Slack, were:
Matthew Lyon, an Irish immigrant and a
Democratic-Republican congressman from Vermont. He was the first individual to
be placed on trial under the Alien and Sedition Acts He was indicted in 1800
for an essay he had written in the Vermont Journal accusing the administration
of "ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice." Lyon
was always spoiling for a “fight” against the Federalists. He spit on a Federalist
political foe, Roger Griswold, on the floor of the House; Griswold retaliated
by taking a cane to Lyon. Griswold was not charged with any misconduct. Found
guilty of violating the Sedition Act, Lyon was fined $1,000 and sentenced to
four months in prison. From inside his jail cell, Lyon won reelection to
Congress for Vermont. He later in life moved family, business, and home to
Kentucky.
James Thomson Callender, a
Scottish citizen and immigrant, had been expelled from Great Britain for his
political writings. Living first in Philadelphia, then seeking refuge close by
in Virginia, he wrote a book titled The Prospect Before Us (read and
approved by Vice President Jefferson before publication) in which he called the
Adams administration a "continual tempest of malignant passions" and
the President a "repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled
oppressor." Callender, already residing in Virginia and writing for the
"Richmond Examiner," was indicted in mid 1800 under the Sedition Act
and convicted, fined $200, and sentenced to nine months in jail.
Benjamin Franklin Bache, a
grandson of Benjamin Franklin, was a printer and editor of the "Aurora,"
a Democratic-Republican newspaper. Bache had accused George
Washington of incompetence and financial irregularities, and "the
blind, bald, crippled, toothless, querulous Adams" of nepotism and
monarchical ambition. He was arrested in 1798 under the Sedition Act, but he
died of yellow fever before trial. Bache’s widow, Margaret, inherited the
“Aurora” and picked up where her late husband left off, excoriating Adams and
the Federalists.
Anthony Haswell was an
English immigrant and a printer in Vermont. Among other activities, Haswell
reprinted parts of the "Aurora," including Bache's claim that the
federal government had employed Tories. Haswell was found guilty of seditious libel by judge William Paterson, and sentenced to a
two-month imprisonment and a $200 fine.
Luther Baldwin, a river
boat man who made his living plying the waters carrying passengers and trade up
and down various rivers including the Hudson, was indicted, convicted, and
fined $100 for a drunken incident that occurred during a visit by President
Adams to Newark, New Jersey. Upon hearing a gun report, fired during an
artillery salute during a parade, he yelled "I hope it hit Adams in the
arse."
David Brown, in November
1798, led a group in Dedham, Massachusetts, including Benjamin Fairbanks, in setting up a liberty
pole with the words, "No Stamp Act, No Sedition Act, No Alien Bills,
No Land Tax, downfall to the Tyrants of America; peace and retirement to the
President; Long Live the Vice President." Liberty Poles sprouted all over
the colonial landscape before and during the Revolution, but the Federalists
saw them now as incitements to civil disobedience and sedition. Brown was
arrested in Andover, Massachusetts, but because he could not afford the $4,000
bail, he was taken to Salem for trial. Brown was tried in June 1799. Brown
pleaded guilty, but Justice Samuel Chase asked him to name others who had assisted
him. Brown refused, was fined $480, and sentenced to eighteen months in prison,
the most severe sentence ever imposed under the Sedition Act.
John
Adams and Benjamin Franklin read and
revise
Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence
Thomas Cooper, an associate
of Joseph Priestly,
the noted scientist who with Cooper moved to America in 1793 to escape
persecution in England, was arrested for questioning Adams’s declaration of a “National
Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer.” In a local newspaper he questioned the
propriety of the declaration. Cooper was arrested, tried and jailed in
Philadelphia by Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court for violating the Sedition Act.
Writes Slack,
It had been passed “in
defiance of the plain and obvious meaning of the words of the constitution.”
…To Cooper freedom
of speech had a deeper meaning and purpose than just ensuring open government. At
stake was the right to of each individual to his own life, to form his thoughts
and express them as he pleased. The most insidious aspect of the Sedition Act,
he believed, was its direct transfer of rights from the speaker or writer to a
faceless, unaccountable mob. Cooper saw in the law an invitation to tyranny in
which unaccountable, ignorant men would pass judgment on “the most elegant
writer.” Cooper added, “They may find him guilty of what they do not
understand.” (p. 190)
Cooper was reminding his readers that Adams’s declaration was a sign of
where religion and rights “should not go,” that there should be a separation of
church and state, as expressed in the First Amendment.
Another outspoken enemy of the Sedition Act was Charles Hay, who
served as James Callender’s defense attorney, wrote and published a long essay, An
Essay on the Liberty of the Press , and in it offers one of the best
intellectual defenses of the freedom of speech of the period.
As Slack writes, Hay’s explication of the Bill of Rights, especially
of the First Amendment, in relation to the repressive Sedition Act, “galvanized”
the distinction.
“The words, ‘freedom
of the press,’ like most other words, have a meaning, a clear, precise, and
definite meaning, which the times require, should be unequivocally ascertained,”
Hay wrote. “That this has not been done before, is a wonderful and melancholy evidence
of the imbecility of the human mind.”
Hay continued: “This
argument may be summed up in a few words. The word ‘freedom’ has meaning. It is
either absolute, that is exempt from all law, or it is qualified, that is,
regulated by law. If it be exempt from the control of law, the Sedition Bill
which controls the ‘freedom of the press’ is unconstitutional. But if it is to
be regulated by law, the amendment which declares that Congress shall make no
law to abridge the freedom of the press, which freedom may however be regulated
by law, is the greatest absurdity that ever was conceived by the human mind.”
…Likewise, “if the
words freedom of the press, have any meaning at all, they mean the total
exemption from any law making any publication whatever criminal,” since the
only way to stifle objectionable voices would be to exercise “a power fatal to the
liberty of the people.” (pp. 170-172)
Hay does not state it, but he meant by that fatal power: by force.
Clearly something had
to be done to silence Matthew Lyon, Bache, Callender, and others. Vice
President Jefferson sensed the coming storm, noting in a letter to James
Madison, that President Adams “May look to the Sedition bill which has been
spoken of, and which may be meant to put the Printing presses under the
Imprimatur of the executive. Bache is thought to be a main object of it.” (Jefferson
to Madison, May 3, 1798) (pp. 64-65)
Thomas Jefferson, the Republican
enemy of John Adams, a Federalist
One of Jefferson’s
first acts as President in 1801 was to grant general pardons to any surviving,
jailed victims of the Sedition Act, which expired on March 31st, 1801, “written
into it to coincide with Adams’s last day in office,” notes Slack. “The pardon
automatically freed the two remaining prisoners who remained in jail: James T.
Callender and David Brown.” (p. 224)
Charles Slack’s opus is highly recommended
for anyone who wishes to understand the struggle to defend freedom of speech
and of the press over two hundred years ago, and to better grasp how low the
press has stooped to ally itself with parties hostile to freedom of speech and
of the press.
Liberty’s
First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech . By Charles Slack. New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press, 2015. 340 pp.
Posted by
Edward Cline
at
5:05 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment
Older Post
Home
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Edward Cline, American Novelist
Edward Cline was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
in 1946. After graduating from high school (in which he learned nothing
of value) and a stint in the Air Force, he pursued his ambition to
become a novelist. His first detective novel, First Prize, was published
in 1988 by Mysterious Press/Warner Books, and his first suspense novel,
Whisper the Guns, was published in 1992 by The Atlantean Press. First
Prize was republished in 2009 by Perfect Crime. The Sparrowhawk series
of novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period
has garnered critical acclaim (but not yet from the literary
establishment) and universal appreciation from the reading public,
including parents, teachers, students, scholars, and adult readers who
believe that American history has been abandoned or is misrepresented by
a government-dominated educational establishment. He is dedicated to
Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in all matters.
Popular Posts
It Didn’t Start With Marx
An extraordinary book came my way, one
which alters to some degree my own focus on the current conflict between
socialism and conserv...
Islam Inculcates Criminality
I am more and more convinced that, aside
from its totalitarian elements, Islam, from a psychological perspective,
deliberately plants t...
Brexit and My Exit
Readers will note that there is a new
feature on this site, a PayPal button at the top or bottom of a new
post, which anyone may use if ...
“A Complete Way of Death”
A Coffin Called Islam On May 26,
Family Security Matters reprinted an article, co-authored by Clare
Lopez and Retired Admira...
Islam on My Mind
I've been criticized by some readers as having "Islam on the brain." It's not a very kind criticism considering the seriou...
The Totalitarianism of Modern Airports
Your Body is the State's Business I
hate flying, and have hated it for years ever since 9/11, and have sworn
never to fly again...
Last Call
This is my last post on Rule of Reason
and http://edwardcline.blogspot.com/ , at least for a long while. The
blog sites might remain u...
The Ubiquity of Lies
The Clintons: The liars who came in
from the cold of 2016. I can’t think of a better way to open a
column on the ubiquity of l...
What Donald Trump Should be to Americans
John Paul Jones, American Naval Hero
Instead of an essay, I offer an image of John Paul Jones by N.C. Wyeth
(1928). It is what Trump sho...
The Evil Unleashed on us by our Governments
The face of Islamic evil is so evident
now, given the Nice butchery of July 14th that even the most morally
dissolute and corrupt amo...
Gadget
This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.
Search This Blog
Blog Archive
▼
2016
(83)
▼
November
(8)
“Hate Speech” Then and Now
Inhuman Islamic “Human Rights”
The Morality of Corruption
Shut Up! Or Go to Jail!
Jail House Rock
America’s Kristallnacht
The Celebrity Departure Lounge
The Ubiquity of Lies
►
October
(13)
►
September
(6)
►
August
(9)
►
July
(10)
►
June
(4)
►
May
(6)
►
April
(8)
►
March
(6)
►
February
(5)
►
January
(8)
►
2015
(103)
►
2014
(97)
►
2013
(89)
►
2012
(2)
►
2011
(1)
November 22, 2016
Inhuman Islamic “Human Rights”
What are “rights”?
A right is
an existential condition that permits an individual to live, act, and speak in
ways that promote his existence and happiness as a rational being.
“Rights” as perceived by Islam are privileges conferred on Muslims
exclusively by Sharia and Islamic doctrine, and on no one else. “What
is inside Sharia is good and permissible, what is outside Sharia is evil and
prohibited.”
“Rationality” and “Reason” do not even have the same
meanings in Islam that Westerners subscribe to.
The
bases of Shariah are four: two are revelatory, coming from Allah, and
include the two core sources, the Qur’ān, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah
(the practice and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s)); and two are based in
rational endeavor, consensus (ijma)
and analogical juristic reasoning (qiyās).
All other quotations are from The
Ayn Rand Lexicon , found on http://aynrandlexicon.com/, according to subject.
Rand on reason and logic:
The
distinguishing characteristic of logic (the
art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions
(actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and
their goal (knowledge…..
“It’s
logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification.
Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If
logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is
inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a.) things are not what they are; b.)
things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e., reality
is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it? By
illogical means…..
Reason is man’s only means of grasping
reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason
means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of
reality.
The
method which
reason employs in this process is logic—and
logic is the art of non-contradictory
identification.
Sharia and Islam, as a “unified” package of ethics,
is based, primarily, on those three old hoary diseases of man’s existence:
superstition (the purported existence of a supreme being, in this case, Allah),
consensus (so many people believe in Allah, he must exist, beginning with Mohammad), and, emotions or feelings.
The latter are not tools of cognition; they are responses to what one observes,
that is, when one employs one’s cognitive faculties.
Muslims are not bothered an iota that their “ideal
man” is a rapist, a killer, a savage thug. Being a savage thug is a means to an
end for the average jihadist: a
guarantee of Paradise if he has died in the act of slaughtering the infidel (that is, an individual or group
that has “left” the Islamic faith, because Islamic theology proclaims that all
men are born Muslim and are obliged to maintain fidelity to Islam).
Sharia Law is blatantly anti-human. It does not exist
to further human happiness. It exists to impose guilt and punishment upon the
living for living. And for having values not in compliance with Islam’s Sharia.
For disobeying Allah’s will. Contradictions are rife in the Koran ,
the Sunnah , and the Hadith . But their
presence in those documents has not stopped Islam’s religious authorities from
holding them up as things to be revered, acknowledged, and adhered to as moral
diktats under pain of death if they are not obeyed. If Allah wishes to water
the mountain tops, then he will command water to run uphill.
Janet Tavakoli in her Gatestone article, Islam’s
“Human Rights” of November 5,
stressed the bizarre Islamic notion of “rights:
No intelligent government should impair the
right of free speech to placate people who falsely claim they are victims when
often they are, in fact, aggressors.
To the 57 members of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation [now Conference], however, all human rights must first be
based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right,
whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right. [Emphasis mine.]
The rape of non-Muslim women is sanctioned by the Koran. It is seen by Muslims as a form
of conquest. In practical terms, German and Swedish women are captives of
Muslim “migrants” and can rape non-Muslim women with relative impunity (thanks
to the dhimmified judicial systems of those countries) . The “legend” of
Mohammad is that he raped captive women (especially if they were Jewish) as a
matter of “right.” His followers, to this century, emulate the practice. Thus
the spiraling rape statistics in Germany and Sweden, whose governments have,
out of altruistic duty, allowed those countries to be swamped beyond control
with savages whose sustenance is also subsidized by the subjected populations. ISIS
proclaims that if a captive and sex slave Yazidi
woman is raped by an ISIS fighter, she automatically becomes a Muslim.
Mā
malakat aymānukum ("what your right hands possess", Arabic:
ما ملكت أيمانکم) is a
reference in the Qur'an to slaves. The phrase occurs several times, and has
been variously translated by Western and Islamic scholars to mean the same
thing: captive women can be raped according to Sharia.
Surah
Al-Muminun
(23:6) and Surah Al-Maarij (70:30) both, in identical wording, draw a
distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands
possess" (female slaves), saying (literally, "their spouses or what
their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with
either is permissible. The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from
the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the
purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history
Tavakoli explicates Islam:
Fundamentalists
view Muhammad as the perfect man. Yet Muhammad led violent followers who raped,
enslaved war captives, and murdered unbelievers as part of Islam's program to
expand. Today that behavior is emulated by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Syria,
Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Nigeria, to name just a few.
Muhammad
had several wives, including a slave given to him as a gift. When he was in his
fifties, he asked for a friend's six-year-old daughter and consummated the
so-called marriage when the child was nine. Although Muhammad criticized
corrupt customs of his Arab contemporaries, he had sex with a girl who was too
young to be capable of consent; in the West we call this statutory rape. (Sahih
Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234)
Referring
to Muhammad's life, fundamentalists allow forced marriages of female children in countries
including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, some Gulf States, and Iran.
If
fundamentalist Muslim leaders do not understand how flawed this ideology
appears to the West, their incomprehension may spring from a fundamentally
different view of human rights: To the West, these values are embodied in the
Enlightenment -- such as individual freedoms, freedom of thought, disinterested
enquiry -- and in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights – that all people, regardless of race religion
or gender, have the right to life, liberty personal security, and freedom from
slavery torture, and degrading treatment.
It is those Enlightenment
values the Muslim Brotherhood works to denigrate and eradicate in its “civilizational”
war against the West. It has allies in dhimmi
Western governments in control of a nation’s educational establishment. In the
U.S., Britain, Germany, Sweden and other countries children are indoctrinated
in the “glories” of Islam, forced to perform the Shahada,
prayer, complete with rugs, bowing, and gestures, and to mouth the words that
Allah is the greatest, and that Mohammad is his prophet.
Many Reformist Muslims claim they are being unfairly lumped
into this extremist crew, but if they are claiming a schism, many they often have
not been clear about it….
Reformist Muslims still call themselves Muslims, but there can
never be a Quran 2.0. Every word in the Quran is believed to be the word of
Allah, similar to the Ten Commandments as the direct word of God; no one is
able to say that Allah did not mean what Allah reportedly said.
Interpretations, however do differ and since 1948 have apparently caused the deaths of 11,000,000 Muslims at the hands of other Muslims.
So one can imagine what might be in store for non-Muslims.
Islam cannot be “reformed”
to coexist with Western society. What divides “fundamentalist” Muslims from the
Reformist Muslims is an imaginary rainbow, because Islam cannot be tampered
with to make it more amenable to civilized society, not without earning the
Reformists death fatwas.
Islam, moreover, seems to have been has been set up to
spread it both by violence, "hard
jihad," and "soft jihad. " Hard jihad includes terrorism, murder
and attempted murder. Soft jihad includes rewriting history as with the UNESCO
vote claiming that ancient Biblical monuments such as Rachel's Tomb or the Cave
of the Patriarchs are Islamic, when historically Islam did not even exist until
the seventh century; migration to widen Islam (hijrah), as we are seeing
now in Europe and Turkish threats to flood Germany with migrants; cultural
penetration such as promoting Islam in school textbooks or tailoring curricula
for "political correctness"; political and educational
infiltration, as well as intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad
just underneath it).
More regrettable is that these are so often done, as at
UNESCO, with the help and complicity of the West.
Both hard and soft jihad are how Islam historically has
been able to overrun Persia, Turkey, Greece, Southern Spain, Portugal, all of
North Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. It is up to us not to let this be done
to us again.
Islam has no “extremist” forms.
One must ask oneself, from what point in its ideology and practice does it
reach an “extremist” apogee? Find a “moderate” form of Islam. You can’t. Islam is radical in every sense of
that term. Its origin was brutal and savage and it would cease to be Islam if
its advocates surrendered the ambition to make it dominant and abandoned the
use of force. There are no “moderate” fundamentalists. Reformist Muslims want
to add the frosting and icing of Western civilized societies to Islam to make
it palatable to infidel and Muslim alike. But Islam is Islam.
Given the bloody record of Islam
over 14 centuries, the “War on Terror” cannot be but the “War on Islam.” To think
of the conflict in milder terms is self-delusional and perilous. Islam is nothing if not inhuman. It is a
system for dying, it is a system that glorifies death.
A right is
an existential condition that permits an individual to live, act, and speak in
ways that promote his existence and happiness as a rational being.
“Rights” as perceived by Islam are privileges conferred on Muslims
exclusively by Sharia and Islamic doctrine, and on no one else. “What
is inside Sharia is good and permissible, what is outside Sharia is evil and
prohibited.”
“Rationality” and “Reason” do not even have the same
meanings in Islam that Westerners subscribe to.
The
bases of Shariah are four: two are revelatory, coming from Allah, and
include the two core sources, the Qur’ān, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah
(the practice and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s)); and two are based in
rational endeavor, consensus (ijma)
and analogical juristic reasoning (qiyās).
All other quotations are from The
Ayn Rand Lexicon , found on http://aynrandlexicon.com/, according to subject.
Rand on reason and logic:
The
distinguishing characteristic of logic (the
art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions
(actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and
their goal (knowledge…..
“It’s
logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification.
Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If
logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is
inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a.) things are not what they are; b.)
things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e., reality
is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it? By
illogical means…..
Reason is man’s only means of grasping
reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason
means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of
reality.
The
method which
reason employs in this process is logic—and
logic is the art of non-contradictory
identification.
Sharia and Islam, as a “unified” package of ethics,
is based, primarily, on those three old hoary diseases of man’s existence:
superstition (the purported existence of a supreme being, in this case, Allah),
consensus (so many people believe in Allah, he must exist, beginning with Mohammad), and, emotions or feelings.
The latter are not tools of cognition; they are responses to what one observes,
that is, when one employs one’s cognitive faculties.
Muslims are not bothered an iota that their “ideal
man” is a rapist, a killer, a savage thug. Being a savage thug is a means to an
end for the average jihadist: a
guarantee of Paradise if he has died in the act of slaughtering the infidel (that is, an individual or group
that has “left” the Islamic faith, because Islamic theology proclaims that all
men are born Muslim and are obliged to maintain fidelity to Islam).
Sharia Law is blatantly anti-human. It does not exist
to further human happiness. It exists to impose guilt and punishment upon the
living for living. And for having values not in compliance with Islam’s Sharia.
For disobeying Allah’s will. Contradictions are rife in the Koran ,
the Sunnah , and the Hadith . But their
presence in those documents has not stopped Islam’s religious authorities from
holding them up as things to be revered, acknowledged, and adhered to as moral
diktats under pain of death if they are not obeyed. If Allah wishes to water
the mountain tops, then he will command water to run uphill.
Janet Tavakoli in her Gatestone article, Islam’s
“Human Rights” of November 5,
stressed the bizarre Islamic notion of “rights:
No intelligent government should impair the
right of free speech to placate people who falsely claim they are victims when
often they are, in fact, aggressors.
To the 57 members of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation [now Conference], however, all human rights must first be
based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right,
whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right. [Emphasis mine.]
The rape of non-Muslim women is sanctioned by the Koran. It is seen by Muslims as a form
of conquest. In practical terms, German and Swedish women are captives of
Muslim “migrants” and can rape non-Muslim women with relative impunity (thanks
to the dhimmified judicial systems of those countries) . The “legend” of
Mohammad is that he raped captive women (especially if they were Jewish) as a
matter of “right.” His followers, to this century, emulate the practice. Thus
the spiraling rape statistics in Germany and Sweden, whose governments have,
out of altruistic duty, allowed those countries to be swamped beyond control
with savages whose sustenance is also subsidized by the subjected populations. ISIS
proclaims that if a captive and sex slave Yazidi
woman is raped by an ISIS fighter, she automatically becomes a Muslim.
Mā
malakat aymānukum ("what your right hands possess", Arabic:
ما ملكت أيمانکم) is a
reference in the Qur'an to slaves. The phrase occurs several times, and has
been variously translated by Western and Islamic scholars to mean the same
thing: captive women can be raped according to Sharia.
Surah
Al-Muminun
(23:6) and Surah Al-Maarij (70:30) both, in identical wording, draw a
distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands
possess" (female slaves), saying (literally, "their spouses or what
their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with
either is permissible. The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from
the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the
purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history
Tavakoli explicates Islam:
Fundamentalists
view Muhammad as the perfect man. Yet Muhammad led violent followers who raped,
enslaved war captives, and murdered unbelievers as part of Islam's program to
expand. Today that behavior is emulated by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Syria,
Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Nigeria, to name just a few.
Muhammad
had several wives, including a slave given to him as a gift. When he was in his
fifties, he asked for a friend's six-year-old daughter and consummated the
so-called marriage when the child was nine. Although Muhammad criticized
corrupt customs of his Arab contemporaries, he had sex with a girl who was too
young to be capable of consent; in the West we call this statutory rape. (Sahih
Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234)
Referring
to Muhammad's life, fundamentalists allow forced marriages of female children in countries
including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, some Gulf States, and Iran.
If
fundamentalist Muslim leaders do not understand how flawed this ideology
appears to the West, their incomprehension may spring from a fundamentally
different view of human rights: To the West, these values are embodied in the
Enlightenment -- such as individual freedoms, freedom of thought, disinterested
enquiry -- and in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights – that all people, regardless of race religion
or gender, have the right to life, liberty personal security, and freedom from
slavery torture, and degrading treatment.
It is those Enlightenment
values the Muslim Brotherhood works to denigrate and eradicate in its “civilizational”
war against the West. It has allies in dhimmi
Western governments in control of a nation’s educational establishment. In the
U.S., Britain, Germany, Sweden and other countries children are indoctrinated
in the “glories” of Islam, forced to perform the Shahada,
prayer, complete with rugs, bowing, and gestures, and to mouth the words that
Allah is the greatest, and that Mohammad is his prophet.
Many Reformist Muslims claim they are being unfairly lumped
into this extremist crew, but if they are claiming a schism, many they often have
not been clear about it….
Reformist Muslims still call themselves Muslims, but there can
never be a Quran 2.0. Every word in the Quran is believed to be the word of
Allah, similar to the Ten Commandments as the direct word of God; no one is
able to say that Allah did not mean what Allah reportedly said.
Interpretations, however do differ and since 1948 have apparently caused the deaths of 11,000,000 Muslims at the hands of other Muslims.
So one can imagine what might be in store for non-Muslims.
Islam cannot be “reformed”
to coexist with Western society. What divides “fundamentalist” Muslims from the
Reformist Muslims is an imaginary rainbow, because Islam cannot be tampered
with to make it more amenable to civilized society, not without earning the
Reformists death fatwas.
Islam, moreover, seems to have been has been set up to
spread it both by violence, "hard
jihad," and "soft jihad. " Hard jihad includes terrorism, murder
and attempted murder. Soft jihad includes rewriting history as with the UNESCO
vote claiming that ancient Biblical monuments such as Rachel's Tomb or the Cave
of the Patriarchs are Islamic, when historically Islam did not even exist until
the seventh century; migration to widen Islam (hijrah), as we are seeing
now in Europe and Turkish threats to flood Germany with migrants; cultural
penetration such as promoting Islam in school textbooks or tailoring curricula
for "political correctness"; political and educational
infiltration, as well as intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad
just underneath it).
More regrettable is that these are so often done, as at
UNESCO, with the help and complicity of the West.
Both hard and soft jihad are how Islam historically has
been able to overrun Persia, Turkey, Greece, Southern Spain, Portugal, all of
North Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. It is up to us not to let this be done
to us again.
Islam has no “extremist” forms.
One must ask oneself, from what point in its ideology and practice does it
reach an “extremist” apogee? Find a “moderate” form of Islam. You can’t. Islam is radical in every sense of
that term. Its origin was brutal and savage and it would cease to be Islam if
its advocates surrendered the ambition to make it dominant and abandoned the
use of force. There are no “moderate” fundamentalists. Reformist Muslims want
to add the frosting and icing of Western civilized societies to Islam to make
it palatable to infidel and Muslim alike. But Islam is Islam.
Given the bloody record of Islam
over 14 centuries, the “War on Terror” cannot be but the “War on Islam.” To think
of the conflict in milder terms is self-delusional and perilous. Islam is nothing if not inhuman. It is a
system for dying, it is a system that glorifies death.
November 20, 2016
The Morality of Corruption
A
guest column by Tom McCaffrey, the Morality of Corruption. This is a
superb essay on the key connections between corruption, political
correctness, and censorship, and how our most cherished Western values can be appropriated and corrupted by the Left to mean the opposite of their original intentions, or to mean nothing at all. It first appeared on Family Security Matters on November 18th. Mr. McCaffrey is the author of Radical
by Nature: The Green Assault on Liberty, Property, and Prosperity .
The
Morality of Corruption
by TOM
MCCAFFREY November 18, 2016
"We
are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow
some sort of curating function that people agree to," said President Obama
recently in Pittsburgh. "There has to be, I think, some sort of way in
which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests
and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in
anything that's actually happening in the world," he continued. "The
answer is obviously not censorship, but it's creating places where people can
say 'this is reliable' and I'm still able to argue safely about facts and what
we should do about it."
This is
vintage Obama in its dishonesty. If we call it "curating," suggests
Mr. Obama, then it is not censorship.
But it is
dishonest in a way that has characterized Mr. Obama's utterances since the
first days of his presidency. It is dishonesty that no honest, halfway intelligent
person would be fooled by. It is so transparent as to be almost childish. But
it is not intended to persuade the honest, intelligent person. Mr. Obama is the
first president who was able to dispense with appealing to the honest,
intelligent American.
Mr.
Obama's, and Mrs. Clinton's, contempt for the truth, and the degree to which
their constituents are indifferent to their dishonesty-and to their many other
transgressions against morality and the rule of law-suggests a degree of public
and private corruption that we could not have imagined a generation ago.
Remember "Bush lied, people died." The reason that refrain was as
effective as it was-even though it was itself a lie-was that Mr. Bush's
constituents took morality in their leaders seriously.
And it was
only one lie that Mr. Bush's opponents alleged. One would be
hard-pressed to count the number of lies Mr. Obama has told since he took
office. But the Bush incident exemplifies the reality that in the hands of the
Left today, morality is nothing more than a weapon to be used against their
opponents, precisely because their opponents take it seriously.
The Left
have never had much use for what most of us consider morality. Rationality,
honesty, industriousness, self-reliance, thrift, reliability, sobriety, sexual
restraint, good manners, an ability to defer gratification and to engage in
long-range planning, reverence for those who merit it-these are all values
objectively necessary to making the most of life on this earth. But they are
also what are commonly called "bourgeois," or middle class values,
values long disparaged and sneered at by the Left, for whom the middle class
represents the height of narrow-minded conventionality. It now appears that
Democratic voters no longer require such moral virtues of their leaders.
Nowadays,
the Left are largely relativists when it comes to morality. Live and let live.
Whatever floats your boat. But there are a couple of moral values about which
they are not indifferent. One of these is the idea that one man's need is
another man's moral obligation. This is the premise that underlies the welfare
state, and the Left do not treat is as a relative moral principle but as one to
which everyone must subscribe. This is because it is tailor made for
collectivists and totalitarians, as Stalin and Mao would attest.
Much of
the moral deterioration of the Left today is due to the metastasizing of the
welfare state. A government with the authority to expropriate the wealth of one
person and give it to another is corrupt ipso facto. Left untreated,
such corruption will spread like a cancer. The party that champions the welfare
state will attract the most corrupt office seekers and supporters. Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton are the inevitable product of the welfare state.
Yet, despite
their manifest corruption, the Democrats are able to pose as the moral
alternative to the Republicans. Why? Because they "care" about the
needy and the underprivileged, in contrast to the cold and heartless
Republicans. And the Republicans cannot oppose them in principle because they
concede the Left's moral premise, that one man's need is another's moral
obligation. Today the Republican establishment is as committed to continuing
the welfare state, for political and moral reasons, as the Democrats are.
Now the
welfare state is metastasizing in a new direction, which we call political
correctness. Instead of expropriating the wealth of some and redistributing it
to others, political correctness perverts the law to afford special privileges
to its clients. Blacks, women, homosexuals, and immigrants, legal and illegal,
number among the beneficiaries of politically correct legislation and
enactments. "Homosexual marriage" and forcing the Catholic Little
Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception and abortion services to their lay
employees exemplify this kind of legal enactment.
Just as
the welfare state rests on the moral foundation of selflessness, so political
correctness rests on a few moral principles that the Left treat as universally
valid. One of these is the idea of "inclusiveness." Inclusiveness
requires that we admit members of previously excluded groups, such as blacks
and homosexuals, to all our social and other endeavors. Inclusiveness fosters
"diversity," which, for the Left, is the great desideratum of
our time.
Another,
related moral principle of the Left is tolerance. If we are to include persons
with unusual sexual proclivities or with alien cultural practices and values in
our endeavors, then clearly we must learn to tolerate their practices and
values.
As the
current jihad against Donald Trump illustrates, the "tolerant" Left
enforce the few moral principles they subscribe to-including moral relativism,
paradoxical as it may seem-with all the fervor of a Cotton Mather. Indeed, one
of the great lies of our time is that the Left represent the forces of
enlightenment against a religious Right determined to shove their morals down
others' throats. Everything the Left believe in they try to impose on
the rest of us by means of government force. If making girls accommodate
sexually confused boys in their bath and locker rooms is not forcing the Left's
values upon others, then I don't know what is.
Political
correctness simply expands the corruption of the welfare state into new areas.
So why are the Democrats, despite their immorality and political corruption,
able to continue to pose as the only moral choice for American voters? Again,
because they "care," about blacks and women and homosexuals and all
the rest, enough to twist the Constitution in knots to purchase the votes of
their constituents. It's the same game as the welfare state, only played with
different currency, and the Republicans cannot play that game without fatally
compromising their principles.
But
political correctness is especially insidious, because it uses our most
cherished classical liberal principles as weapons against us.
You
believe in racial equality, say the Left? Then remain silent as we disrespect
your national anthem in support of our comrades who are ginning up a war on
your "racist" police.
You
believe in equality between the sexes? Then send your women into combat. And
while you're at it, why not erase any remaining differences between the sexes.
Let's start by inventing new "genders," until the concepts of male
and female are obliterated altogether. Beyond the differences in reproductive
hardware, they're just social constructs anyway.
You
believe in tolerance and equality? Then tolerate homosexual marriage. Who cares
if we have to re-define-by government force, as usual- a social and cultural
institution that goes back to the dawn of civilization, and that remained
utterly uncontroversial until ten minutes ago?
You claim
to be a nation of immigrants? Then allow us to flood the United States with a
deluge of immigrants from cultures with little or no experience of your free
political institutions, this at a time when Leftist orthodoxy argues against
assimilation. So what if a great many of these immigrants will become
recruits to the ranks of Democrats seeking to extend the political corruption
and cultural derangement of the Obama years?
You
believe in religious tolerance? Then tolerate these thousands of Muslim
refugees, at time when a great many of their co-religionists are at war with
us. So what if there is precious little in the cultures from which these
Muslims come that would prepare them to support our free political
institutions, and a great deal that would make them hostile to those
institutions and traditions?
There is a
way to fight back against political correctness. But the Republican
establishment will not avail themselves of it, because they believe that to do
so would make them racists and sexists and omni-phobes. Recall that during the
election campaign many Republicans were as horrified by Mr. Trump's lack of
political correctness as the Democrats were. As in the case of the welfare
state, the Republican establishment has conceded the moral validity of
political correctness.
But Donald
Trump has shown how to defeat it. Don't give an inch, concede nothing, and,
above all, refuse to sanction their moral pretensions. Political correctness
can defeat us only if we participate in their moral charade. Refuse it our
sanction, and it crumbles into incoherent street violence. Mr. McCaffrey is the
author of Radical
by Nature: The Green Assault on Liberty, Property, and Prosperity .
November 17, 2016
Shut Up! Or Go to Jail!
We told you to shut up!
One thing the election of Donald Trump has spared us
of is Hillary-style
censorship à la the European Union, the Muslim
Brotherhood, and the Organization
of Islamic Conference (née
Cooperation). Huma
Abedin, a card-carrying member of the Muslim Sisterhood, ever since high school,
will not be appointed Hillary’s Speech Czarina or anything
else. It’s over for her. It’s back to Riyadh with you, middle-aged lady, where
you can conform to Sharia and wear a burqa all day long.
First of all,
when I logged into my blogger setup, I found this notice. It was not there
yesterday.
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors
information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also
require you to obtain consent.
As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of
certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and
AdSense cookies.
You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog,
and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third
party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your
responsibilities.
Your HTTPS settings have changed. All visitors are now able to view your
blog over an encrypted connection by visiting [xxxcom – my blogname].
Existing links and bookmarks to your blog will continue to work.
This notice also appears on my statistical pages. My
response – or “responsibility” – to this notice is and will continue to be a
one-finger salute.
While it claims not to be a terrorist organization, a
document found during a 2004 FBI raid of a Brotherhood safe house reads that
they believe “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated
and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this
level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared
ourselves for jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform jihad and work
wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is
no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”
Have the real life heirs of Sergeant Preston of the
Yukon been tasked to slap Canadians into “right think”?
On October 26th, the
Canadian Parliament has passed an anti-Islamophobia “motion” that condemns
Islamophobia, just as the OIC and Hillary Clinton do. The text reads:
"Recently
an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted
terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their
actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim
sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way
the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they
misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in
no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to
co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens
and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in
recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam,
and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia".
All I said was I don't want a halal cheeseburger!
Knowing little or nothing about ISIS’s playbook
adherence to the Koran, the
legislators can get away with a woozy statement such as “an infinitesimally
small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities …as a
pretext for a noble rise in anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.” And the
statement buys into the notion, repeatedly contradicted by terrorists not
members of ISIS, but who were inspired by ISIS and by the Koran.
"Hate speech":Man arrested for giving a Muslim a dirty look
The Gatestone article, continues:
While a
motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic
effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning "all forms of
Islamophobia," without making the slightest attempt at defining what is
meant by "Islamophobia," can only be described, at best, as alarming.
What exactly
are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating
Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation
of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with
the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the
teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
No one
knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know
what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the
petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is
what he had to say in an interview
with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:
"Now
that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the
beginning ... We need to continue working politically and socially and with the
press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have
to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada's
supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we
need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the
Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all
ethnicities... All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and
humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive
policies."
We really expected more from the Canadians than to
take Samer Majzoub, at his word, but under Justin Trudeau. He is Canada’s prime minister and a kind of “red
diaper baby,” except you can call him a niqab baby, he is acting as Canada’s
elected undertaker. Calling Sergeant Preston! Leave
King behind. Bring plastic cuffs and duct tape to silence these warped people!
In the meantime, most European governments, especially
those with a major presence in the European Union, are
determined to punish anyone for speaking his mind about Islam, Muslims, and the
“migrant” invasion. Douglas Murray at Gatestone reports in his article, “Europe’s
New Blasphemy Courts”:
… The
front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a
country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw
off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has
been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents
of his film "Fitna" as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses -- the
late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen -- revealed that a judge in the
case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial
was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot
dictatorship rather than one of the world's most developed democracies. The
trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was
eventually found "not guilty" of a non-crime in 2011.
But
it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always
getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This
time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his
supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports
of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of
Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, "Do you want more or fewer
Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?" The audience responded,
"Fewer, fewer." To which Wilders responded, "Well, we'll arrange
that, then…."
On trial again for bad-mouthing Muslims and Moroccans.
Opinion
polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the
Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch
people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being
put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term
implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are
catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.
There’s more, as Judith Berman reports in “Europe:
Let’s End Free Speech!”
In
Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing
even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land
you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque
police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?
Several
European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing
migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go
"too far," according to the authorities, are being
arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.
In
the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments
about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht,
police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he
tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his
tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? The town had held a
citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted
a few tweets. One said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a
proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!" Earlier
he had also tweeted: "Should we let this happen?!..."
He was not
the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:
"...about
twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region
received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some
places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been
critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic
were told to stop".
A
spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of "digital
detectives" monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking
for posts that go "too far," so that they can visit with people to
tell them "what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have." In
other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the
question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the
United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the
Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would
"see the nasty side to us." According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne,
Germany on New Year's Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as
justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, "If
anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of
councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here..." He also
wrote, "There's defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just
witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer... I opposed their arrival from the
start."
Inspector
Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
"I hope
that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland
will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke
offensive comments on social media."
Bergman has much, much more to report on the government
depredations against citizens. What Sharia Law
under and on the table.
Donald Trump vs. the Cloaks of Darkness
Britain, the EU, and the member governments
are practicing is
But
relief, at least in the U.S., may be in sight, and Google Analytics' days may be
numbered and I can rest my middle finger. Paul Bremmer of The
Counter Jihad Report wrote:
The
Muslim Brotherhood’s days of influencing the United States government may be
coming to an end, and those who are expert in the field of Islamist activism
and the threat of terror are pleased.
WND
reported earlier President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to
jumpstart a bill in Congress that would ban the Muslim Brotherhood by declaring
it a terrorist organization.
Walid
Phares, a foreign policy adviser to Trump, says he believes Trump will support
the plan to make the designation.
Philip
Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and author of “See
Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s
Submission to Jihad,” greeted the news with hope, saying his former agency
is finally returning to its initial mission.
Julian Assange, who blew the lid off of the Clinton campaign
As the National
Review and other outlets have reported, Barack Obama from the very
beginning has refused to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist
organization.
Barack
Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the
international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we
saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist
advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training
government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the
nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror. Obama’s vaunted
national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The
term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the woolly
notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has
nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from
government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist
groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.
So, it seems that come January, we are going to have
a radical change of tune about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. It can’t
happen too soon.
November 15, 2016
Jail House Rock
Hillary Clinton, so surprised that reality doesn't obey her
Perhaps they’re already packing their golden
parachutes to bail out and ensure themselves a soft landing in the rocky
terrain of the real world: Loretta
Lynch, the purchasable Attorney General, and FBI Director James Comey, the less-than-puissant
fellow who couldn’t make up his mind if Hillary was made for prison stripes or
not. They certainly are not going to be in a Trump administration.
During one of the presidential debates, Donald Trump
told Clinton “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a
special prosecutor to look into your situation…” He then added, “because you’d
be in jail.” Hillary countered that she was glad someone like him wasn’t in
charge of the laws in the United States.
The “situation” is that,
among her other crimes, she was found eminently indictable for having
endangered the nation’s security by operating a hackable, freelance server over
which she passed and received documents relating to her office as Secretary of
State, many marked “confidential” and “secret,” in complete contravention of
the rules of the office. FBI Director Comey, however, buggered out of the
responsibility for asking the Department of Justice for a warrant. And then:
In late October, Rudy
Giuliani, a Donald Trump surrogate and advisor, told Martha
MacCallum of Fox News that "a surprise or two that you’re going to
hear about in the next two days" was coming from the Trump campaign.[]
Giuliani later explained he did not have insider FBI information. Later
confirmed by a second law enforcement source, an unnamed government source told
Fox News that the email metadata on the computer in question contained
“positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” however, at the time Comey sent
his letter to Congress, the FBI had still not obtained a warrant to review any
of the e-mails in question and was not aware of the content of any of the
e-mails in question.
On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the
presidential election, Comey announced in a letter to Congress that the FBI
learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation of Secretary Clinton's email server and the FBI will take steps
to allow investigators to review these emails "to determine whether they
contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our
investigation." Director Comey stated in the letter that he was writing
the letter to "supplement his previous testimony" before Congress
Not a used car salesmen, but James Comey
And emulating Emily Litella
of “Saturday Night Live,” he said, “Never Mind.”
What isn’t mentioned in the
hue and cry over Comey’s letter to Congress is that the case “unrelated” to the
Clinton email server case concerns Anthony Weiner’s laptop, which was shared by
Clinton staffer and close associate Huma Abedin (a card-carrying Muslim Brotherhood
and Muslim Sisterhood member), who is now separated from Weiner (and when will
she be separated from Clinton, now that there’s no political position for her
in the future?). So what were Department of State documents doing on a laptop
riddled with Weiner’s sextagrams to a 15-year-old girl. That was Abedin’s
doing.
Comey’s move certainly
contributed in no little way to Clinton’s failed bid for the White House. Read
the list of charges and angry protests over Comey’s badly timed action in hillaryclinton.com:
FBI Director James Comey is under widespread criticism for
breaking department precedent by commenting on an ongoing investigation, and
doing so just days before a presidential election. Indeed, the Washington Post
reported this morning senior Justice Department officials made perfectly clear
to Comey that he would be in violation of long-standing DOJ policy.
Moreover, according to CNN,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates both
objected to Comey sending this inappropriate letter to Congress. Nevertheless,
Director Comey independently decided to move forward, rattling the presidential
election with a note that was heavy on innuendo and extremely light on actual
information or needed details.
The result? Broad bipartisan condemnation and demands for
the swift disclosure of more information:
Washington
Post : Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update
Congress was not consistent with department policy: “Senior Justice
Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to
notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private
email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department,
according to officials familiar with the discussions. Comey told Justice
Department officials that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered
emails. These officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t
comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be
viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who
spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.”
CNN :
Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns: “Attorney
General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates objected to FBI
Director James Comey’s decision to notify Congress about his bureau’s review of
emails related to Hillary Clinton’s personal server, law enforcement officials
familiar with the discussion said. Comey decided to disregard their objections
and sent the letter Friday anyway, shaking the presidential race 11 days before
the election and nearly four months after the FBI chief said he wouldn’t
recommend criminal charges over the Democratic nominee’s use of the server.
New
York Times : Justice Dept. Strongly Discouraged Comey on Move in
Clinton Email Case: “Mr. Comey’s letter opened him up to criticism not only
from Democrats but also from current and former officials at the F.B.I. and the
Justice Department, including Republicans. ‘There’s a longstanding policy of
not doing anything that could influence an election,’ said George J. Terwilliger
III, a deputy attorney general under the first President George Bush. ‘Those
guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes that makes for hard decisions. But
bypassing them has consequences.’”
Politico :
Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors: “James Comey’s surprise
announcement that investigators are examining new evidence in the probe of
Hillary Clinton’s email server put the FBI director back under a harsh
spotlight, reigniting criticism of his unusual decision to discuss the
high-profile case in front of the media and two congressional committees.”
Los
Angeles Times : “The emails were not to or from Clinton, and
contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already
uncovered, the official said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they
needed to further scrutinize them.
There are several pages more of this
hand-wringing, angry jaw-dropping, and bitch-lapping. This is what it was all about.
Here is Comey’s letter
to Congress of October 28th, in which he claims he is reopening the email
server case reads:
To all:
This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with
the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative
team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to
emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those
emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should
take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing
investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified
repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think
it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the
record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the
significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to
create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a
brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk
of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.
Jim Comey
The Washington Post reports
John Podesta’s teeth-gnashing:
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this
just 11 days out from a presidential election,” said John Podesta, the chairman
of Clinton’s presidential campaign. “The Director owes it to the American
people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We
are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the
FBI reached in July.”
His plan of action, as
reported by Fox Nation via Right
Scoop, on November 1st, “UM… A new Podesta Wikileaks email says “we are
going to have to DUMP all those emails…”,
was to erase the evidence:
So
this new email
turned up in Wikileaks today and it looks really, really bad. It’s an email
from John Podesta to Cheryl Mills saying “we are going to have to dump all
those emails….”
Podesta doesn’t specify what emails they need to dump, but
this email was sent only 2 weeks after the email scandal broke in March 2015. It
doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know what emails he’s talking about!
Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch's dreams of an American caliphate dashed
Doubtless, Comey was in
thrall to the Clinton’s. Corruption comes under many names. One of them is now
Comey. And Huma Abedin adrift now in a world she never made, was granted
immunity from all future prosecution concerning the illicit State emails. True
Pundit wrote:
Abedin was also exposed to criminal charges on an
additional front, sources said. Abedin provided many inconsistencies when
interviewed by FBI, compared to intelligence gathered during the investigation
and interviews conducted with Clinton and other witnesses involved in the
probe, sources said….
Last week Congressman Jason Chaffetz who chairs the
Oversight Committee, blew the whistle on the Justice Department’s secret
immunity deal with Cheryl Mills. Mills served as Clinton’s counsel and chief of
staff at State while she was secretary of state.
Abedin’s would-be deal brings the current tally of immunity
packages doled out by the DOJ in the Clinton investigation to six, an
unprecedented amount of get-out-of-jail-free cards for a non-RICO (Organized
Crime) related criminal case. Chaffetz charged that DOJ was handing out immunity
deals “like candy.”
Lynch: Drop the investigation, or you're dog meat!
The fix was in, to protect
Clinton and some of her top aides. And the fix was made possible by Comey and
Lynch. One fixer, charged with protecting American citizens from criminals, the
other fixer was charged with prosecuting them. Both failed in the Clinton email
server case because both are corrupted.
Here’s an extra bonus
connected to Hillary’s foiled dreams of supremacy. It’s doubtful that the Organization
of Islamic Conference (OIC) will be able to implement its global
anti-islamophobia censorship program. Remember that she hosted OIC
get-togethers in Istanbul
and Washington.
The OIC blames
freedom of speech for Islamophobia.
The OIC champions “Human
Rights.” But, there’s a catch. To the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, all human rights must first be based on Islamic religious law,
Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right, whatever is outside Sharia
is not a human right. This what Clinton has approved of and encouraged for a
long time.
Comey and Lynch should both
rehearse “The Jailhouse
Rock.” They could learn to harmonize with Prisoner Clinton. It would be an unusual vocal trio.
