Monday, March 19, 2018

Phobias a la carte

Mueller could not find the Prancing Unicorn

There’s “Islamophobia,” which literally means an “unreasoning” fear of Islam (a fear, but utterly reasonable, based on the repeated jihadist attacks that have killed hundreds of people) and what it can do to your rights or your life or your country – that is, to end them .

And then there is “Trumpophobia,” meaning a persistent, unreasoning, obsessive, incurable hatred of Donald Trump, a phobia based on emotion stemming from an unremitting resentment that Trump “robbed” them of another shot at a “transformative,” destructive hegemony over the culture, as Obama had permitted them the luxury during his eight-year term.  

The condition is similar to the criminal psychosis inculcated by Islam. The neurosis – or rather the psychosis – goes on and on like a yammering broken record with no off switch. The Trump- Russia collusion investigation that Robert Mueller has been chasing as an elusive, highway mirage for a year, was finally declared without substance and basically illusionary. It was a highway to nowhere. State governments have built many of those. One got tired of seeing Mueller’s morose face almost everywhere one turned.

There is the phobia narrated by a Swedish countess who moved from Sweden to Hungary because there are few if any Muslim migrants there to molest her, rob her, deny her job because her employment interviewers of migrants. This is a common phobia, as the countess, explains, among Swedes who are afraid to intervene in molestation, because they could be stabbed.  Many Swedes, she reports, are moving to countries that do not permit the mass invasion of migrants.

Of particular concern is the phobia exhibited by James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump. His legion of crimes and misdemeanors is admirably explicated by Joseph E. diGenova
at Hillsdale College. After outlining Hillary’s numerous crimes, misdemeanors, and acts of treason, Comey refused to indict her, as he said they weren’t serious enough to merit a grand jury, and let her off the hook. In February 2018, diGenova details those crimes in “The Politicization of the FBI.”

The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

 “Head injuries – a.k.a. phobias for the truth, or, what European authorities habitually attribute to a murdering jihadi, “mental problems” – seem to be fairly common in Washington, D.C.  The Islamic phobia is based on a fear of offending Muslims or Islam, or of being accused of racism, even though Islam is not a race, but a supremacist ideology in the guise of a religion. In Comey’s case his phobia seems to have been virally communicated from Hillary Clinton, a habitual liar.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.

After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.

Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.

Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.

Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.

Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed.

The next excellently parsed phobia of Comey, Mueller, and Company is by Victor David Hanson in his March 13th essay, “Swamp Things in the Russia Investigation,” in which he writes,

“The Swamp” usually refers to the vast federal bureaucratic machinery of mostly unelected top officials who exercise influence and power without worry about the appearance of conflicts of interest. They are often exempt from the consequences of the laws and regulations that affect others. The chief characteristics of the swamp are the interlocking friendships, business relationships, marriages and partnerships in Washington, and their immune response against anyone who challenges them.

Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has proven the locus classicus of a dysfunctional and highly incestuous Washington culture—so much so that it borders on being a caricature of a Washington investigation.

The Origins of the Robert Mueller Appointment: How did it come about? Mueller’s acquaintance, former FBI Director James Comey (Mueller and Comey were lauded dating back to the Bush Administration as “brothers in arms”), has testified that he was so exasperated with the president that he leaked his own confidential and likely classified memos of presidential meetings to the press via a friend in order that it “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” It certainly did that. And mirabile dictu, the special counsel was soon none other than Robert Mueller with whom Comey had had a professional relationship in a variety of contexts for nearly 20 years. At some point, will one of Mueller’s staff have to depose him to ask whether he ever discussed the possibility of a special counsel appointment with Comey prior to Comey’s firing?

The two FBI investigators (and Lisa Page) had a long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an overriding antipathy for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not elected president or, barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated concerning the “insurance” idea that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s election or thwart his presidency, with deputy director Andrew McCabe.

When the inspector general released evidence of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were dismissed. But Mueller apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken off his investigation. Their staggered departures were reported in the press as normal reassignments and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they were leaving would somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest….

The two FBI investigators had a long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an overriding antipathy for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not elected president or, barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated concerning the “insurance” idea that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s election or thwart his presidency, with deputy director Andrew McCabe.

When the inspector general released evidence of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were dismissed. But Mueller apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken off his investigation. Their staggered departures were reported in the press as normal reassignments and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they were leaving would somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest.

In sum, all the Swamp creatures discussed by Hanson and diGenova worked secretively but assiduously to find “dirt” on Donald Trump in order to remove him from office, and to manipulate reality.  The dirt was not found, because it didn’t exist. Their animus is incurable.  They will not let go the inexorable fact that they lost. Their phobias will likely follow them to their graves, and, hopefully, first, to their jail cells.

Saturday, March 17, 2018

The Era of Malice

The Era of Malice

Whatever happened to those friendly, blue pith- helmeted British “constables on patrol” of yore?  The stolid ones who walked the foggy streets armed only with nightsticks, and gave you some visible assurance they were on the lookout for bad guys, and not you?
They’ve been long buried, or retired, or have been replaced by PC-friendly, PC-compliant nonentities who’ll take orders and harass or arrest advocates of the freedom of speech, rather than risk dismissal and a pension for calling a Muslim a Muslim. They’d prefer to arrest  Winston Churchill for bad-mouthing Nazis or Muslims than blow a whistle in pursuit of criminals. Paul Weston, a British libertarian, was arrested  and silenced for reading excerpts from Churchil’s The River War. The “constables” are now on the lookout for you and for any evidence of “hate speech” against especially Muslims.
It’s evidence of Britain’s capitulation to Islam that it persecutes the advocates of the opposition of such capitulation that three individuals were barred from entering Britain because they allegedly posted a threat to “public safety” by holding their views. Lauren Southern, and Austrian activist Martin Sellner of Génération Identitaire and his girlfriend, American author and YouTuber Brittany Pettibone. Southern was detained in Calais, while Sellner and Pettibone were imprisoned for three days after being grilled on their political beliefs and speeches in Islamized Europe.
Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, and determined to “transform” the City into a Sharia-compliant center of Islamic triumph, has called for the tech companies to sift out and crush free speech, as though the tech companies weren’t doing enough already. Do not defame Islam with “Islamophobia” or you will “spend a night in the box” or worse. Khan makes Oliver Cromwell look like a Quaker. The American Thinker has his number.  On March 14th it ran this article, “Sadiq Khan Squelches Freedom of Thought and Expression”:
Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London,  will be speaking at a conference of technology executives in Austin, Texas.  The gist of his remarks has been announced.  It is a speech advocating a troika of control, condemnation, and confiscation.  The control he requests is that the masters of the internet bar anti-Islamic comments and threats.  His condemnation is of President Donald Trump for his tweets (especially those in support of Britain First), which have proven to be an encouragement to those with an anti-Islamic agenda.  And he suggests that the big technology firms be taxed not on the basis of profits, but on the basis of revenue if the anti-Islamic messages continue on the internet, thus threatening confiscation if his "advice" is not taken.  He has expressed delight at Germany's hate speech laws, advocated and advanced by Angela Merkel.
CAIR attempted to shut down a talk by Anni Cyrus,, a former Iranian refugee invited by a chapter of the American Legion, to speak about the horrors women face in mullah land (and which she endured for fifteen years), but failed when the chapter president, an ex-Marine, told CAIR to go shoe a goose. Jihad Watch wrote:
Regardless of CAIR’S effort to silence Anni Cyrus, the event went as planned, on Sunday, March 11, thanks to the American Legion’s refusal to bow to an organization as unsavory as CAIR and allow it to dictate who it features as speakers. This is an important push-back against how confused and compromised the American public sphere has become. Anni Cyrus is a courageous and much-needed voice trying to dispel that confusion. She should be heard, without interference from the polite and sinister authoritarians of CAIR.
Midnight for S.A. whites
In the meantime, the genocide of white farmers (and of whites in general) continues apace in South Africa, whose Parliament adopted the new law that would  confiscate without compensation white-owned farms, and also just murder whites or reduce them to subsistence-level penury. Quartz Africa  offers this confusing report concerning the Australian offer to “fast-track” visas for white farmer:
A potential offer by Australia to give white South African farmers “humanitarian” visas has sparked backlash from the South African government.
Australia’s home affairs, immigration and border protection minister Peter Dutton said he had asked his department to “look at ways in which we can provide some assistance”, following claims in the country’s Rupert Murdoch-owned newspapers that “white South African farmers are murdered every week….”
The South African government denies that it intends to wipe out whites.
“There is no need to fear. We want to say to the world that we are engaged in a process of land redistribution which is very important to address the imbalances of the past,” a spokesperson for international relations minister Lindiwe Sisulu told Guardian Australia. “But it is going to be done legally, and with due consideration of the economic impact and impact on individuals.”
There is plenty to fear. “Redistribution” means a Stalinist policy, which resulted in the deaths by murder or by intended starvation of millions of Russians, a phenomenon which  will be repeated in South Africa. It is not only farmers who will be targeted, but the countless white engineers and technicians who have been removed from their jobs and relegated to shanty towns or squatter towns.
The Daily Beast, a digital Antifa -clone of the Internet censors  (in company with Google, Twitter, and Facebook), recently ran an article by one of its “star” reporters on the Instagram and the daughters of  widely read and admired Pamela Geller.  The Federalist, in a not-very-friendly story, reported:
Will never surrender
The Twitter account of Instagram celebrity Claudia Oshry, who goes by the username Girl With No Job, has gone dark, after The Daily Beast unearthed political tweets from 2012 and revealed that her mother is right-wing provocateur Pamela Geller.
Claudia and her sisters Jackie, Olivia and Margo Oshry, had gone to “great lengths to conceal their connection to their mother,” who has been the target of multiple attempts on her life, The Beast reported Wednesday. A man was convicted last October for attempting to behead Geller on behalf of ISIS last year. In 2015, Geller hosted a controversial drawing contest in Garland, Texas offering cash prizes of the best drawing of the prophet Mohamed. The event was the target of a mass shooting that was foiled by police officers who saved countless lives by stopping the two terrorists. [Not merely “stopped” them, but shot them dead.]
The sisters had also posted messages supportive of President Trump as well as tweets mocking Obama, which The Beast highlighted.
Pamela Geller is a “provocateur”?  Not really. That’s what The Federalist called her. She reports the news which the MSM ignores and which the tech giants try their best to hide from sight of viewers, or remove altogether, or quash completely. The actions by the Daily Beast have imperiled the lives of these women.
The madness caused by Islam and anti-Trumpism has morphed into unabashed malevolence.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Leftward Ho!

I’ve said my fill about Black Panther and am done with discussing the obvious leftist Cultural Marxist manifestation of “identity” politics for blacks, courtesy of Hollywood. 

This column is about the ongoing leftward turn of CPAC.

It’s time to focus on something that the anti-Trumpers and the Left are likely tittering about now, which is the major slide to the Left of CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action Conference.  And how are conservatives leaning Left when the Left has proven to be conservatives’ mortal enemy? 

Pamela Geller was supposed to have a panel at CPAC sponsored by her ADFI, but since September, after expressing interest, the show-runners of CPAC at the last minute, cancelled Geller even holding a panel in a spare room because it refused to allow Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit on the panel.  The Wikipedia link to Gateway reveals the author’s bias and hostility by asserting, “The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.” Which is a lie, as much of one that accused Pamela Geller of dropping out of the latest CPAC synod. Robert Spencer has the whole story of CPAC’s dhimmitude over the jihad threat. Both Geller and Spencer describe the whirligigs, chiefly by APP’s Terry Schilling, put Geller through for months.

Robert Spencer writes:

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has never been much interested in hosting honest discussion of the jihad terror threat.

Not only has CPAC consistently dissembled about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, but it has also shown a disturbing tendency to dance to the tune of the Left. Saul Alinsky’s 13th Rule for Radicals is “‘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.” The Left consistently does this; in the case of counter-jihadis (including me), it presents our statements, however correct and demonstrable, as egregious and individual to us — that’s freezing and personalizing the target. Then Leftists move to “cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy,” demanding that others on the Right disavow and condemn, or at very least shun, the target.  

One of CPAC’s leaders is Suhail Kan, a Muslim, who denied to an audience during CPAC-2014 that the Muslim Brotherhood existed in the U.S.

Geller writes,

The uber-left SPLC’s “Hatewatch” is a clearinghouse of enemedia articles that reflect the propaganda spin that it wants to put on news events. In this edition, it links to the Forward’s ridiculous hit piece on me that tries to make something of a few retweets supposedly by Russian bots, as well as to the CNN story in which ACU board member Terry Schilling lies about the panel I conceptualized and proposed to CPAC, and which now has been taken over by Schilling without my authorization.

You can read the full story of that here — I proposed a panel and list of speakers to CPAC. Then CPAC demanded I drop Jim Hoft, as he had offended leftists. When I refused, they canceled the panel. Now CPAC is claiming that I was
“invited” to that panel and “bowed out,” and they’re presenting a panel of the same title, with same speakers, minus Jim Hoft (who they demanded be removed) and me.

It’s intellectual theft.

It also plays into the vicious hands of the CPAC, which has announced its intention to “destroy” the individuals and groups that it deems “hate groups” because they dissent from its far-left agenda. CPAC, like RINOs everywhere, always jump to do the left’s bidding, and act as its tools. That’s what’s happening here. Does CPAC leadership think the left will spare them if they jump to its tune and drop Hoft when they demand it, and sing along with the SPLC? They are in for a surprise.


CPAC's Terry Schilling: Snake in the grass.
Now Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project (APP) says he is holding the panel anyway, without either me or Hoft, and that it was his panel to which he invited me. In reality, neither Schilling nor the APP nor anyone at CPAC had any hand in the conception or organization of this panel. CPAC’s claim that I was “invited” to this panel that I originated and that I then bowed out is a lie; their running with this panel that I conceived and organized without my authorization or consent is intellectual theft.

This is the height of irony: a panel on free speech from which not one, but two speakers have been banned. How can they claim to stand for free speech after dropping a speaker because of pressure from the authoritarian left? What value can a free speech panel have when two free speech leaders were banned from that panel? And if I am so toxic, having been shunned at CPAC for years, why are they stealing my work?

The panel is now bitterly ironic: social media censorship discussed at a heavily censored event. CPAC should be inviting us, not banning us. To bow to the left by dropping Jim Hoft of Gateway because the left is targeting him only reinforces our weakness and shows why we are losing this great war.

Grover Norquist’s influence at CPAC, the American Conservative Union,  and in other “conservative” burrows of obsequious deference to Islam –  “Carry a twig,” not  “big stick” – to the effect that many conservatives regard Islam is a “religion of peace,” regardless of the number of attacks in the West and on Westerners committed by the murderous sycophants of Islam. It is likely significant to his mindset that Norquist is married to a Palestinian Muslim, and has become a
CPAC's Grover Norquist: Muslim leader
Muslim..  He claims that Islam’s beliefs and practices are compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Will not Surrender to Norquist's "lions" of Islam
The Potomac Tea Party Report in 2011 suggested this dollop of honesty from Norquist:

If Norquist was sincere in his belief that Muslim goals (Sharia!) and our Constitution were perfectly compatible, he would quit calling those who disagree with him names.  He would stand up and tell the truth about his involvement since before 9/11 with Islamists. He would explain how and when he himself became a Muslim.  He would put it all out on the table and urge debate on his apparent belief that the Republican Party should embrace all Muslims and frankly he should agree to debate someone like Frank Gaffney in a public forum for us all to hear all the facts so that we can each decide for ourselves who we agree with.  That is what he should do if he REALLY cares about the Republican Party.

That is not going to happen. If the powers behind CPAC are not only unwilling to debate knowledgeable authorities on the peril of Islam, but go out of their way to smear and denigrate those authorities and censor them when they can, one must ask what kind of leadership governs CPAC. Norquist cares about the Republican Party only insofar as it becomes hostile to freedom of speech.

And there you have it. The conservative cave is populated with fork-tongued snakes like Grover Norquist and Terry Schilling, more than willing to duct tape and silence crusaders for freedom like Pamela Geller and Jim Hoft and so many others.

Wither go conservatives? Except more to the left, Alinsky-style? Does the rank-and-file conservative realize what a bill-of-goods he is being sold? Does he know where he is going?