Edward Cline's Blog, page 8
November 12, 2016
America’s Kristallnacht
Hillary Clinton: The face that launched thousands of rioters.
Had Hillary
Clinton won the election, would the anti-Trump rioters have behaved any differently?
No.
Instead of protesting Trump’s election, they’d be
celebrating Hillary’s victory with the same appetite for destruction and brutality and carnage. They
would be celebrating it in the best
Nazi tradition, such as the Night of the Broken Glass., or Kristallnacht in the character
of Novemberpogrome. Businesses would be targeted for destruction and
looting (see
the glass being broken by hooded thugs) and physical
attacks on Trump supporters would be common, and ignored by a compliant
news media. The Nazis were celebrating the ascendancy of the Nazis in German
political life. The “Social Justice Warriors” could just as well be celebrating
Clinton’s ascendancy to the White House.
“What difference would it make?”
Kristallnacht , November 1938
The pretext
for the attacks in 1938 was the assassination of the German diplomat Ernst
vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan in Paris. The attacks were
planned and carried out by the Nazi Party to target Jews, the whipping boy blamed for Germany’s
economic and other problems. They were
targeted, Saul Alinsky
style – long before he wrote Rules
for Radicals – and isolated and persecuted.
The pretext – and the etymological root of the term
pretext, means that the demonstrators
then and now were and are acting out a prepared script – is pretending to be
“outraged” and “disgruntled” and in violent opposition to Donald Trump’s
winning the 2016 presidential election. When multiple mass rallies abruptly
occur in multiple cities across the country, from coast to coast, and even in
Britain (as Kristallnacht occurred in
Germany in 1938) it means that these are no more “spontaneous,” for example, than
the Muslim
riots and demonstrations against the Mohammad image cartoons. These are all
pre-arranged and planned for maximum effect and shock value, to scare the
powers that be into concessions.
Grief over Clinton's loss morphs into America's Kristallnacht.
Some of the rioters are now claiming they are
practicing their First Amendment rights. But freedom of speech does not include
rioting, property destruction, and terrorizing individuals.
One may succumb to “impulse buying” in a supermarket,
but there is no such thing as “impulse rioting.”
The Counter-Jihad
Report reveals that:
Contrary to media misrepresentations, many
of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed
in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated,
in advance, by a pro-Communist
organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym
for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in
2001 by Ramsey
Clark’s International
Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the
Marxist-Leninist Workers
World Party.
In effect, ANSWER
provided the script, George
Soros’s MoveOn
provided the cast of thousands, and has done so ever since Trump launched his
bid for the White House, and long before Trump entered the political arena. It
was Ramsey Clark, a
former Attorney General and a career Progressive
(aka Communit), who founded ANSWER.
Demonstrators in Seattle, November 2016
As of this
column, there have been no reports of riots, destruction, and physical assaults
instigated by masses of Trump supporters. Nor are there likely to be. No busloads
of Trumpeters have been sent to voting stations or to New York City and
Portland and Los Angeles to cast their votes or to raise hell.
The Dennis
Michael Lynch blog reported:
MoveOn.org, a liberal
activist group that has exploded all across the nation, is funded by Soros’ Open Society
Foundations. It is now well known that MoveOn.org was
responsible for many of the riots and protests at Donald Trump’s campaign
rallies, some of which became violent and dangerous.
Wednesday – the
day following Trump’s victory – MoveOn.org moved into action. The
group put out a notice on their Facebook page, announcing they would conduct
“peaceful gatherings of resistance” all across the country Wednesday evening.
The “gatherings” were not entirely peaceful… courtesy of open borders
activist George Soros.
Ramsey provided the play-script, Soros provides the troops.
These are
not “demonstrations” in the usual sense. They are deliberately orchestrated
riots, led by professional, paid, and trained managers of chaos. Today’s
rioters, as they were in the 60s and 70s, are not wearing “flowers in their
hair.” In any footage of the rioting, you can identify the “pros” by the masks
they wear, either scarves or ski masks. That is to frustrate the authorities from
identifying the arrest-rich and past “managers” and leaders of the chaos.
The
demonstrators are fond of carrying signs that characterize Trump and his
supporters as “Fascists” and “Nazis,” but the sad and dangerous issue is that
most of those sign carriers haven’t a clue to the meaning of those words. They were
taught that words have no meanings except what their emotions tell them what
they mean. Yet they
accuse others of Fascism and Nazism, and they are the embodiments of them.
That’s the
price and consequence of modern education, which, by my reckoning and
observation, isn’t worth Groucho Marx’s seven-cent nickel.
November 10, 2016
The Celebrity Departure Lounge
Excuse me while I have some fun. Put this column under “comic relief.”
Daniel Nussbaum of Breitbart Hollywood on November 8th ran a column I
could not pass up making comments about,
“16
Celebrities Who Will Leave the U.S. if Trump Wins.”
With Election Day polls opening up across the
country on Tuesday, some of Hollywood’s most progressive celebrities have got
their bags packed just in case Republican Donald Trump prevails over Democrat
Hillary Clinton. [which he certainly did, rubbing Hillary’s lying face in the
mud].
And the winners and whiners are:
1. Barbra Streisand
I can’t believe it.
I’m either coming to your country if you’ll let me in, or Canada,” the singer
told 60 Minutes
in an interview in August [sic,
either/or gaffe]. Streisand has been a vocal supporter of Clinton’s candidacy,
and appeared at a high-profile fundraiser for the candidate in New York City
earlier this year.
Not that the
appearances did Clinton any good. The Clinton campaign must have paid her
plenty. And if it did, did Babs donate the fee to the Clinton Global
Initiative? Donald Trump did not need to
book high-profile “stars” during his campaign. Getting to see stars other than
Trump was not why his massively attended rallies drew hall-filling crowds. They
came to hear real “hope and change” expressed by a non-establishment outsider.
2. Bryan Cranston
“I would definitely move. It’s not real
to me that that would happen. I hope to God it won’t,” Cranston said in October of the possibility of a Trump victory. The Breaking
Bad star suggested he would take a permanent vacation to Vancouver.
The question
is: Will all these Hollywood leavers also surrender their U.S. citizenship? A
rather doubt there’s any substance to their anti-Trump breast-beating.
3. Miley
Cyrus
The young pop star said she would “move
out da country” if Trump, whom she called a “f*cking nightmare” were to win the election.
Well, what
is she waiting for? There are daily flights to Canada from a variety of
airports. Perhaps she’s waiting for the Canadian visa people to give her the
green light. Or perhaps she’s received a note from Canadian Immigration
authorities to the effect: “We’d rather import 10,000 un-assimilable Muslims
than your porn-rock , sweetheart. That is, there are just so many venues in our
country that would allow you to wiggle your naked butt and allow horny Muslim
men here to fondle your snatch and pretend to boing you from behind while you allegedly ‘sing’.” Please be truthful: Is moving to Canada just an opportunity to moon
America and Trump from a safe distance, or are you portraying yourself as a
suffering “refugee”? Eh?
Lady Gaga showing her inner Nazi, and not much else.
4. Lena Dunham
The Girls star said there is a
“100 percent chance” she will pick up and move to Canada if Trump prevails on Election Day.
“I love Canada. I think that it’s a
great place, and there’s an area in Vancouver that I find beautiful and
appealing, and I can conduct business from there,” the actress and Clinton
surrogate said.
But, will
Canada love you back? There’s a “100% chance,” because its Parliament just voted to ban freedom of
speech, or will the dice roll against us? Canada’s “gain” will not be
America’s loss, I can assure you. Will Vancouver make the city a no-Dunham-go
area? Be true to your word, Lena; or are you planning to become a Canadian
goose, and fly south during a cold Canadian winter? Will you take up Milo on his offer to pay
your one-way
fare?
5. Amy
Schumer
The comedian and Trainwreck
actress said Spain would be her destination of choice if Trump wins the
presidency.
“My act will change because I will need
to learn to speak Spanish,” Schumer said in an appearance on the BBC’s Newsnight in
September. “Because I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my
comprehension if Trump won. It’s just too crazy.”
Amy Schumer stamping her feet in Spain
Sorry, Amy,
but your comedy is beyond the comprehension of any sane person. No loss to the
U.S. You probably won’t be much of a hit
in Spain, either, so I think your act might change out of necessity. An alternative
career for you might be to take up bull-fighting, or Flamenco, in which you
could stamp your feet until your arches fell.
6. Jon Stewart
The former
Daily Show funnyman may want to connect with billionaire space pioneer Elon
Musk if Trump wins; he told People
magazine last year that he would consider “getting in a rocket and going to another planet, because clearly this planet’s gone
bonkers.”
There’s a lakeside bungalow available on one of the tributaries of
Saturn’s methane-rich moon of Titan. Perhaps that’s where Stewart is heading.
The mini-planet of cow-gas. For snarky, not-so-funny methane is just about all
Stewart offered on The Daily Show .
7. Cher
The same goes for
pop icon Cher, who wrote on Twitter that she would be moving
to Jupiter if Trump wins. The “Believe” singer has appeared with Hillary
Clinton at campaign events this year.
Another retread from an
earlier century whose Clinton rally appearances just didn’t resonate with
Clinton supporters who just didn’t know their popular music history. Their
college professors didn’t want to “trigger” them. Cher’s era just wasn’t a
“safe” enough space.
8. Chelsea Handler
The comedian and talk-show host
said she had already made a contingency plan in the event of a Trump win.
“I did buy a house in another
country just in case,” Handler said in an interview on ABC’s Live with Kelly and Michael in
May. “So all these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t — I
actually will leave that country.”
Yeah? Let’s see
photographic proof of a Canadian immigration official actually handing you your
temporary residence visa, with a warning from Carl the Speech Walker, “No bad
or prohibited jokes, or you spend a night in the box,”
guarded by Mounties. I have never heard
of Handler before, and have not audited her performances. Call me clueless about
Chelsea, except for the Clinton one.
9.
Samuel L. Jackson
The veteran actor accused Trump of running a “hate”-filled
campaign in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter.
“If that motherf*cker becomes president, I’m moving my
black ass to South Africa,” he later told Jimmy
Kimmel.
Jackson is apparently still
feeling his thuggish macho from Pulp
Fiction. He certainly had better fashion sense in the movie. His suit here
looks like an off-the-rack from Goodwill. Well, Samuel, I guess you’ll be
making the acquaintance of all those racist powers in the ANC. Maybe you can get along with them.
You can sing along with them as they chant “Kill the Boer.” Provided
you can learn a primitive language.
10. Whoopi Goldberg
The comedian and The View co-host has repeatedly
trashed Trump on the ABC daytime talk show.
“Listen, he can be whatever party he wants to be,” she said during an episode in January. “What he can’t be is he
can’t be the guy that says it’s your fault stuff isn’t working. That’s not the
president I want. Find a way to make stuff work.”
“Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. I can afford to
go,” she added.
But she never parodied
Obama when he said “You didn’t make that.” Well, the winner of the Beat Best By
An Ugly Stick Award just may fit into whatever country she decides to relocate
to. Perhaps there’s a leper colony she’s overlooking.
11. Neve Campbell
The Scream and House of Cards actress said
she would move back to her native Canada if Trump wins the election.
“They see someone off the cuff and broad, and they think
‘ok, that’s the voice we need, just someone honest,'” Campbell told the Huffington Post of the motivation behind
the Republican candidate’s support. “But his honesty is terrifying.”
I can’t say much about Nervy Neve. I can’t
remember her from a
single movie or TV special. I don’t even remember her from House of Cards or Mad Men.
I watch lots of TV and movies but her face just doesn’t ring a bell. Hers is
just not a face that stops one cold because it’s so unforgettable. Which it
isn’t. Plenty of acting credits: but who?
Perhaps her residuals will pay for her Canadian rent, or taxes.
12. Keegan-Michael Key
The Key and Peele star also said he’d flee north to
Canada in the event of a Trump presidency.
“It’s like, 10 minutes from Detroit,” the comedian told TMZ in January. “That’s where I’m from; my mom lives
there. It’d make her happy too.”
Is it ten minutes from
Canada or ten minutes from Detroit. You’re from where? English please. Go home
and make your mother happy. Will you be living in her basement, like a good
college student afraid of the real world?
13.
George Lopez
“If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration.
We’ll all go back,” the Latino comedian and TV star told TMZ shortly after Trump announced his candidacy in
2015.
Fine, George, and I know
you’ll give parting thanks to the country that made your wealth and well-being
possible for so long. So, please, “go back” to the stagnant, third-rate culture
you came from. Perhaps you can hook up with a drug cartel.
14.
Ne-Yo
The R&B singer said he’d be moving to Canada “straight
away” if Trump wins.
“Me and Drake gonna be neighbors if Donald Trump becomes
president,” the singer told TMZ in October.
Me paleface don’t dig you
to the max. Me prefer listen to Rachmaninoff and some white dude playing real
music. Me scratch head over weird name. Is like Ovaltine? Neutrogena? Yo-yo?
15.
Rev. Al Sharpton
The civil rights activist told attendees at a
Center for
American Progress event in February that he would be looking for flight reservations if Clinton did not triumph
on Election Day.
“I’m also reserving my ticket to get out of
here if he wins. Only because he’d probably have me deported anyhow,” Sharpton
said.
Al is a “civil rights
activist”? He always impressed me as a noisy, loud-mouthed bigot whose blather
got a lot of people killed. A perpetual exploiter and promoter of victim-card
gamesters. Hope he can book a reservation with all his
ill-gotten gains. Can probably buy his own plane.
16.
Raven-Symoné
The former View co-host and Disney Channel
star is probably already on a flight out. During a February episode of the talk
show, the actress said she would move to Canada “if any Republican gets nominated.”
Well, a Republican was nominated and elected. Is she on her way?
Probably not. Is there a Canadian version of The View across the border? In Mexico? Or in Venezuela? Bolivia?
The Mariana Islands? The Antarctic? But I’m
guessing she’s really staying put.
17. Hillary
Rodham Clinton
Oh. Never mind. She wasn’t
on Nussbaum’s list. She’s not going anywhere. Except to house arrest in
Chappaqua. The Secret Service will probably be detailed to make sure she doesn’t
wander. That’s if a mug shot isn’t taken of her before being sent to a minimum security “facility.”
See? No matter what crime she’s committed, the taxpayer will wind up supporting
her.
What difference does it make?
Daniel Nussbaum of Breitbart Hollywood on November 8th ran a column I
could not pass up making comments about,
“16
Celebrities Who Will Leave the U.S. if Trump Wins.”
With Election Day polls opening up across the
country on Tuesday, some of Hollywood’s most progressive celebrities have got
their bags packed just in case Republican Donald Trump prevails over Democrat
Hillary Clinton. [which he certainly did, rubbing Hillary’s lying face in the
mud].
And the winners and whiners are:
1. Barbra Streisand
I can’t believe it.
I’m either coming to your country if you’ll let me in, or Canada,” the singer
told 60 Minutes
in an interview in August [sic,
either/or gaffe]. Streisand has been a vocal supporter of Clinton’s candidacy,
and appeared at a high-profile fundraiser for the candidate in New York City
earlier this year.
Not that the
appearances did Clinton any good. The Clinton campaign must have paid her
plenty. And if it did, did Babs donate the fee to the Clinton Global
Initiative? Donald Trump did not need to
book high-profile “stars” during his campaign. Getting to see stars other than
Trump was not why his massively attended rallies drew hall-filling crowds. They
came to hear real “hope and change” expressed by a non-establishment outsider.
2. Bryan Cranston
“I would definitely move. It’s not real
to me that that would happen. I hope to God it won’t,” Cranston said in October of the possibility of a Trump victory. The Breaking
Bad star suggested he would take a permanent vacation to Vancouver.
The question
is: Will all these Hollywood leavers also surrender their U.S. citizenship? A
rather doubt there’s any substance to their anti-Trump breast-beating.
3. Miley
Cyrus
The young pop star said she would “move
out da country” if Trump, whom she called a “f*cking nightmare” were to win the election.
Well, what
is she waiting for? There are daily flights to Canada from a variety of
airports. Perhaps she’s waiting for the Canadian visa people to give her the
green light. Or perhaps she’s received a note from Canadian Immigration
authorities to the effect: “We’d rather import 10,000 un-assimilable Muslims
than your porn-rock , sweetheart. That is, there are just so many venues in our
country that would allow you to wiggle your naked butt and allow horny Muslim
men here to fondle your snatch and pretend to boing you from behind while you allegedly ‘sing’.” Please be truthful: Is moving to Canada just an opportunity to moon
America and Trump from a safe distance, or are you portraying yourself as a
suffering “refugee”? Eh?
Lady Gaga showing her inner Nazi, and not much else.
4. Lena Dunham
The Girls star said there is a
“100 percent chance” she will pick up and move to Canada if Trump prevails on Election Day.
“I love Canada. I think that it’s a
great place, and there’s an area in Vancouver that I find beautiful and
appealing, and I can conduct business from there,” the actress and Clinton
surrogate said.
But, will
Canada love you back? There’s a “100% chance,” because its Parliament just voted to ban freedom of
speech, or will the dice roll against us? Canada’s “gain” will not be
America’s loss, I can assure you. Will Vancouver make the city a no-Dunham-go
area? Be true to your word, Lena; or are you planning to become a Canadian
goose, and fly south during a cold Canadian winter? Will you take up Milo on his offer to pay
your one-way
fare?
5. Amy
Schumer
The comedian and Trainwreck
actress said Spain would be her destination of choice if Trump wins the
presidency.
“My act will change because I will need
to learn to speak Spanish,” Schumer said in an appearance on the BBC’s Newsnight in
September. “Because I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my
comprehension if Trump won. It’s just too crazy.”
Amy Schumer stamping her feet in Spain
Sorry, Amy,
but your comedy is beyond the comprehension of any sane person. No loss to the
U.S. You probably won’t be much of a hit
in Spain, either, so I think your act might change out of necessity. An alternative
career for you might be to take up bull-fighting, or Flamenco, in which you
could stamp your feet until your arches fell.
6. Jon Stewart
The former
Daily Show funnyman may want to connect with billionaire space pioneer Elon
Musk if Trump wins; he told People
magazine last year that he would consider “getting in a rocket and going to another planet, because clearly this planet’s gone
bonkers.”
There’s a lakeside bungalow available on one of the tributaries of
Saturn’s methane-rich moon of Titan. Perhaps that’s where Stewart is heading.
The mini-planet of cow-gas. For snarky, not-so-funny methane is just about all
Stewart offered on The Daily Show .
7. Cher
The same goes for
pop icon Cher, who wrote on Twitter that she would be moving
to Jupiter if Trump wins. The “Believe” singer has appeared with Hillary
Clinton at campaign events this year.
Another retread from an
earlier century whose Clinton rally appearances just didn’t resonate with
Clinton supporters who just didn’t know their popular music history. Their
college professors didn’t want to “trigger” them. Cher’s era just wasn’t a
“safe” enough space.
8. Chelsea Handler
The comedian and talk-show host
said she had already made a contingency plan in the event of a Trump win.
“I did buy a house in another
country just in case,” Handler said in an interview on ABC’s Live with Kelly and Michael in
May. “So all these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t — I
actually will leave that country.”
Yeah? Let’s see
photographic proof of a Canadian immigration official actually handing you your
temporary residence visa, with a warning from Carl the Speech Walker, “No bad
or prohibited jokes, or you spend a night in the box,”
guarded by Mounties. I have never heard
of Handler before, and have not audited her performances. Call me clueless about
Chelsea, except for the Clinton one.
9.
Samuel L. Jackson
The veteran actor accused Trump of running a “hate”-filled
campaign in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter.
“If that motherf*cker becomes president, I’m moving my
black ass to South Africa,” he later told Jimmy
Kimmel.
Jackson is apparently still
feeling his thuggish macho from Pulp
Fiction. He certainly had better fashion sense in the movie. His suit here
looks like an off-the-rack from Goodwill. Well, Samuel, I guess you’ll be
making the acquaintance of all those racist powers in the ANC. Maybe you can get along with them.
You can sing along with them as they chant “Kill the Boer.” Provided
you can learn a primitive language.
10. Whoopi Goldberg
The comedian and The View co-host has repeatedly
trashed Trump on the ABC daytime talk show.
“Listen, he can be whatever party he wants to be,” she said during an episode in January. “What he can’t be is he
can’t be the guy that says it’s your fault stuff isn’t working. That’s not the
president I want. Find a way to make stuff work.”
“Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. I can afford to
go,” she added.
But she never parodied
Obama when he said “You didn’t make that.” Well, the winner of the Beat Best By
An Ugly Stick Award just may fit into whatever country she decides to relocate
to. Perhaps there’s a leper colony she’s overlooking.
11. Neve Campbell
The Scream and House of Cards actress said
she would move back to her native Canada if Trump wins the election.
“They see someone off the cuff and broad, and they think
‘ok, that’s the voice we need, just someone honest,'” Campbell told the Huffington Post of the motivation behind
the Republican candidate’s support. “But his honesty is terrifying.”
I can’t say much about Nervy Neve. I can’t
remember her from a
single movie or TV special. I don’t even remember her from House of Cards or Mad Men.
I watch lots of TV and movies but her face just doesn’t ring a bell. Hers is
just not a face that stops one cold because it’s so unforgettable. Which it
isn’t. Plenty of acting credits: but who?
Perhaps her residuals will pay for her Canadian rent, or taxes.
12. Keegan-Michael Key
The Key and Peele star also said he’d flee north to
Canada in the event of a Trump presidency.
“It’s like, 10 minutes from Detroit,” the comedian told TMZ in January. “That’s where I’m from; my mom lives
there. It’d make her happy too.”
Is it ten minutes from
Canada or ten minutes from Detroit. You’re from where? English please. Go home
and make your mother happy. Will you be living in her basement, like a good
college student afraid of the real world?
13.
George Lopez
“If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration.
We’ll all go back,” the Latino comedian and TV star told TMZ shortly after Trump announced his candidacy in
2015.
Fine, George, and I know
you’ll give parting thanks to the country that made your wealth and well-being
possible for so long. So, please, “go back” to the stagnant, third-rate culture
you came from. Perhaps you can hook up with a drug cartel.
14.
Ne-Yo
The R&B singer said he’d be moving to Canada “straight
away” if Trump wins.
“Me and Drake gonna be neighbors if Donald Trump becomes
president,” the singer told TMZ in October.
Me paleface don’t dig you
to the max. Me prefer listen to Rachmaninoff and some white dude playing real
music. Me scratch head over weird name. Is like Ovaltine? Neutrogena? Yo-yo?
15.
Rev. Al Sharpton
The civil rights activist told attendees at a
Center for
American Progress event in February that he would be looking for flight reservations if Clinton did not triumph
on Election Day.
“I’m also reserving my ticket to get out of
here if he wins. Only because he’d probably have me deported anyhow,” Sharpton
said.
Al is a “civil rights
activist”? He always impressed me as a noisy, loud-mouthed bigot whose blather
got a lot of people killed. A perpetual exploiter and promoter of victim-card
gamesters. Hope he can book a reservation with all his
ill-gotten gains. Can probably buy his own plane.
16.
Raven-Symoné
The former View co-host and Disney Channel
star is probably already on a flight out. During a February episode of the talk
show, the actress said she would move to Canada “if any Republican gets nominated.”
Well, a Republican was nominated and elected. Is she on her way?
Probably not. Is there a Canadian version of The View across the border? In Mexico? Or in Venezuela? Bolivia?
The Mariana Islands? The Antarctic? But I’m
guessing she’s really staying put.
17. Hillary
Rodham Clinton
Oh. Never mind. She wasn’t
on Nussbaum’s list. She’s not going anywhere. Except to house arrest in
Chappaqua. The Secret Service will probably be detailed to make sure she doesn’t
wander. That’s if a mug shot isn’t taken of her before being sent to a minimum security “facility.”
See? No matter what crime she’s committed, the taxpayer will wind up supporting
her.
What difference does it make?
November 9, 2016
The Ubiquity of Lies
The Clintons: The liars who came in the cold of 2016.
I can’t
think of a better way to open a column on the ubiquity of lies in politics
today than by quoting Melanie Phillips from her Jerusalem Post article of
October 27th “As
I See It: Palestinians step up the jihad
of the lie” :
Of all the
disturbing issues of our time, the most fundamental is the collapse of the
distinction between truth and lies.
When post-modern society decided that the notion of objective truth was bunk
and so everything was relative, it also destroyed the idea of a lie. If there’s
no such thing as truth, there can be no such thing as a lie. Everything becomes
merely a matter of opinion.
Melanie
Phillips is a prolific British writer, author of many notable and controversial
titles such as Londonistan ,
All
Must have Prizes , and The
World Turned Upside Down .
So, it wasn’t just the
concept of truth that was attacked or suborned, it was also concept of
falsehood that was also banished from objectivity. If a statement is a lie, how
would one know it if one’s cognitive faculties were sabotaged, if reason and
logic were committed to the dustbin? Reason,
logic, and objectivity have already been carted away by the Marxist dustmen in
academia, leaving hapless students and taxpayers and mortgaged-to-the-hilt
parents with the multi-fortune tab. It explains the state of the culture and
the pathetic state of students.
A noteworthy example of how
to lie is the British government’s decision to conceal the true ages of Calais
“Jungle” children from the public by erecting a screen to shield the true ages
of the “children.” The Daily Star of October
23rd reported:
But the new arrivals were shielded from view with a 15ft
fence around the entrance to Lunar House in Croydon, south London.
The screen is an extra security measure after widespread
speculation about the ages of last week’s all-male intake.
The fence was installed on Friday and was extended by
workers from a local scaffolding company yesterday.
The screen is an extra security measure after widespread
speculation about the ages of last week’s all-male intake.
The fence was installed on Friday and was extended by
workers from a local scaffolding company yesterday.
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: “This fence is obviously there
to stop the public from seeing these so-called child refugees.
“The public thought they were going to see unaccompanied
infants being led to safety but what we have seen, it appears, is predominantly
young men.”
The Home Office said the fence was for “safeguarding
reasons” to protect the “vulnerable children”.
Earlier
this week a foster mum revealed her horror at discovering her 12-year-old adopted refugee was actually a suspected jihadi in
his 20s.
And what of the children of
Britons, “vulnerable” to the sexual appetites of migrants? No consideration
need be made. The children of these Britons are obviously the offspring of
racist Islamophobes who denigrate the culturally enriching primitive habits and
savage peccadillos of the migrants.
But the average American
“deplorable” and “irredeemable” kept his fealty to logic,reason and
objectivity, and gave Donald Trump and themselves an unprecedented victory over
their lying,
Three-Card Monte political gamesters. Not only is anyone able to judge the
migrants without being labeled racist and a speaker of “hate speech,” he is not
supposed to be able to make a judgment,
that is, not be able to tell the difference
between the truth about a Jungle migrant or a lie about him.
Simon Black of Sovereign
Man wrote about Tuesday’s political earthquake:
I
thought the late-night quickie from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
summed it up perfectly.
While Hillary stayed in her $20,000/night suite at the Peninsula Hotel, Podesta
was sent to tell the crowd of Clinton supporters that “She is not done yet!”
Nonsense. It was a big fat lie. Minutes later she called Donald Trump to
concede the election.
Anyone trying to understand why she lost might take note of this deceit-- even
at the bitter end. She lied to her own supporters.
I made this assessment to
private correspondents this morning after the rush of victory had subsided:
It's educational, in a way. George Soros's millions and all
his little super-funded Open Society subdivisions, CAIR, all the arrogant
slim3- bag secretive operatives (exposed by O'Keefe and Veritas) working to
engineer the Pantsuit's victory, the governor of Virginia giving thousands of
felons the vote, the rigged polls in many states at the instigation of the DNC,
the DNC itself, the RINO defections to the Pantsuit, the tirelessly duplicitous
efforts of her campaign staff to cover up everything from her health to her
secret server and the tens of thousands of emails, and, finally, let us not forget Barack Obama -- all the
things these creatures thought would make a difference, didn't. They've been rebuked
and humiliated and sent to the cleaners. There's still spine and pistol in
enough Americans to make their own difference. Let's hope that Trump is wise
enough to mine their best qualities.
On the subject of lies and
libelous and slanderous fabrications, Julian Assange,
permanently imprisoned as a guest of the Ecuadorian
embassy in London said:
“The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious
untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements
from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia.
The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none
exists,” he wrote.
He suggested the attempts to smear Wikileaks came from
humiliation over what was released.
“In the end, those who have attempted to malign our
groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public
understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for
censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate,” he wrote.
In the meantime, President
Barack Obama today, November 9th, glossed over the many crimes of Hillary
Clinton, as though they occurred In some alternate universe and had nothing to
do with reality.
I
also had a chance last night to speak with Secretary Clinton, and I just had a
chance to hear her remarks. I could not be prouder of her. She has lived an
extraordinary life of public service. She was a great First Lady. She was an outstanding
senator for the state of New York. And she could not have been a better
Secretary of State. I'm proud of her. A lot of Americans look up to her. Her
candidacy and nomination was historic and sends a message to our daughters all
across the country that they can achieve at the highest levels of politics. And
I am absolutely confident that she and President Clinton will continue to do
great work for people here in the United States and all around the world.
“She was a great First Lady. She was an outstanding
senator for the state of New York. And she could not have been a better
Secretary of State.” As First Lady, Hillary was a grasping, power-seeking
entity who pushed for her version of Obamacare. As “outstanding senator” she
voted as a will-o-the -wisp. As Secretary of State she was a disastrous poodle
of Obama’s own disastrous policies. Groucho Marx could have been a better
Secretary of State.
He had to say something, following the public rebuke
of his policies in the person of Hillary Clinton, even if it was a lie. Clinton
had always been Obama’s “straw man.” If things went wrong – and they often did –
Obama wouldn’t be held responsible. But that’s all over now.
“She has lived an extraordinary life of public
service.” Since my teenage years, I’ve
been amused by the term “public service.” In politics it can mean little but self-service, of personal enrichment, at
taxpayer and public expense, of dandified looting. Hillary
Clinton from her Wellesley days to
the present has been a busy, parasitical, scheming worm of self-service.
And if she serves herself, she is naturally sacrificing you.
In the realm of the make-believe, there is no “cognitive
dissonance” between truth and falsehood. There is no conflict between them because
the one is as good as the other, and, in fact, neither of them is supposed to exist
to a mind so thoroughly corrupted, emasculated, and divorced from truth, logic,
and reason, a mind like Clinton’s and Obama’s. Clinton will not accept the
truth of her ignominious defeat, but blame some other person, or group, or another
conspiracy, or perhaps the juxtaposition of Mars, Saturn, and Pluto.
Hillary Clinton was a jihadist of lies. I can’t count
them all.
October 27, 2016
Ignorance is Not Bliss
German men confronting the police over migrant rapes
I left this
comment on an October 26th Gatestone column by Soren Kern, “Germany's
Migrant Rape Crisis: Where is the Public Outrage?”:
"Where is the
public outrage?" The outrage did not exist because the federal government
and the local police forces withheld information about the identity of the criminals
in an effort to ameliorate public opposition to the invasion of hundreds of
thousands of "refugees," most of whom were fully grown males. But
now, as s
poradic news stories are reporting, the German public is waking up to
the stories that have been suppressed in a futile and dishonest effort to
"educate" the public and not "stigmatize" whole races or
religions. The government and the local police would rather
"stigmatize" groups opposed to "immigration." That policy
is also beginning to fall apart, as well. In its efforts to keep Germans in the
dark about the perilous situation Germans are in, it is laying the groundwork
for possibly a civil war between the duped Germans, immigrants, and the
government itself. What brilliance!
In the meantime,
in Britain, Her Majesty’s government has seen fit to “screen” children from the
Calais “jungle” – or rather
hide behind physical screens their arrival and the fact that most of these “children”
are advanced teenagers or full-grown males.
In Sweden,
the government and
the press mitigate the criminal impact of Muslim migrants on its society.
Ingrid
Carlqvist and Lars
Hedegaard wrote, in order to underscore the fate of
Swedes, or of Geert Wilders, or of anyone else brave enough
to report the facts about immigration and made to suffer persecution by their
own countrymen:
Michael Hess, a local politician from
Sweden Democrat Party, encouraged Swedish journalists to get acquainted with
Islam's view of women, in connection with the many rapes that took place in
Cairo's Tahrir Square during the "Arab Spring". Hess wrote, "When will you journalists realize that it is
deeply rooted in Islam's culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to
comply with Islamic teachings. There is a strong connection between rapes in
Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North
Africa]."
This remark led to Michael Hess being
charged with "denigration of ethnic groups" [hets mot folkgrupp],
a crime in Sweden. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence
and a fine -- the suspension was due to the fact that he had no prior
convictions. The verdict has been appealed to a higher court.
For many years, Michael Hess lived in
Muslim countries, and he is well acquainted with Islam and its view of women.
During his trial, he provided evidence of how sharia law deals with rape, and
statistics to indicate that Muslims are vastly overrepresented among
perpetrators of rape in Sweden. However, the court decided that facts were irrelevant….
Soren Kern
raises these facts:
·
Despite the mounting human toll, most of the
crimes are still being downplayed by German authorities and the media,
apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.
·
"The police are not interested in
stigmatizing but rather in educating the public. The impression that we are
engaging in censorship is devastating to the public's confidence in the police.
Sharing information about suspects is also important for developing prevention
strategies. We must be allowed to talk openly about the problems of this
country." — Arnold Plickert, director of the GdP Police Union in North
Rhine-Westphalia.
·
"The Press Council believes that editorial
offices in Germany should ultimately treat their readers like children by
depriving them of relevant information. We think this is wrong because when
people realize that something is being concealed from them, they react with
mistrust. And this mistrust is a hazard." — Tanit Koch, editor-in-chief of
Bild, the most-read newspaper in Germany.
It appears
that the majority of German police entities adhere to Angela Merkel’s “Let’s
not be beastly to the migrants” policy,” and under-report, or do not report at
all, rapes committed by Muslims (and Muslims of all origins have committed
them: Afghans, Somalis, Iraqis, Turks, etc.) at all. Identifying criminals is verboten
and “discriminatory.”
One ISIS
statement about the Yazidis is that they must be raped to “smash the blonde
bloodline.” Doubtless that is one of the purposes of the widespread rapes in
Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, countries with a high proportion of
blondes and blonde victims. Yet German and other European governments refuse to
ascribe to Muslim rapists the least tinge of “racism.” Yet anyone pointing to a
gang of Somali or Pakistani rapists and expressing the least hint of “Islamophobia”
is automatically deemed a “racist.”
In the
meantime, back in the U.S., damaging, incriminating facts, regardless of how
they acquired, are given short shift by
criminal politicians and their wonks.
Interview with Mook:
Clinton Campaign manager Robby
Mook and longtime Clinton confidant John Podesta thought the deal ― in
which Clinton had committed to speak at an event for the king[of Morocco]
on the condition of his $12 million donation ― would look bad. Clinton aide
Huma Abedin tried to explain that it was simply too late to back out.
“Why wasn’t that classic pay-to-play?” Wallace asked.
“There’s nothing new here,” Mook replied, deflecting to
Donald Trump’s sagging poll numbers.
“But, Robby, there is some new stuff,” Wallace responded. “Emails
show ― and I’m going to go through some of them ― you were not happy
at all the idea of this meeting and her going there.”
Mook maintained that it was all just a scheduling issue
that had nothing to do with corruption or public perceptions of corruption.
“We didn’t want her going overseas,” Mook said. “I didn’t
want her going overseas before the campaign was kicking off. Again, these are stolen documents.”[Italics mine]
Ergo, the information about
the illicit activities committed by the Clinton campaign is nullified? Not
admissible in a court of law because the emails proving the existence of
criminal activity were stolen?
Suppose Eliot Ness of TheUntouchables (a fine TV crime series until it succumbed to early PC) purloined a series of memos between Al Capone to Frank Nitty about
what to do about the Bugsy
Moran gang. “We got to deal with these buggers. Can we rub them out without
getting a lot of bad press? Without everybody pointing fingers at me?” “Yeah,
Al. Got to call a pow-wow between us and Bugsy’s people. Lure them into a trap.
A garage would be perfect. Got to be stealthy like. Send in a bunch of our
boys, some of them dressed like cops. Then let them have it. Use machine guns
to be thorough. Let me handle the details and the press.”
Would that exchange be
admitted as evidence in court because the memos were “stolen.”? Would Capone be
indicted, tried, and jailed for conspiracy to murder and being an accessory to
murder, instead of being jailed for the paltry charge of income tax evasion, as
actually happened? Members of the Moran
gang were indeed murdered execution style by Capone’s men.
Possibly Ness’s purloined
(or “hacked”) Capone-Nitty correspondence would be admissible in court, but
then that was another era.
Let’s go one further:
Suppose the mayor of Chicago had criminal connections to Capone and his gang, and
wanted the whole Bugsy Moran or St. Valentine’s Day massacre issue removed from
police and court records. and also removed from “public” consciousness. Would the
massacre have actually occurred? Possibly, but it would have been written off
as “just a bunch of yeggs with mental problems.” Yes. But there is no longer a
record of it. The public is left in the dark. The mayor issues a public statement
to the effect that all the rumors that Capone was responsible were false and slander
the good name of Capone (PPBUP or Benedizioni e la pace sia su
nostro pisano).
So, if the documents were
not stolen, the information would still be festering inside the emails, but no
one would know about it or have any knowledge of the wrong-doing. We would
remain ignorant of the corruption and the scale of that corruption aside from
the King of Morocco issue. Is that what you’re saying? That evidence of
duplicity, if not revealed, would not be judged, or enter into anything because
you might have been successful in suppressing the information, regardless of
the legality of the hacked emails.
Welcome to the universe of thoughtcrime.
Let’s imagine for a moment
that someone was able to hack into the records of the Dusseldorf police, and
the records showed not only how many rapes of German women had been committed
and reported, but the specific “migrant” identities of the criminals, most of
whom were handed light to non-existence sentences. None of that information had
been released, and the public was ignorant of it, even though much of the public
knew something was terribly wrong.
An episode in Muslim "cultural enrichment"
Suppose the hacker
published that information on his own blog site, a la Wikileaks, causing an outrage, knowing that no German
newspaper would publish the information lest they be reprimanded by the German
Press Council or its employees even imprisoned and fined. The police track down
the owner of the blog site and he is arrested for “theft” of government property
(the information coming under the rubric of “security), and for instigating “hate,”
“bigotry,” and the “blasphemous libeling” of a racial, ethnic, and religious “minority.”
Soren Kern added:
Germany's migrant rape crisis — which has continued
unabated day after day for more than a year — has now spread to cities and
towns in all 16 of Germany's federal states. Despite the mounting human toll,
most of the crimes are still being downplayed by German authorities and the
media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.
The German Press Council (Presserat) enforces a
politically correct "code of media ethics" that restricts the
information journalists can use in their stories. Paragraph 12.1 of the code states:
"When
reporting on criminal offenses, details about the religious, ethnic or other
background information of the suspects or perpetrators is to be mentioned only
if it is absolutely necessary (begründeter
Sachbezug) to understand the reported event. Remember that such
references could foment prejudices against minorities."
On October 17, the Press Council reprimanded the weekly newspaper, Junge Freiheit,
for revealing the nationality of three Afghan teenagers who raped a woman at a
train station in Vienna, Austria, in April 2016. The press council said the
nationality of the perpetrators is "not relevant" to the case, and by
revealing this information the newspaper "deliberately and pejoratively
represented the suspects as second-class persons."
On the other hand, it’s
okay for Muslim preachers to advocate war against the West and to take sex
slaves. Ali Hammuda, a Muslim cleric in Cardiff, Wales announced in July to his
teenage audience, as reported in the Daily
Mail:
“One of the interpretations as to what this means is that
towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today,
and because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves, yeah,
women will be taken as slaves.
“And then, er, her master has relations with her because
this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who
is your slave or your wife.”
Sharia will dominate the world, even if perpetrators must show up in court and
be slapped on the wrist, leaving their victims to deal with the rapes and
fearing more. But Westerners are not
supposed to fear that, or even know about it. That’s thoughtcrime, Islamophobia! As far as the State is concerned, when it
comes to reporting Muslim crimes, “mum’s the word.” The State doesn’t
want you to know.
Ignorance can be bliss,
until you’re raped. And even dead.
October 25, 2016
Parallels in Evil: Part II
Hillary Clinton's Unacknowledged idol: Negan
Jeffrey Dean Morgan, as
Negan, the “super” villain of Season 7 of The
Walking Dead , has nothing over Hillary Clinton in terms of foul
language. In fact, Clinton has a nonstop sewer of a mouth that puts Negan’s
to shame. All the censors could permit Morgan to say on screen and repeat ad nauseam is the four letter term for
feces.
Clinton has had no censor
to control her mouth rage. In public appearances, she poses as a calm, clean-cut,
well-bred, grandmotherly hostess about to serve you tea and nothing but the
truth. But backstage, and in venues where cameras are not rolling, she is a
harpy dedicated to befouling the minds of everyone she comes into contact with,
which includes her campaign staff, her Foundation clients and donors, the
Secret Service, and doubtless her husband, Bill, and daughter Chelsea. She
makes “biker chicks” look like polished graduates of finishing school. She is
about as “feminine” as a pig in a pantsuit.
A person, regardless of his
gender, who uses that kind of language as an automatic, default means of
expression has a festering ball of noxious grunge for a soul. Clinton has exhibited
that soul many, many times, in public and off-camera.
The Mouth that Roared
But Hillary’s and Negan’s
mouths are not the main subject here. I discussed the simpatico political
relationship between The Walking Dead’s
boisterous, glib, repellant villain (the worst ever depicted in the series) in
“Hillary
and Negan: Parallels in Evil.”
What is the difference between
the Negans of fiction and the Negans of the real world? The fictional ones
cannot kill you. The real ones can and will. As happened in Paris and Brussels
and New York City and dozens of other places over decades. There are dozens of Koranic verses for violence that the
fictional Negans could just as well adopt…..
… I do not look forward to the debut of Negan in Season 7.
It appears he's a thorough-going nihilist and evil to the core. When he shows
up, I'm quits with TWD. It seems that the scripters are pandering to viewers
who want Negan.
The title of the debut
episode is “The Day Will Come When You Won’t Be.” Meaning that when you meet
Negan, you will probably cease to exist. The two most appealing heroes of The
Walking Dead, Carol and Daryl, are no longer heroes. They are just memories
now. They have been changed and demoted to secondary characters. Carol’s future
role is indeterminate; Daryl has been kidnapped into Negan’s Sanctuary maw to
be imprisoned and tortured, future also indeterminate.
What worried me most – but
no longer, because after this review, I will have joined the “Quitters
Club” – has been the new stress on the overwhelming, driving-force of malevolence
in the person of Negan. In the past, the Walking Dead gang fought evil, and
largely defeated it. They lopped off the
heads of “walkers,” defied and fought gangs of rampaging marauders, and worked
to create a livable “environment” during an apocalypse. They lived as
rationally as they could in a world in which emergency ethics was the rule
demanded of their survival. Several characters
stood out, Carol and Daryl among them who became favorites of The Walking Dead watchers.
In general, most of the gang would not submit to the state of the world.
Total submission to Negan's will, on bent knees
Until now. The leader, Rick
Grimes, after six Seasons of leading his gang (and friends) to some semblance
of safety and security, in the latest episode he has submitted to Negan’s
threats and killings, and is broken, so broken that he was willing to cut his
son’s arm off at Negan’s command. It was Negan’s purpose to break him, to own
him, to “make him mine.” If there was anyone left alive in the gang, Rick would
now “lead” them in service and in subservience to Negan. Negan almost literally
dances in joy after he’s used his bat on his vicitms.
Negan's Law: the baseball bat
In “Hillary
and Negan: Parallels in Evil,” I draw a wholly justified parallel between
Negan and Hillary Clinton. As Negan is a psychopathic power-luster who revels
in the power he wields over his mob of awed and comfortably subservient “Survivors”
(her unthinking supporters and the MSM)
Clinton wishes to wield the same kind of power, but elevated to a scope beyond
but hauntingly similar in all its attributes to Negan’s. Hillary would like to
break Americans as Negan broke Rick Grimes. Their purposes, ends, and means
dovetail to exactly the same power-wielding point. They comprise a mutual-nihilist
society.
Make no mistake about it;
Hillary is as much a nihilist as is Negan. Negan smiles in satisfaction when he
sees the sobbing, pleading look in Rick’s eyes. Negan is a first-class jihadist at heart. He enjoys killing for
the sake of killing. He relishes killing spirits and souls as much as he does
lives, in the most horrible, gruesome ways possible. Hillary will gloat in
public and in private, when more Americans are raped, murdered, and beaten by Muslim
immigrants and Mexican illegals when she lets more of them in, just as Barack Obama
has. She and Obama are the cold-hearted “humanitarians” their supporters and
the MSM hope to bring down the country.
Hillary's Law: the baseball bat
Do you think Hillary isn’t
made of the same stuff? Think again. Her nihilism is the only explanation of
her policies and behavior ever since she entered “public service.” Remember, she laughed about how a
rapist she represented got off with a light sentence because of time served in
a county jail, and how she victimized the rape victim again, and ruined the
girl’s life.
Do Americans really want
this hellacious, nihilistic harridan laughing at them from the Oval Office?
October 22, 2016
The FEC and FCC Prepare Speech Nooses
American citizens are in for a double whammy
of speech restrictions, and even of censorship.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC),
and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) want to ratchet up the pressures on freedom of speech.
Two independent
news blogs have bravely reported developments in this realm when they stand a
chance of being “lawfully” obliterated by the government: The
Daily Signal, and Accuracy
in Media.
On the one hand,
the FEC is a government agency that should not even exist. But it was pushed
and encouraged by Theodore
Roosevelt, a Progressive, and so the initial legislation was introduced and
passed by Congress, on the premise that regulating Big Business was the natural
thing to do (re the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act of 1890 of 1890, and other Federal regulations)
As early as 1905, Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for
legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response,
the United States Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907, named for its sponsor
Senator Benjamin Tillman, banning corporate contributions.
Further regulation followed in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted
in 1910, and subsequent amendments in 1910 and 1925, the Hatch
Act, the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, and the Taft-Hartley
Act in 1947. These Acts sought to regulate corporate and union spending in
campaigns for federal office, and mandated public disclosure of campaign
donors.
But the urge to regulate corporate
contributions during political campaigns can be dated to the immediate post-Civil
War period.
Although
attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867,
the modern era of "campaign finance reform" in the United States
begins with the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
of 1971 and, more importantly, 1974 amendments to that Act. The 1971 FECA
required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign
expenditures. The 1974 Amendments essentially rewrote the Act from top to
bottom. The 1974 Amendments placed statutory limits on contributions by
individuals for the first time, and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as an
independent enforcement agency. It provided for broad new disclosure
requirements, and limited the amounts that candidates could spend on their
campaigns, or that citizens could spend separate from candidate campaigns to
promote their political views.
Fred Lucas in The
Daily Signal article of October 20th writes:
Books,
movies, satellite radio shows, and streaming video about real-life politics
aren’t protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, some
government officials argue.
The
Federal Election Commission hasn’t proposed banning books or movies, but in a 3-3 vote last month along party lines, the six-member panel
left the regulatory option on the table.
But the six appointees are thinking about it. It’s an option “on
the table.” The FEC is divided evenly
between Democrats and Republicans. It is a “bipartisan” entity. The notion of
“bipartisanship” politics is counterproductive, to say the least. In a situation when decisions of enforcing or
creating arbitrary power over free men
must be made, the most consistent party will always “win.” One party
must compromise its principles, if it has any. The Republicans have no
principles. Otherwise they would not have encouraged the creation of FEC. It is
the Democrats, with their consistent, unswerving commitment to statism and the
regulation of the private affairs of other men, who have been setting the terms
and establishing the “moral high ground” of altruism – that is, sacrificing men
and rights for the “greater good,” for the “community” – for over a century.
The Republicans have always seconded that altruism, and said, “Me, too!” Very few Republicans have maintained an
explicit, articulate fealty to the founding principles of this nation.
It’s a good thing for me that the FEC hasn’t
discovered my books, such as Trichotomy
( a roman à clef), set in 1929, on
how the collectivists and Progressives will take over American education, or A
Crimson Overture , how Reds and Pinks have infested the American
government for decades, or We
Three Kings , about an American entrepreneur who is “thrown under
the bus” by the State Department to be killed at leisure by a Saudi sheik over
a gold coin, or The
Black Stone , in which the hero deals with the Muslim
Brotherhood killers as early as 1929. They and other titles are prescient . But
that would not matter. Each and every one of these titles, although they are
fiction, could be deemed too provocative, blasphemous, injurious, or slanderous
to allow their continued availability for sale and reading by “deplorable,”
“every day” Americans. They certainly contain what could be interpreted as
“partisan material.”
There really is no way to know what would be
going through the minds of the FEC. If the proposal to regulate or prohibit the
content of books, editorials, radio stations, and videos is “on the table,” it
is too much to hope it would ever be taken “off the table.” The itch to
control, regulate, or even prohibit is too tempting to resist scratching.
It’s doubtful that these appointees take any
political fiction seriously, but it’s unnerving nevertheless to know that the
option “is on the table” to banish a title or a program or an Internet news
site they could easily put on a Federal Index Librorum
Prohibitorum. A certain presidential candidate has already said that
she wants Breitbart and InfoWars reduced to ashes. What’s to stop
the FEC or the Department of Justice from targeting lesser known blog sites? Nothing.
Lucas continues:
The FEC hasn’t spoken in a unanimous voice about what
Goodman and others say are basic matters of free speech under the First
Amendment. Rather, various commission votes open the door to applying campaign
finance laws to movies, books, and other media rarely ever considered before as
campaign contributions.
In
the past two years, the FEC, divided equally into Democrat and Republican
factions, investigated books containing partisan material (among them a book by
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.), a conspiratorial film disparaging President
Barack Obama, and a Republican presidential debate on Fox News Channel.
While
the presidentially appointed commission sanctioned neither Ryan’s publisher nor
Fox News, it avoided granting the “press exemption” to either.
“Respect
for the free press shouldn’t vary based on who is on the commission or on the
content of the publication,” the FEC’s Lee Goodman says.
The exemption was
designed to ensure that news organizations, which generally are corporations,
cannot be accused of electioneering or making in-kind campaign contributions
based on news reporting or commentary on political candidates. The law states, in part:
B) The term ‘expenditure’ does not include—
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities
of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,
unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,
political committee, or candidate; …
In one case, FEC member Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat,
suggested the “press exemption,” provided in campaign finance law,
doesn’t protect book publishers.
Weintraub then referred to the Supreme Court’s 5-4
ruling, in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
that organizations have free speech rights allowing them to spend money to
support or oppose political candidates.
The work we do
need to do, which some of my colleagues, including Commissioner Goodman, have
blocked for years, is to write rules that respond to Citizens United and the
advent of super PACs. Sadly, even routine regulatory fixes have become nearly
impossible to accomplish at the FEC.
This useful and
almost entirely noncontroversial technological-modernization proposal has been
bogged down for years. I decided to stick with the staff’s draft in the hope of
getting this done without further delaying it with nongermane but substantive
proposals.
And who is to determine
what is and is not “nongermane” or “substantive”? Not you or me.
Six individuals – whether
they are appointed or elected is immaterial – will determine after verbal cat
fights in conference rooms over the future of free speech.
As though that were not
“worrisome” enough, we are witnessing the disgraceful and damning spectacle of
the major American news outlets not so much censoring what they report, but
dispensing with objectivity and facts in their quest to guarantee the election
of their preferred presidential candidate, and so crudely and transparently
biased that few people take them at their word anymore. Today’s MSM is comfortable with lies and
outright fabrications.
The press, or the mainstream media (MSM), has
usually been exempted from FEC regulations. We have grown inured to that. We
have also grown inured to the blatant liberal bias of the MSM, so much so that
it is largely held in contempt by Americans as a notoriously untrustworthy
source of news. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC,
CNN, and NPR have all been “electioneering” for over a year, without disguise
or pretence. The New York Times, the
Washington Post, and countless smaller newspapers and magazines have gone hog
wild “electioneering” without penalty or so much as a tut-tut from the FEC.
However, “charitable” organizations that fall
under 501(c)3 regulations must remain mute. The FEC virtually acts as a
policeman for the IRS to enforce 501(c)3
constraints.
The “guidelines” include:
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly
referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in
section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are
eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions
in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the
benefit of private
interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings
may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the
organization engages in an excess
benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the
organization, an excise
tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to
the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much
political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a
detailed discussion, see Political
and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by
charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for
more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE
topic Election Year
Issues.
Let us now turn to the Federal
Communications Commission.
Sold
to the highest bidder!
Jerry Kenney in his October
21st article on Accuracy In Media (AIM),
“FCC
Approves Foreign Takeover of U.S.
Broadcasters,”breaks the bad news:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on September
29th did something worse than give up control
of the Internet. They voted unanimously to put America’s entire broadcast
industry on the fast track to a foreign takeover by Chinese, Russian or Muslim
Brotherhood front corporations.
This new FCC
rule gives foreign interests the long sought-after tools they need to shape
U.S. public opinion and to censor the opposition.
Once a foreign corporation scoops up a media business, such
as a chain of radio stations, it can eliminate national and local programming
and substitute its own government’s propaganda. That means that conservative
talkers could find themselves off the air.
Off the air? There are so
many candidates for microphone gagging and, on the Internet itself, so many
blog sites that could now be turned blank and the reader advised: “Server not
Found”! or “This site has been blocked for indecent or inappropriate content.”
Indecent content could be calling the FCC wonks names, or criticizing Islam.
Says who?
The FCC? Or the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)? Or
some petty local bureaucrat who has put a premium on publicly saying
something “Islamophobic”
about Muslims or Islam? Or some elitist FCC regulator who is empowered to
control what you say or see and can pontificate about the “public service” of his
power in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, which would allow no
comments or rebuttals ?
Do you see how closely the
FEC and FCC are linked in ideology? Kenney writes:
At the final FCC vote, Commissioner Ajit Pai said the new
rule will “give
broadcasters greater access to capital.” Accessing capital by selling 100
percent interest in a business? Isn’t that called selling out?
Only in Washington is a going-out-of-business sale called
“accessing capital.” If accessing capital is the main issue, I guess by that
standard we should repeal the laws that make bank robbery illegal, too. After
all, aren’t bank robbers just accessing capital?
No, there is much more at stake here than just capital.
It’s called a free and independent press. Thanks to the FCC, soon foreign
interests will be able to masquerade as your friendly neighborhood TV or radio
station (the national media sold out long ago). And you can count on them
waving the American flag as they do it. Remember Al Jazeera America buying Al
Gore’s Current TV?
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters have reported
extensively on Chinese purchases of movie theater chains and Hollywood
production companies, including a current bid
to buy Dick Clark Productions. Chinese interests have also leased
local underperforming AM radio stations in major U.S. markets such as
Washington D.C. Based on the nature of those deals and their financial losses,
it is clear that China’s interest in entering the U.S. media market is more to
influence public opinion than to turn a profit.
Foreign, and especially Chinese,
money has purchased great gobs of Hollywood
studios. So it is no wonder that anti-Communist or even anti-Islam movies
are completely absent from the big screen and TV.
Broadcasting is not just another pipe through which you
deliver data. A broadcaster controls the message and the content.
So why did this happen? The current FCC commissioners are
mostly lawyers and lobbyists with political connections to both political
parties. These political parties depend on financial contributions from major
corporations, including media corporations. They want the option of dumping
their broadcast properties off on cash-heavy foreign buyers, no matter what
impact it has on the public’s right to know.
The system is rigged, even in favor of the foreign
interests buying up America.
Remember: China runs a very efficient
and effective censorship system.
All tyranny, no matter how
banal, is necessarily rigged against freedom of speech. Censorship is a kind of
“Game of Thrones.” The
goal in such a “fantasy” is the consolidation of power – over your mind, and over
your life or your livelihood.
of speech restrictions, and even of censorship.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC),
and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) want to ratchet up the pressures on freedom of speech.
Two independent
news blogs have bravely reported developments in this realm when they stand a
chance of being “lawfully” obliterated by the government: The
Daily Signal, and Accuracy
in Media.
On the one hand,
the FEC is a government agency that should not even exist. But it was pushed
and encouraged by Theodore
Roosevelt, a Progressive, and so the initial legislation was introduced and
passed by Congress, on the premise that regulating Big Business was the natural
thing to do (re the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act of 1890 of 1890, and other Federal regulations)
As early as 1905, Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for
legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response,
the United States Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907, named for its sponsor
Senator Benjamin Tillman, banning corporate contributions.
Further regulation followed in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted
in 1910, and subsequent amendments in 1910 and 1925, the Hatch
Act, the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, and the Taft-Hartley
Act in 1947. These Acts sought to regulate corporate and union spending in
campaigns for federal office, and mandated public disclosure of campaign
donors.
But the urge to regulate corporate
contributions during political campaigns can be dated to the immediate post-Civil
War period.
Although
attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867,
the modern era of "campaign finance reform" in the United States
begins with the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
of 1971 and, more importantly, 1974 amendments to that Act. The 1971 FECA
required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign
expenditures. The 1974 Amendments essentially rewrote the Act from top to
bottom. The 1974 Amendments placed statutory limits on contributions by
individuals for the first time, and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as an
independent enforcement agency. It provided for broad new disclosure
requirements, and limited the amounts that candidates could spend on their
campaigns, or that citizens could spend separate from candidate campaigns to
promote their political views.
Fred Lucas in The
Daily Signal article of October 20th writes:
Books,
movies, satellite radio shows, and streaming video about real-life politics
aren’t protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, some
government officials argue.
The
Federal Election Commission hasn’t proposed banning books or movies, but in a 3-3 vote last month along party lines, the six-member panel
left the regulatory option on the table.
But the six appointees are thinking about it. It’s an option “on
the table.” The FEC is divided evenly
between Democrats and Republicans. It is a “bipartisan” entity. The notion of
“bipartisanship” politics is counterproductive, to say the least. In a situation when decisions of enforcing or
creating arbitrary power over free men
must be made, the most consistent party will always “win.” One party
must compromise its principles, if it has any. The Republicans have no
principles. Otherwise they would not have encouraged the creation of FEC. It is
the Democrats, with their consistent, unswerving commitment to statism and the
regulation of the private affairs of other men, who have been setting the terms
and establishing the “moral high ground” of altruism – that is, sacrificing men
and rights for the “greater good,” for the “community” – for over a century.
The Republicans have always seconded that altruism, and said, “Me, too!” Very few Republicans have maintained an
explicit, articulate fealty to the founding principles of this nation.
It’s a good thing for me that the FEC hasn’t
discovered my books, such as Trichotomy
( a roman à clef), set in 1929, on
how the collectivists and Progressives will take over American education, or A
Crimson Overture , how Reds and Pinks have infested the American
government for decades, or We
Three Kings , about an American entrepreneur who is “thrown under
the bus” by the State Department to be killed at leisure by a Saudi sheik over
a gold coin, or The
Black Stone , in which the hero deals with the Muslim
Brotherhood killers as early as 1929. They and other titles are prescient . But
that would not matter. Each and every one of these titles, although they are
fiction, could be deemed too provocative, blasphemous, injurious, or slanderous
to allow their continued availability for sale and reading by “deplorable,”
“every day” Americans. They certainly contain what could be interpreted as
“partisan material.”
There really is no way to know what would be
going through the minds of the FEC. If the proposal to regulate or prohibit the
content of books, editorials, radio stations, and videos is “on the table,” it
is too much to hope it would ever be taken “off the table.” The itch to
control, regulate, or even prohibit is too tempting to resist scratching.
It’s doubtful that these appointees take any
political fiction seriously, but it’s unnerving nevertheless to know that the
option “is on the table” to banish a title or a program or an Internet news
site they could easily put on a Federal Index Librorum
Prohibitorum. A certain presidential candidate has already said that
she wants Breitbart and InfoWars reduced to ashes. What’s to stop
the FEC or the Department of Justice from targeting lesser known blog sites? Nothing.
Lucas continues:
The FEC hasn’t spoken in a unanimous voice about what
Goodman and others say are basic matters of free speech under the First
Amendment. Rather, various commission votes open the door to applying campaign
finance laws to movies, books, and other media rarely ever considered before as
campaign contributions.
In
the past two years, the FEC, divided equally into Democrat and Republican
factions, investigated books containing partisan material (among them a book by
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.), a conspiratorial film disparaging President
Barack Obama, and a Republican presidential debate on Fox News Channel.
While
the presidentially appointed commission sanctioned neither Ryan’s publisher nor
Fox News, it avoided granting the “press exemption” to either.
“Respect
for the free press shouldn’t vary based on who is on the commission or on the
content of the publication,” the FEC’s Lee Goodman says.
The exemption was
designed to ensure that news organizations, which generally are corporations,
cannot be accused of electioneering or making in-kind campaign contributions
based on news reporting or commentary on political candidates. The law states, in part:
B) The term ‘expenditure’ does not include—
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities
of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,
unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,
political committee, or candidate; …
In one case, FEC member Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat,
suggested the “press exemption,” provided in campaign finance law,
doesn’t protect book publishers.
Weintraub then referred to the Supreme Court’s 5-4
ruling, in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
that organizations have free speech rights allowing them to spend money to
support or oppose political candidates.
The work we do
need to do, which some of my colleagues, including Commissioner Goodman, have
blocked for years, is to write rules that respond to Citizens United and the
advent of super PACs. Sadly, even routine regulatory fixes have become nearly
impossible to accomplish at the FEC.
This useful and
almost entirely noncontroversial technological-modernization proposal has been
bogged down for years. I decided to stick with the staff’s draft in the hope of
getting this done without further delaying it with nongermane but substantive
proposals.
And who is to determine
what is and is not “nongermane” or “substantive”? Not you or me.
Six individuals – whether
they are appointed or elected is immaterial – will determine after verbal cat
fights in conference rooms over the future of free speech.
As though that were not
“worrisome” enough, we are witnessing the disgraceful and damning spectacle of
the major American news outlets not so much censoring what they report, but
dispensing with objectivity and facts in their quest to guarantee the election
of their preferred presidential candidate, and so crudely and transparently
biased that few people take them at their word anymore. Today’s MSM is comfortable with lies and
outright fabrications.
The press, or the mainstream media (MSM), has
usually been exempted from FEC regulations. We have grown inured to that. We
have also grown inured to the blatant liberal bias of the MSM, so much so that
it is largely held in contempt by Americans as a notoriously untrustworthy
source of news. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC,
CNN, and NPR have all been “electioneering” for over a year, without disguise
or pretence. The New York Times, the
Washington Post, and countless smaller newspapers and magazines have gone hog
wild “electioneering” without penalty or so much as a tut-tut from the FEC.
However, “charitable” organizations that fall
under 501(c)3 regulations must remain mute. The FEC virtually acts as a
policeman for the IRS to enforce 501(c)3
constraints.
The “guidelines” include:
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly
referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in
section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are
eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions
in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the
benefit of private
interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings
may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the
organization engages in an excess
benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the
organization, an excise
tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to
the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much
political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a
detailed discussion, see Political
and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by
charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for
more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE
topic Election Year
Issues.
Let us now turn to the Federal
Communications Commission.
Sold
to the highest bidder!
Jerry Kenney in his October
21st article on Accuracy In Media (AIM),
“FCC
Approves Foreign Takeover of U.S.
Broadcasters,”breaks the bad news:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on September
29th did something worse than give up control
of the Internet. They voted unanimously to put America’s entire broadcast
industry on the fast track to a foreign takeover by Chinese, Russian or Muslim
Brotherhood front corporations.
This new FCC
rule gives foreign interests the long sought-after tools they need to shape
U.S. public opinion and to censor the opposition.
Once a foreign corporation scoops up a media business, such
as a chain of radio stations, it can eliminate national and local programming
and substitute its own government’s propaganda. That means that conservative
talkers could find themselves off the air.
Off the air? There are so
many candidates for microphone gagging and, on the Internet itself, so many
blog sites that could now be turned blank and the reader advised: “Server not
Found”! or “This site has been blocked for indecent or inappropriate content.”
Indecent content could be calling the FCC wonks names, or criticizing Islam.
Says who?
The FCC? Or the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)? Or
some petty local bureaucrat who has put a premium on publicly saying
something “Islamophobic”
about Muslims or Islam? Or some elitist FCC regulator who is empowered to
control what you say or see and can pontificate about the “public service” of his
power in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, which would allow no
comments or rebuttals ?
Do you see how closely the
FEC and FCC are linked in ideology? Kenney writes:
At the final FCC vote, Commissioner Ajit Pai said the new
rule will “give
broadcasters greater access to capital.” Accessing capital by selling 100
percent interest in a business? Isn’t that called selling out?
Only in Washington is a going-out-of-business sale called
“accessing capital.” If accessing capital is the main issue, I guess by that
standard we should repeal the laws that make bank robbery illegal, too. After
all, aren’t bank robbers just accessing capital?
No, there is much more at stake here than just capital.
It’s called a free and independent press. Thanks to the FCC, soon foreign
interests will be able to masquerade as your friendly neighborhood TV or radio
station (the national media sold out long ago). And you can count on them
waving the American flag as they do it. Remember Al Jazeera America buying Al
Gore’s Current TV?
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters have reported
extensively on Chinese purchases of movie theater chains and Hollywood
production companies, including a current bid
to buy Dick Clark Productions. Chinese interests have also leased
local underperforming AM radio stations in major U.S. markets such as
Washington D.C. Based on the nature of those deals and their financial losses,
it is clear that China’s interest in entering the U.S. media market is more to
influence public opinion than to turn a profit.
Foreign, and especially Chinese,
money has purchased great gobs of Hollywood
studios. So it is no wonder that anti-Communist or even anti-Islam movies
are completely absent from the big screen and TV.
Broadcasting is not just another pipe through which you
deliver data. A broadcaster controls the message and the content.
So why did this happen? The current FCC commissioners are
mostly lawyers and lobbyists with political connections to both political
parties. These political parties depend on financial contributions from major
corporations, including media corporations. They want the option of dumping
their broadcast properties off on cash-heavy foreign buyers, no matter what
impact it has on the public’s right to know.
The system is rigged, even in favor of the foreign
interests buying up America.
Remember: China runs a very efficient
and effective censorship system.
All tyranny, no matter how
banal, is necessarily rigged against freedom of speech. Censorship is a kind of
“Game of Thrones.” The
goal in such a “fantasy” is the consolidation of power – over your mind, and over
your life or your livelihood.
October 19, 2016
A non-Politically Correct Nonfiction Bookshelf
There are eleven
nonfiction titles that should be highlighted with all the fiction. Most of
these titles concern the war on the West waged by Islam. Others are about the
war on America waged by our own government, about the decaying state of the
arts, of language, and of education. Most of them are collections of my essays
on Rule of Reason and edwardcline.blogspot.
These titles do not sell as well as the fiction; the fiction sells well
(really! At least a dozen full sets of the republished Sparrowhawk and Cyrus Skeen series sell every month). Fiction takes
readers away from the depressing state of the world (at least, mine does); the
nonfiction reminds them of just how depressing the world can be and will
continue to be. Do I blame them? No. But then I am indulging in a kind of catharsis
every time I pen a new column about the killing machine called Islam and the
depredations and betrayals of our government.
The New Sparrowhawk Companion is a republished title I also rescued from the
collapse and bankruptcy of the original publisher, MacAdam/Cage Publishing. It
was my idea, suggested to the publisher after Book Six; War was released. The publisher by this time had accrued
a large stable of writers and an extensive backlist, but its ambition was
greater than its capacity to deal honestly and fairly with its authors. It was
a spendthrift. It competed with larger, mainstream publishers in bidding
contests for titles and authors it thought would enhance its prestige and
appeal. For example, it paid Audrey Niffenegger,
a teacher of “creative writing,” a handsome sum for The Time Traveler’s Wife, which was also made into a flop of a
movie. The novel did not sell as well as MacAdam/Cage Publishing expected. This
was the deal that broke the publisher. Then MacAdam/Cage Publishing began its regular
delinquencies with royalty payments to its other authors, and then
underhandedly “leasing” or selling the e-book rights to books it had no
contractual claim to, in order to raise cash. This was theft and a demonstrable
violation of contract.
Having gone without
royalty payments for a long time, I saw the writing on the wall and began republishing
Sparrowhawk on Kindle, something MacAdam/Cage
Publishing refused to do. I had even offered the publisher a chance to publish
the first Cyrus Skeen novels, believing as he did not that the series was a
perfect fit because the stories were set in San Fransicso,
MacAdam/Cage
Publishing’s location. Then David Poindexter, the mover and creator of MacAdam/Cage
Publishing, died, and everything fell apart faster than a house of dominoes.
The firm filed
for bankruptcy, leaving all its authors high and dry as creditors, and even its
staff. Its illustrator, it came out later, had even loaned the publisher money
to keep the firm solvent. She never saw a penny of it back again. To my
knowledge, her suit is still in court. Piles of printed books accumulated in
warehouses, which would not release the titles until they were paid. These titles
were eventually bought by second-hand book vendors connected to Amazon and to other
major retailers. Thousands of copies of the old edition of Sparrowhawk are still being sold by these vendors. In the meantime,
I had rid the original edition of all the typos and formatting errors MacAdam/Cage
Publishing had never bothered to correct and now the series has been refreshed
and is doing well, with cleaned up texts and covers thematically consistent
with each title. (See my Rule of Reason column, “Sparrowhawk
Rescued from Oblivion” from August 2013 for more sordid details.)There are
nearly 800,000 words in the Sparrowhawk
series. It was a long, tedious job doing what the publisher was remiss in
performing.
The
New Sparrowhawk Companion is a collection of essays about the six titles in the Sparrowhawk story by other contributors,
and includes a list of characters (over 300) and in which title each appears, a
lexicon of 18th century terms, a bibliography of some of my research sources,
and other features created to help a reader grasp and appreciate the series and
the period in which the story is set.
Rational
Scrutiny: Paradoxes and Contradictions in Detective Fiction , is another animal entirely. It
is a collection of essays, some old, some new, about the art of writing
detective fiction. They focus mainly on the Chess Hanrahan first person
narrated novels, and on what then was only a handful of Cyrus Skeen novels (seven).
It includes “The Wizards of Disambiguation,” a critique of politically correct
speech and writing and of academics who claimed that The Maltese Falcon was, among other things, a fictional diatribe
against capitalism. It was my submission to the Western Illinois Press to be
included in its compendium of essays about the art of detective fiction (it was
rejected). The Cunning Craft was
eventually published, but I have no idea what is in it or whose articles were
included, because its Amazon selling price of over $200 did not entice me to
reward the Western Illinois Press for its Marxist snubbing. Marxists do not
like to be contradicted with facts. “Wizards” could be treated as a companion
essay to “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism,” from 2013, a review of Guidelines
for Bias-Free Writing , by Marilyn
Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language.
The remaining
nonfiction titles are collectively potpourris of my Rule of Reason columns on
politics, the culture, Islam, and freedom of speech. Islam’s
Reign of Terror , however, was commissioned by Voltaire Press and I was
paid for it. The essay appeared on Voltaire Press’s site. When I proposed to
the owner of Voltaire Press that we convert it into a pamphlet, I received no
response. So, I went ahead with the project and it is now available as a print
book, on Kindle, and on Audible. The piece bears a Voltaire Press copyright
notice, which I included for legal reasons. However, there were miseries
connected with that site. See my article “Thumbs
Down on Voltaire Press” for details. I later learned there was a reason why
Voltaire Press never responded. The founder had been arrested, I think in
Mississippi, as a fugitive from the charge of having absconded with Duke University
funds (in North Carolina). I have been blocked from Voltaire Press’s site,
unable to leave comments. Indeed, an Internet search for Voltaire Press turns up nothing.
It had a Facebook page, from which I was also blocked, and that has vanished,
as well. The new “owner” of Voltaire Press
never replied to my queries about Reign
of Terror, his identity remains unknown, and he, too, has gone the way of
all puff balls. Exciting times for me, but now water under the bridge. Islam’s Reign of Terror has
a companion pamphlet, A
Handbook on Islam, published later. The new
“owner” of Voltaire Press never replied to my queries about Reign of Terror, his identity remains
unknown, and he, too, has gone the way of all puff balls. Exciting times for me,
but now water under the bridge.
The first
nonfiction collection of my Rule of Reason essays is in Running
Out My Guns , and like the others with the naval warfare-themed covers
(the exception in terms of covers is From
the Crow’s Nest ), includes pieces about Obama, Islam, the state of the
culture (including a longish piece on the film about Mozart, “Amadeus:
A Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption,” the Danish cartoon uproar, censorship and freedom
of speech. These titles, including Letters of Marque , Corsairs
& Freebooters, Broadsides
in the War of Ideas , Boarding
Parties & Grappling Hooks , and the latest and the longest, Routing
Islam, represent a wide panoply of subjects and issues. Of special
interest is the four-part essay on the rise and attraction of Barack Obama, “The
Year of the Long Knives,” from 2008, and pieces on Geert
Wilders, and on Cass
Sunstein, Obama’s wannabe speech “czar.” And I mustn't forget Cogitations , another non-naval warfare collection of essays.
nonfiction titles that should be highlighted with all the fiction. Most of
these titles concern the war on the West waged by Islam. Others are about the
war on America waged by our own government, about the decaying state of the
arts, of language, and of education. Most of them are collections of my essays
on Rule of Reason and edwardcline.blogspot.
These titles do not sell as well as the fiction; the fiction sells well
(really! At least a dozen full sets of the republished Sparrowhawk and Cyrus Skeen series sell every month). Fiction takes
readers away from the depressing state of the world (at least, mine does); the
nonfiction reminds them of just how depressing the world can be and will
continue to be. Do I blame them? No. But then I am indulging in a kind of catharsis
every time I pen a new column about the killing machine called Islam and the
depredations and betrayals of our government.
The New Sparrowhawk Companion is a republished title I also rescued from the
collapse and bankruptcy of the original publisher, MacAdam/Cage Publishing. It
was my idea, suggested to the publisher after Book Six; War was released. The publisher by this time had accrued
a large stable of writers and an extensive backlist, but its ambition was
greater than its capacity to deal honestly and fairly with its authors. It was
a spendthrift. It competed with larger, mainstream publishers in bidding
contests for titles and authors it thought would enhance its prestige and
appeal. For example, it paid Audrey Niffenegger,
a teacher of “creative writing,” a handsome sum for The Time Traveler’s Wife, which was also made into a flop of a
movie. The novel did not sell as well as MacAdam/Cage Publishing expected. This
was the deal that broke the publisher. Then MacAdam/Cage Publishing began its regular
delinquencies with royalty payments to its other authors, and then
underhandedly “leasing” or selling the e-book rights to books it had no
contractual claim to, in order to raise cash. This was theft and a demonstrable
violation of contract.
Having gone without
royalty payments for a long time, I saw the writing on the wall and began republishing
Sparrowhawk on Kindle, something MacAdam/Cage
Publishing refused to do. I had even offered the publisher a chance to publish
the first Cyrus Skeen novels, believing as he did not that the series was a
perfect fit because the stories were set in San Fransicso,
MacAdam/Cage
Publishing’s location. Then David Poindexter, the mover and creator of MacAdam/Cage
Publishing, died, and everything fell apart faster than a house of dominoes.
The firm filed
for bankruptcy, leaving all its authors high and dry as creditors, and even its
staff. Its illustrator, it came out later, had even loaned the publisher money
to keep the firm solvent. She never saw a penny of it back again. To my
knowledge, her suit is still in court. Piles of printed books accumulated in
warehouses, which would not release the titles until they were paid. These titles
were eventually bought by second-hand book vendors connected to Amazon and to other
major retailers. Thousands of copies of the old edition of Sparrowhawk are still being sold by these vendors. In the meantime,
I had rid the original edition of all the typos and formatting errors MacAdam/Cage
Publishing had never bothered to correct and now the series has been refreshed
and is doing well, with cleaned up texts and covers thematically consistent
with each title. (See my Rule of Reason column, “Sparrowhawk
Rescued from Oblivion” from August 2013 for more sordid details.)There are
nearly 800,000 words in the Sparrowhawk
series. It was a long, tedious job doing what the publisher was remiss in
performing.
The
New Sparrowhawk Companion is a collection of essays about the six titles in the Sparrowhawk story by other contributors,
and includes a list of characters (over 300) and in which title each appears, a
lexicon of 18th century terms, a bibliography of some of my research sources,
and other features created to help a reader grasp and appreciate the series and
the period in which the story is set.
Rational
Scrutiny: Paradoxes and Contradictions in Detective Fiction , is another animal entirely. It
is a collection of essays, some old, some new, about the art of writing
detective fiction. They focus mainly on the Chess Hanrahan first person
narrated novels, and on what then was only a handful of Cyrus Skeen novels (seven).
It includes “The Wizards of Disambiguation,” a critique of politically correct
speech and writing and of academics who claimed that The Maltese Falcon was, among other things, a fictional diatribe
against capitalism. It was my submission to the Western Illinois Press to be
included in its compendium of essays about the art of detective fiction (it was
rejected). The Cunning Craft was
eventually published, but I have no idea what is in it or whose articles were
included, because its Amazon selling price of over $200 did not entice me to
reward the Western Illinois Press for its Marxist snubbing. Marxists do not
like to be contradicted with facts. “Wizards” could be treated as a companion
essay to “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism,” from 2013, a review of Guidelines
for Bias-Free Writing , by Marilyn
Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language.
The remaining
nonfiction titles are collectively potpourris of my Rule of Reason columns on
politics, the culture, Islam, and freedom of speech. Islam’s
Reign of Terror , however, was commissioned by Voltaire Press and I was
paid for it. The essay appeared on Voltaire Press’s site. When I proposed to
the owner of Voltaire Press that we convert it into a pamphlet, I received no
response. So, I went ahead with the project and it is now available as a print
book, on Kindle, and on Audible. The piece bears a Voltaire Press copyright
notice, which I included for legal reasons. However, there were miseries
connected with that site. See my article “Thumbs
Down on Voltaire Press” for details. I later learned there was a reason why
Voltaire Press never responded. The founder had been arrested, I think in
Mississippi, as a fugitive from the charge of having absconded with Duke University
funds (in North Carolina). I have been blocked from Voltaire Press’s site,
unable to leave comments. Indeed, an Internet search for Voltaire Press turns up nothing.
It had a Facebook page, from which I was also blocked, and that has vanished,
as well. The new “owner” of Voltaire Press
never replied to my queries about Reign
of Terror, his identity remains unknown, and he, too, has gone the way of
all puff balls. Exciting times for me, but now water under the bridge. Islam’s Reign of Terror has
a companion pamphlet, A
Handbook on Islam, published later. The new
“owner” of Voltaire Press never replied to my queries about Reign of Terror, his identity remains
unknown, and he, too, has gone the way of all puff balls. Exciting times for me,
but now water under the bridge.
The first
nonfiction collection of my Rule of Reason essays is in Running
Out My Guns , and like the others with the naval warfare-themed covers
(the exception in terms of covers is From
the Crow’s Nest ), includes pieces about Obama, Islam, the state of the
culture (including a longish piece on the film about Mozart, “Amadeus:
A Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption,” the Danish cartoon uproar, censorship and freedom
of speech. These titles, including Letters of Marque , Corsairs
& Freebooters, Broadsides
in the War of Ideas , Boarding
Parties & Grappling Hooks , and the latest and the longest, Routing
Islam, represent a wide panoply of subjects and issues. Of special
interest is the four-part essay on the rise and attraction of Barack Obama, “The
Year of the Long Knives,” from 2008, and pieces on Geert
Wilders, and on Cass
Sunstein, Obama’s wannabe speech “czar.” And I mustn't forget Cogitations , another non-naval warfare collection of essays.
October 18, 2016
A Non-Politically Correct Bookshelf
Please indulge me while I “toot” my horn. Over
the years I have produced a dozen or so novels that touch on current events and
even anticipate them. They are about Islam, cultural and political corruption,
and frauds perpetrated on the citizens and the country by our self-appointed
elite. Here are synopses of their plots. They are all available as printed
books, on Kindle, and also as Audible versions.
I begin with the
earliest series I had finished, self-published on Amazon, because no mainstream
publisher would touch it. It stars Merritt Fury, an American entrepreneur and
maverick capitalist who invariably runs afoul of the political and financial
establishments in America and abroad. The first title, Whisper
the Guns , is set in Hong Kong. But the most relevantly violent one is
the second title, We
Three Kings , in which Fury is targeted for death by a Saudi sheik with
the approving nod of our State Department. Sound familiar? The sheik gets his
comeuppance by story’s end, with Fury holding the sheik’s feet and other body
parts to the fire. I boldly adopted the Saudi royal emblem for the cover. No outrage
from the Riyadh medievalists yet.
Another series, published
by Perfect Crime Books in
Baltimore, Maryland features a detective hero, Chess Hanrahan, who specializes
in solving moral paradoxes. In Presence
of Mind Hanrahan encounters and engages in a contest of wits with two
denizens of the State Department, who subscribe to the policy of “cognitive
dissonance,” in order to put across a disastrous “peace” treaty with the Soviet
Union. Wishing hard enough for a preferred result will make it so. Hanrahan
jolts the celebrated denizens back to reality in the worst possible ways. In With
Distinction , he investigates a murder in the philosophy department of a
Midwest university (based on Michigan State University), and uncovers a snake
pit of plots to grant illiteracy and ignorance the highest academic honors, and
to rid the department of a reason-oriented philosophy professor. Sound
familiar?
The Hanrahan and
Fury novels were composed and finished in the mid-1980s. Their plots were
extrapolations of the political and cultural conditions of the time. I had no
sense then that things would grow much worse. Political correctness in speech and written forms was not yet a
ubiquitous term of derogation of enforced conformity – although Marxists and
feminists were hard at work to impose PC, often successfully – while such
concepts as “safe places,” “white
privilege,” and “trigger warnings” would have caused even the leftist
professors in academia to guffaw in laughter.
Shortly after the
second Hanrahan title, First
Prize , was published in 1988 and soon reviewed in The New York Times, I
received an invitation from the Western Illinois University Press to submit an
essay to a collection of essays by others on the art of detective fiction. I
sent my piece in (it’s included in Rational
Scrutiny ), and waited, half certain that the piece would be rejected
because it went counter to the prevailing tone of criticism. It was indeed
rejected. The essay collection, sans
my essay, was published in October 1990 under the title The
Cunning Craft . Rather than see
all the research for the essay go to waste, which was on how Dashiell Hammett’s
The
Maltese Falcon (first serialized
in Black Mask crime magazine in 1928-1929, and later published in book form by Alfred A. Knopf
in 1929), was not a “proletarian”
novel as many academics claimed, I decided to write a novel set in the same,
week, month and year as the Sam Spade novel was set, in December 1928. Thus was
born China
Basin , the first Cyrus Skeen novel
Cover of the first Knopf edition, 1929
China Basin reflects many things, especially the state of the literary
and dramatic arts. Skeen, who has just
returned from a tour of the Continent, over dinner discusses of the state of
current theater with two friends, who are theater critics. He says about a hit
play that is running in San Francisco and is slated to premier in New York City
:
“I mean that Olympus Deferred
is the slickest paean to transcendentalism I’ve ever seen, Herb. Ninety percent
of the serious drama penned and produced — and a significant volume of sly
boots comedy — says the same things as does Olympus, but not nearly as
well. Olympus answers no questions, takes no sides, and resolves no
issues. It hands approval to both the hero, who isn’t one, and to the
anti-hero, who isn’t anything. It bequeaths happiness to the weakling and pain
to the misanthrope. In a deft sleight-of-hand it sustains — not challenges —
the very conflict you’d expect it to resolve. It preaches tolerance for the
coward and the frightened, and tolerance for the loner. It rations equal
portions of value between the manqué –
and the firebrand. It’s a vehicle of nihilism, Herb, the best yet to walk a
stage and send people’s minds abuzz. Everybody goes away happy; nobody is asked
to take sides; nothing is affirmed or denied. In that respect, Olympus
is not controversial.”
The two friends
listened:
Castle and Kripps listened to
him with interest and asked him many questions. They even joined in a few
choruses of laughter. But Skeen knew that their eagerness had been doused by
the argument over Olympus Deferred. When he began to report in detail
the things he had seen in Germany — particularly in the theater, and the
influence of Dadaism, Surrealism, and Neo-Expressionism in the other arts —
Kripps’s attention became more pronounced.
Finally, Kripps interjected,
“Well, Hardenberg’s to blame for that ‘word salad’ nonsense. Lessing, Kant,
Herder, Schopenhauer — that whole crowd is behind the unbelievable insanity you
saw there, Cyrus. We can even see it sprouting here. For example, in the
theater — the serious theater — Olympus Deferred is archetypal. ”
One of the
critics is eventually murdered, while the other commits suicide. It turns out
one of them wrote Olympus Deferred,
whose authorship is being claimed by psychopathic murderer, but the critic who
wrote it doesn’t dare admit it. He is being blackmailed.
The Skeen series
is long and adventuresome, spanning the 1920s decade and then some. I am
currently working on the 21st Skeen detective novel. I find that I can no
longer set a detective novel in my own time. Political correctness, government regulations,
and the general tone and content of contemporary culture make a hero such as Cyrus
Skeen impossible. I am comfortable working in Skeen’s time – historian Paul
Johnson once wrote that the 1920s was the last decade in which America was what
it as meant to be, Prohibition and some federal intrusions to the contrary notwithstanding
– and Skeen is free to act without the kind of self-conscious restraints that
bedevil fictional heroes today. Skeen and I both have a freedom of action,
speech, character, and manners which in our culture today are alien and unwelcome.
Neither Skeen nor I must jump through federal and cultural hoops to get things
done. And Skeen and I are thinkers and take ideas seriously. Skeen, at least,
is a threat to those who fear his crime-solving prowess and panache.
Skeen ventures
into realms few other fictional detectives are equipped to move effortlessly
in.
In Civic
Affairs he is asked to apologize for his rough treatment of criminals.
He laughs at the preposterous idea and kicks the advocates of the idea out of
his office. In Sleight
of Hand he is asked by a pair of professors from the University of
Wisconsin to stand for the office of Public Defender in the coming local city
elections; he also laughs at the idea. He learns that the former Public
Defender was murdered to make room for another candidate (not Skeen who would
also be murdered) who would introduce Progressive issues into the campaign. In Stolen
Words he proves that a jailed writer did not murder his publisher, but
he also learns that the writer and publisher had made a business of plagiarizing
many American classics. The Circles
of Odin pits Skeen against a cabal of occultists who are on a murder
spree to eliminate “useless” people (echoes of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope , although I didn’t
realize the film’s influence on me until after the title was published).
Skeen is not
averse to tackling “big time” issues. In Exegesis
Skeen tracks down the persons responsible for murdering ex-convicts; throw in the murder of a retired Michigan Supreme
Court justice and Skeen’s plate is full. In The
Daedàlus Conspiracy he journeys to Monte Rio to attend the annual
outing of the country’s elite, businessmen, politicians and cultural leaders to
abort the assassination of a U.S. Senator. Wintery
Discontent finds him hired by an Austrian diplomat who wants to
introduce a scheme to the Western allies that would predate the European Union,
but fears for his own life.
This caper is linked to a subsequent plot in Seeing
Double , in which the Soviets hatch a scheme to discredit the allies
with a bogus plan to invade and overthrow the Soviet regime. Skeen’s murder is
integral to the plan – he was supposed to be the disgraced courier of the
invasion plan – but the resourceful detective foils it.
Politics is not
the usual focus of Skeen, but often it is unavoidable. In The
Chameleon he solves the murder of a businessman by a member of a
nascent Nazi bund near Stanford University. That episode begins with a bounced
check. A
Crimson Overture introduces him to the web of Soviet espionage when a
British artist he and his wife have befriended is murdered. The lady was a
British spy. And in
perhaps his most ambitious case Skeen tackles The Muslim Brotherhood,
in The
Black Stone , when he investigates the brutal murder of a Jewish girl
and the torture/death of a New York newspaper
reporter who stole the sacred
Black Stone from the Ka’aba in Mecca.
Finally, in the
latest Skeen affair, Trichotomy ,
the detective, something of a man of letters, is invited to address a sociology
class about an article of his that was published about the behavior of recidivists,
only to witness the classroom murder of the professor who invited him. It is
both an allegory and a Roman à clef. Sound familiar? First
Things begins on a light note when a shy, gawky teenager asks Skeen to
find his missing girlfriend; amused at first, Skeen uncovers a years-old charity
racket that enslaves adopted girls a la
ISIS and the Yazidis, except that the slave brothel is in San Francisco.
As can be seen,
the Skeen mystery novels span a wide range of issues and subjects, every one of them requiring the attribute of
thought and a moral code and often Skeen’s brazenly impolitic style and
approach to problem-solving. They are not merely mystery novels. They are
introductions to a time and a spirit when thought and reason were not under siege and virtually
banished from one’s life and values. In a sense they are of our own time, because
I wrote them in this era.
Skeen is aided in
many cases by his loving artist wife, Dilys, and by Mickey Kane, a newspaper
reporter who reports facts, not opinions or bias.
The pillars of
Western civilization are now under attack – in politics, in our own government, in art, in education, in our justice system –
and one purpose of mine is to demonstrate that the pillars needn’t be discarded if one is willing to fight for them. They can
be discarded and lost only at one’s peril and ultimate demise.
Cyrus Skeen, Chess Hanrahan, and Merritt Fury may not
belong to our own time, but they can become presences in one’s own life.
October 13, 2016
Refugees À-Go-Go
Barack Obama has not said it so openly. He relies on his allies in malice to
enunciate it. If there is any “negative” reaction to such racism, then it would
redound on his proxies, not on him. But, Hillary agrees and wants to continue
his policy. America’s “white” population electorate must not only be
disenfranchised or rendered null with a massive influx of Muslim “refugees,”
and also with South American illegals, all of whom will suddenly and magically be
endowed
with the vote, but, if
For eight years, guilty of malice aforethought
possible, be “replaced” with the preferred races and
rendered a powerless, unrepresented “minority.”
This was Ted Kennedy’s
fondest legislative dream. In 1995, the Center for Immigration
Studies opined on the consequences of the The
Hart-Celler Act of 1965:
The unexpected result has been
one of the greatest waves of immigration in the nation's history — more than 18
million legal immigrants since the law's passage, over triple the number
admitted during the previous 30 years, as well as uncountable millions of
illegal immigrants. And the new immigrants are more likely to stay (rather than
return home after a time) than those who came around the turn of the century.
Moreover, this new, enlarged immigration flow came from countries in Asia and
Latin America which heretofore had sent few of their sons and daughters to the
United States. And finally, although the average level of education of
immigrants has increased somewhat over the past 30 years, the negative gap
between their education and that of native-born Americans has increased
significantly, creating a mismatch between newcomers and the needs of a modern,
high-tech economy…..
The liberalization
of immigration policy reflected in the 1965 legislation can be understood as
part of the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end
legal discrimination based on race and ethnicity — essentially, the immigration
bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and a
symbolic one at that, expected to bring few changes in its wake. [Bolding the
report’s]
And, there were a number of noteworthy
foot-in-mouth predictions, this one by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of
the bill:
"With the end
of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries
other than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and
Africa will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and
qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be,
comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the
people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could
immigrate [sic] from those countries
because they have no family ties in the U.S." (Congressional Record, Aug.
25, 1965, p. 21812.)
Ted Kennedy then assures
everyone that there won’t be deleterious consequences of the new immigration
bill. But, being a Kennedy, he could not help but lie:
Senate immigration subcommittee
chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with
the following:
"First, our cities will not
be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the
present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the
ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in
some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any
one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and
Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the
proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to
think."
Sen. Kennedy concluded by saying,
"The bill will not flood
our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It
will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers
to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization
of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)
In 1965, there
was no ISIS, Muslims were all but invisible, and so were Mexican and South
American illegals, and Syria and Iraq may as well have been on the moon. But,
knowing how little Kennedy valued any truth, one cannot but imagine that he was
hoping for the worst: he, too, wanted to destroy America. He got what he wished
for, in the person and policies of Barack Obama.
Now, if we have
admitted thousands of Syrian “refugees”-cum-“immigrants,” and among them is a
high proportion of passive Islamic supremacists, and another proportion of ISIS
infiltrators posing as put-upon sufferers of wartime hardship, what does this
bode for the country?
Well, the French
may not have the knack for keeping out terrorists, but they have grasped a bit
of the problem and have provided us with a foreshadowing of things to come in
this country. Bruce Cornibe in his Counter Jihad article of October 11th, “French
Terrorism Watch List Overflowing with 15,000 Potential Jihadists,” writes:
Terror
watch lists help track potential terrorists, but they are only as good as the
validity of the indicators to get on the list, the intelligence on the
suspects, the manpower to monitor the highest threats, and the aggressiveness
of law enforcement to step in before the radicals act upon their desires.
France’s terror watch
list with its 15,000
individuals gives insight into the extent of how radical Islam is plaguing one
of Europe’s largest countries. The UK’s Express provides some details about the
list and some of its failures stating:
French
authorities began tracking people on a database in March of 2015 following the
Charlie Hebdo attacks and shootings at a kosher market in January of that year
that killed 17 people.
However
that did not prevent the subsequent co-ordinated attacks in Paris in November
of last year which killed 130 or the horrifying slaughter of 86 people at the
Bastille Day celebrations in Nice in July.
There have
been a total of 21 terror attacks across the country since December 2014
sparking widespread anger and a backlash against French president Francois
Hollande.
Now Special
Forces are said to believe that at least 4,000 of these individuals pose a
significant threat to society and are being tracked on a daily basis by the
Directorate of Internal Security.
The majority of the people being
watched are men aged between 18 and 25 and are said to be “psychologically
confused.”
Psychologically confused?? Among other ill-effects of Islam, it can also be responsible
for dementia.
Just as Angela
Merkel wants to see indigenous Germans replaced with what she must imagine will
be a mongrel hybrid of Germans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans (provided
enough German women are raped and impregnated by migrants and denied by the new
fascist German state the right to an abortion). This is the “social justice” of
our warrior “elites.” It is pure undisguised racism.
The Germans have
a “final solution” to the problem of Muslim migrant depredations: Fuse Islamic
ideology with what is left of Western liberalism. Finance Minister Wolfgang
Schaeuble has proposed introducing a “German Islam.” Reuters reported on
October 2nd, in “Germany's
finance minister presses for a 'German Islam'”:
A veteran ally of Angela Merkel
urged Muslims in Germany on Sunday to develop a "German Islam" based
on liberalism and tolerance, saying the influx of people seeking refuge, many
of them Muslims, is a challenge for mainstream society.
Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble,
stepping out of his usual finance remit, urged tolerance, saying the arrival of
hundreds of thousands of migrants required a better understanding among Germans
of what is important to them and how they want to live.
The arrival of large numbers of
refugees has strained communities and led to a rise in far-right violence and
attacks on migrant shelters, particularly in eastern Germany.
Schaeuble, a stalwart of
Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), said: "Without a doubt, the growing
number of Muslims in our country today is a challenge for the open-mindedness
of mainstream society."
In a guest article for
conservative paper Welt am Sonntag, he added: "The origin of the majority
of refugees means that we will be increasingly dealing with people from quite
different cultural circles than previously."
He acknowledged that sexual
attacks by migrants in Cologne and two attacks by migrants claimed by the
Islamic State militant group over the summer had soured the mood. "We should not, in this more tense
situation, allow an atmosphere to emerge in which well-integrated people in
Germany feel alien," he said.
Despite the rising number of
xenophobic attacks in Germany, Schaeuble said he believed the majority of
Germans would say: "Yes, we want you to belong to us."
Perhaps Schaeuble
is blind or tone deaf, but he seems to be oblivious to a growing number of
Germans who are shouting and demonstrating: “No! We do not want you to belong to us!” Because they know that, in the end,
they will belong to the Muslims. Western values and Islamic values are
irreconcilable.
“Timmy” Kaine (I
call him “Timmy” to indicate his intellectual age), Hillary Clinton’s
vice-presidential candidate, is one of the most voluble and vicious Democratic
racists. He wouldn’t say what he says below unless Hillary and her staff had
first vetted it. “I’m Hillary Clinton, I approved this doofuss’s message.” Infowars
reported:
“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.
Kaine’s desire to see whites
become a minority in America is set
to be realized in around 30 years because white people are the only group
with a higher death rate than birth rate.
Hispanics are growing in number
at a pace of around 2.1 percent a year, with blacks growing at 1.3 percent, while
whites are only growing at 0.5 percent.
Ann Moreno on Truthfeed also reported Kaine’s moronic
meanderings in “Tim
Kaine Admits Hillary Plans to “Stick it to White People” Says ‘Whites Need to
Submit’”:
In what can only be
called a colossal Freudian
slip , Hillary’s VP nominee admitted on Thursday that
Democratic policies are harmful to white Americans.
Kaine was speaking to a group of
black Baptists in New Orleans when he suggested that in order to have “equity”
between the races, white people must submit themselves to a state of
repression similar to what black Americans have experienced.
Essentially, what Kaine is saying,
is that he and Hillary want to turn White Americans into the minority race.
…and her policies will do that,
according to him.
Vice President
Joe Biden, the Obama administration’s resident “scary
clown” also had to flap his gums on the subject of erasing “white supremacy.”
Breitbart reported in June 2015 in “Joe
Biden: ‘A Good Thing’ When Whites ‘Absolute Minority’ in 2017 (Census Bureau
Projects Majority-Minority Nation in 2044):
On Tuesday, Vice
President Joe Biden said it will be a “good thing” when whites are an “absolute
minority” in America in 2017…..
“By 2017, those of
us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of
America,” Biden said at a State Department luncheon for Brazilian President
Dilma Rousseff. According to pool reports, Biden added that that’s “not a bad
thing, that’s a good thing” because it means the country is becoming more
diverse….
Biden
is reportedly considering a run for the White House and his party’s chances of
keeping the White House depend on whether minorities and young voters who made
up Obama’s coalition turn out again with the same level of enthusiasm. Recent
polling has found that non-white voters are less enthusiastic about the
2016 election than white voters who tend to lean more Republican.
Listen to Biden rattle
on with his nonstop “wisdom” about “diversity” and submerging and drowning
whites in a multicultural morass.
A flood of "cultural enrichers" on their way to your town
All of this is
linked to the massive immigration into the U.S. of especially Syrian “refugees,”
a group of Muslims too likely heavily saturated with ISIS operatives and
Muslims sympathetic to ISIS. Patrick
Goodenough Family Security Matters writes in his October 2016 column, “12,2587
Syrian Refugees Admitted in FY 2016.“
The administration admitted a total of 12,587 Syrian refugees during the
just-ended fiscal year, exceeding the target President Obama declared last fall
by 2,587 (20.5 percent).
Of the 12,587, the vast majority
are Sunni Muslims - 12,363 (98.2 percent) - while another 103 are identified in
State Department Refugee Processing Center data simply as Muslims and a further
20 as Shi'a Muslims.
Sixty-eight of the 12,587 Syrian
refugees (0.5 percent) are Christians. They comprise 16 Catholics, eight
Orthodox, five Protestants, four Jehovah's Witnesses, one Greek Orthodox, and
34 refugees self-identified simply as Christians.
The remainder of the Syrian
refugees resettled in the U.S. in FY 2016 are 24 Yazidis, eight refugees with
religion given as "other," and one with "no religion…."
All segments of the Syrian population are affected by the
devastating civil war, which has witnessed grave atrocities by minorities waged
by the Sunni jihadists as well as sectarian-fueled bloodshed involving Sunnis,
Shi'a (including Iranian and Hezbollah elements) and adherents of President
Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect….
Obama has not declared a target figure for
Syrian refugee admissions for FY 2017, although a recent report to Congress
said the administration "aims to admit a significantly higher number"
of Syrian refugees in the new fiscal year than the 10,000 target initially set
for FY 2016.
Assistant Secretary of State Anne Richard said
last week that even though the department is working with a stipulated
target for FY 2017, "this administration has been very clear that we want
to bring more Syrians, so my own guidance to our staff is that we want to bring
even more than we brought this year."
Over the course of the conflict that began
when small anti-government protests in early 2011 were met with a harsh
crackdown by the Assad regime and later widened into a convoluted civil war,
the U.S. has resettled a total of 14,460 Syrian refugees - 87 percent of them
during FY 2016.
Obama has surpassed his 10,000 Syrian refugee goal. Fred Fleitz of The
Center for Security Policy reports:
The Obama administration
announced this week that President Obama’s November 2015 pledge to bring 10,000
Syrian refugees to this country has been met. Mr. Fleitz writes:
You may remember the Obama administration assured the
American people last year not to worry about the risk from these refugees
because processing them would take 18 to 24 months or longer.
I wrote in a November 20, 2015 Fox News.com op-ed
that processing of the 10,000 Syrian refugees President Obama agreed to admit
late last year probably would be sped up to ensure they arrived while he was
still in office and to prevent his successor from blocking these refugees.
This is what happened. The Obama administration lied
again.
State Department officials defended the process to vet
Obama’s 10,000 refugees and insisted they are “the most thoroughly-screened
group of travelers to the U.S.” So how did the Obama administration
resolve the problem expressed by CIA Director John Brennan in June 2016 when he
said in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee that ISIS is training
operatives and attempting to enter the U.S. through “refugee flows, smuggling
routes and legitimate methods of travel?”
Obama officials are trying to reassure Americans that there
is little threat from President Obama’s 10,000 Syrian refugees because they
claim 78 percent are women and children. Given that about 72 percent of
Syrian refugees arriving in Europe are military-age males, this is difficult to
believe. I believe the administration is playing statistical games in the
way it counts these refugees. There also could be another group of Syrian
adult male refugees that the Obama administration plans to quietly admit later,
probably after the election.
Admitting poorly-screened female Syrian refugees could
allow male ISIS members to immigrate to the United States through
“chain-migration” when these women refugees apply to admit male refugees who they
claim are husbands or blood relatives. Without documentation, it will be
extremely difficult to confirm these claims.
Lying is par for the course on Obama’s
political golf course. I doubt that
Hillary Clinton plays even ping-pong, but she is a congenital liar, as well.
And what about all those Somali “refugees”? Patrick
Goodenough on Family Security Matters reports again in “Almost
100,000 Somali Refugees Admitted to U.S. Since 9/11 and 99.6% were Muslim.”
Almost 100,000 Somali refugees have been resettled in the
United States since 9/11, including 8,619 so far during the current fiscal
year. The largest number - some 16 percent of the total over the past 15 years
- have been resettled in Minnesota, home to the nation's biggest
Somali-American community.
Of the 97,046 Somali refugees admitted to the U.S. since
the fall of 2001, 99.6 percent were Muslim, and 28,836 (29.7 percent)
were males between the ages of 14 and 50.
In FY 2015 Somalis were the third largest contingent of
refugees admitted to the U.S. - 8,858, or 12.6 percent of the total from around
the world. Only Burma, with 26.3 percent, and Iraq, with 18.1 percent,
accounted for larger groups of refugees arriving in the country.
The biggest influx of Somali refugees over the past 15
years occurred during the FY 2004-2006 period, after which the numbers dwindled
before picking up again from FY 2014-2016, State Department Refugee Processing
Center data show.
Given the cited numbers above, is the administration really expecting all these
“immigrants” to behave themselves and abide by the rule of law and American cultural
norm? I don’t think the administration knows or cares. Obama and Hillary just
want to subjugate the country and Americans to savagery, more “lone wolf”
terrorist attacks which the authorities will do their best to cover up, suppress
information, and lie through their teeth about, local and federal authorities, together.
And let’s not forget the small-time enablers, such as the mayor of Rutland,
Vermont, who has secretly arranged to “resettle” Syrians in his small town, and
kept the conspiracy from the town’s residents.
Judicial Watch has this startling news: “ Judicial
Watch: Federal Contractor Tells Local Official to Keep Syria Refugee Plans
Secret .”
Judicial Watch today released 128
pages of documents it obtained from the mayor of Rutland, Vermont, showing
a concerted effort by the mayor and a number of private organizations to
conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the
small southern Vermont town.
The documents include an April
14, 2016, email from Amila Merdzanovic, executive director of the Vermont
Refugee Resettlement Program, to Mayor Christopher Louras, in which she wrote:
I want to share with you the
concern my HQ has about holding a public forum. If we open it up to anybody and
everybody, all sorts of people will come out of woodwork. Anti-immigrant,
anti-anything. They suggest that the forum be invite only but make it as wide
as possible. Work with faith leaders, United Way, etc… Perhaps, we could go
back to the Congregational Church and continue the conversation there.
The mayor and resettlement
organizations shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town’s
aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors. The
aldermen eventually wrote to the U.S. Department of State protesting
the plan and opened an investigation
into the mayor’s actions. The State Department has not yet ruled on whether it
will resettle refugees in Rutland despite the aldermen’s protest.
Handwritten notes state that the
issue was, “Not what can ‘we’ do for ‘them,’ but what the diversity, cultural
richness do for the community.” The documents contain detailed
discussions of what Rutland will need to provide for the refugees – including
housing, jobs, medical care, and places for worship.
Judicial Watch received the
documents in
response to a Vermont
Public Records Law request to the office of Mayor Christopher Louras.
Merdzanovic later told the Boston
Globe that the hidden talks were “the right thing to do — to move
slowly, keep it to a small circle of people, and then expand.”
Yes, the “right thing to do” – to conform to
Clinton’s proposed policy of keeping “everyday Americans”
“unaware
and compliant.” But Rutland’s citizens are not complying and they are
definitely “aware.”
One can only wonder who are the true enemies
of the country: Muslims and their hostile ideology, or government officials on
various levels throughout the country and the MSM in collusion with the federal
(feral?) government , right down to small town mayors?
enunciate it. If there is any “negative” reaction to such racism, then it would
redound on his proxies, not on him. But, Hillary agrees and wants to continue
his policy. America’s “white” population electorate must not only be
disenfranchised or rendered null with a massive influx of Muslim “refugees,”
and also with South American illegals, all of whom will suddenly and magically be
endowed
with the vote, but, if
For eight years, guilty of malice aforethought
possible, be “replaced” with the preferred races and
rendered a powerless, unrepresented “minority.”
This was Ted Kennedy’s
fondest legislative dream. In 1995, the Center for Immigration
Studies opined on the consequences of the The
Hart-Celler Act of 1965:
The unexpected result has been
one of the greatest waves of immigration in the nation's history — more than 18
million legal immigrants since the law's passage, over triple the number
admitted during the previous 30 years, as well as uncountable millions of
illegal immigrants. And the new immigrants are more likely to stay (rather than
return home after a time) than those who came around the turn of the century.
Moreover, this new, enlarged immigration flow came from countries in Asia and
Latin America which heretofore had sent few of their sons and daughters to the
United States. And finally, although the average level of education of
immigrants has increased somewhat over the past 30 years, the negative gap
between their education and that of native-born Americans has increased
significantly, creating a mismatch between newcomers and the needs of a modern,
high-tech economy…..
The liberalization
of immigration policy reflected in the 1965 legislation can be understood as
part of the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end
legal discrimination based on race and ethnicity — essentially, the immigration
bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and a
symbolic one at that, expected to bring few changes in its wake. [Bolding the
report’s]
And, there were a number of noteworthy
foot-in-mouth predictions, this one by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of
the bill:
"With the end
of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries
other than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and
Africa will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and
qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be,
comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the
people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could
immigrate [sic] from those countries
because they have no family ties in the U.S." (Congressional Record, Aug.
25, 1965, p. 21812.)
Ted Kennedy then assures
everyone that there won’t be deleterious consequences of the new immigration
bill. But, being a Kennedy, he could not help but lie:
Senate immigration subcommittee
chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with
the following:
"First, our cities will not
be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the
present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the
ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in
some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any
one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and
Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the
proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to
think."
Sen. Kennedy concluded by saying,
"The bill will not flood
our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It
will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers
to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization
of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)
In 1965, there
was no ISIS, Muslims were all but invisible, and so were Mexican and South
American illegals, and Syria and Iraq may as well have been on the moon. But,
knowing how little Kennedy valued any truth, one cannot but imagine that he was
hoping for the worst: he, too, wanted to destroy America. He got what he wished
for, in the person and policies of Barack Obama.
Now, if we have
admitted thousands of Syrian “refugees”-cum-“immigrants,” and among them is a
high proportion of passive Islamic supremacists, and another proportion of ISIS
infiltrators posing as put-upon sufferers of wartime hardship, what does this
bode for the country?
Well, the French
may not have the knack for keeping out terrorists, but they have grasped a bit
of the problem and have provided us with a foreshadowing of things to come in
this country. Bruce Cornibe in his Counter Jihad article of October 11th, “French
Terrorism Watch List Overflowing with 15,000 Potential Jihadists,” writes:
Terror
watch lists help track potential terrorists, but they are only as good as the
validity of the indicators to get on the list, the intelligence on the
suspects, the manpower to monitor the highest threats, and the aggressiveness
of law enforcement to step in before the radicals act upon their desires.
France’s terror watch
list with its 15,000
individuals gives insight into the extent of how radical Islam is plaguing one
of Europe’s largest countries. The UK’s Express provides some details about the
list and some of its failures stating:
French
authorities began tracking people on a database in March of 2015 following the
Charlie Hebdo attacks and shootings at a kosher market in January of that year
that killed 17 people.
However
that did not prevent the subsequent co-ordinated attacks in Paris in November
of last year which killed 130 or the horrifying slaughter of 86 people at the
Bastille Day celebrations in Nice in July.
There have
been a total of 21 terror attacks across the country since December 2014
sparking widespread anger and a backlash against French president Francois
Hollande.
Now Special
Forces are said to believe that at least 4,000 of these individuals pose a
significant threat to society and are being tracked on a daily basis by the
Directorate of Internal Security.
The majority of the people being
watched are men aged between 18 and 25 and are said to be “psychologically
confused.”
Psychologically confused?? Among other ill-effects of Islam, it can also be responsible
for dementia.
Just as Angela
Merkel wants to see indigenous Germans replaced with what she must imagine will
be a mongrel hybrid of Germans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans (provided
enough German women are raped and impregnated by migrants and denied by the new
fascist German state the right to an abortion). This is the “social justice” of
our warrior “elites.” It is pure undisguised racism.
The Germans have
a “final solution” to the problem of Muslim migrant depredations: Fuse Islamic
ideology with what is left of Western liberalism. Finance Minister Wolfgang
Schaeuble has proposed introducing a “German Islam.” Reuters reported on
October 2nd, in “Germany's
finance minister presses for a 'German Islam'”:
A veteran ally of Angela Merkel
urged Muslims in Germany on Sunday to develop a "German Islam" based
on liberalism and tolerance, saying the influx of people seeking refuge, many
of them Muslims, is a challenge for mainstream society.
Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble,
stepping out of his usual finance remit, urged tolerance, saying the arrival of
hundreds of thousands of migrants required a better understanding among Germans
of what is important to them and how they want to live.
The arrival of large numbers of
refugees has strained communities and led to a rise in far-right violence and
attacks on migrant shelters, particularly in eastern Germany.
Schaeuble, a stalwart of
Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), said: "Without a doubt, the growing
number of Muslims in our country today is a challenge for the open-mindedness
of mainstream society."
In a guest article for
conservative paper Welt am Sonntag, he added: "The origin of the majority
of refugees means that we will be increasingly dealing with people from quite
different cultural circles than previously."
He acknowledged that sexual
attacks by migrants in Cologne and two attacks by migrants claimed by the
Islamic State militant group over the summer had soured the mood. "We should not, in this more tense
situation, allow an atmosphere to emerge in which well-integrated people in
Germany feel alien," he said.
Despite the rising number of
xenophobic attacks in Germany, Schaeuble said he believed the majority of
Germans would say: "Yes, we want you to belong to us."
Perhaps Schaeuble
is blind or tone deaf, but he seems to be oblivious to a growing number of
Germans who are shouting and demonstrating: “No! We do not want you to belong to us!” Because they know that, in the end,
they will belong to the Muslims. Western values and Islamic values are
irreconcilable.
“Timmy” Kaine (I
call him “Timmy” to indicate his intellectual age), Hillary Clinton’s
vice-presidential candidate, is one of the most voluble and vicious Democratic
racists. He wouldn’t say what he says below unless Hillary and her staff had
first vetted it. “I’m Hillary Clinton, I approved this doofuss’s message.” Infowars
reported:
“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.
Kaine’s desire to see whites
become a minority in America is set
to be realized in around 30 years because white people are the only group
with a higher death rate than birth rate.
Hispanics are growing in number
at a pace of around 2.1 percent a year, with blacks growing at 1.3 percent, while
whites are only growing at 0.5 percent.
Ann Moreno on Truthfeed also reported Kaine’s moronic
meanderings in “Tim
Kaine Admits Hillary Plans to “Stick it to White People” Says ‘Whites Need to
Submit’”:
In what can only be
called a colossal Freudian
slip , Hillary’s VP nominee admitted on Thursday that
Democratic policies are harmful to white Americans.
Kaine was speaking to a group of
black Baptists in New Orleans when he suggested that in order to have “equity”
between the races, white people must submit themselves to a state of
repression similar to what black Americans have experienced.
Essentially, what Kaine is saying,
is that he and Hillary want to turn White Americans into the minority race.
…and her policies will do that,
according to him.
Vice President
Joe Biden, the Obama administration’s resident “scary
clown” also had to flap his gums on the subject of erasing “white supremacy.”
Breitbart reported in June 2015 in “Joe
Biden: ‘A Good Thing’ When Whites ‘Absolute Minority’ in 2017 (Census Bureau
Projects Majority-Minority Nation in 2044):
On Tuesday, Vice
President Joe Biden said it will be a “good thing” when whites are an “absolute
minority” in America in 2017…..
“By 2017, those of
us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of
America,” Biden said at a State Department luncheon for Brazilian President
Dilma Rousseff. According to pool reports, Biden added that that’s “not a bad
thing, that’s a good thing” because it means the country is becoming more
diverse….
Biden
is reportedly considering a run for the White House and his party’s chances of
keeping the White House depend on whether minorities and young voters who made
up Obama’s coalition turn out again with the same level of enthusiasm. Recent
polling has found that non-white voters are less enthusiastic about the
2016 election than white voters who tend to lean more Republican.
Listen to Biden rattle
on with his nonstop “wisdom” about “diversity” and submerging and drowning
whites in a multicultural morass.
A flood of "cultural enrichers" on their way to your town
All of this is
linked to the massive immigration into the U.S. of especially Syrian “refugees,”
a group of Muslims too likely heavily saturated with ISIS operatives and
Muslims sympathetic to ISIS. Patrick
Goodenough Family Security Matters writes in his October 2016 column, “12,2587
Syrian Refugees Admitted in FY 2016.“
The administration admitted a total of 12,587 Syrian refugees during the
just-ended fiscal year, exceeding the target President Obama declared last fall
by 2,587 (20.5 percent).
Of the 12,587, the vast majority
are Sunni Muslims - 12,363 (98.2 percent) - while another 103 are identified in
State Department Refugee Processing Center data simply as Muslims and a further
20 as Shi'a Muslims.
Sixty-eight of the 12,587 Syrian
refugees (0.5 percent) are Christians. They comprise 16 Catholics, eight
Orthodox, five Protestants, four Jehovah's Witnesses, one Greek Orthodox, and
34 refugees self-identified simply as Christians.
The remainder of the Syrian
refugees resettled in the U.S. in FY 2016 are 24 Yazidis, eight refugees with
religion given as "other," and one with "no religion…."
All segments of the Syrian population are affected by the
devastating civil war, which has witnessed grave atrocities by minorities waged
by the Sunni jihadists as well as sectarian-fueled bloodshed involving Sunnis,
Shi'a (including Iranian and Hezbollah elements) and adherents of President
Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect….
Obama has not declared a target figure for
Syrian refugee admissions for FY 2017, although a recent report to Congress
said the administration "aims to admit a significantly higher number"
of Syrian refugees in the new fiscal year than the 10,000 target initially set
for FY 2016.
Assistant Secretary of State Anne Richard said
last week that even though the department is working with a stipulated
target for FY 2017, "this administration has been very clear that we want
to bring more Syrians, so my own guidance to our staff is that we want to bring
even more than we brought this year."
Over the course of the conflict that began
when small anti-government protests in early 2011 were met with a harsh
crackdown by the Assad regime and later widened into a convoluted civil war,
the U.S. has resettled a total of 14,460 Syrian refugees - 87 percent of them
during FY 2016.
Obama has surpassed his 10,000 Syrian refugee goal. Fred Fleitz of The
Center for Security Policy reports:
The Obama administration
announced this week that President Obama’s November 2015 pledge to bring 10,000
Syrian refugees to this country has been met. Mr. Fleitz writes:
You may remember the Obama administration assured the
American people last year not to worry about the risk from these refugees
because processing them would take 18 to 24 months or longer.
I wrote in a November 20, 2015 Fox News.com op-ed
that processing of the 10,000 Syrian refugees President Obama agreed to admit
late last year probably would be sped up to ensure they arrived while he was
still in office and to prevent his successor from blocking these refugees.
This is what happened. The Obama administration lied
again.
State Department officials defended the process to vet
Obama’s 10,000 refugees and insisted they are “the most thoroughly-screened
group of travelers to the U.S.” So how did the Obama administration
resolve the problem expressed by CIA Director John Brennan in June 2016 when he
said in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee that ISIS is training
operatives and attempting to enter the U.S. through “refugee flows, smuggling
routes and legitimate methods of travel?”
Obama officials are trying to reassure Americans that there
is little threat from President Obama’s 10,000 Syrian refugees because they
claim 78 percent are women and children. Given that about 72 percent of
Syrian refugees arriving in Europe are military-age males, this is difficult to
believe. I believe the administration is playing statistical games in the
way it counts these refugees. There also could be another group of Syrian
adult male refugees that the Obama administration plans to quietly admit later,
probably after the election.
Admitting poorly-screened female Syrian refugees could
allow male ISIS members to immigrate to the United States through
“chain-migration” when these women refugees apply to admit male refugees who they
claim are husbands or blood relatives. Without documentation, it will be
extremely difficult to confirm these claims.
Lying is par for the course on Obama’s
political golf course. I doubt that
Hillary Clinton plays even ping-pong, but she is a congenital liar, as well.
And what about all those Somali “refugees”? Patrick
Goodenough on Family Security Matters reports again in “Almost
100,000 Somali Refugees Admitted to U.S. Since 9/11 and 99.6% were Muslim.”
Almost 100,000 Somali refugees have been resettled in the
United States since 9/11, including 8,619 so far during the current fiscal
year. The largest number - some 16 percent of the total over the past 15 years
- have been resettled in Minnesota, home to the nation's biggest
Somali-American community.
Of the 97,046 Somali refugees admitted to the U.S. since
the fall of 2001, 99.6 percent were Muslim, and 28,836 (29.7 percent)
were males between the ages of 14 and 50.
In FY 2015 Somalis were the third largest contingent of
refugees admitted to the U.S. - 8,858, or 12.6 percent of the total from around
the world. Only Burma, with 26.3 percent, and Iraq, with 18.1 percent,
accounted for larger groups of refugees arriving in the country.
The biggest influx of Somali refugees over the past 15
years occurred during the FY 2004-2006 period, after which the numbers dwindled
before picking up again from FY 2014-2016, State Department Refugee Processing
Center data show.
Given the cited numbers above, is the administration really expecting all these
“immigrants” to behave themselves and abide by the rule of law and American cultural
norm? I don’t think the administration knows or cares. Obama and Hillary just
want to subjugate the country and Americans to savagery, more “lone wolf”
terrorist attacks which the authorities will do their best to cover up, suppress
information, and lie through their teeth about, local and federal authorities, together.
And let’s not forget the small-time enablers, such as the mayor of Rutland,
Vermont, who has secretly arranged to “resettle” Syrians in his small town, and
kept the conspiracy from the town’s residents.
Judicial Watch has this startling news: “ Judicial
Watch: Federal Contractor Tells Local Official to Keep Syria Refugee Plans
Secret .”
Judicial Watch today released 128
pages of documents it obtained from the mayor of Rutland, Vermont, showing
a concerted effort by the mayor and a number of private organizations to
conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the
small southern Vermont town.
The documents include an April
14, 2016, email from Amila Merdzanovic, executive director of the Vermont
Refugee Resettlement Program, to Mayor Christopher Louras, in which she wrote:
I want to share with you the
concern my HQ has about holding a public forum. If we open it up to anybody and
everybody, all sorts of people will come out of woodwork. Anti-immigrant,
anti-anything. They suggest that the forum be invite only but make it as wide
as possible. Work with faith leaders, United Way, etc… Perhaps, we could go
back to the Congregational Church and continue the conversation there.
The mayor and resettlement
organizations shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town’s
aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors. The
aldermen eventually wrote to the U.S. Department of State protesting
the plan and opened an investigation
into the mayor’s actions. The State Department has not yet ruled on whether it
will resettle refugees in Rutland despite the aldermen’s protest.
Handwritten notes state that the
issue was, “Not what can ‘we’ do for ‘them,’ but what the diversity, cultural
richness do for the community.” The documents contain detailed
discussions of what Rutland will need to provide for the refugees – including
housing, jobs, medical care, and places for worship.
Judicial Watch received the
documents in
response to a Vermont
Public Records Law request to the office of Mayor Christopher Louras.
Merdzanovic later told the Boston
Globe that the hidden talks were “the right thing to do — to move
slowly, keep it to a small circle of people, and then expand.”
Yes, the “right thing to do” – to conform to
Clinton’s proposed policy of keeping “everyday Americans”
“unaware
and compliant.” But Rutland’s citizens are not complying and they are
definitely “aware.”
One can only wonder who are the true enemies
of the country: Muslims and their hostile ideology, or government officials on
various levels throughout the country and the MSM in collusion with the federal
(feral?) government , right down to small town mayors?
October 11, 2016
A Guest Post: Islamization Planned
Some of the
bravest and most knowledgeable critics of the stealthy Islamization of the West
happen to be women: Pamela Geller, Clare Lopez, Miriam Shaded, and Machteld
Zee, to name but a few. This post will feature Zee’s discoveries and conclusions
about how Islamization is carried out in Sharia courts, without anyone else hearing
anything about it.
The Gates of Vienna (GoV) is one of the few
sites that reports on what is happening in Europe, and often runs first-hand
essays and observations of the turmoil on the Continent. For example, it
published an interview of Machteld
Zee, a Dutch political scientist who gained an inside panorama of the
workings of Sharia courts. Zee is with the University of Leiden, in The
Netherlands. I republish the whole interview here because it would be
fruitless, and something of an injustice, to slice it up for personal
commentary. My own comments are reserved for the illustrations.
The British
Independent in December 2014 ran a long article on British Sharia courts based
on Machteld Zee’s observations, “Sharia in the UK: The courts in the shadow of
British law offering rough justice for Muslim women.” The article
notes that:
Sharia
law is the Islamic legal system, derived from the Koran and the rulings of
Islamic scholars, known as fatwas. As
well as providing a code for living – including prayers, fasting and donations
to the poor – Sharia also lays down punishments as extreme as cutting off a
hand or death by stoning for adultery.
Critics
of Sharia law – such as Ms Zee, after conducting her research – say it
downgrades women and is incompatible with European human rights legislation.
Men need only say the word to have a religious divorce (uttering “I divorce
you” three times), but women need the sanction of clerics. Without it, they
risk being called adulterers if they do remarry.
And also notes about Zee:
Her
book Choosing Sharia? is based on the 15 hours of cases that she saw at
the council in London and another at Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia Council,
alongside her extensive research into Sharia law and other reports on Sharia
councils. She also investigated the Jewish Beth Din religious court, where she
interviewed two judges.
Ms
Zee’s analysis is blistering: these courts all treat women as less than equal
and are incompatible with human rights law.
The notion of “human
rights” has always been a fuzzy, woozy one that includes collectivist,
state-originated “rights” which contradict individual rights. It is not based
on any exact definition or perception of men or “human beings.” It virtually
excludes the role of volition.
That qualifier
being registered for the record, here is what GoV published.
_______________________________________________________________________________
A young Dutch political scientist is causing consternation
among the bien-pensants of the
multicultural Left in the Netherlands with her analyses of Islamization. Her
impeccable liberal background and credentials make it more difficult for the
establishment to discredit her.
Dr. Van Helsing has translated an interview with this
iconoclastic young woman. He includes this introductory note:
Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated Sharia
courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad,
a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.
The interview is relevant for several reasons:
Very few
non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of Sharia courts in the UK.
She has.
The University of
Leiden is fairly high-brow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of
the oldest universities, but also because the heir to the Dutch throne
traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens
Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King
Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her
voice.
She has become a
target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published
her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly,
Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.
The translated interview:
“Islamization
is Planned” Investigating Sharia
The
Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her
book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have
knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’
‘I discovered a comprehensive
system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’
Investigating Sharia
courts
Machteld Zee
(32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied Sharia
courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.
She was one of
the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts.
95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations
resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.
‘If you compare
the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law
school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam
everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands
of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’
Machteld Zee
needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism,
which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On
the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the
multicultural society.
You say
that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace Sharia,
the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful
non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who
don’t want to offend Muslims.
‘Yes, leading multiculturalists
actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it
would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this
an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam
‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.
You
described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation
on Sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a
lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.
‘I discovered a comprehensive
system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our
secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because
their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In
these communities — Muslim communities — Sharia law trumps secular law when it
comes to marriage. Women have to ask a Sharia judge or an imam to dissolve
their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch
Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before Sharia courts. It is a parallel
society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’
You have
analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and
religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of
money from fundamentalist circles. The Sharia courts are part of this project,
you wrote.
‘That is why it is so important
that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were
generally benevolent towards Sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none
of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going
on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by
these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of
domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their
children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning
now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favor
of Sharia courts anymore.’
In your
book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse
within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
‘In the first place, I think I
am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend
to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and
‘Islamize’ Muslim communities; that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact
discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’
How do you
see the future?
‘We will have to act more
defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images
of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just
say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend
our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decide
to abandon the Christmas tree preemptively? Why is alcohol banned in places
where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to
ourselves.’
Do you fear
criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.
‘I don’t experience that when I
speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story.
Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against
representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that
common sense.’
_______________________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately,
the political elites that are enabling the Islamization of the West either lack
“common sense,” or are enemies of it.
Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism,
and Sharia Councils is an expensive title. There is only one edition of it available for
under $100. All the others are priced over $200. I would order a copy of it,
but that is a tat too dear for my budget. Used copies sold by Amazon vendors are more moderately
priced, but still way out of my range.
Choosing
Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic
Fundamentalism & Sharia Councils , by Machteld Zee. Eleven International Publishing (February
23, 2016). 210 pp.
