The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: September 2016

Review: The American Revolution and The Politics of Liberty

It’s interesting that Barack Obama’s newest press
secretary, Josh Earnest, characterized the conflict between ISIS and Obama’s
friendly treatment of ISIS (aka ISIL), a brutal, mass murdering terrorist
organization, as a “war of narratives.” In short, he denigrated any
opposition to ISIS, or any criticism of Obama’s overall pro-Islam policies, as
arbitrary say-so. Doubtless Earnest would also characterize the arguments between
Britain and the colonies in the 18th century as a “war of narratives.”
Pamela Engel, writing for Business
Insider
, wrote on September 19th:
Josh Earnest, the White House press
secretary, told CNN on Monday morning that the US was in a “narrative
fight” with ISIS.
Earnest appeared on the network as
authorities in New York and New Jersey investigated bombs found throughout the
area over the weekend, including one that injured 29 people when it exploded on
Saturday night in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood.
Authorities on Monday morning seemed to be
changing their initial assessment that the bombs weren’t connected to one
another and did not appear to be related to international terrorism.
“What I can tell you is that we are,
when it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight with them, a
narrative battle,” Earnest said, using an alternate name for the terrorist
group, which is also known as the Islamic State or Daesh. “And what ISIL
wants to do is they want to project that they are an organization that is
representing Islam in a fight, in a war against the West and a war against the
United States.”
Earnest continued:
“That is a bankrupt, false narrative. It is a mythology. And we have made
progress in debunking that mythology.”
It is a “bankrupt, false narrative” only in the
minds of Earnest and the rest of the Obama administration. Islam is without a
doubt at war with the West, but the West refuses to acknowledge that
declaration of war. It can’t bring itself to concede that Islam is more a
political ideology than it is a “religion.” The Obama meme is that Islam is
basically a “religion of peace” (continuing the George W. Bush line) that was “hijacked”
by murderous renegades. This is the actual “mythology” that should be
debunked.
But the Obama administration and the MSM and all
their minions will not be persuaded otherwise. It would scuttle their whole
approach to combating Islamic terrorism. They have a vested interest in the
Progressive/Left ideology that defines their world view. They are ideologues
trapped in a locked room in which they go round and round, chasing their own
tails.
Robert H. Webking, author of The
American Revolution and the Politics of Liberty
, contradicts the received wisdom
that the revolutionaries were little more than ideologues who had no
philosophical or moral foundation on which to base their opposition to the
growing expansion of British power over the lives of the American colonists,
and so they declared their independence from Britain more from roiling emotion
than from principle. Webking is a professor of
political science
at the University of Texas at El Paso.
Webking offers illuminating insights into the
writings and thinking of several prominent revolutionaries, all of them “intellectuals”:
James Otis, Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Thomas
Jefferson. Their efforts contributed mightily to the arguments of colonial
churchmen and “activists and to the moral certitude of the “common man.”  
Webking, in his Preface, lays down his plan:
The subject of this book
is the political thought of the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution.
I seek to clarify the arguments about human beings and their governments made
by the most thoughtful and influential of the American revolutionaries to
explain their opposition to the policies of the British government during the
period immediately preceding the American war for independence….The Americans
explained their resistance to the British in principled terms….They claimed
that British actions were not merely unwise or impolitic but fundamentally
wrong and unjust….” (p. ix)
In his Introduction, Webking elaborates on his purpose:
For much of this century
[the 20th] it was the accepted opinion that an examination of the arguments
made by the American revolutionaries would yield no important knowledge. Scholarship
during the first half of this century was dominated by historians who
minimized, if not denigrated, the place of ideas in the genesis of the American
Revolution. Known collectively as the Progressives, these historians turned to
material interests, class structure, property holdings – in general, to
socioeconomic factors – to explain the revolutionaries’ behavior. They believed
that the revolutionaries to have been moved by what was in their pockets, not
by what was in their heads; or rather…they believed that what is in human
beings’ pockets controls what is in their heads.” (p. 1)
 Which is
more than just a Progressive state of mind; it is a Marxist state of mind, pure
and simple. Men’s minds are governed and fashioned by their “class structure”
and “economic circumstances,” not by their independent thoughts, says Marxism. They
cannot “think” or behave otherwise, or think outside the sealed Marxist
envelope. Among other chalk marks against Marxism, is its denial of human
volition. Marxism is a philosophy of determinism.
Webking exposes the Progressive determinist
premises of such prominent historians as Bernard Bailyn, author of one seminal
work, The
Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, 1967):
Insofar as Bailyn is
unclear as to what he means by the ideology of the Americans, he has left
unanswered a serious question about the causes and rationality, of the American
Revolution. There is, however, much evidence in his work to suggest the
question. And the evidence suggests that Bailyn’s contention is precisely this:
the revolutionary Americans were acting in irrational ways because they were
determined to do so by an ideological paranoia that gripped them and left them
incapable of both of perceiving political reality and of acting politically
like rational human beings.” (p. 7)
Webking notes:
Of course it would be
possible for men driven by ideology to attempt to appear rational and prudent
by using language they didn’t mean or by uttering prescriptions they never
genuinely followed. Still, the Declaration [of Independence] does suggest that
the leaders of the Revolution were moved more by rational calculation and less
by irrational ideology than Bailyn concludes. (p. 11)

Bust of Patrick Henry in the Virginia State

Capitol, Richmond, by
William F. Sievers
The Declaration of Independence is the culmination
and high point of Western Enlightenment thought about liberty and political
freedom. It is certainly more than mere “rational calculation.”
Webking emphasizes that the first great
intellectual leader of the Americans during the period preceding the Revolution
was James Otis of Massachusetts. Otis, in 1761, argued that the British “writs
of assistance,” which allowed customs officials to search “wherever and
whomever” they chose to search property to enforce British anti-smuggling
efforts. (p. 16). Webking quotes extensively from Otis’s pamphlet, The
Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved
(1764).
Otis closes his
introduction with two long quotations from [John] Locke’s Second Treatise of
Civil Government
confirming the conclusion that the people have “a
supreme power to remove, or alter, the legislative when they find the
legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.
” (p. 23)  
Webking moves up the hierarchy of intellectual
leadership to Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and
Thomas Jefferson, with an explication of each leader’s contribution to the intellectual
and moral foundation of the Revolution. Henry, who was regarded in his time by
many of his contemporaries as a crude country bumpkin, was actually better read
in the classics and in the political science of the time than most would credit
him for. His extensive “self-education” allowed him to author the Virginia Resolves,
which denied Parliament the right to tax the colonists without their consent. In
May of 1765 he rose in the House of Burgesses, Virginia, and stunned the body
with his oratory and rational arguments against the Stamp Tax. Webking writes:

A copy of the Sievers bust of Henry,

at Red Hill, Virginia, Henry’s last home.


It is unfortunate that
Patrick Henry’s speech…to persuade its members to adopt the resolves was not
preserved. However, it was not the speech that actually passed the House of
Burgesses but the resolves as published in the papers [throughout the colonies]
that stirred resistance to the Stamp Act…(pp. 31-32)
In Book Four: Empire, of the Sparrowhawk
series, I dramatize Henry’s speech in the House introducing the resolves. I wrote
speech itself, based on the style of 18th century oratory. Please excuse the
hubris, but I think I captured Henry’s style and character. Here is Henry in
action, towards the end of his introduction of the resolves:
            Henry had removed his hat and handed it again to
Colonel Munford. He took a step away from his seat. “The honorable gentleman
there,” he said, pointing boldly to Peyton Randolph, “spoke now, not of the
rightness or wrongness of the resolve in question, but of ominous consequences,
should this House adopt it. I own that I am perplexed by his attention to what
the Crown can and may do, and by his neglect to speak to the propriety of the
resolve and the impropriety of this Stamp Act. Should he have examined for us
the basis of his fears?  Yes. But, he did
not. Perhaps he concluded that they were too terrible to articulate. So, I
shall examine them, for I believe that he and I share one well-founded
fear:  The power of the Crown to punish
us, to scatter us, to despoil us, for the temerity of asserting in no ambiguous
terms our liberty!  I fear
that power no less than he.  But, I say
that such a fear, of such a power, can move a man to one of two courses. He can
make a compact with that power, one of mutual accommodation, so that he
may live the balance of his years in the shadow of that power, ever-trembling
in soul-dulling funk lest that power rob him once again.
            “Or – he can rise up, and to that power say ‘No!
to that power proclaim: ‘Liberty cannot, and will not, ever accommodate
tyranny!  I am wise to that Faustian
bargain, and will not barter piecemeal or in whole my liberty!’”
            Henry folded his arms and surveyed the rows of
stony-faced members across the floor. “Why are you gentlemen so fearful of that
word?” he demanded. “Why have not one of you dared pronounce it?  Is it because you believe that if it is not
spoken, or its fact or action in any form not acknowledged, it will not be what
it is? Well, I will speak it for you and for all this colony to
hear!”  His arms dropped, but the left
rose again, and he shouted, stabbing the air with a fist, “Tyranny! Tyranny!
Tyranny!
  The arm dropped again.
“There!  The horror is named!”
            Henry wandered back in the direction of his seat,
though his contemptuous glance did not leave the men on the opposition benches.
“You gentlemen, you have amassed vast, stately libraries from which you seem to
be reluctant to cull or retain much wisdom. Know that I, too, have books, and that
they are loose and dog-eared from my having read them, and I have profited from
that habit.”  His voice now rose to a
pitch that seemed to shatter the air. “History is rife with instances of
ambitious, grasping tyranny! Like many of you, I, too, have read that in the
past, the tyrants Tarquin and Julius Caesar each had his Brutus, Catline had
his Cicero and Cato, and, closer to our time, Charles had his Cromwell!  George the Third may – “
            The opposition benches exploded in outrage.
Burgesses shot up at the sound of the king’s name, released now from their dumb
silence, and found their argument. They cried to the Speaker, “Treason!”
“Treason!” “Enough! He speaks treason!” “Expel that man!”  “Silence that traitor!” “Stay his tongue!”
“Treason!”
            Speaker Robinson was also on his feet, shaking his
cane at Henry. “Treason, sir! Treason! I warn you, sir! Treason!”
            Henry, determined to finish his sentence, shouted
above the tumult, “ – may George the Third profit by their example!”
        
            Henry stood defiantly, facing his gesturing
accusers, then raised a hand and whipped it through the air in a diagonal swath
that seemed to sweep them all away. “If this be treason, then make the most of
it!” he shouted. He stood for a moment more, then turned and strode back to his
seat. But, he did not sit, for he was not finished.
(pp. 235-238, Book
Four: Empire. Sparrowhawk
)
Webking describes in detail how each of the five
resolves that were passed and promulgated (not by Henry himself) throughout the
colonies was interconnected by unassailable logic to each of the others. (pp.
32-38) Patrick Henry “topped” his speech in the House of Burgesses in his “Give liberty or give
me death
” speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond ten years later.

“Give me liberty, or give me death!”


John Adams, wrote Webking, more or less seconded
Henry’s Richmond speech:
In his attempts to
balance the evil of mob violence with the evil of despotism, Adams ultimately
makes his decision on the basis of the importance of liberty to human beings
and of the seriousness of the threat to liberty presented by the principle of
absolute parliamentary authority. He concludes that to allow a right so
valuable to human beings to be removed without a fight is a greater evil than
the right to fight. He says that in such a fight  the people, even if they lose, cannot be
unsuccessful: “because, even if they live, they can be but slaves, after an
unfortunate effort, and slaves they would have been, if they had not resisted. So
that nothing is lost. If they die, they cannot be said to lose, for death is
better than slavery
. If they succeed, their gains are immense. They preserve
their liberties.” (p. 91, Italics mine.)
Robert Webking’s book is highly recommended to
anyone wanting to grasp how “intellectual” were the founders and the basic
principles on which they argued for liberty. Unlike today’s political
establishment, they did not argue as fatuous ideologues who cannot or refuse to
explain why Americans must become slaves or wards of the state or deferential
lackeys of the political elite (and I include in that condemnation the Left and
the Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives). This is the tactic of the
enemies of freedom today. Their purpose is to de-legitimatize this country’s
founding principles. They can only snort, smirk, and sneer at those principles.
The American revolutionaries
were not engaged in a pathetic non-intellectual “war of narratives” with
their enemies. Webking ends his book with this observation:
The leaders of the American
Revolution argued, worked, and fought for peace, stability, and, most
important, for liberty. The study of their revolution is the study of the
rational pursuit of human liberty. (175)
The
American Revolution and the Politics of Liberty
, by Robert H. Webking. LSU Press, 1989. 181 pages.

A Stew Pot of Notable News

You can tolerate a little rape, can’t you? Start tolerance!

I could not pass this up. It is one
of the dumbest, most politically correct, and insulting pro-immigration ads
that has passed my desk. It
has appeared on German TV. Paul Joseph Watson reports on Infowars:

A television ad currently
airing in Germany invites blonde-haired, blue-eyed women to embrace “tolerance”
by wearing the Muslim hijab head dress.
The commercial begins with the text “Turkish women wear the
hijab,” as a veiled woman is seen with her back to the camera.
However, when she turns around it immediately becomes clear
that the woman is a white, blonde-haired German, before she states, “Me too!
It’s beautiful!”
“Enjoy difference – start tolerance,” states the woman.
The campaign is
funded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
as well as German taxpayers, who are forced to obtain a state television
license or face prison time.
Instead of reversing its suicidal
immigration policy, it appears as though Germany is now encouraging its female
population to avoid the mass sex
assaults committed by Muslim migrants
in numerous major cities by
submitting to Islam and covering themselves up.
The
outfit worn by the model is about as Sharia compliant as a Halloween gypsy
costume you might see at a college sorority party. Frankly, it is quite
fetching.  It is distinctly not Turkish or any style resembling
approved Islamic norms. The woman is not
wearing a hair-covering hijab. It is definitely an invitation to rape, as she
is decidedly “uncovered meat,” to judge by Sharia measures of “modesty.”
 If any woman appeared in Germany (or in
France, or in Sweden, or in  any Muslim conquered
or invaded Continental country) in that kind of outfit she would be immediately
surrounded by Muslim men, groped, and thrown to the ground and given the Lara
Logan Cairo treatment. The costume would be ripped from her body. Then she
could “enjoy the difference” and do her bit in “enjoying tolerance.” Right? If
she complained, she could be punished by Merkel’s tolerance police and accused
of “racism” or “Islamophobia.” “You did not start tolerance!” they’d shout.
You
have to ask yourself what possessed the minds of the producers of the ad to
turn out such a putrid piece of propaganda. Well, it could not have been
sanity. Speaking of Turkish dress, Turks in Germany are especially brutal as
they like to disfigure their European victims after the gang rapes. I’ve only
seen Turkish belly dancers so attired in movies.
Please
note that it is not Muslims or any of those Muslim male adult “refugees” who
are being asked to “start tolerance,” although they may, as criminals, “enjoy
the difference” in the act of sexual assault. It is German women who are being
urged to submit to Islam by voluntarily covering themselves up and staying out
of sight. I would be as welcome to an Obama or Hillary Clinton rally dressed as
Uncle Sam or sporting a “Make America Great Again” cap. A German woman would stand
a similar chance of non-molestation in any Muslim “no-go” neighborhood. I’d be
beaten up by #Never Trump morons and social justice warrior thugs.
On
another front, “refugee” champion George Clooney, who owns about a dozen
million-dollar mansions around the world, including at Lake Como, Italy, is
reluctant to allow migrants anywhere near that personal refuge from reality. As
with other members of the establishment “elite,” Clooney wishes to insulate himself
from the destructive consequences of his policies. Dealing with the rapes,
robberies, and other culturally “enriching” habits of savages is not for him,
just for the hoi polloi, otherwise
known as the “deplorables.” Hillary Clinton unintentionally handed Donald Trump
the perfect meme by calling his supporters “a basket case of deplorables.”
Tolerance for thee, but not for me.

Breitbart
reported on July 13th:
The migration
of hundreds of people from Arab nations, Africa, and Asia was triggered
following the Swiss government’s decision to close its southern
border with Italy.
Now, waiting for smugglers to lead them into northern Europe,
groups of migrants are camping out in tattered tents around the Lake
Como resort.
Flimsy dwellings, clothes and trash are scattered
around the Northern Italian town’s railway station, where dozens of new
families and refugees have flocked….
The migrant camp
is, oddly enough, just steps away from the front door of
immigration activists’ George and Amal Clooney’s multi-million
dollar lakeside mansion in Lake Como, according to the Daily Mail.
The couple was
recently pictured drinking tequila while watching fireworks on
a boat near the property alongside their close friend Bill Murray.
The Clooneys have
taken refuge from the Hollywood spotlight in their summer home in Italy for
years. Last year, Page Six reported that Clooney was mulling putting his Lake
Como villa on the market due to ever-present and intrusive paparazzi.
It is unclear if
the recent deluge of refugees pouring into town will have an affect on
Clooney’s decision to sell or not.
The
power couple has spent some time talking about the migrant crisis. The Clooneys met privately with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in
February and praised and thanked her for her leadership during the crisis….
George has
previously described Trump as a “xenophobic fascist” who wants to “ban Muslims from the
country.”
I
guess Clooney is hoping we don’t label him as a “xenophobic fascist,” as well, for
thinking about selling his Lake Como mansion to put some distance between him
and his adopted “children.” No, we won’t call him that. Instead, we’ll call him
a hypocritical pull-peddler and social justice warrior who is reluctant to rub
shoulders with the “refugees” or risk having Amal groped or worse by other
culture “enrichers.”  
Amal Clooney, the
British-Lebanese human rights attorney who married George in 2014, slammed Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald
Trump this past April, saying his immigration stance and promise to build a
wall on the Mexican border do not represent “U.S. values.”
George and Amal know
as much about “U.S. values” as I do about phrenology or dialectical materialism.
We, the MSM, don’t need no stinkin’ objectivity!
That
also goes for the MSM. It has abandoned all pretense of reporting any news concerning
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and adopted a “what we say goes” philosophy of
slander and puffery. It may not pass as “truth,” but who’s to say what truth
is? It’s whatever we want it to be, and if you don’t believe it then you’re a
racist, xenophobic, anti-Islam pig. Never mind that Hillary is sodden with
corruption, chargeable felonious offenses, and treason, we, the MSM, believe
she knows all about “U.S. values” and we want this beast to sit in the White
House and guide this country to the oblivion it so richly deserves, to continue
the destruction implemented by Barack Obama. We stick our tongues out at
objectivity and truth.
Justin
Raimondo of the LA Times reported in his August 2nd article, “To
fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectiviity
.”  He asks:
Why
are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?
This
transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television
media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate
coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has
long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem
to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a
major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess
events rationally….
To
take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the
Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s
computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s
staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to
commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump
was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her
unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her
yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing
them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically.
A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly
reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that
“the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct
cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to
conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?
Polls
shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country,
and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread
slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire.
Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If
journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves
covering Trump’s inauguration.
Raimondo
concludes that his local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, “is  clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton,” and
that can be said as well for the rest of the MSM.
Sheep that could not recite the Shahada, had its throat cut.
In
the meantime, Barack Obama wants us all to “enjoy the difference” and help Muslims
in America celebrate Eid
al-Adha
, the “holiday” when Muslims butcher animals by slitting their
throats and letting them bleed to death in agony. It’s a religion, don’t you
see? It’s halal. It’s culturally “enriching.”
He
said, on September
12th
, to help “commemorate” 9/11:
“We
are reminded of the millions of refugees around the globe who are spending this
sacred holiday separated from their families, unsure of their future, but still
hoping for a brighter tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “And as a
nation, we remain committed to welcoming the stranger with empathy and an open
heart — from the refugee who flees war-torn lands to the immigrant who leaves
home in search of a better life.”
Eid al-Adha, also
known as the Festival of the Sacrifice, began Sunday night and ends Thursday
night.
I
wonder who really wrote that. Angela Merkel? George Clooney? Hillary Clinton?
Loretta Lynch? You see, there is no difference between halal butchery of animals and what ISIS and other Islamic Justice
Warriors have done to or wish to do to all Jews and infidels: slit their
throats and let them bleed to death. 
Remember how the stewardesses and pilots
of the 9/11 planes died with those boxcutters? That’s halal.

How to Celebrate Islamic Eid

A “festival” of slaughter, or sacrifice, halal style, not necessarily limited to
livestock by bleeding them to death, but is often practiced on infidels
Here are some
excerpts from The Black Stone, a detective novel set in 1930 San Francisco, in
which the hero, Cyrus Skeen, discovers the bizarre, brutal, and murderous
nature of Islam. The volume of information available to us today about Islam did
not exist in 1930. But what he was able to find caused him, his wife, Dilys,
and Mickey Kane, a top rank newspaper reporter, to make disbelieving, defamatory,
and wonderfully blasphemous remarks about Islam. Skeen is investigating the
horrendous murders of a young Jewish girl and a newspaper reporter who had
stolen the “Black Stone” of the Kaaba. He is pursued and murdered by members of
The Muslim Brotherhood. Skeen encounters an agent of the Brotherhood, and deals
with him in his typical no-nonsense style. He discovers another murder in his
own office building. Enjoy the excerpts.
Cover Illustration: 
Leader of Ikhwan Sultan bin bajad Al-Otaibi, who allied himself
and his tribe with the Sauds to conquer the Arabian Peninsula. The Sauds
did not wage war against the Ottomans, but sat out WWI sipping tea with
the British. The Sauds are erroneously depicted in David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia as following Lawrence to attack and slaughter a Turkish column.

___________________________________________________________________
 
“You go
ahead,” said Skeen when they returned two hours later. They stood outside
their bedroom door. “I want to look up something. It’s something Professor
Lerner mentioned. It won’t take a moment.” 
“Don’t be
long, Cyrus. You look tired in spite of your energy.”
In his study, he
consulted his several sets of encyclopedias for information on Islam. None was
to be found in the Funk & Wagnall’s,
nor in the Collier’s. There was some
information on mosques and something called the Kaaba in Mecca in the twenty-volume
New International Encyclopedia. All
the articles he was able to find referred to Moslems as
“Mohammedans.”
He was up until
two o’clock. He closed the last volume, yawned and stretched his arms. He had
acquired some basic information about Islam from the articles, but not nearly
enough to satisfy his appetite or his curiosity. He would be taking the roaster
back out tomorrow after all, to the library and some book shops. He switched
off the desk lamp and went to the bedroom…..
“Did you know,”
Skeen asked casually over breakfast the next morning, “that Mohammedans,
when they go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, must walk counter-clockwise around the
Kaaba seven times, and run between some hills looking for water, and perform a
schedule of other rituals, all designed to make them feel like silly, worthless
asses?”
 “Kaaba?” asked Dilys, who was paying
only half attention to her husband. “Sounds like a Greek dish, smothered
in the finest feta cheese sauce, and best served with ouzo.” She was
reading the morning Observer-World. She had fixed a breakfast of scrambled
eggs, bacon, and toast. Skeen had just poured himself a second coffee and was
on his first cigarette of the day. He was reading from notes he had made last
night in his study and had passed the newspaper over to Dilys.
“The Kaaba,”
read Skeen, “is a cube-like structure smack in the middle of an open-air
mosque about the size of Kezar Stadium, about forty-four feet high and fifty in
length. Other scholars reverse the dimensions. It is built of granite on the
outside, marble on the inside. It sits on a spot, according to Mohammedan lore,
that Allah designated that Adam and Eve should build a temple, or an
altar.” Skeen paused. “Of course, that story must have been concocted
after the Kaaba had been a pagan shrine for an undetermined number of centuries,
housing scores of other deities. Allah’s own genealogical antecedents seem to
be rooted in a moon god of fecundity.”
Dilys looked up
from the newspaper. She said, wearing an incredulous but amused frown,
“You’re making that up.”
Skeen chuckled.
“No, I’m not. It’s all in the encyclopedia…”
Skeen smiled
wickedly. “Great material for a stand-up comedy monologue at the Fantasma
Theater.” He went on. “The Kaaba is skirted by an enormous black silk
table cloth, with Koranic verses embroidered in gold, high enough out of reach
of light-fingered pilgrims.” He paused. “Presumably, the roof is
bare, but somehow water-proofed. All in all, the Kaaba that exists today is
just one of several that have been built, destroyed, collapsed by floods,
damaged in war, redesigned, and gussied up ever since it probably began as a
stone shanty erected by heathens thousands of years ago, housing wart-nosed
witches they probably called vestal virgins, visited by decrepit old priests
who performed Masonic-like rites over bowls of foul-smelling incense.”
Dilys chuckled.
“I can just picture it now. Thousands of the heathen votary doing a syncopated
conga around the place to a mad drum beat. Some cranky old priest on the roof with
a megaphone acts as a cheerleader, prompting them to shout en masse some obscene imprecation in Arabic, or whatever they spoke
back then.”
“A very fine
parody, darling,” said Skeen, “worthy of Cecil B. DeMille’s
talents.” He continued reading. “Today, observers write, about one
hundred thousand pilgrims perform the Hajj
annually.”
Dilys looked up
from the newspaper again. “Hodge? As in hodge-podge?”
Skeen shrugged.
“I suppose so. Or perhaps it it’s ‘Hadge,’ as in ‘badge.’ There was no
pronunciation guide in the encyclopedia.” He frowned. “As for Mecca,
historians and cartographers aren’t even sure the place existed when the
alleged prophet, Mohammad, or Muhammad, is said to have graced the Kaaba with
his presence and laid the Black Stone. They think it might have been a
backwater town, a kind of camel stop, noted by Ptolemy, called Macoraba. Which,
in turn, raises a question mark over the existence of Mohammad himself. It’s
all quite hilarious.” Skeen put aside his notes. “And that’s all I
was able to glean from my sources here.” He finished his coffee.
“I’ll be going downtown today to find more books on Islam. Care to come
along…?”
Skeen returned
early in the afternoon with a bag full of books on Islam he had purchased in
two Market Street bookshops. He repaired immediately to his study. Aside from three
recent books on current events in the Middle East, he had bought The Qur’an, by Mirza Abul Fazi, which
featured the text in Arabic and English, and The Holy Qur’an, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, which featured
annotations on the English text. The two other books were Whither Jerusalem? by Hortense Abigail Pickett, a traveler in the
Mideast who taught at Oxford University, about the Jewish-Arab conflicts
beginning in the late 19th century, and two books by H. St. J. B. Philby, The heart of Arabia: a record of travel and exploration, from 1922,
and Arabia of the Wahhabis.,
from 1928, both books published in London by Constable.
Dilys came into the study around midday and
espied the pile of books on Skeen’s desk. “Well,” she said, sitting
on the edge of the desk, “I guess I won’t be seeing much of you today….”
Skeen said, “I’ve been dipping in the Koran.
It’s worse than the Bible in many respects. Utterly schizophrenic in
parts. One moment you’re being urged to behave like St. Francis, and be kind to
all animals, even Jews and other infidels. The next it’s inveighing against
Jews and other infidels, calling for their extermination. It’s beginning to
read like a manual for a career in sadomasochism, authored apparently by a
person currently incarcerated in Sing Sing, and provided with a liberal and
lifetime supply of cannabis or some other hallucinatory pharmaceutical product.
You know, one of those serial killer convicts who finds religion.”
Dilys said, “Surely you’re
exaggerating.”
Skeen shook his head. “Remember that my
sole encounters with Islam in the past were two of Mr. Winston Churchill’s
books about his experiences in the Sudan and the Northern Frontier in which he
describes Moslems, or Mohammedans, or Muslims and their practices and
fanaticism, then my declining an invitation to join the Ancient Arabic Order of
the Noble Shrine last year – can you picture me wearing a red fez decorated
with mystical symbols? – “
Skeen obliged. “In the one Philby book I
discovered the Saudi Ikhwan – “
“The icky one?” asked Dilys, pausing
to scrutinize her husband’s face for a moment.
“The Ikhwan,” repeated Skeen,
spelling the term. “Plural for Moslem ‘brothers.’ Tribal allies of this
Saudi king. They’re Wahhabists, sticklers for pure Islam.”
Again, Dilys looked incredulous.
“Wahhabists? As in the Wabash River? Or should it be the Swanee?”
“No, not quite. I’m not sure of how to
pronounce it, either. Say! I think I’ll use that phrase of yours the next time
anyone asks me about the Ikhwan.”
“What phrase?”
“The icky ones.”
Dilys shrugged. “I thought that was what
you said. You’re welcome to it.”
“According to Philby and Picket, they’re
first-class throat cutters. Very similar to the Thugees of India.” Skeen
chuckled. “That would be a sight. Allah versus Kali. More interesting than
both Dempsey-Tunney fights. Kali, you see, would have twice the punching power.”
“Why?”
“She’d have four arms. She could deliver
a double sucker punch. I wouldn’t put my money on Allah.”
“I’m not a betting woman….”
Kane made a face.
“But, what’s with this blasphemer stuff? What do you think that’s all
about?”
Skeen took a deep
draught on his cigarette. “I have a hypothesis, but first, I put the
question to you: What kinds of people would resort to murder in the name of
their religion?”
Kane shrugged.
“Klansmen? Really wicked Bible Belters? Evil Evangelicals? Babbling
Baptists? Recidivist Revivalists?” He paused to wag a finger. “And it
wasn’t just murder, Skeen. Dwyer was tortured while he was strapped to that
chair. There were cigarette burns and knife cuts all over his torso, and on his
face. There was a cigarette butt in one of his eye sockets.” He paused
again. “And his hands had been cut off, too. I saw the police photos. Getz
saw them, too, but didn’t mention any of that in his article, just the head in
the wash basin. He said Bauer, our editor-in-chief, said there was a limit to
describing murders for the public.”
Kane finished his
sandwich last, and went for another coffee. When he returned, he asked Skeen,
“So, fill me in on these Mummers.”
Skeen chuckled.
“Mohammedans. Or Moslems. You can look up all the variations at the
library.” He lit a cigarette and briefly described Islam and its fundamental
tenets and rules.
Kane looked
incredulous, but he believed what Skeen had told him. “What a bunch of
crackers!” he said. “Do these guys also speak in tongues, and roll on
the ground, and foam at the mouth?”
“They
probably speak Arabic, for starters. At least, that’s what the Koran is written in, although there’s
evidence it was originally penned in Aramaic. They pray five times a day, on
their hands and knees, and bang their foreheads on the ground or floor. As for
foaming at the mouth, that seems to happen when they’re on the warpath, or
beating their wives, or cutting men’s throats.”
“And this
Catawba in Mecca, these pilgrims run around it seven times and kiss something
called the Black Stone? Is that anything like the Blarney Stone? You kiss it
and you’re given the gift of gab?”
Skeen chuckled
again. Kane was just as amusing as was Dilys. “It’s the Kaaba, and I don’t
know of any purpose in kissing the Stone, other than to prove you have a rock
fetish, are not a little addled, and wish to be in the company of a multitude
of fools.”
“Do you
think any of these Catawbans live here?”
Skeen shook his
head. “It’s doubtful.”
“That Hajj pilgrimage you described: It sounds
like one long college fraternity initiation.” Kane sighed. “Well, I
think I’ll read up on this gang, too. Library, here I come.” He put out
his Lucky Strike. “But where can you take it from here? What can you do
about it? I mean, suppose it wasn’t a genuine Catawban who killed the Lerner
girl and Dwyer, but someone who wants everyone to think it was…?”
The hallway on
the thirteenth floor was usually quiet. This evening, there were more visitors
than usual. The line of frosted glass doors identified an insurance office, a
dentist, a personal injury law office, and, at the very end, a literary agency.
Skeen was only acquainted with the tenants. He had never exchanged more than
ten words with any one of them.
 As he approached the elevators, three people
stepped into the cab. The elevator operator closed the doors immediately. A
woman came out of the law office, shouting “Hold it, please!” but she
was too late. She pressed a button and stood waiting. As Skeen approached, she
turned to look to her left. Hearing Skeen, she glanced at him and said,
“There’s something wrong with that man down there. He must be having a
conniption fit.”
Skeen sighed. It
was probably Mr. Schupe, whom he had left at the elevator to wait for a ride.
He must have been sicker than he realized.
He crooked his
head to look past the woman. He saw a man in a blue suit on his hands and knees
on a gray spread of cloth, bowing and muttering to himself, and performing
other supplicating motions with his hands. Then he bowed completely and banged
his head on the floor three times. His overcoat, shoes and socks lay to the
side of the cloth.
“What the
hell?” he thought at first. Then he realized what was happening and what
the man was doing. What startled him were the red streaks on the side of the
man’s face he could see.
He raced back
down to his office, causing Clara to jump out of her chair. Dropping his
briefcase on her desk, he rushed to his office, quickly unlocked a desk drawer,
and took out a Colt revolver.
Checking the
cylinders and thumbing off the safety as he ran back out past an alarmed Clara,
he saw that the man was still performing his ritual. The woman at the elevator
frowned and spotted Skeen’s revolver. She screamed.
The man at the
end of the hallway looked up to face Skeen, who had slowed to a quick walk, the
Colt at his side, ready.
The man’s face
was a swarthy tan and pockmarked. He had black hair, a black moustache, and
black marble eyes. The eyes glared back at Skeen.
His face also
bore the scabs of many scratches, on the cheeks and neck and around the eyes,
evidence of recent wounds that were healing too slowly.
Skeen raised the
Colt. “Hands up, mister!”
Instead, the man
rose to his full height and spat on the floor with contempt. His face wrinkled
into one of unmistakable malice. He reached into his coat and drew out a
bloodstained dagger. Raising it high in the air, he cried, “Alluha Akbar!” and charged Skeen,
his bare feet slapping on the marble tile.
Skeen fired and
hit one of the man’s left kneecap.
The man cried
once and instantly collapsed to the floor. But he raised himself to one knee
and tried to hobble towards Skeen, his dagger raised again over his head.
Skeen fired at
the man’s dagger wrist. The wrist jerked back and the dagger flew out of his
hand and landed with a clatter in front of the insurance office door.
With his other
hand, the man clasped his injured wrist. But he still tried to move towards
Skeen, shouting indecipherable imprecations at the top of his lungs, staring up
at Skeen with indescribable hatred.
“Oh, be
quiet!” said Skeen, who thumbed on the safety, gripped the Colt by the
barrel, and pistol-whipped the man on his skull.
The man’s eyes
closed and he fell unconscious, his forehead striking the tile in front of him.
White froth oozed from his lips….
It was a one-room
office. Skeen saw a desk, bookcases, and tables with piles of manuscripts. In
the rear were a coffee table and two plush armchairs on a modish carpet. Next
to a couch was a stand holding a coffee urn. Nothing seemed to have been
disturbed.
Judith Juliette
was a thin, fiftyish woman with black hair that was turning silver. She and
Skeen had exchanged the usual morning and evening greetings when they
encountered each other in the hallway or in the building lobby.
Now she lay on
the floor in back of her desk, her mouth open with a curled up sheet of paper clenched
between her teeth. She had apparently been gagged with a woolen scarf, which now
covered her eyes. Her throat had been cut, as well as her wrists, and her face
had been beaten to a pulp. Her blouse had been ripped open, and her bra
removed. Slashes and gashes were all that were left of her breasts and chest.
She had not been raped. Her skirt still covered her legs. Skeen bent and moved
the scarf from the woman’s eyes. They had not been gouged out, but stared back
up at him in frozen agony. He gently closed them.
Skeen rose and
fought an urge to be sick.
Instead, he bent
and pulled the sheet of paper from the woman’s mouth and opened it. In
primitive lower case letters, it read: ded
ju bitsh. alluha akber
. It had been scrawled on the back of a blank memo. 

__________________________________________________________________

Marcus
Vipsanius Agrippa (
64/62
BC – 12 BC), Roman statesman, general, and architect, Louvre, Paris; resembles
Cyrus Skeen, according to Dilys, his wife, who owns a copy of the bust.

A Halloween Special

They’ll come knocking on your door soon in various
costumes, some of them downright scary. They’re not kiddies, but full grown
adults, and if you don’t give them what they want, they’ll do worse than soap
your door or lather your car in shaving cream or “key” your car’s finish. They have
much, much worse in mind. They’ll seize your house, or burn it down with you in
it.
A Halloween mask that should be found in Walmart
You all recognize his decaying, decrepit visage,
don’t you? It’s the kind of face you’d encounter if you opened a coffin after
it had been sitting in the sun for two or three days. Or for a week. Of course,
it’s George
Soros
, the man(?) who wants to see Israel reduced to ashes and overrun by
Palestinian Muslim savages, America reduced to the status of Sweden, France,
and Germany (also overrun by Muslim savages), America’s white population
whipped into chattel slavery, the global economy run by his statist,
mercantilist rules, who has proposed that the Internet
be closed to anyone who questions
his Marxist agenda for an “open society”,
a man[?] whose “best years” of his life were when he was helping the Nazis
steal other Hungarian Jews’ property, who wants to remake the world in his own “Dorian
Gray” image. He is a creature whose blood must not be red, but rather greenish
black bile.
“If truth be known, I
carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood,”
fantasies which “I wanted to indulge … to the extent that I could afford. (
George Soros, Underwriting Democracy,
p. 3)
Soros today recalls the
German occupation of Hungary as “probably the happiest years of my life.” (Michael
Lewis, “The Speculator,” New Republic (January 10-17, 1994)
“I realized [as a young
man] that it’s money that makes the world go round,” says Soros, “so I might as
well make money.… But having made it, I could then indulge my social concerns.”
Invariably, those concerns center around a desire to change the world
generally—and America particularly—into something new, something consistent
with his vision of “social justice.” (Faisal Islam, “Rich Man, Wise Man” (Observer:
March 10, 2002)
This man(?) holds such a depth of malice for America
and the West that he’d rather see them  destroyed, and he has poured most of his ill-gotten
gains into ensuring that this comes about. His “Open Society” Foundation is surely
a glaring misnomer, for it advocates anything but an “open society,” but rather
a society closed to individualism, national sovereignty, and laissez faire.
About Soros’s Open
Society Foundation
The term “open society”
had been originally coined in 1932 by the French philosopher Henri Louis
Bergson, to describe societies whose moral codes were founded upon “universal”
principles seeking to enhance the welfare of all mankind—as opposed to “closed”
societies that placed self-interest above any concern for other nations and
cultures. [Philosopher Karl] Popper readily embraced this concept and expanded
upon it. In his view, the open society was a place that permitted its citizens
the right to criticize and change its institutions as they saw fit; he rejected
the imposed intellectual conformity, central planning, and historical
determinism of Marxist doctrine.
Soros’s “open society,” however, in all its
manifestations, would be a suffocating straightjacket of intellectual
conformity (political correctness), central planning (Soviet or Nazi or Obama style),
and the government-mob organized hounding of anyone who criticized or
threatened the statist status quo. (See the vitriolic opposition to Donald
Trump’s presidential candidacy by the intellectual class, the MSM, and the
#NeverTrump Republicans, for a taste of how “open” that kind of society can be.)
Soon she will be as ugly as her America-hating mother.
Huma
Abedin
is The Muslim
Brotherhood’s
“inside man” in American government and especially in Hillary
Clinton’s career in Washington. What would Huma Abedin look like without
undergoing a total Vanity
Fair
make-over and being subjected to all of Hollywood’s cosmetic special
effects arts to make her presentable to the public? Nothing, I think, you would
want to wake up next to in the morning. Unless you were Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s “confidante” and political gadfly has been a permanent presence in
the Clinton claque for years. She has no security clearance whatsoever, it
having been waived at the insistence of Clinton. See my article, “Huma Abedin”
on Rule of Reason from February 2016, “Huma
Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam
.”
Would like to be appointed to the Supreme Court
Barack Obama needs no introduction here. His record
of destruction
of this country is “legend.”
Shall we name the ways: ObamaCare, unrestricted immigration of the cultural and
political enemies of this country to bolster the Democrats, a refusal to credit
Islam for the horrendous terrorist attacks world-wide and in this country, the
destruction of our military, the destruction of the coal industry, his numerous
crony capitalist scandals
and failure
, and on and on. Quite a “legacy” of sticking it to the country
in the name of Saul Alinsky.
Cackle, cackle! Cough! Cough!
There is Hillary Clinton, another wicked witch,
another protégé of Alinsky, who promises to complete the nihilist work begun by
Obama. She can’t wait to get her hands on the country. Among her first
priorities as “president” will be the shutting
down or shackling
of the Internet and anyone in it who objects to her
policies which would also complement her dedication to Sharia
law
. She hosted an OIC
conference
. This comports well with the Soros proposal to close the
Internet to all but supporters of the “closed society.”
Let us now turn to a bigger band of Halloween
tricksters and treaters: the MSM. While the new thug/killer of The
Walking Dead
, Negan, has become the preferred bête noire of the
series.
I think I’ve figured
out why the MSM is smitten with Hillary; it’s the same reason why Negan’s
minions obey

Hillary’s alter ego: Negan of The Walking Dead


him, although he’s armed with only a baseball bat and most of his
followers are armed with automatic weapons any one of which could cut him to
pieces. No one dares oppose him. It’s
because they like it that way, they can live with subservience
. Freedom is
an anathema to them. They’d rather be told what to do, and why, they’d rather
be psychologically and physically subservient to a tyrant, even though they
have full knowledge of Hillary’s crimes, misdemeanors and treason. They’re
comfortable with it. Turning Negan away from your door and not giving him any
candy (which he’s already claimed as not yours anymore can earn you an instant
bashing of your head with his
baseball bat
, questioning the ends and means and character of Hillary
Clinton will earn you a similar fate: the end of your career, your financial
ruin, banishment from journalism, perhaps even an untimely death
(there have been precedents
of the latter punishment
).

Kowtowing to Negan
has the same mental roots as kowtowing to Hillary.
They’re comfortable in the proximity of evil
Take a look at this
photo of the U.S. press adoring Hillary on her new campaign plane. Is this not
frightening? These are not only adults, but “journalists.” Do not these bobble
heads fit the psychological profile of cultists? Are they not in ecstatic
thrall to the very symbol of evil? The apotheosis
of evil and unmitigated corruption
– because they “work,” because evil
seems to have more “efficacy” than good? Are they not on the same level as
Negan’s hundreds of gun-toting slaves? Perhaps it’s the prospect of being a new
“insider” or being appointed to Hillary’s cabinet. 
You really want to know what
drives anyone to sell his self-respect. As The Walking Dead’s fan base let its
fascination and obsessions be known to the producers – who have tailored the
new Seasons to these scary preferences – the MSM has let its preferences be
known. Hillary’s and her husband’s crimes roll off their psyches like water off
of a duck. They’re comfortable with it all; it saves them the trouble of moral
judgement and the necessity of having the least fealty to truth and reality.

“To hell with
Hillary’s crimes,” they all chortle. “We want to help make the world as she
envisions it. It’s not right to pass moral judgments on her.”
Happy Halloween!

Why I Fight, Why I Write

The second attack plane approaches.

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, I was in the front
office of a Newport News, Virginia, insurance broker, where I was employed,
when a woman from another firm rushed in through the front door and asked,
breathlessly, “Do you have a TV or a radio? There’s something big going on!”
One of my coworkers had a radio but there was nothing “big” being reported on
it. There was, however, a TV in the conference room. We turned it on to be
greeted by shocking footage of one of the World Trade Center towers wrapped in
smoke. A plane had crashed into it. As we watched a second plan ploughed into
the second tower. The newscaster announced, almost as though the words were
escaping his mouth against his will, “It seems we’re under attack!”

Now, at the time I had just signed a book contract for the Sparrowhawk historical series, which
dramatizes why the American Revolution happened.  It was not yet finished. The rest of the
series had yet to be written. I had invested twelve years of my life in
researching and writing it, and would invest three more, all the time without
much hope of finding a publisher. But I’d found one. I knew instinctively that
this event would change things in this country and around the world. As the
details poured into the news, I just assumed that the book project would be
cancelled, just when I’d succeeded in accomplishing the impossible. That day, I
could no longer work. I went outside, sat on the parking lot curb, and cried. I
left the office and drove home, to Yorktown, sobbing as I drove. When I got
home, the landlord’s TV was full of more details, showing the collapse of the
first tower, and later, the collapse of the second. Horrendous casualties were
reported, thousands of people perished.  Cameras caught people jumping to their deaths
from eighty floors rather than be burnt or roasted alive by the fierce heat. The
various newscasters began to repeat the appraisal that this was worse than was
the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941
The complete collapse of the World Trade Center

.

When I trusted myself to speak without breaking down again,
I went to my apartment next door and called the publisher in San Francisco. I
asked if, in lieu of this calamitous event, the Sparrowhawk series would still be published. Without missing a beat
the publisher calmly and emphatically answered, “Yes!” and that it would debut
on schedule. And indeed, Book One: Jack
Frake
of the series appeared in 2002. I finished the series, and by 2007
the whole series had been published, and to better reviews than I had expected. 
I thought then – and I still think so – that Americans would
need the series more than ever given what was now being accepted as a
deliberate attack on this country. They would need to know where this country
came from and where it could go from here. The 9/11 attack on this country was
a personal attack on me, on my values, on my life. I will never change that
appraisal.  The attack was a statement that
could not be misunderstood  – except by those
whose first reaction was to blame America and to treat Islam as a wronged “victim,”
– and that statement was: We hate you,
and will conquer or destroy you!
 We hate you, we envy you, and our souls are
nothing but bile. You love life, we love death!
Since then I have written many
more novels, and a political column, Rule
of Reason
,and my own my blog site,
which mirrors Rule of Reason .  I have
devoted nearly two million words to discussing the depredations of Islam and
the peril Islam poses to Western civilization, in addition to the retreat of
our government and most Western governments  as they cravenly retreat from the necessity of
answering Islam’s declaration of war with retaliation. For indeed Islam has
declared war on the West, and this had been going on for decades before 9/11
(remember horrific incidents such as the plane
hijackings of the 1970s
and the Munich
massacre
?)
Sparrowhawk Endures
For as long as I live, I will
never forgive Islam – how does one “forgive” a totalitarian philosophy that
worships death?—and I can only repeat here what Pamela Geller said at a recent anti-Islamization
conference: It’s not the fanaticism of the jihadis that concerns and worries
me, but the unwillingness of our “defenders” to identify the enemy and take the
proper measures to combat and eradicate it.

A Gallery of Gaffes

   “Man,
once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the
most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder,
 is the sport of every wind. With such
persons, gullibility, which they
call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes
 a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson, to
James Smith, December 8, 1822
You ask yourself: Why do the “gullible” make it so easy to mock and ridicule
them? But, then, one could spend a career wondering about the cerebral workings
of our politicians and other notables. Why is a stone so quiet, and inanimate? Because
that’s just the way it behaves, or doesn’t behave.  Here is a selection of memorable gaffes (or lies
masquerading as innocent gaffes or lapses in synaptic activity).
We start with our reality-challenged, addled Secretary of State, John
Kerry, who recently uttered something in Bangladesh that wins some kind of
award for upper class twitism. According to CNS new and other sources, he
opined:

Some men are immune to reason.


Secretary of
State John Kerry said Monday
during an appearance in Bangladesh that the media could “do us all a service”
if they didn’t cover terrorism “quite as much.”
What would he prefer the MSM to cover,
instead of the continued spate of Islamic terrorism? It isn’t as though it
regularly reported the rapes by Muslims in Germany and Sweden, or the numerous
honor killings in Muslim countries, or the number of gays thrown off of roofs
in ISIS territory.    Perhaps
the annual pie-eating contest in Indianapolis? The annual Iditarod race in
Alaska? How about the horrendous murder rates in “gun-controlled” Chicago? Nix
the latter. It would be too much like reporting on Syria.
No country is immune from terrorism,”
Kerry said at a press conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh. “It’s easy to terrorize.
Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist
and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You
can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t
cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”
And that’s okay with Kerry. “Ignorance is
Strength,” don’t you know? What the people don’t know won’t hurt them, until
the next terrorist attack hurts them by the score. This piece of mental gibberish
is in line with the German-Swedish policy of suppressing any news that would
tend to make native Europeans less enthralled with how consistently and ubiquitously
savage their new “refugee” neighbors” are. As the National Review’s Jim
Geragehty
noted on August 30th,
You can’t write satire about this
administration anymore; it’s become too inherently contradictory and absurd.

John Kerry’s alter ego and early mentor

Not even Saturday Night Live could
make up this kind of statement for laughs. It’s too bad Edgar Bergen, the ventriloquist,
isn’t around to create a John Kerry dummy.

And then there’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The FBI has
released
the guts
of its interview with her about all those emails she recklessly
sent and received on her private, rubber-band-and-chewing gum server sitting
atop a commode in the gardener’s restroom, next to the tool shed at her Chappaqua
home
. She confessed or claimed, among other whoppers, that she didn’t know
that the “c” appended to secret information and paragraphs stood for “classified.”
Trey Sanchez of The
Truth Revolt
reported:
Documents
reveal that Clinton, who as secretary of State bypassed her State Department
email and installed a private email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York,
was not aware of the challenges, questions and problems that could result from
a high level U.S. official sidestepping security and archival guidelines.
But they
also show Clinton’s lack of understanding or acknowledgement of basic standards
that govern government officials, especially those with top security
clearances. For instance, she was unaware of what a “c,” short for classified,
meant next to some paragraphs in notes and memos.

Hillary in one of her more lucid moments.

So, what did she think the “c” stood for? Casserole? Chatty Cathy? Caligula?
Constellation?
The aging cow must also suffer from sleep apnea, during which a person
stops breathing, depriving the brain of oxygen. That would help to explain her
foreign policy “triumphs,” repeated deceptions, lies, crimes, and not
remembering what the “c” stood for on classified documents – among her other
observable ailments and black hole size lapses in credibility.

Out of the closet: And I’ll get your piddly 401K, too! 
You can keep the stupid mutt!

Jobs for Syrians, but not for blacks! Gratuitous
cackling.


Finally, there is not-so-well-known Gabby
Aossey, a blogger for the Huffington Post. On May 10th she wrote from her
bubble world called “All Things Bright and Beautiful” that:
Contrary to American popular belief, Islam
has a culture and history of women empowerment. In the Qur’an, which is
believed to be God’s word told to Prophet Muhammad, women and men are described
as equals in everyday actions and responsibilities. When it comes to family,
charity, children, sex, and much more, a man and a woman have the same duties
and that is to continue on the straight path.
Early Islamic women kept this idea alive. The
first Muslim woman was Khadija, Mohammed’s first wife. Without her influence,
Islam might not have emerged as successfully as it did. Khadija was a business
woman and a land owner in the lands of Arabia. When Mohammed was given
revelations, it was Khadija that ensured him that he was not going insane, but
that he was a chosen one. It was Khadija that pushed Mohammed to listen to God
and the angels that were trying to communicate with him and to not run in fear.
It was Khadija that gave Muhammad the support and confidence in his development
as becoming God’s last prophet. Khadija, a woman, was the strength that allowed
Islam to fully bloom. Just this one example gives us a view on how true Muslim
women are; outspoken, driven, certain and courageous, the epitome of a
feminist.
The title of her article is “Muslims Are the True Feminists.” I did not
make that up. The article is accompanied by a photograph, doubtless approved or
supplied by CAIR, of a pair of smiling young Muslim women in hijabs, probably gossiping
about how their husbands did not beat them yesterday, and also fated to become
brood mares at their husband’s whims. Without thinking, Aossey credits Khadija
with inspiring Mohammed’s brilliant career as a murderer, practitioner of
genocide, rapist, pedophile, and beheader of infidels and apostates. She was
the “power” behind the throne.  Aossey
goes twirly over Big Mo’s first wife, this “epitome of a feminist,” as though
she was the equal of Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great.
She also attacks “lookism”:
So it’s no surprise to see Muslim woman today
modeling themselves after these prominent female figures. Muslim girls look
towards these instances of strength for guidance in this scary, patriarchal
society. These modern women are not afraid to go against the grain in the name
of their belief like wearing the hijab to covey their religious devotion. Hijab
is the headscarf that is worn by Muslim woman and no; it is not supposed to be
forced on them by their fathers and husbands. Wearing or not wearing the Hijab
reflects a Muslim woman’s own a personal choice.

For me, this idea especially showcases feminism in America. With all of the
pressures in our American society to have a certain physical allure; to have
long, luscious hair, a skinny yet curvy body, flawless facial beauty, woman go
through hell. With this, we succumb to the pressures that we generally think we
are free of; we oppress our natural womanhood with constant worry about how we
look to others around us. We do not have the courage to stand up to this
societal critique and say ‘my body is not to be ogled at’.

What an endorsement for selflessness! Muslim women are “freer” because you
can’t ogle their long, luscious hair, their skinny yet curvy bodies, and
flawless facial beauty, because you really don’t know what lurks beneath the
hijab, chador, or burka, and those assets are too likely not being covered at
all because they don’t exist. Unlike Western women, they’re not “obsessed” with
esthetics but rather with their “free” natural womanhood. Not that someone like
Clark Gable would ever want to “go there.”

I thought it would be justice of some kind to remind Aossey of the
reality of Muslim “feminism” in the Ummah, such as the dramatization
of an actual stoning of a woman in Iran in 1986, “The Stoning of Soraya M.”
There
were countless photographs of actual Muslim women being stoned to death,
but
they were too gory to show here. And, apparently, Muslim men are
themselves
“obsessed” with feminine beauty of the Western, non-Muslim kind, not
the Muslim kind, which is why European women  who have luscious hair,
curvy bodies, and flawless facial beauty are the targets of rape,
beatings, and
disfigurement all over Europe. Soraya was framed for adultery by her
husband whose roving eye
and libido became smitten with a 14-year-old village girl. Soraya was
not “empowered”; she was murdered by the mob. Try that on for size, Miss
Aossey.
Jefferson was right, as can be shown above. These three surrendered
their reason, and the resulting whims and winds of political correctness have allowed
them to ignore reality and wreck their minds.
Jefferson was right, as can be shown above. These three surrendered
their reason, and the whims and winds of political correctness have allowed
them to ignore reality and wreck their minds. Is it “gullibility” or is it guilt?

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén