The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: June 2018 Page 1 of 2

The Democrats’ Fatwa on America

The Democrats and the MSM, whose malice for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, haven’t yet reached the rock bottom essence of their souls, and confine themselves to harassing and yelling at their victims in their homes, at restaurants and movie theaters, and screaming at them and menacing them, but the time is coming when they will take physical action, just as the jihadists have. Just as the Muslim Brotherhood did in its declaration of war against the West and the U.S. 
From the memorandum:
“Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”
“…the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry out [sic] this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility.”
The Democrat s and their low-level minions have declared a full-on fatwa on President Trump, his staffers, and supporters. A fatwa, in Islamic parlance, is an Islamic sanction to commit violence on anyone who has become an apostate or has “offended” Islam. The calls from notable Democrats in Congress (notably Maxine Waters and Cory Booker) to make war on President Trump and his staffers with physical confrontations is a kind of fatwa on him and his employees,, and on anyone who is identified as a supporter. It means a denial of freedom of speech and the bullying of Trumpsters wherever they are found. California representative Maxine Waters is the lead Antifa agent in this regard.
As I wrote yesterday on “The Screams of the Democrats”:
We can see and hear on TV the carcass of the MSM virtually every day – Maxine Waters, Peter Fonda, Robert de Niro, Stephen Colbert, and many politicians and Hollywood “stars,” – and have had to smell its rot and see its swarms of flies since before and after Trump’s victory in 2016. It is not often that leprous, drooling beasts bare their unsightly souls, willingly and without hesitation, so insistently, boastfully, repeatedly and consistently. It is “virtue signaling” en masse, uniting the elites with the anonymous, resentful men –on- the-street in a single chorus of unbridled  malevolence.
Because the Democrat s have no argument to support their agenda – whether it’s for not separating children from their parents at the border, especially if the parents are illegal immigrants, or environmentalism, etc. – all they can vent are their emotions and “polarize” the symbols of their opponents and harass them and deny them a normal hassle-free existence by “flash mobs” that appear to make their lives miserable. Their first sole purpose is to force their victims to retreat before their emoting noise. Their second purpose is to establish power.
Angela Box on Western Journalism noted that neither the elitists nor their flash-mobs actually care about the separated illegal children nor about environmentalism, regulations, transgenders, and diversity, just as terrorists don’t care what Islamic purpose their bombings, knifings , rapes, murders, and beheadings serve, as long as their actions establish their supremacism in the political realm.
An Antifa flash mob
And for the record, it will be leftists who fire the first shot – either figuratively or literally.
In this regard, the Democrats’ declaration of an “activist” war on Donald Trump, his staffers, and his followers, differs little from the Muslim Brotherhood’s memorandum or  from Saul Alinksy’s 13th commandment to “polarize” one’s targets:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
So the Democrats go after ideas by going after people, just as the jihadists do. I fail to detect the distinction between Islam’s and Maxine Waters’ means of expressing opposition to Trump.
Islam wants you to submit to Allah and will kill you if you don’t. The Democrats’ ally, Antifa, are nihilists who just want to silence you and will beat you into submission if you don’t be quiet. Islam and the Democrats subscribe to the use of force.
Is there a fundamental difference between the Democrats’ new agenda and Islam’s?

Screams of the Democrats

A Democrat, or the MSM?

The liberals and leftists whose malice for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, haven’t yet reached the rock bottom essence of their souls, and confine themselves to harassing and yelling at their victims in their homes, at restaurants and movie theaters, and screaming at them and menacing them, but the time is coming when they will take physical action. They will not adopt the Antifa route, and wear masks and hoods – not yet.

But I think the most relevant thing here is a quotation from p. 1145 of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, when the statists are torturing the hero, John Galt, to compel him to become the country’s economic dictator and save their power.
                 “Jim, hasn’t he had enough? Don’t forget, we have to be careful.”
                “No! He hasn’t had enough! He hasn’t even screamed yet!”
                “Jim!” cried Mouch suddenly, terrified by something in Taggart’s face.  “We can’t afford to  kill him! You know it!”
                “I don’t care! I want to break him!  I want to hear him scream! I want – “
                And then it was Taggart who screamed….he was seeing his face as the face of a killer whom all men  should rightfully loathe, who destroyed values for being values, who killed in order not to discover his own irredeemable evil….
James Taggart was seeing something about himself he had never wanted to see, and had spent a lifetime closing his mind to, but which he could not now evade seeing. His hatred for Galt had forced it to the top of his consciousness.  It was all he could know now.
At the moment, the Trump protesters want their victims to bow, grovel, or to run, or to express “shame,” to apologize, in this case, for an immigrant policy established by George Bush and Barack Obama, and for the success of President Trump’s successes since his election. The perfect symbol of their irredeemable hate, for the time being, is the burnt, decapitated carcass of an animal left on the doorstep of the Virginia home of Home Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.
We can see and hear on TV the carcass of the MSM virtually every day – Maxine Waters, Peter Fonda, Robert de Niro, Stephen Colbert, and many politicians and Hollywood “stars,” and have had to smell its rot and see its swarms of flies since before and after Trump’s victory in 2016. It is not often that leprous, drooling beasts bare their unsightly souls, willingly and without hesitation, so insistently, boastfully, repeatedly and consistently. It is “virtue signaling” en masse, uniting the elites with the anonymous, resentful men –on- the-street in a single chorus of unbridled  malevolence. Or it is certifiable dementia? Or a virulent neurosis?
What is their aim? To cause Trump to fail, to back down, to grovel before the decibel power of their  shouts and chants, regardless of the issue. They are geckos spitting at the ankles of a giant. Anything he does drives them to mindless hysterics – what he puts on his Oval Office desk, to what he wears, what his wife wears – and now the prospect of his having to choose another Supreme Court justice, now that Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement, which is pressing their buttons and igniting their to-be-expected anti-Trump hysteria.
The MSM and their allies are so easily “triggered,” one must wonder why they rise in the morning.  It must be because they’ll find something else to hate and rub under their boots and heels. Without something to hate – without something to destroy, without something to prostitute or compromise, without something to spray with their bile – there would be no reason for living. Something with which to push their socialist agenda? That’s just an excuse. They are the “Walking Dead” nihilists, with no appetite except to gorge themselves on the living. They want power and want to retain what little of it they have. They want to destroy Trump – and you. They want you to live for their purposes, to serve “higher” purposes without complaint, but never your own.
George Orwell perhaps said it best in Nineteen Eighty-Four, and it explains the Democrats’ motivation perfectly:
But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
You will not be able to scream with an Antifa boot in your face.

Alternative Realities

It doesn’t matter to liberals that something can be proved as right. In the liberal universe, right and wrong are not admissible concepts as opposites.  Things are supposed to be what they want  things to be, as this  amusing but dead serious video dramatizes.
A friend sent me a video which is an almost perfect companion to my previous article, “Wishing to Make It So.” Called “Alternative Math,” it dramatizes the brow-beating of a teacher, Mrs. Wells, who gave an F to a student’s test, which is replete with wrong answers to simple arithmetic. The student wrote that “22” is correct answer to the question “2 + 2”, which are 4. Other errors are visible on the test: “3 + 3” being answered, “33,” and so on. But “2 + 2” is the main subject.
Confronted with the wrong answer, the student, Danny, something of a spoiled brat, insists the answer is “22.” He complains to his parents, who berate the teacher and verbally abuse her, not conceding that the right answer is 4 or that it’s anything. The mother says the teacher is a Nazi, while the father utters ad hominems. The teacher is then chewed out by the school principal, who says it’s not her job to tell students they’re right or wrong, and then she is called in front of the school board and asked to recant her insistence that 2 + 2 is 4. The school is being sued,  they say, because  she caused students to have “emotional stress.” She is told that it’s wrong to insist there is only one answer, that it’s possible there are multiple correct answers. She is suspended and told to come back the next day after she has had time to “reconsider” her answer. She is encouraged to have an “open mind.”
When Mrs. Wells returns the next day, she is faced with a battery of news media people and the principal who proceeds to fire her.  I won’t include the concluding spoiler of how Mrs. Wells sticks  it to the principal. I offer my own narrative of how Mrs. Wells sticks it to him when he writes her a check to cover the past pay period and the current one. She leaves him blinking and speechless. My narrative would go something like this:
Mrs. Wells: “Is that your Mercedes-Benz in the reserved parking space outside?”
Principal: “Yes. Two more payments to go!”
Mrs. Wells: “If you don’t mind me asking, how much are you paying for it?”
 Principal: “About 25 thousand.”
Mrs. Wells: “Wrong. It’s seven thousand. You’re being cheated.”
Principal: “Huh?”
Then he gets it.
Blink, blink! It’s such a chore to think! (From the “Bilbury Lament” in Sparrowhawk: Book Two.)
The arrested development of a Trump hater.

Danny’s parents obviously did not follow these rules:
If you want to avoid having spoiled kids then stay away from these habits.
Pick up after your kids instead of letting them clean up their own messes. …
               Let them boss you around and talk disrespectfully to you. …
               Give them everything they want – even if it’s not good for them. …
               Let them drop out instead of sticking it out….
The parents of the dim lights of the MSM did not follow this advice. Their children, now adults, were reared to be tantrumous brats, to judge by the level of bile and hatred for Trump exhibited by them and their liberalleft wing hordes. The malice knows no bounds. Violence is not out of the question.
The latecomer in the trend to harass Trump staffers in public is Rep. Maxine Waters.
The Daily Wire reports:
A Republican Representative from Arizona, Andy Biggs, has introduced a measure in the House Tuesday that calls for an official censure against Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) for her comments encouraging discrimination and harassment against Trump administration officials and members of the GOP.
And asking for her resignation. Waters told a cheering mob:
“If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” Waters said to an audience Sunday at a rally in California. “And you push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome any more, anywhere!”
Waters, numerous politicians, and Hollywood stars are also outstaying their welcome.
The Washington Post reported:
It’s also increasingly common. On same night [Florida Attorney General Pam] Bondi got heckled in Florida, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Virginia [Red Hen], and protesters rallied outside the home of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. That came at the end of a week in which Nielsen and White House domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller were heckled at separate Mexican eateries in D.C. One website even posted Miller’s personal cellphone number.
A decapitated animal carcass was left at the doorstep of Nielsen’s home.  That is the level of argumentation of the Dems and their non-intellectual allies. Not exactly the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.

Wishing to Make It So

Ben Turpin: an early Democrat?

It doesn’t matter to liberals that something can be proved as right. Right and wrong are not admissible concepts as opposites in the liberal universe.  Things are supposed to be what they want thingsg to be. Or that they imagine things ideally ought to be regardless of the evidence. Incontestability to liberals is purely subjective, a matter of opinion.  “To you, water flows downhill; to us it’s a lateral move. Besides, who’s to say what‘s up or down? Flat or round?” It’s a ‘broader issue’ that matters, not the facts of an issue, not the evidence of your senses.  It’s how things are not, that should be the paramount issue, not as they are.

Noam Chomsky, the influential linguist, claimed that language is “instinctual” and not primarily cognitive. This means that writing a sentence that adheres to logic and clarity is an automatic action, in the same realm as a mouse in a maze seeking the fastest way to a piece of cheese.
In the 1960s, linguist Noam Chomsky proposed a revolutionary idea: We are all born with an innate knowledge of grammar that serves as the basis for all language acquisition. In other words, for humans, language is a basic instinct. The theory, however, has long been met with widespread criticism — until now. A new study presents compelling evidence to suggest Chomsky may have been right all along.
The ability to walk upright for long periods of time is distinctly human; it sets us apart from our closest genetic cousins, the great apes. However, walking is both innate and learned, and while every human child is born with the underlying mechanisms needed to do so, the skill will never manifest without proper guidance and examples, Slate reported.
If you read through Chomsky’s theory (or anyone else’s linguistic theory) you will not encounter the idea that things have identities, and names.  Or that men have volition, e.g., the choice to think or not. Tracing the etymological history of any word from Shakespeare’s time to the present will not be of help, for liberals will automatically reject any explanation or word history that introduces logic or rejects the idea that names are not arbitrary “constructs.”
The subject here is not linguistics (a science or study not governed by reason), but rather how liberals are driven by emotions which in turn govern their politics.
In total contradiction of most linguistic theories, novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote:
Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.
But since the work of man’s mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone’s authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.
In short, Rand wrote that emotions are not tools of cognition. They are reactive phenomenona linked to things one has already thought about. Emotions are not a means of acquiring knowledge.
On a personal level, one must choose between Mae West as one’s ideal of feminine beauty, or Greta Garbo, between indifferent promiscuity and an absence of values, between a passionate commitment to values and a celebration and permanence of values.
An ideal, a celebration
On another level, liberals and the Democrats want no wall between the U.S.  and Mexico, and want illegals not to be separated from what may or may not be their children, and want President Trump to give in and help them create their ideal world and a country saturated with illegals who will provide the Dems with a bigger voting bloc. Demonstrating that Time Magazine’s Photo Shopped cover is based on a lie has proven to be futile, because the MSM and the Dems are closed to reason and uphold their emotions as the touchstone of unimpeachable evidence, and will continue to spread the lie. (As though evidence historically has meant nothing to the liberals.)
To the liberals, an ideal world would not have Confederate statues that trigger them, “sexist” language or even cheerleaders which would be banned, schools and churches would teach children the “beauties” of Islam, the “white” patriarchy would be vanquished, and Al Gore would be the patron saint of a pollution-free world. And no one would complain, or dare to, without risking a visit from Antifa.
While Trump has often said that the Dems passed the current immigration law under Obama, and that Congress must fix it or pass a new one that isn’t so “cruel,” that is a futile observation, as well. This week Chuck Schumer has said it is Trump’s responsibility, not Congress’s. The Dems  Party is also known as the “plantation” party, because it endorses the welfare state, and endorsed black subservience to and dependency on the government even before the Civil War.
A perfect liberal world would include a certifiable mad woman, such as Maxine Waters, who pep talks drooling liberals to harass Trump supporters and staffers.
DC (and other publications) reported on Mad Maxi’s latest rant:
“Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants … who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ‘No peace, no sleep! No peace, no sleep!”
Mad Maxi of the Super Rant, looking to God
Waters then called for attacks on individual members of the Trump administration, saying, “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
To which, President Trump tweeted:
“Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party,” Trump wrote in a tweet. “She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!”

If Hillary Had Become President III

What difference does it make?
This is the third and final installment of my previous columns, “Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election,” and what news we would be rationed with by the MSM and the Clinton regime. The cast of characters is as limitless as the membership of the Democratic Party and MSM, and their unceasing plots to somehow implicate Donald Trump in a conspiracy (with Russian help) to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton. That year-long $17 million “investigation” by Robert Mueller was proven by the IG Report to be a house of cards susceptible to the slightest breeze of fact and truth, leaving the cards scattered over the floor.
Exempli gratia:
Ø  President Clinton will award David Hogg a special Medal of Freedom at a ceremony at the White House. Hogg was a survivor of the Parkland massacre and became an anti-gun activist , and helped found a student group, “Never Again MSD,” dedicated to abolishing the Second Amendment. The President would announce, with Hogg at her side, that she will sign any legislation that erases the Second Amendment or nullifies the ownership of guns of any and all makes by private citizens. At the President’s obvious discomfort, however, Hogg would give a semi-Nazi salute with a raised arm after the President’s remarks. When questioned about the salute, Hogg would deny any connection between it and Nazi Germany.
Ø  TV news channels MSNBC and CNN would refuse to apologize for comparing former presidential candidate Trump’s statements about federal immigration practices with Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps. Trump’s public remarks, post the election of Hillary Clinton to the White House about the need for a border wall, would be, as his lawyer would assert, twisted to “prove” he was a nascent Nazi.  
Ø  Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other alt-right, conservative, and spokesmen and talk show hosts and personalities, who have been consistently critical of Islam and of the President’s policies and actions, would be subpoenaed to testify before a special Congressional hearing to investigate the influence of  “Islamophobia.” Director Comey repeated a public cry by the President to  for special Internet controls and regulations be imposed on “Islamophobic” sites such as the Geller Report, Jihad Watch, Bare Naked Islam, IPT, and Gates of Vienna, among others.
Ø   Accompanied by representatives from CAIR, Isma’il Haniyeh, chief of Hamas’s Political Bureau, held a cordial talk with the President in the White House. President Clinton intends to remove Hamas and CAIR from the list of terrorist organizations. “Our talks were wide-ranging and fruitful,” would say the President.

 The Fǘhrer of American youth.

Ø  The President would severely rebuke Israel’s IDF for employing snipers to target kites, helium balloons, rockets, and anyone preparing to launch them against Israel from the Gaza Strip. Israel was also criticized for developing technology that would neutralize and destroy Hamas kites and balloons in midair. Hamas has complained that snipers have blown up canisters of gasoline and oil in its fighters hands before they launched the devices. Some fighters, Hamas has claimed, have been shot while throwing rocks at IDF soldiers at the barrier.
Ø  The President announced that she would reject and condemn as  racist slander charges that the South African government had embarked on a policy of genocide against white citizens. “There have been no reports of Stalin-like massacres of white South Africans in the news media. I will instruct newspapers and televised venues to cease these reports until their veracity has been confirmed by the State Department.”
Ø  “We shouldn’t worry if something is true or not. Truth is irrelevant to one’s feelings and emotional attachment to what does not exist or to what is not, and so is falsity. What’s important is that we want something to be true or untrue. This changes the grammar of good and bad. The yearning and desire have governed the conduct of the news media for decades and made possible Mrs. Clinton’s occupancy of the White House.” So would write celebrated  linguist Noam Chomsky in a New York Times article in the fourth month of President Clinton’s term. A staffer at the White House brought the article, “Pigs Will Fly,” to the President’s attention, resulting in an invitation to Chomsky to visit the chief executive. Chomsky would spend several hours with Mrs. Clinton. He would say to New York Magazine later, “The news media’s conduct during her campaign has been inappropriately called ‘hysteria’ in several corners of the national debate, when all it amounted to was the media searching for reality, whatever that was or could be, and insisting that it be true. And thank God, it became true.”
Ø  FBI Director James Comey would order the arrests of several dozen former Immigration and Customs Enforcement  (ICE) agents and charge them with “illegally detaining migrants and separating them from their children,” even though it had come to light that most of the children were not related to the migrants. Comey discounted such reports as “reckless and irresponsible rumor-mongering.”
The fix was in.
Ø  The President would embark upon a private project to restore the besmirched and defamed legacy of  Barack Obama’s eight-year presidential term from one of continuous scandal to one of spotless integrity to his dream. Mrs. Clinton would say in an interview with Paul Krugman of the New York Times that “I consider myself and my administration as unworthy successors and inheritors of his wisdom and spirit and to his stellar performance. In all modesty, I hope someday this will be done for me and my White House years and show that I worked incessantly to transform this country from a xenophobic and racist one to a diverse and multicultural city on the hill.” Mr. Krugman concluded, “I resent the sentiment, as Mrs. Clinton does, that under her the country is for sale.”
If you think this is pure satire and an exaggeration of Clinton’s intentions, think again: Look what happened to Britain. Britain, once a bastion of freedom of speech, is no longer “Great.” It is “Britanistan,” in which citizens can be fined or jailed for uttering or publishing “hate speech” statements about Islam.

If Hillary Had Become President II

This is a continuation of my previous column, “Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election” and what news we would be rationed with by the MSM and the Clinton regime.

Can I do this, and not get a crown?

Exempli gratia:
Ø  Barack and Michelle Obama would debut their first Netflix effort, “Black is the New White,” in which President Clinton has an extended, walk-on-speaking role, portraying herself. It would use archival news footage, and be a fictional account of her struggles to win the Democratic nomination and her valiant effort to secure the electoral and national votes to win the election, based roughly on her autobiographical book from 2016, What Can Happen. The screenplay would be penned by Robert DeNiro with Margaret Atwood (author of The Handmaid’s Tale). Gwyneth Paltrow would portray Clinton in most of the scenes, and Jeff Goldblum would play her loyal Secret Service Chief.
Ø  The President would host a special dinner in the White House for news reporters, Hollywood celebrities, and members of Congress who criticized Donald Trump before and after the 2016 presidential campaign. She would give special plaudits to actor Peter Fonda and comedienne Kathy Griffin. Fonda was famous for calling for Barron Trump to be kidnapped from Mrs. Trump’s arms and locked in a room with pedophiles, while Griffin gained notoriety for posing with a fake decapitated head of Donald Trump to express her opposition to the candidate’s policies. Charles Schumer, Senator for New York, and Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, also attended the dinner, and would be praised by the President for their steadfast and often vociferous opposition to Donald Trump.  
Ø  The President would order Director James Comey and the FBI to investigate Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other alt-right, conservative, and Islamophobic spokesmen and talk shows who are consistently critical of the President’s policies and actions. “These individuals are deliberately hurtful and do not reflect facts and reason and the public will,” the President would say. Director Comey would say in another venue, “It’s about time the decibel level of these vicious people was reduced and that the fear of my department and the power of the law take root in them.” At the same time, the President would call for special Internet controls and regulations be imposed on Islamophobic sites such as the Geller Report, Jihad Watch, Bare Naked Islam, IPT, and Gates of Vienna, among others.
Ø   Echoing the President’s remarks, Theresa May, Prime Minister of Great Britain, would call Mrs. Clinton to report that Paul Joseph Watson, a British blogger regarded by the authorities as  “intrusive and hateful” in GB and America, “had been arrested and sent to prison, charged with violation of British blasphemy laws regarding especially Islam.” The President would thank Prime Minister May, and ask her how Tommy Robinson was doing in prison. “I’m sorry to report that he has expired,” the PM would answer. “And I should  with great relief and delight that the nascent revolution in his name that had been planned has been strenuously foiled. I assure you that everything is under control.”

If you think this is purely satire and an exaggeration, think again: look what happened to Britain. Britain is not longer “Great.” It is “Britanistan.”

If Hillary had Become President

 Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election – by hook or crook, but mostly by crook – the country would have continued its decline and continued the cliff jumping leap begun by Barack Obama (2008-2016).  This is the kind of thing you would be in store for.
You’ll never get rid of me!! I’m President!

Exempli gratia:

§  There would have been no Clinton Investigation. The country would not have learned about President Clinton’s secret email server. The Supreme Court of the U.S. would have found such an investigation a “blatant invasion and violation of privacy.” James Comey would have returned as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, specially appointed by Clinton on the day of her inauguration in January 2017, some say in perpetuity, although this would be denied by both President Clinton and Director Comey.
§  Bill Clinton would have been appointed as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
§  No special Inspector General Report would have been required.
§  Director Comey would not have ordered an investigation of voter fraud in all fifty states related to the count of the national election, taking the lead from a federal district judge, Comey declares that all state voter registration laws are illegal, except in connection to Republican candidates and voters.
§  The ruling by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson is the latest setback for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has championed such laws and was potentially backed by presidential aspirant Donald Trump and his now-defunct voter shadow fraud commission. The 118-page decision came in two consolidated cases challenging a Kansas voter registration law requiring people to provide documents such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport or naturalization papers. Comey’s decision endorses the ruling that the Kansas proof-of-citizenship registration law was unconstitutional and makes permanent an earlier injunction that had temporarily blocked it.
§  President Clinton will order the dismantling of what there was of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Large parts of the fence will be sold at reduced prices to China, as was metal from the destroyed World Center. Uncounted swarms of Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorans, and other Central Americans would rush across the unprotected border, where the fence once existed to claim asylum, overwhelming border control personnel and entry points. Unconfirmed estimates are that approximately one-third of Mexico’s population would emigrate to the U.S. 
§  Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of Vermont would propose that members of the MS-13 gang be recruited into a proposed federal police force that would reeducate known “deplorables” or former Trump supporters. He will say, “There’s no good reason why such men, with a strict moral code, cannot swear allegiance to the U.S. to help us root out and punish traitorous and xenophobic citizens.”
§  Prime Minister Theresa May of Great Britain would be a guest of President Clinton at the White House, as a “sister shepherd of national transformation” and a “docent of diversity,” as the President called her, and would be placed in the second floor Queen’s Bedroom, instead of in Blair House, across from the White House which is the official guest house for international leaders.
§  President Clinton and Vice President Cory Booker would attend a special “Forever Ramadan” dinner at the Kennedy Center in Washington. (Former Vice President Joe Biden, though invited, would be unable to attend, struggling as he would be under the cloud of sexual misconduct.) Special guests of honor at the dinner would be the executives of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), key visiting principles of Hamas, the Muslim Student Association (MSA), and executives from the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC). The main entrée would be wholly halal and no wine would be served. In observation of Ramadan, several young adult animals would be slaughtered live in the kitchen by Muslim specialists to prepare the main dishes. Guests would be offered a choice between sheep and goat curry. Desserts would be gazelle horns, namoora, kheer, and kulfi.
Peter Strzok. Did not “stop” Trump.
§  Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power would give the keynote address to the event, substituting at the last moment for Maxine Waters, who had a brain aneurism.  
§  The Special Events Planner for President Clinton would receive a few complaints from U.S.  feminists that all the women at the “Forever Ramadan” event would be seated on the other side of the banquet hall, and instructed to wear some kind of head covering, preferably a hijab, and that no legs, arms, shoulders, or backs should be exposed.
§  President Clinton would sit at the head table between husband Bill Clinton and special guest, House of Cards star Kevin Spacey. In answer to Bill Clinton’s objection to the seating arrangement, Hillary would answer, “I always liked the way he played politics in his series. I couldn’t have done better. Perfect.”
§  Former FBI Director Robert Mueller and would be later appointed main investigator into campaign irregularities for the FBI and the DOJ, would be named special ambassador to France, replacing Secretary of State John Kerry, who would resign after having a near fatal accident falling off a bicycle. The country would be spared the most daily picture of his hangdog face.
A Muslim  fashion plate.
§  Peter Strzok, rising star in the FBI who “stopped” Trump, would succeed Mueller, and later be named special envoy to Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkle will express delight and send Clinton a thank you note in German and Arabic.  
§  Huma Abedin, formerly President Clinton’s long time confidante and political aide, and now the President’s traveling good will ambassador to Islamized countries, will tell Swedish women at an opposition rally against Islam, to “just lay down, like exposed meat, and let the hungry cats have their way as many times as necessary. It is the only path to peace in a diverse society.” She will be accompanied by Linda Sarsour who will deliver special words of advice to Islamic rape victims.

Of course, one could cover the whole year, citing dozens of events and dozens of criminals and players. The end result would be Clinton establishing a totalitarian regime.

Silent Journalism

The first main topic of Melanie
Phillips’ talk
from February is how journalism has not only discarded
objectivity but become its enemy, and how the MSM and in particular the BBC and
the Guardian have cordoned off the idea that their Progressive and cultural
Marxism are question – proof and unassailable and therefore are rocks of truth.  Environmentalism, cultural diversity, the
“derangement” of Donald Trump, the evil of guns, and man himself, are all coded
by Progressive yard sticks of truth or falseness.  Melanie Phillips, a British
journalist, speaks from experience in the journalistic trenches.     

Since axiomatic
concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s
arbitrary choice, there is observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot
be escaped, that it is implicit in all a way to ascertain whether a given
concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by knowledge, that it has to be
accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
For instance, when
modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and
proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their
alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on
“existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but
which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen”
concepts. (pp. 56-57)
“What’s true for me, is different from your truth. What’s true for you,
isn’t necessarily true for me.” If truth is arbitrary, then an automobile is
the same as the pumpkin carriage from Cinderella.
 The basic and logical conclusion is
that no truth exists for either party. The nonexistence of reality is
“Truth” is based on reality. So, which is “true: Your reality, or mine?
Are there two realities? Is there an unlimited “diversity” of realities? Are
they all “real”? But reality can’t be “real,” say the moderns and the
journalists, since our multitude of realities are subjective.
Even the term “true” is a stolen
, which means that the idea being denied is used to help negate it,
that is, it is used to invalidate it. 
Truth means, according to Merriam-Webster:
a (1) :
being in accordance with the actual state of
(2) :    conformable to an essential reality
(3) :
dreams come true
: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed
 (1)  the
true dimension of the problem
                              (2)  fully realized or fulfilled
So reality, and everything in it, according to modern academia and
journalists, has less substance than a dandelion puff. It’s all in your mind. A
“dream.” Or, “transcendental,” evendentiary facts cannot be employed because
they are fictitious, or without substance, beyond human cognition, which is
deceptive.  Thus said Immanuel Kant.  Immanuel Kant, preceded
by Plato, is the father of today’s 
mare’s nest of irrationality and all the fake news you can put on your
plate. When you attempt to read what Kant said about how men know (or don’t
know), you’ll encounter a sailor’s knot of rationalizations more complex than the
knot needed to tie up the QE2 to a dock. Kant’s mental gymnastics have had more
influence than is realized. Phillips reiterates the current “consensus” that
there is no objective truth in the MSM. That a lie has as a better anchor in
reality than a truth. That is the insoluble belief of the enemies of
objectivity. That an asserted “lietruth” is beyond challenge. Some things are
the preferred “truth” than the fact-based truth. Israel is evil, prima facie. So is Donald Trump. And
climate change denial. And deniers. And all the other hobgoblins of the left.
In her talk, Phillips describes two Guardian stories that rejected
reality but whose authors were blind to the truth or indifferent to it, and preferred
the fiction, even though it had been shown that the stories were fiction or lies.
 (minute 43.07, 33.48, 39.56, 43.1) The
managers of the newspaper releasing the stories will say that it doesn’t matter
if the children are really dead or alive, or that they were just dolls smeared
with ketchup, because what mattered was the “broader truth.” Phillips said that
they don’t care about the truth. In another story, a top reporter described in
detail Muslim women in a truck, supposedly prisoners of the Serbs; it was revealed
that the reporter never saw the incident and had just made up the story.
A Gaza n child was “killed” by Israeli bullets, but the film of the
event showed the child, slumped on the ground, peeking out between his fingers.
He was not dead. The “death” was staged by HAMAS. In the act of stealing a
concept, the BBC and the Guardian, and in general the MSM, promote a “broader
truth.” But if they were consistent in their fallacy, they would concede that
their preferred “truth” is equally imaginary – or subjective – and not based on
fact, broad or not.
But then logic,
it is claimed, is a Western tool and the sibling, say the reality deniers, of
Western colonialism, racism, and oppression, etc.; along with objectivity,
logic is derogated and demoted as a means of human cognition. To resort to
logic, to prove the insanity of modern journalism, is to reveal to the
modernists one’s inherent and biased stupidity.  Cognitive “harmony” does not exist between
reader s and viewers, and modern journalism.
Phillips, in her talk, passionately and without hesitation, reveals
just how corrupt modern journalism is today and explains how maniacally the MSM
is devoted to its fact-barren emotionalism, and how deeply grounded in
non-reality to “profession” is.
is actually Doc Brown’s DeLorean
do you know it isn’t?
does “actually” really mean?
To emphasize this issue, here are snippets of a story in the Federalist,
from June 14th, from Indiana, about an orchestra
who was forced to resign because he would not submit to his
school’s policy of pretending that A is not A:
Local public officials
have so far refused to publicly discuss the policies they put into place at the
beginning of 2018 that John Kluge says led to his resignation in
May. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, the district that employed
Kluge, put out a
transgender policy document
in January instructing staff to call students
by their chosen names and pronouns once they are so designated on school
records. Kluge opted instead to address students by their last names to avoid
either referring to his apparently several transgender students with pronouns
and names of the opposite sex, or offending them by not doing as they wished
despite its contradiction of reality….
“Mr. Kluge’s
religious beliefs have absolutely no place in a public high school. I think
what he believes is morally just conflicts with what not only I believe, [but]
what my parents believe, what my psychiatrist, therapist and doctor believe and
the school board believe are morally just,” said student Aidyn Sucec.
Kluge’s beliefs are not merely moral, but also scientific. Scientifically,
there are only two sexes. “Gender” is a linguistic term for a non-physical
Whether or not Kluge’s beliefs are religious in nature, the student’s statement
is an example of the “trickle down” (or perhaps the avalanche) effect into the culture of cultural Marxism
and the disintegration of academia. So is the article author’s journalistic aside
that gender is
a “non-physical” concept. One’s sex is governed by the physical facts of one’s
biological make-up – not by linguistics not by how one feels about one’s sex, or by a “non-physical” concept , that is, by
one’s “feeling.” But, in today’s “anything goes” culture, the student’s
statement is more important than Kluge’s beliefs; the student’s assertions or
beliefs have a place in high schools, not the teacher’s.  Emotions
are treated as tools of cognition. The field
of linguistic studies is in as chaotic a state as is epistemology.
“Broader truths” take precedence over reality.

A Night in the Globalist Box

Make sure you’re not retiring
in dirty pants, or having an Islamophic seizure, or Carr the globalist floor
walker will sentence you to a night in the box. Or more
months or years, so you can get your mind right, and “tolerant” and submissive.
I refer to the
and instant imprisonment of Tommy Robinson, on May 25th, without so
much as a show trial – public or secret – for thirteen months in a prison allegedly
housing a low population of Muslim prisoners who could nevertheless plot his
This points to an act of government called a “bill of attainder.” Britain, as well as the
U.S., has a history of such exercises of state power. I touch on bills of
attainder in my article, “Magna
the Dustbin
” from May 29th, but will elaborate on the subject
Robinson was arrested ostensibly for a “breach of the peace,” but was actually
charged with violating the terms of a prior arrest in Luton, for filming
members of a grooming rape gang outside the Canterbury courthouse.
Overall, Prime Minister Theresa May just wanted to shut him up about the
grooming gangs her government had failed to combat lest she and her government
be accused of racism and bigotry; most of the victims were white British girls
and the rapists were Pakistani; Islamic racism was permitted for “diversity’s”
sake. It leaves open the unasked question: So, who were the racists?
” The U.S. Constitution
prohibits bills of attainder:
Definition: A legislative
act that singles out an individual or group for The Bill of Attainder Clause
was intended not as a narrow, technical….prohibition, but rather as an
implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against
legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by
legislature.”  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the
Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause,
but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law
at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a
legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on
them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by
the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court,
judging an individual case, to impose punishment.”  William H. Rehnquist, The
Supreme Court
, page 166.
“Bills of attainder,
ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are
contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle
of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the
fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen
with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences,
in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising
and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and
less-informed part of the community.”  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
The U.S.
Constitution is partly based on the English Magna
, from 1215, three of whose clauses expressly forbid King John, the
barons, or their successors from arresting and jailing a man without trial or
“due process.”
(38) In future no official
shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without
producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
 (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned,
or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of
his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send
others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of
the land.
(40) To no one will we
sell, to no one deny or delay right, or justice.
The most
recent and outstanding instance of a bill of attainder victimizing anyone in
the U.S.  is highlighted by the arrest
of  Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made
the YouTube “anti-Islam” film “The
Innocence of Muslims
.” The L.A. Times reported in 2012:
The filmmaker behind the
anti-Islamic video “Innocence of Muslims” that has sparked violence across the
globe faces up to three years in federal prison after being arrested Thursday
for alleged probation violations.
Probation officials have
recommended a 24-month term for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, prosecutors said in
court. He faces a maximum of three years in prison if found to have violated
his parole.
He was arrested Thursday
and ordered back to jail during an usual hearing.  The hearing occurred
amid high security, with the public only allowed to watch through a
video feed in a separate courthouse blocks away. Before his arrest Thursday,
Nakoula and his family had been in hiding, and his attorney said he had received
threats to his safety.
Around the
globe, the MSM quite literally shouted in joy that the film caused anti-American
riots in the Mideast. “How dare anyone make a film that insults Mohammad, the
holy icon and prophet of one of the world’s greatest religions?”
Nakoula’s film was blamed for the rioting in Egypt and for the Benghazi attack,
but Hillary Clinton and Obama back-pedaled on that finger-pointing assertion. Susan Rice, the national
security advisor then, however, repeated the lie in a succession of talk shows.
Perhaps now, as a board member of Netflix,
she can endorse an Obama made film about how “peaceful” Islam is. Nakoula was
arrested and imprisoned on a fabrication, and by a silent and unstated bill of
attainder about a YouTube video no
one had even heard of
until the Benghazi attack.
rights as a Briton have clearly been nullified. The “peace” that was breached
outside the Leeds courthouse was purely fictitious; the three months from his
previous but suspended offence were arbitrarily added to lend credibility to
the sanction of his arrest. Then the issue
got lost and jumbled in legal
An Anandtech
Forums poster noted:
In the UK the media is
restricted on what comments it can make and what it can report about an alleged
crime while a trial is in progress, on the basis that it might prejudice the
jury. Trials have collapsed due to media outlets breaking this rule and
newspaper editors have faced prosecutions over it (don’t know if they’ve ever
actually gone to prison – but definitely there have been very large fines).

Seems that the point is Robinson blatantly broke that law (and after already
having a suspended sentence). And I don’t think he was making some general
protest against the sub-judice rule in general, so it seems fair enough that
the same law should apply as does in every other case.

Personally I wonder if it isn’t, perhaps, an increasingly non-viable law when
‘the media’ is far more than a couple of well-regulated and easily-controlled
TV stations and newspapers and news is entirely international. Seems like it
might be a bit of a lost cause.

But even the US seems to acknowledge there’s an issue when it sequestrates
entire juries to try and stop them hearing news and comment on a high-profile
case, as in the OJ trial (though googling it it seems that while it used to be
far more common the US has mostly given up doing that…except one report said
it’s happening right now with the Cosby trial – what would happen to someone
who used nefarious means to try and communicate case-related information with
the jurors in that case?).

In connection
with the Robinson arrest and the assertion that his live-streaming the groomer
rape trail – during which he was not in the courtroom and was outside and out
of earshot of the judge, defendants, and the jury – and then of the decreed
blanket news blackout of his arrest and of the trial itself, I recall the 1995 O.J. Simpson
trial whose progress was blasted in the newspapers and the media almost daily
until the acquittal verdict was announced.
The issue of whether or not
to allow any video cameras into the courtroom was among the first issues Judge
Ito had to decide, ultimately ruling that live camera coverage was warranted.
Ito would be later criticized for this decision by other legal professionals.
Dershowitz said that he believed that Ito, along with others related to the
case such Clark, Fuhrman, and Kaelin, was influenced to some degree by the
media presence and related publicity. The trial was covered in 2,237 news
segments from 1994 through 1997. Ito was also criticized for allowing the trial
to become a media circus and not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings
as well as he could have.
And the
ironic thing is that:
After the trial, the Brown
and Goldman families filed a civil
against Simpson. On February 4, 1997, the jury unanimously found
Simpson responsible for both deaths.
The families were awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $33.5 million
($51.1 million in 2017 dollars), but have received only a small portion of
So Simpson
was found “not guilty” of the murders, but was found “responsible” for the
deaths, as well? Go figure. Perhaps “guilty” and “responsible” have widely divergent
definitions per Merriam-Webster
in legalese and on the planet Vulcan. Or between the U.S. and Britain. As the
two justice systems stand now, fewer people in the U.S. will be arrested and
incarcerated on trumped up “islamophobic” charges than in Britain. In Britain,
a bill of attainder, under Theresa May, may be enacted without a legislative mandate.
In Britain, you
must make sure you put the clean sheet of “sensitivity” on top – or else.

And no loud talking!

The War on Beauty

Most men who watched the annual Miss America pageant did
not tune in to evaluate the intellectual content of the contestants, but
because the girls were drop dead gorgeous, unctuously curved in all the right
places, but unfortunately and as a rule inarticulate and banal in their dreams
and aspirations. It usually had something to do with public service or helping
mankind or was a fillip of political virtue signaling.
This is to be no more. Miss America will no longer be a parade of faultless
eye candy. On June 5th, the head of the pageant signaled her
so-called virtue.
The Miss America Organization
has announced an end to the swimsuit portion of its competition and the
practice of judging contestants specifically on their outward appearance.  Breitbart
Gretchen Carlson,
who was crowned Miss America in 1989, made the announcement of the new
direction on Tuesday’s broadcast of Good Morning America, CNBC reported.
Branding the
pageant “Miss America 2.0,” Carlson said, “We’re not going to judge you on your appearance
because we are interested in what makes you you.”
Carlson, the latest
head of the pageant’s board of directors, added that many contestants expressed
criticism of the swimsuit and evening gown portion of the pageant in this day
of a heightened awareness of sexual harassment.
Which means having to endure listening to people
verbally signaling their “social justice.” This had nothing to do with Islam,
although Carlson’s announcement was preceded by Sadiq Khan’s decree that
swimsuits will no longer be advertised on public transportation. The
Daily Caller
reported, June 13th the London mayor has proclaimed
it is haram to look beach worthy.
Khan, London’s first Muslim
mayor, announced Monday that “body shaming” advertisements will no longer be
allowed in London’s public transport. No more sexy advertising that proclaims that
being drop dead gorgeous in a bikini is halal.
Sadiq Khan,
London’s first Muslim mayor, announced Monday that “body shaming”
advertisements will no longer be allowed in London’s public transport.
“As the
father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of
advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed
of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said.
The mayor added, “Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel
on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and
I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”
Allure? Or revulsion?
There was a petition with over 70,000
on opposing an advertisement with women in a bikini
that asked “are you beach body ready?” The petition said, “Protein World is
directly targeting individuals, aiming to make them feel physically inferior to
the unrealistic body image of the bronzed model, in order to sell their
Recently, advertisements featuring bikini-clad models in
the British city of Birmingham were spray painted over. Birmingham has a high Muslim population.
Of course, no one will ever know if Muslim women who frequent beaches
in “burkinis” have beach ready
In Islam, displaying an attractive figure – or uncovered wrist or
ankle – is haram, and
an invitation to rape. It is “exposed
” for Muslim men.
Are these
Sufi  Muslims raring to go the beach to drool over “exposed
the 17th and 18th centuries the ideal feminine profile
tended to be chunky (as can be seen in many artworks), as opposed to todays’ well-proportioned
Mythology? Or a Social Construct?
discussion of feminine beauty would be complete without academia’s two cent s worth.  Campus Reform reported on June
6th about a new sophomore course at the Hobart
and William Smith Colleges in upstate New York:
White Mythologies:
Objectivity, Meritocracy, and Other Social Constructions
” is a
sophomore-level course taught by Kendralin
and Jason
, who are sociology and anthropology professors, respectively.
   “This course explores the
history and ongoing manifestations of ‘white mythologies’—long-standing, often
implicit views about the place of White, male, Euro-American subjects as the
norm,” explains the course
, which adds that students will also “explore how systematic
logics that position ‘the West’ and ‘whiteness’ as the ideal manifest through
such social constructions as objectivity, meritocracy, and race.”
it to academia and numerous intellectuals to gum up the concept in men’s minds
in the name of “social justice.”  Beauty
through the ages has usually –but not entirely – been defined by white males, from
art to literature to architecture to the feminine form. Beauty in
academia, one supposes, is now a “white mythology” and a “social construct.” Or
perhaps a Marxist “deconstruction.” Leave it to academia and numerous intellectuals
to gum up the concept in men’s minds, bequeathing  them the hair shirt of subjectivity and the
endless nattering of the MSM..

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén