The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: November 2016

“Hate Speech”: Then and Now

John Adams, who signed the Sedition Act

It is interesting that a number of signatories of the Declaration of
Independence later in their careers took actions that jeopardized the
foundations of liberty, and specifically of freedom of speech, or the First
Amendment of the Constitution.


The greatest enemy
of liberty is fear. When people feel comfortable and well protected, they are
naturally expansive and tolerant of one another’s opinions and rights. When they
feel threatened, their tolerance shrinks. By 1798, the euphoria surrounding the
American Revolution, the sense of common purpose and a common enemy, was gone. Everyone
agreed that the new nation, founded amid high hopes and noble ideas was in
danger of collapse. The one thing they could not agree on was who to blame. (p.
1)


What went on in the mid- to late-1790s has reverse parallels today.
Where the Mainstream Media (MSM) today, by its own admission, intervened to
slander, libel, and smear presidential candidate Donald Trump (now the
President-Elect), to aid in and guarantee the election of a criminally
irresponsible, scandal-rich, unstable Hillary Clinton, the Democratic
candidate, the writers and newspapers of the 18th century came under vicious
attack from the government and the Federalists, the party of John Adams, who as
President signed the Alien and Sedition
Acts
passed by Congress. The MSM failed ingloriously in its efforts. But
Adams, who was the main target of criticism by “Republican” (the name of the
early Democratic Party) writers and newspapers, unleashed the dogs of
censorship on them when he
signed
the Alien and Sedition Acts on June 18th, 1798.

The Sedition Act outlawed what one could call the 18th century
equivalent of “hate speech.” It was impermissible and punishable now to hate
President John Adams (the second President after George Washington) and the
Federalists and their national and foreign policies, and to voice one’s anathema
for them in print or vocally. Those who did so and drew the attention of large
numbers of people were arrested and jailed. Adams and the Federalists would not
otherwise have heard or read the dissatisfaction but for informers who reported
the transgressions to Adams and his political allies.

A history of that time, Liberty’s
First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech
,
by Charles Slack, came my way
and further educated me on the pernicious consequences of the Sedition Act of
1798 and the scope of the evil. The consequences and injustices were wider than
I had previously imagined. As Slack points out, one need not have been a conspicuous,
widely known opponent of Adams, the Federalists, and the Sedition Act to attract
the attentions of the 18th century speech “police.” An idle, disparaging remark
overheard and reported by a neighbor could land the speaker in jail and earn an
enormous fine, as well.


Here is the key section of the Sedition Act under which several men
were prosecuted and jailed for “blaspheming” the government, President Adams,
and other individuals in the government.

An Act in Addition
to the Act, Entitled “An
Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States.
SEC.
2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or
publish, or shall cause or procure to be
written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist
or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and
malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or
either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the
United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of
the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them,
into contempt or disrepute
; or to excite against them, or either or any of
them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up
sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations
therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of
the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of
the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to
resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any
hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or
government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the
United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. [Italics
mine]

Although Adams
signed the Alien (or “Naturalization” Act), but did not enforce it, it was the
Sedition Act that drew the chief attention and ire of its foes and was the tool
Adams used to retaliate against his and his administration’s vociferous
critics. It is the Sedition Act that is the focus here.
Associate Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Chase, who

presided over the prosecution
of men for violating the

Sedition Act
The Alien and
Sedition Acts were promoted and passed by the Federalists in Congress, who were
the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Federalists also
dominated the Supreme Court.  All the men
tried under the Sedition Act were tried by Federalist appointees. The legislation was
passed because Adams and many Federalists thought that a war with France (and
possibly another with Britain) was imminent, and so extraordinary restraints on
speech and the press were justified. French privateers raided American
shipping. The French, once an ally who helped Americans win the Revolution,
were now hostile to the U.S.  The French
had undergone a revolution of its own. Its reign of terror
horrified Adams and the Federalists. The French bridled under American
criticisms of the conduct of the revolutionary government and became so hostile
to the U.S. that the government refused to receive or acknowledge the new
ambassadors from America, instigating the X,Y,Z Affair, during
which the French foreign minister’s agents sought to bribe the American
diplomats before negotiations for more amicable relations could even commence.  Feeling that war was certain, and smarting
from the Republicans’ criticisms, the Federalists wrote and got passed the
Sedition Act, on July 4th, 1798.
Its known and principal victims, all of
whom argued that the Sedition Act was a violation of the First Amendment
(Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
).  There might have been many more victims, but
records from the period are incomplete. The better known, as detailed and
described by Charles Slack, were:
 

Matthew Lyon, an Irish immigrant and a
Democratic-Republican congressman from Vermont. He was the first individual to
be placed on trial under the Alien and Sedition Acts He was indicted in 1800
for an essay he had written in the Vermont Journal accusing the administration
of “ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice.” Lyon
was always spoiling for a “fight” against the Federalists. He spit on a Federalist
political foe, Roger Griswold, on the floor of the House; Griswold retaliated
by taking a cane to Lyon. Griswold was not charged with any misconduct. Found
guilty of violating the Sedition Act, Lyon was fined $1,000 and sentenced to
four months in prison. From inside his jail cell, Lyon won reelection to
Congress for Vermont. He later in life moved family, business, and home to
Kentucky.


James Thomson Callender, a
Scottish citizen and immigrant, had been expelled from Great Britain for his
political writings. Living first in Philadelphia, then seeking refuge close by
in Virginia, he wrote a book titled The Prospect Before Us (read and
approved by Vice President Jefferson before publication) in which he called the
Adams administration a “continual tempest of malignant passions” and
the President a “repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled
oppressor.” Callender, already residing in Virginia and writing for the
“Richmond Examiner,” was indicted in mid 1800 under the Sedition Act
and convicted, fined $200, and sentenced to nine months in jail.

Benjamin Franklin Bache, a
grandson of Benjamin Franklin, was a printer and editor of the “Aurora,”
a Democratic-Republican newspaper. Bache had accused George
Washington
of incompetence and financial irregularities, and “the
blind, bald, crippled, toothless, querulous Adams” of nepotism and
monarchical ambition. He was arrested in 1798 under the Sedition Act, but he
died of yellow fever before trial. Bache’s widow, Margaret, inherited the
“Aurora” and picked up where her late husband left off, excoriating Adams and
the Federalists.

Anthony Haswell was an
English immigrant and a printer in Vermont. Among other activities, Haswell
reprinted parts of the “Aurora,” including Bache’s claim that the
federal government had employed Tories. Haswell was found guilty of seditious libel by judge William Paterson, and sentenced to a
two-month imprisonment and a $200 fine.

Luther Baldwin, a river
boat man who made his living plying the waters carrying passengers and trade up
and down various rivers including the Hudson, was indicted, convicted, and
fined $100 for a drunken incident that occurred during a visit by President
Adams to Newark, New Jersey. Upon hearing a gun report, fired during an
artillery salute during a parade, he yelled “I hope it hit Adams in the
arse.”

David Brown, in November
1798, led a group in Dedham, Massachusetts, including Benjamin Fairbanks, in setting up a liberty
pole
with the words, “No Stamp Act, No Sedition Act, No Alien Bills,
No Land Tax, downfall to the Tyrants of America; peace and retirement to the
President; Long Live the Vice President.” Liberty Poles sprouted all over
the colonial landscape before and during the Revolution, but the Federalists
saw them now as incitements to civil disobedience and sedition. Brown was
arrested in Andover, Massachusetts, but because he could not afford the $4,000
bail, he was taken to Salem for trial. Brown was tried in June 1799. Brown
pleaded guilty, but Justice Samuel Chase asked him to name others who had assisted
him. Brown refused, was fined $480, and sentenced to eighteen months in prison,
the most severe sentence ever imposed under the Sedition Act.
John
Adams and Benjamin Franklin read and

revise
Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence

Thomas Cooper, an associate
of Joseph Priestly,
the noted scientist who with Cooper moved to America in 1793 to escape
persecution in England, was arrested for questioning Adams’s declaration of a “National
Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer.” In a local newspaper he questioned the
propriety of the declaration. Cooper was arrested, tried and jailed in
Philadelphia by Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court for violating the Sedition Act.

 Writes Slack,


It had been passed “in
defiance of the plain and obvious meaning of the words of the constitution.”
…To Cooper freedom
of speech had a deeper meaning and purpose than just ensuring open government. At
stake was the right to of each individual to his own life, to form his thoughts
and express them as he pleased. The most insidious aspect of the Sedition Act,
he believed, was its direct transfer of rights from the speaker or writer to a
faceless, unaccountable mob. Cooper saw in the law an invitation to tyranny in
which unaccountable, ignorant men would pass judgment on “the most elegant
writer.” Cooper added, “They may find him guilty of what they do not
understand.” (p. 190)

Cooper was reminding his readers that Adams’s declaration was a sign of
where religion and rights “should not go,” that there should be a separation of
church and state, as expressed in the First Amendment.

Another outspoken enemy of the Sedition Act was Charles Hay, who
served as James Callender’s defense attorney, wrote and  published a long essay, An
Essay on the Liberty of the Press
, and in it offers one of the best
intellectual defenses of the freedom of speech of the period.

As Slack writes, Hay’s explication of the Bill of Rights, especially
of the First Amendment, in relation to the repressive Sedition Act, “galvanized”
the distinction.


“The words, ‘freedom
of the press,’ like most other words, have a meaning, a clear, precise, and
definite meaning, which the times require, should be unequivocally ascertained,”
Hay wrote. “That this has not been done before, is a wonderful and melancholy evidence
of the imbecility of the human mind.”

Hay continued: “This
argument may be summed up in a few words. The word ‘freedom’ has meaning. It is
either absolute, that is exempt from all law, or it is qualified, that is,
regulated by law. If it be exempt from the control of law, the Sedition Bill
which controls the ‘freedom of the press’ is unconstitutional. But if it is to
be regulated by law, the amendment which declares that Congress shall make no
law to abridge the freedom of the press, which freedom may however be regulated
by law, is the greatest absurdity that ever was conceived by the human mind.”

…Likewise, “if the
words freedom of the press, have any meaning at all, they mean the total
exemption from any law making any publication whatever criminal,” since the
only way to stifle objectionable voices would be to exercise “a power fatal to the
liberty of the people.” (pp. 170-172)

Hay does not state it, but he meant by that fatal power: by force.

Clearly something had
to be done to silence Matthew Lyon, Bache, Callender, and others. Vice
President Jefferson sensed the coming storm, noting in a letter to James
Madison, that President Adams “May look to the Sedition bill which has been
spoken of, and which may be meant to put the Printing presses under the
Imprimatur of the executive. Bache is thought to be a main object of it.” (Jefferson
to Madison, May 3, 1798) (pp. 64-65)

Thomas Jefferson, the Republican

enemy of John Adams, a Federalist

One of Jefferson’s
first acts as President in 1801 was to grant general pardons to any surviving,
jailed victims of the Sedition Act, which expired on March 31st, 1801, “written
into it to coincide with Adams’s last day in office,” notes Slack. “The pardon
automatically freed the two remaining prisoners who remained in jail: James T.
Callender and David Brown.”  (p. 224)

Charles Slack’s opus is highly recommended
for anyone who wishes to understand the struggle to defend freedom of speech
and of the press over two hundred years ago, and to better grasp how low the
press has stooped to ally itself with parties hostile to freedom of speech and
of the press.

Liberty’s
First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech
. By Charles Slack. New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press, 2015. 340 pp.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Inhuman Islamic “Human Rights”

What are “rights”?
A right is
an existential condition that permits an individual to live, act, and speak in
ways that promote his existence and happiness as a rational being.
“Rights” as perceived by Islam are privileges conferred on Muslims
exclusively by Sharia and Islamic doctrine, and on no one else. “What
is inside Sharia is good and permissible, what is outside Sharia is evil and
prohibited
.”
“Rationality” and “Reason” do not even have the same
meanings in Islam that Westerners subscribe to.
The
bases of Shariah are four
: two are revelatory, coming from Allah, and
include the two core sources, the Qur’ān, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah
(the practice and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s)); and two are based in
rational endeavor, consensus (ijma)
and analogical juristic reasoning (qiyās).
All other quotations are from The
Ayn Rand Lexicon
, found on http://aynrandlexicon.com/, according to subject.
Rand on reason and logic:
The
distinguishing characteristic of logic (the
art of non-contradictory identification
) indicates the nature of the actions
(actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and
their goal (knowledge…..
“It’s
logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification.
Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If
logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is
inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a.) things are not what they are; b.)
things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e., reality
is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it? By
illogical means…..
Reason is man’s only means of grasping
reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason
means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of
reality.
The
method which
reason employs in this process is logic—and
logic is the art of non-contradictory
identification
.
Sharia and Islam, as a “unified” package of ethics,
is based, primarily, on those three old hoary diseases of man’s existence:
superstition (the purported existence of a supreme being, in this case, Allah),
consensus (so many people believe in Allah, he must exist, beginning with Mohammad), and, emotions or feelings.
The latter are not tools of cognition; they are responses to what one observes,
that is, when one employs one’s cognitive faculties.
Muslims are not bothered an iota that their “ideal
man” is a rapist, a killer, a savage thug. Being a savage thug is a means to an
end for the average jihadist: a
guarantee of Paradise if he has died in the act of slaughtering the infidel (that is, an individual or group
that has “left” the Islamic faith, because Islamic theology proclaims that all
men are born Muslim and are obliged to maintain fidelity to Islam).
Sharia Law is blatantly anti-human. It does not exist
to further human happiness. It exists to impose guilt and punishment upon the
living for living. And for having values not in compliance with Islam’s Sharia.
For disobeying Allah’s will.  Contradictions are rife in the Koran,
the Sunnah, and the Hadith. But their
presence in those documents has not stopped Islam’s religious authorities from
holding them up as things to be revered, acknowledged, and adhered to as moral
diktats under pain of death if they are not obeyed. If Allah wishes to water
the mountain tops, then he will command water to run uphill.

A supplicant’s confession of subserviance
Janet Tavakoli in her Gatestone article, Islam’s
“Human Rights”
  of November 5,
stressed the bizarre Islamic notion of “rights:
No intelligent government should impair the
right of free speech to placate people who falsely claim they are victims when
often they are, in fact, aggressors.
To the 57 members of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation [now Conference], however, all human rights must first be
based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right,
whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right.
[
Emphasis mine.]
The rape of non-Muslim women is sanctioned by the Koran. It is seen by Muslims as a form
of conquest. In practical terms, German and Swedish women are captives of
Muslim “migrants” and can rape non-Muslim women with relative impunity (thanks
to the dhimmified judicial systems of those countries) . The “legend” of
Mohammad is that he raped captive women (especially if they were Jewish) as a
matter of “right.” His followers, to this century, emulate the practice. Thus
the spiraling rape statistics in Germany and Sweden, whose governments have,
out of altruistic duty, allowed those countries to be swamped beyond control
with savages whose sustenance is also subsidized by the subjected populations. ISIS
proclaims that if a captive and sex slave Yazidi
woman is raped by an ISIS fighter
, she automatically becomes a Muslim.

malakat aymānukum
(“what your right hands possess”, Arabic:
ما ملكت أيمانکم‎‎) is a
reference in the Qur’an to slaves. The phrase occurs several times, and has
been variously translated by Western and Islamic scholars to mean the same
thing: captive women can be raped according to Sharia. 
Surah
Al-Muminun
(23:6) and Surah Al-Maarij (70:30) both, in identical wording, draw a
distinction between spouses and “those whom one’s right hands
possess” (female slaves), saying (literally, “their spouses or what
their right hands possess”), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with
either is permissible. The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from
the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the
purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history
Tavakoli explicates Islam:
Fundamentalists
view Muhammad as the perfect man. Yet Muhammad led violent followers who raped,
enslaved war captives, and murdered unbelievers as part of Islam’s program to
expand. Today that behavior is emulated by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Syria,
Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Nigeria, to name just a few.
Muhammad
had several wives, including a slave given to him as a gift. When he was in his
fifties, he asked for a friend’s six-year-old daughter and consummated the
so-called marriage when the child was nine. Although Muhammad criticized
corrupt customs of his Arab contemporaries, he had sex with a girl who was too
young to be capable of consent; in the West we call this statutory rape. (Sahih
Bukhari
volume 5, book 58, number 234
)
Referring
to Muhammad’s life, fundamentalists allow forced marriages of female children in countries
including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, some Gulf States, and Iran.
If
fundamentalist Muslim leaders do not understand how flawed this ideology
appears to the West, their incomprehension may spring from a fundamentally
different view of human rights: To the West, these values are embodied in the
Enlightenment — such as individual freedoms, freedom of thought, disinterested
enquiry — and in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
– that all people, regardless of race religion
or gender, have the right to life, liberty personal security, and freedom from
slavery torture, and degrading treatment.
It is those Enlightenment
values the Muslim Brotherhood works to denigrate and eradicate in its “civilizational”
war against the West. It has allies in dhimmi
Western governments in control of a nation’s educational establishment. In the
U.S., Britain, Germany, Sweden and other countries children are indoctrinated
in the “glories” of Islam, forced to perform the Shahada,
prayer, complete with rugs, bowing, and gestures, and to mouth the words that
Allah is the greatest, and that Mohammad is his prophet.
Many Reformist Muslims claim they are being unfairly lumped
into this extremist crew, but if they are claiming a schism, many they often have
not been clear about it….
Reformist Muslims still call themselves Muslims, but there can
never be a Quran 2.0. Every word in the Quran is believed to be the word of
Allah, similar to the Ten Commandments as the direct word of God; no one is
able to say that Allah did not mean what Allah reportedly said.
Interpretations, however do differ and since 1948 have apparently caused the deaths of 11,000,000 Muslims at the hands of other Muslims.
So one can imagine what might be in store for non-Muslims.
Islam cannot be “reformed”
to coexist with Western society. What divides “fundamentalist” Muslims from the
Reformist Muslims is an imaginary rainbow, because Islam cannot be tampered
with to make it more amenable to civilized society, not without earning the
Reformists death fatwas.  
Islam, moreover, seems to have been has been set up to
spread it both by
violence, “hard
jihad,” and “soft jihad. ” Hard jihad includes terrorism, murder
and attempted murder. Soft jihad includes rewriting history as with the UNESCO
vote claiming that ancient Biblical monuments such as Rachel’s Tomb or the Cave
of the Patriarchs are Islamic, when historically Islam did not even exist until
the seventh century; migration to widen Islam (hijrah), as we are seeing
now in Europe and Turkish threats to flood Germany with migrants; cultural
penetration such as promoting Islam in school textbooks or tailoring curricula
for “political correctness“; political and educational
infiltration, as well as intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad
just underneath it).
More regrettable is that these are so often done, as at
UNESCO, with the help and complicity of the West.
Both hard and soft jihad are how Islam historically has
been able to overrun Persia, Turkey, Greece, Southern Spain, Portugal, all of
North Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. It is up to us not to let this be done
to us again.
Islam has no “extremist” forms.
One must ask oneself, from what point in its ideology and practice does it
reach an “extremist” apogee? Find a “moderate” form of Islam.  You can’t. Islam is radical in every sense of
that term. Its origin was brutal and savage and it would cease to be Islam if
its advocates surrendered the ambition to make it dominant and abandoned the
use of force. There are no “moderate” fundamentalists. Reformist Muslims want
to add the frosting and icing of Western civilized societies to Islam to make
it palatable to infidel and Muslim alike. But Islam is Islam.
Given the bloody record of Islam
over 14 centuries, the “War on Terror” cannot be but the “War on Islam.” To think
of the conflict in milder terms is self-delusional and perilous.  Islam is nothing if not inhuman. It is a
system for dying, it is a system that glorifies death.

 

The Morality of Corruption

 A
guest column by Tom McCaffrey, the Morality of Corruption. This is a
superb essay on the key connections between corruption, political
correctness, and censorship, and how our most cherished Western values can be appropriated and corrupted by the Left to mean the opposite of their original intentions,  or to mean nothing at all. It first appeared on Family Security Matters on November 18th.
Mr. McCaffrey is the author of Radical
by Nature: The Green Assault on Liberty, Property, and Prosperity
.

The
Morality of Corruption

by TOM
MCCAFFREY
November 18, 2016
“We
are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow
some sort of curating function that people agree to,” said President Obama
recently in Pittsburgh. “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in
which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests
and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in
anything that’s actually happening in the world,” he continued. “The
answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can
say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what
we should do about it.”
This is
vintage Obama in its dishonesty. If we call it “curating,” suggests
Mr. Obama, then it is not censorship.
But it is
dishonest in a way that has characterized Mr. Obama’s utterances since the
first days of his presidency. It is dishonesty that no honest, halfway intelligent
person would be fooled by. It is so transparent as to be almost childish. But
it is not intended to persuade the honest, intelligent person. Mr. Obama is the
first president who was able to dispense with appealing to the honest,
intelligent American.
Mr.
Obama’s, and Mrs. Clinton’s, contempt for the truth, and the degree to which
their constituents are indifferent to their dishonesty-and to their many other
transgressions against morality and the rule of law-suggests a degree of public
and private corruption that we could not have imagined a generation ago.
Remember “Bush lied, people died.” The reason that refrain was as
effective as it was-even though it was itself a lie-was that Mr. Bush’s
constituents took morality in their leaders seriously.
And it was
only one lie that Mr. Bush’s opponents alleged. One would be
hard-pressed to count the number of lies Mr. Obama has told since he took
office. But the Bush incident exemplifies the reality that in the hands of the
Left today, morality is nothing more than a weapon to be used against their
opponents, precisely because their opponents take it seriously.
The Left
have never had much use for what most of us consider morality. Rationality,
honesty, industriousness, self-reliance, thrift, reliability, sobriety, sexual
restraint, good manners, an ability to defer gratification and to engage in
long-range planning, reverence for those who merit it-these are all values
objectively necessary to making the most of life on this earth. But they are
also what are commonly called “bourgeois,” or middle class values,
values long disparaged and sneered at by the Left, for whom the middle class
represents the height of narrow-minded conventionality. It now appears that
Democratic voters no longer require such moral virtues of their leaders.
Nowadays,
the Left are largely relativists when it comes to morality. Live and let live.
Whatever floats your boat. But there are a couple of moral values about which
they are not indifferent. One of these is the idea that one man’s need is
another man’s moral obligation. This is the premise that underlies the welfare
state, and the Left do not treat is as a relative moral principle but as one to
which everyone must subscribe. This is because it is tailor made for
collectivists and totalitarians, as Stalin and Mao would attest.
Much of
the moral deterioration of the Left today is due to the metastasizing of the
welfare state. A government with the authority to expropriate the wealth of one
person and give it to another is corrupt ipso facto. Left untreated,
such corruption will spread like a cancer. The party that champions the welfare
state will attract the most corrupt office seekers and supporters. Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton are the inevitable product of the welfare state.
Yet, despite
their manifest corruption, the Democrats are able to pose as the moral
alternative to the Republicans. Why? Because they “care” about the
needy and the underprivileged, in contrast to the cold and heartless
Republicans. And the Republicans cannot oppose them in principle because they
concede the Left’s moral premise, that one man’s need is another’s moral
obligation. Today the Republican establishment is as committed to continuing
the welfare state, for political and moral reasons, as the Democrats are.
Now the
welfare state is metastasizing in a new direction, which we call political
correctness. Instead of expropriating the wealth of some and redistributing it
to others, political correctness perverts the law to afford special privileges
to its clients. Blacks, women, homosexuals, and immigrants, legal and illegal,
number among the beneficiaries of politically correct legislation and
enactments. “Homosexual marriage” and forcing the Catholic Little
Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception and abortion services to their lay
employees exemplify this kind of legal enactment.
Just as
the welfare state rests on the moral foundation of selflessness, so political
correctness rests on a few moral principles that the Left treat as universally
valid. One of these is the idea of “inclusiveness.” Inclusiveness
requires that we admit members of previously excluded groups, such as blacks
and homosexuals, to all our social and other endeavors. Inclusiveness fosters
“diversity,” which, for the Left, is the great desideratum of
our time.
Another,
related moral principle of the Left is tolerance. If we are to include persons
with unusual sexual proclivities or with alien cultural practices and values in
our endeavors, then clearly we must learn to tolerate their practices and
values.
As the
current jihad against Donald Trump illustrates, the “tolerant” Left
enforce the few moral principles they subscribe to-including moral relativism,
paradoxical as it may seem-with all the fervor of a Cotton Mather. Indeed, one
of the great lies of our time is that the Left represent the forces of
enlightenment against a religious Right determined to shove their morals down
others’ throats. Everything the Left believe in they try to impose on
the rest of us by means of government force. If making girls accommodate
sexually confused boys in their bath and locker rooms is not forcing the Left’s
values upon others, then I don’t know what is.

Political
correctness simply expands the corruption of the welfare state into new areas.
So why are the Democrats, despite their immorality and political corruption,
able to continue to pose as the only moral choice for American voters? Again,
because they “care,” about blacks and women and homosexuals and all
the rest, enough to twist the Constitution in knots to purchase the votes of
their constituents. It’s the same game as the welfare state, only played with
different currency, and the Republicans cannot play that game without fatally
compromising their principles.

But
political correctness is especially insidious, because it uses our most
cherished classical liberal principles as weapons against us.
You
believe in racial equality, say the Left? Then remain silent as we disrespect
your national anthem in support of our comrades who are ginning up a war on
your “racist” police.
You
believe in equality between the sexes? Then send your women into combat. And
while you’re at it, why not erase any remaining differences between the sexes.
Let’s start by inventing new “genders,” until the concepts of male
and female are obliterated altogether. Beyond the differences in reproductive
hardware, they’re just social constructs anyway.
You
believe in tolerance and equality? Then tolerate homosexual marriage. Who cares
if we have to re-define-by government force, as usual- a social and cultural
institution that goes back to the dawn of civilization, and that remained
utterly uncontroversial until ten minutes ago?
You claim
to be a nation of immigrants? Then allow us to flood the United States with a
deluge of immigrants from cultures with little or no experience of your free
political institutions, this at a time when Leftist orthodoxy argues against
assimilation.  So what if a great many of these immigrants will become
recruits to the ranks of Democrats seeking to extend the political corruption
and cultural derangement of the Obama years?
You
believe in religious tolerance? Then tolerate these thousands of Muslim
refugees, at time when a great many of their co-religionists are at war with
us. So what if there is precious little in the cultures from which these
Muslims come that would prepare them to support our free political
institutions, and a great deal that would make them hostile to those
institutions and traditions?
There is a
way to fight back against political correctness. But the Republican
establishment will not avail themselves of it, because they believe that to do
so would make them racists and sexists and omni-phobes. Recall that during the
election campaign many Republicans were as horrified by Mr. Trump’s lack of
political correctness as the Democrats were. As in the case of the welfare
state, the Republican establishment has conceded the moral validity of
political correctness.
But Donald
Trump has shown how to defeat it. Don’t give an inch, concede nothing, and,
above all, refuse to sanction their moral pretensions. Political correctness
can defeat us only if we participate in their moral charade. Refuse it our
sanction, and it crumbles into incoherent street violence. Mr. McCaffrey is the
author of Radical
by Nature: The Green Assault on Liberty, Property, and Prosperity
.

Shut Up! Or Go to Jail!

We told you to shut up!

One thing the election of Donald Trump has spared us
of is Hillary-style
censorship
à la the European Union, the Muslim
Brotherhood
, and the Organization
of Islamic Conference
(née
Cooperation). Huma
Abedin
, a card-carrying member of the Muslim Sisterhood, ever since high school,
will not be appointed Hillary’s Speech Czarina or anything
else. It’s over for her. It’s back to Riyadh with you, middle-aged lady, where
you can conform to Sharia and wear a burqa all day long.

First of all,
when I logged into my blogger setup, I found this notice. It was not there
yesterday.
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors
information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also
require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google’s use of
certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and
AdSense cookies.

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog,
and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third
party features, this notice may not work for you.  Learn more about this notice and your
responsibilities.
Your HTTPS settings have changed. All visitors are now able to view your
blog over an encrypted connection by visiting [xxxcom – my blogname].
Existing links and bookmarks to your blog will continue to work.
This notice also appears on my statistical pages. My
response – or “responsibility” – to this notice is and will continue to be a
one-finger salute.
While it claims not to be a terrorist organization, a
document found during a 2004 FBI raid of a Brotherhood safe house reads that
they believe “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated
and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this
level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared
ourselves for jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform jihad and work
wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is
no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”
Have the real life heirs of Sergeant Preston of the
Yukon
been tasked to slap Canadians into “right think”?
On October 26th, the
Canadian Parliament
has passed an anti-Islamophobia “motion” that condemns
Islamophobia, just as the OIC and Hillary Clinton do. The text reads:
“Recently
an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted
terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their
actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim
sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way
the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they
misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in
no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to
co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens
and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in
recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam,
and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia”.
All I said was I don’t want a halal cheeseburger!
Knowing little or nothing about ISIS’s playbook
adherence to the Koran, the
legislators can get away with a woozy statement such as “an infinitesimally
small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities …as a
pretext for a noble rise in anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.” And the
statement buys into the notion, repeatedly contradicted by terrorists not
members of ISIS, but who were inspired by ISIS and by the Koran.
“Hate speech”:Man arrested for giving a Muslim a dirty look
The Gatestone article, continues:
While a
motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic
effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning “all forms of
Islamophobia,” without making the slightest attempt at defining what is
meant by “Islamophobia,” can only be described, at best, as alarming.
What exactly
are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating
Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation
of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with
the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the
teachings of the religion of Islam” now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?
No one
knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know
what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the
petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is
what he had to say in an interview
with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:
“Now
that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the
beginning … We need to continue working politically and socially and with the
press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have
to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada’s
supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we
need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the
Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all
ethnicities… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and
humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive
policies.”
We really expected more from the Canadians than to
take Samer Majzoub, at his word, but under Justin Trudeau. He is  Canada’s prime minister and a kind of “red
diaper baby,” except you can call him a niqab baby, he is acting as Canada’s
elected undertaker. Calling Sergeant Preston! Leave
King behind. Bring plastic cuffs and duct tape to silence these warped people!
In the meantime, most European governments, especially
those with a major presence in the European Union, are
determined to punish anyone for speaking his mind about Islam, Muslims, and the
“migrant” invasion. Douglas Murray at Gatestone reports in his article, “Europe’s
New Blasphemy Courts
”:
… The
front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a
country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw
off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has
been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents
of his film “Fitna” as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses — the
late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen — revealed that a judge in the
case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial
was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot
dictatorship rather than one of the world’s most developed democracies. The
trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was
eventually found “not guilty” of a non-crime in 2011.
But
it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always
getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This
time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his
supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports
of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of
Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, “Do you want more or fewer
Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded,
“Fewer, fewer.” To which Wilders responded, “Well, we’ll arrange
that, then….”
On trial again for bad-mouthing Muslims and Moroccans.
Opinion
polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the
Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch
people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being
put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term
implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are
catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.
There’s more, as Judith Berman reports in “Europe:
Let’s End Free Speech!
In
Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing
even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land
you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque
police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?
Several
European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing
migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go
too far,” according to the authorities, are being
arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.
In
the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments
about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht,
police came to Mark Jongeneel’s office and told him that he
tweeted “too much” and that he should “watch his tone”: his
tweets “may seem seditious”. His offense? The town had held a
citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted
a few tweets. One said: “The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a
proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!” Earlier
he had also tweeted: “Should we let this happen?!…”

He was not
the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:
“…about
twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region
received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some
places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been
critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic
were told to stop”.
A
spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of “digital
detectives” monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking
for posts that go “too far,” so that they can visit with people to
tell them “what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have.” In
other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the
question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the
United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the
Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would
“see the nasty side to us.” According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne,
Germany on New Year’s Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as
justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, “If
anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of
councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here…” He also
wrote, “There’s defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just
witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer… I opposed their arrival from the
start.”
Inspector
Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
“I hope
that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland
will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke
offensive comments on social media.”
Bergman has much, much more to report on the government
depredations against citizens. What Sharia Law
under and on the table.
Donald Trump vs. the Cloaks of  Darkness

Britain, the EU, and the member governments
are practicing is

But
relief, at least in the U.S., may be in sight, and Google Analytics’ days may be
numbered and I can rest my middle finger. Paul Bremmer of The
Counter Jihad Report
wrote:
The
Muslim Brotherhood’s days of influencing the United States government may be
coming to an end, and those who are expert in the field of Islamist activism
and the threat of terror are pleased.
WND
reported earlier
President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to
jumpstart a bill in Congress that would ban the Muslim Brotherhood by declaring
it a terrorist organization.
Walid
Phares, a foreign policy adviser to Trump, says he believes Trump will support
the plan to make the designation.
Philip
Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and author of “See
Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s
Submission to Jihad,”
greeted the news with hope, saying his former agency
is finally returning to its initial mission.
Julian Assange, who blew the lid off of the Clinton campaign
As the National
Review
and other outlets have reported, Barack Obama from the very
beginning
has refused to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist
organization.
Barack
Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the
international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we
saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist
advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training
government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the
nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror. Obama’s vaunted
national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The
term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the woolly
notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has
nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from
government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist
groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.
So, it seems that come January, we are going to have
a radical change of tune about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. It can’t
happen too soon.

Jail House Rock

Hillary Clinton, so surprised that reality doesn’t obey her

Perhaps they’re already packing their golden
parachutes to bail out and ensure themselves a soft landing in the rocky
terrain of the real world: Loretta
Lynch
, the purchasable Attorney General, and FBI Director James Comey, the less-than-puissant
fellow who couldn’t make up his mind if Hillary was made for prison stripes or
not. They certainly are not going to be in a Trump administration.

During one of the presidential debates, Donald Trump
told Clinton “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a
special prosecutor to look into your situation…” He then added, “because you’d
be in jail.” Hillary countered that she was glad someone like him wasn’t in
charge of the laws in the United States. 

The “situation” is that,
among her other crimes, she was found eminently indictable for having
endangered the nation’s security by operating a hackable, freelance server over
which she passed and received documents relating to her office as Secretary of
State, many marked “confidential” and “secret,” in complete contravention of
the rules of the office. FBI Director Comey, however, buggered out of the
responsibility for asking the Department of Justice for a warrant. And then:  


In late October, Rudy
Giuliani
, a Donald Trump surrogate and advisor, told Martha
MacCallum
of Fox News that “a surprise or two that you’re going to
hear about in the next two days” was coming from the Trump campaign.[]
Giuliani later explained he did not have insider FBI information. Later
confirmed by a second law enforcement source, an unnamed government source told
Fox News that the email metadata on the computer in question contained
“positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” however, at the time Comey sent
his letter to Congress, the FBI had still not obtained a warrant to review any
of the e-mails in question and was not aware of the content of any of the
e-mails in question.

On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the
presidential election, Comey announced in a letter to Congress that the FBI
learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email server and the FBI will take steps
to allow investigators to review these emails “to determine whether they
contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our
investigation.” Director Comey stated in the letter that he was writing
the letter to “supplement his previous testimony” before Congress. 

Not a used car salesmen, but James Comey
And emulating Emily Litella
of “Saturday Night Live,” he said, “Never Mind.”
What isn’t mentioned in the
hue and cry over Comey’s letter to Congress is that the case “unrelated” to the
Clinton email server case concerns Anthony Weiner’s laptop, which was shared by
Clinton staffer and close associate Huma Abedin (a card-carrying Muslim Brotherhood
and Muslim Sisterhood member), who is now separated from Weiner (and when will
she be separated from Clinton, now that there’s no political position for her
in the future?). So what were Department of State documents doing on a laptop
riddled with Weiner’s sextagrams to a 15-year-old girl. That was Abedin’s
doing.

Comey’s move certainly
contributed in no little way to Clinton’s failed bid for the White House. Read
the list of charges and angry protests over Comey’s badly timed action in hillaryclinton.com:

FBI Director James Comey is under widespread criticism for
breaking department precedent by commenting on an ongoing investigation, and
doing so just days before a presidential election. Indeed, the Washington Post
reported this morning senior Justice Department officials made perfectly clear
to Comey that he would be in violation of long-standing DOJ policy.

Moreover, according to CNN,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates both
objected to Comey sending this inappropriate letter to Congress. Nevertheless,
Director Comey independently decided to move forward, rattling the presidential
election with a note that was heavy on innuendo and extremely light on actual
information or needed details.

The result? Broad bipartisan condemnation and demands for
the swift disclosure of more information:

Washington
Post
: Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update
Congress was not consistent with department policy
: “Senior Justice
Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to
notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private
email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department,
according to officials familiar with the discussions. Comey told Justice
Department officials that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered
emails. These officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t
comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be
viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who
spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.”
CNN:
Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns:
“Attorney
General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates objected to FBI
Director James Comey’s decision to notify Congress about his bureau’s review of
emails related to Hillary Clinton’s personal server, law enforcement officials
familiar with the discussion said. Comey decided to disregard their objections
and sent the letter Friday anyway, shaking the presidential race 11 days before
the election and nearly four months after the FBI chief said he wouldn’t
recommend criminal charges over the Democratic nominee’s use of the server.
New
York Times
: Justice Dept. Strongly Discouraged Comey on Move in
Clinton Email Case:
“Mr. Comey’s letter opened him up to criticism not only
from Democrats but also from current and former officials at the F.B.I. and the
Justice Department, including Republicans. ‘There’s a longstanding policy of
not doing anything that could influence an election,’ said George J. Terwilliger
III, a deputy attorney general under the first President George Bush. ‘Those
guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes that makes for hard decisions. But
bypassing them has consequences.’”
Politico:
Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors
: “James Comey’s surprise
announcement that investigators are examining new evidence in the probe of
Hillary Clinton’s email server put the FBI director back under a harsh
spotlight, reigniting criticism of his unusual decision to discuss the
high-profile case in front of the media and two congressional committees.”
Los
Angeles Times
: “The emails were not to or from Clinton, and
contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already
uncovered, the official said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they
needed to further scrutinize them.

 There are several pages more of this
hand-wringing, angry jaw-dropping, and bitch-lapping. This is what it was all about.

Here is Comey’s letter
to Congress
of October 28th, in which he claims he is reopening the email
server case reads:

To all:
This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with
the Secretary Clinton email investigation.  Yesterday, the investigative
team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to
emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case.  Because those
emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should
take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing
investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified
repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think
it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the
record.  At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the
significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to
create a misleading impression.  In trying to strike that balance, in a
brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk
of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.
Jim Comey

The Washington Post reports
John Podesta’s teeth-gnashing:

“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this
just 11 days out from a presidential election,” said John Podesta, the chairman
of Clinton’s presidential campaign. “The Director owes it to the American
people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We
are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the
FBI reached in July.”

His plan of action, as
reported by Fox Nation via Right
Scoop
, on November 1st, “UM… A new Podesta Wikileaks email says “we are
going to have to DUMP all those emails…”,
was to erase the evidence:

So
this new email
turned up in Wikileaks
today and it looks really, really bad. It’s an email
from John Podesta to Cheryl Mills saying “we are going to have to dump all
those emails….”
Podesta doesn’t specify what emails they need to dump, but
this email was sent only 2 weeks after the email scandal broke in March 2015. It
doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know what emails he’s talking about!
Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch’s dreams of an American caliphate dashed

Doubtless, Comey was in
thrall to the Clinton’s. Corruption comes under many names. One of them is now
Comey. And Huma Abedin adrift now in a world she never made, was granted
immunity
from all future prosecution concerning the illicit State emails. True
Pundit
wrote:

Abedin was also exposed to criminal charges on an
additional front, sources said. Abedin provided many inconsistencies when
interviewed by FBI, compared to intelligence gathered during the investigation
and interviews conducted with Clinton and other witnesses involved in the
probe, sources said….

Last week Congressman Jason Chaffetz who chairs the
Oversight Committee, blew the whistle on the Justice Department’s secret
immunity deal with Cheryl Mills. Mills served as Clinton’s counsel and chief of
staff at State while she was secretary of state.
Abedin’s would-be deal brings the current tally of immunity
packages doled out by the DOJ in the Clinton investigation to six, an
unprecedented amount of get-out-of-jail-free cards for a non-RICO (Organized
Crime) related criminal case. Chaffetz charged that DOJ was handing out immunity
deals “like candy.”
Lynch: Drop the investigation, or you’re dog meat!

The fix was in, to protect
Clinton and some of her top aides. And the fix was made possible by Comey and
Lynch. One fixer, charged with protecting American citizens from criminals, the
other fixer was charged with prosecuting them. Both failed in the Clinton email
server case because both are corrupted.

Here’s an extra bonus
connected to Hillary’s foiled dreams of supremacy. It’s doubtful that the Organization
of Islamic Conference
(OIC) will be able to implement its global
anti-islamophobia censorship program. Remember that she hosted  OIC
get-together
s in Istanbul
and Washington.
The OIC blames
freedom of speech
for Islamophobia.

The OIC champions “Human
Rights.” But, there’s a catch. To the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, all human rights must first be based on Islamic religious law,
Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right, whatever is outside Sharia
is not a human right. This what Clinton has approved of and encouraged for a
long time.
Comey and Lynch should both
rehearse “The Jailhouse
Rock
.” They could learn to harmonize with Prisoner Clinton. It would be an unusual vocal trio.

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

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?

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
slime-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.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén