Day: November 10, 2017

How to Thank a Soldier on Veterans' Day


Veterans’ Day is a time for Americans to step up and honor those who have served in the armed forces.  From the days of the Founding Fathers to today, those in the military, whether enlisted or drafted, made tremendous sacrifices for their fellow Americans.  We should offer thanks, but the question is how we go about doing it.

Today, many people will tell a veteran, “Thank you for your service.”  During the Vietnam War, those who fought gallantly for this country would have welcomed that greeting instead of being spat upon and called baby-killers.  But for those who fought in the War on Terror, is it enough?  The recent book by David Finkel and movie by Jason Hall, Thank You for Your Service, implies that the sentiment is great, but more is needed.

The movie and book follow a group of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq and struggling to integrate back into family and civilian life.  They live with the horrific memories of a war that threatens to destroy them here at home.  Both film and book explore the reality of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which affects both the warrior and his family.

David Finkel’s first book, For the Good Soldiers, told of his experiences while embedded with the men of the 2-16 Infantry Battalion in Iraq during the infamous “surge.”  His follow-up book, Thank You for Your Service, and the movie based on the book show what happens to these men after their deployments have ended.  He told American Thinker, “They came with various psychological and moral injuries, and some are broken.  I think the movie found the true heart of my book, getting the big picture.  The war affected these guys, and they came home different, many times unable to talk about it.”

Jason Hall, the screenwriter and director, concurs: “I hope the movie opens people’s eyes regarding the continued war that these guys are fighting, trying to find their way back home.  This is very much their second war, as they come home changed and altered by the war.  Since I wrote the screenplay for the movie about Chris Kyle, I am calling this film the spiritual sequel to American Sniper.”

Some have criticized the book and movie because they say it implies that all soldiers coming home are broken.  Finkel responds to the criticism: “I just do not buy it.  Of course not every vet is broken, but every vet is affected.  When I embedded with these guys for about eight months, I saw a lot of them injured and lost.  I think it is fair to say that there was not a man of those 800 that was not affected in some way, but this does not mean they were all broken.  After my first book, some who returned from deployment contacted me and told of having a hard time with divorces, DUIs, depression, anxiety, medication, and suicidal thoughts.  They came home with various psychological and moral injuries, and some were broken.  The fact is, they were changed, and it will take some time to recover, but it certainly does not mean they are broken forever.  It is a shame for people to say, Don’t tell this story because it buys into the broken vet idea.

Hall added, “I am by no means saying everyone who comes home suffers from PTSD.  I think it is one in four or one in five.  It is certainly the minority.  Yet we have to be aware of those who have the feelings that everything feels different and looks different, with a different texture and meaning.”

The book and movie should not be criticized for pointing out that approximately 25% of the soldiers need help, because the goal is to start a discussion and make Americans more aware of these veterans who need support. 

The relatives are also affected.  While at war, the soldier’s peers became their family, and their family at home were left to fend for themselves.  Both appear to be strangers to each other in some way.  A scene in the book has one of the returning soldiers, Staff Sergeant Adam Schumann, now retired, cooking pancakes for his daughter, making a happy face with chocolate chips.  The problem is that the child does not like chocolate.  Another scene has his wife finding a questionnaire, which shows his distressed mental state.  It becomes obvious that the soldier feels out of place within his own family and the family feel like outsiders, unaware of everything the soldier has experienced.

Hall describes this process as “having these guys stepping through a door as they go off to war.  When it closes, the veteran has extraordinary experiences, profound and meaningful relationships.  Their families back home are waiting for the door to open up and for the veterans to step back in their lives.  In some instances, the veteran has changed, with the family left to grapple with and unravel the mystery of who is this person?

Finkel wants to make it clear that being broken is not a sign of weakness, nor should someone be regarded as crazy.

He is hoping anyone who utters the words thank you for your service “realizes it is not a conversation opener, but a conversation closer.  I want people to take away from the book that these people are noble.  I want Americans to understand there are many protocols, and don’t stereotype anyone.  Some people are helped by medication and others by cognitive therapy.  We should ask them how they are doing.  We should appreciate them every day, not just on holidays like Veterans’ Day.”

The movie and book need to be applauded for bringing to the forefront how profoundly those serving have been affected by war.  After all, PTSD has existed since World War I in the form of “shell shock.”  Basically, for one hundred years, soldiers have come home with psychological issues, and what people should be asking is how much have we learned to help them.  Today, only one percent of the population is connected to someone serving, but we cannot ignore or forget about those coming home.

Americans should see the movie and read the book to understand what the families and those who put their lives on the line are going through.

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Veterans’ Day is a time for Americans to step up and honor those who have served in the armed forces.  From the days of the Founding Fathers to today, those in the military, whether enlisted or drafted, made tremendous sacrifices for their fellow Americans.  We should offer thanks, but the question is how we go about doing it.

Today, many people will tell a veteran, “Thank you for your service.”  During the Vietnam War, those who fought gallantly for this country would have welcomed that greeting instead of being spat upon and called baby-killers.  But for those who fought in the War on Terror, is it enough?  The recent book by David Finkel and movie by Jason Hall, Thank You for Your Service, implies that the sentiment is great, but more is needed.

The movie and book follow a group of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq and struggling to integrate back into family and civilian life.  They live with the horrific memories of a war that threatens to destroy them here at home.  Both film and book explore the reality of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which affects both the warrior and his family.

David Finkel’s first book, For the Good Soldiers, told of his experiences while embedded with the men of the 2-16 Infantry Battalion in Iraq during the infamous “surge.”  His follow-up book, Thank You for Your Service, and the movie based on the book show what happens to these men after their deployments have ended.  He told American Thinker, “They came with various psychological and moral injuries, and some are broken.  I think the movie found the true heart of my book, getting the big picture.  The war affected these guys, and they came home different, many times unable to talk about it.”

Jason Hall, the screenwriter and director, concurs: “I hope the movie opens people’s eyes regarding the continued war that these guys are fighting, trying to find their way back home.  This is very much their second war, as they come home changed and altered by the war.  Since I wrote the screenplay for the movie about Chris Kyle, I am calling this film the spiritual sequel to American Sniper.”

Some have criticized the book and movie because they say it implies that all soldiers coming home are broken.  Finkel responds to the criticism: “I just do not buy it.  Of course not every vet is broken, but every vet is affected.  When I embedded with these guys for about eight months, I saw a lot of them injured and lost.  I think it is fair to say that there was not a man of those 800 that was not affected in some way, but this does not mean they were all broken.  After my first book, some who returned from deployment contacted me and told of having a hard time with divorces, DUIs, depression, anxiety, medication, and suicidal thoughts.  They came home with various psychological and moral injuries, and some were broken.  The fact is, they were changed, and it will take some time to recover, but it certainly does not mean they are broken forever.  It is a shame for people to say, Don’t tell this story because it buys into the broken vet idea.

Hall added, “I am by no means saying everyone who comes home suffers from PTSD.  I think it is one in four or one in five.  It is certainly the minority.  Yet we have to be aware of those who have the feelings that everything feels different and looks different, with a different texture and meaning.”

The book and movie should not be criticized for pointing out that approximately 25% of the soldiers need help, because the goal is to start a discussion and make Americans more aware of these veterans who need support. 

The relatives are also affected.  While at war, the soldier’s peers became their family, and their family at home were left to fend for themselves.  Both appear to be strangers to each other in some way.  A scene in the book has one of the returning soldiers, Staff Sergeant Adam Schumann, now retired, cooking pancakes for his daughter, making a happy face with chocolate chips.  The problem is that the child does not like chocolate.  Another scene has his wife finding a questionnaire, which shows his distressed mental state.  It becomes obvious that the soldier feels out of place within his own family and the family feel like outsiders, unaware of everything the soldier has experienced.

Hall describes this process as “having these guys stepping through a door as they go off to war.  When it closes, the veteran has extraordinary experiences, profound and meaningful relationships.  Their families back home are waiting for the door to open up and for the veterans to step back in their lives.  In some instances, the veteran has changed, with the family left to grapple with and unravel the mystery of who is this person?

Finkel wants to make it clear that being broken is not a sign of weakness, nor should someone be regarded as crazy.

He is hoping anyone who utters the words thank you for your service “realizes it is not a conversation opener, but a conversation closer.  I want people to take away from the book that these people are noble.  I want Americans to understand there are many protocols, and don’t stereotype anyone.  Some people are helped by medication and others by cognitive therapy.  We should ask them how they are doing.  We should appreciate them every day, not just on holidays like Veterans’ Day.”

The movie and book need to be applauded for bringing to the forefront how profoundly those serving have been affected by war.  After all, PTSD has existed since World War I in the form of “shell shock.”  Basically, for one hundred years, soldiers have come home with psychological issues, and what people should be asking is how much have we learned to help them.  Today, only one percent of the population is connected to someone serving, but we cannot ignore or forget about those coming home.

Americans should see the movie and read the book to understand what the families and those who put their lives on the line are going through.

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.



Source link

Washington Post Says Fake Hate Is Rare, and Other Fairy Tales


The occasion for their latest prevarication was this week when even the Post had to admit that three recent nationally publicized stories of white on black hate crimes were fake as a nine-bob note. At the Air Force Academy Prep school, a black student admitted he was responsible for the racist graffiti that drew so much virtue display from so many high places. Ditto for racist drawings in Lawrence, Kansas and racist graffiti at a Missouri church.

Despite the recent hoaxes of white racism, the Post its satraps at SPLC felt the need to reassure us that white racist hate crimes are real and widespread and of course all the fault of Donald Trump.

That’s the fantasy. The reality is that black victimization is the biggest hoax of our lifetimes, and fake hate is a part of that huge liberal con game. And it is easy to see with even a cursory look at a list of recent fake hate stories that gathered national attention.

The SPLC tells so many fibs about so many fake hate crimes even they have trouble keeping track. After the election of Donald Trump, Mark Potok and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews were talking about the millions — or was it billions? — of hate crimes that Trump supporters were creating all over the universe when they settled on one particularly egregious example of a Moslem woman in New York whose hijab was torn from her sainted head. Trump supporters did it, of course, all the while threatening even more violence.

It never happened. Even the New York Times figured that out a few months before. But that hardly mattered to Potok and Matthews. Here’s a link to the conversation and the hoax.

This is a long list: Each one featuring the boy who cried wolf, and a bevy of reporters eager to forget the first and only rule of journalism: If your mother says she love you, check it out.

So let’s take a look at a few dozen recent examples of fake hate crimes, starting with black public officials who love to lie about black victimization. All with links.

In Texas, a state legislator blew by a state trooper doing 94 miles an hour — his third speeding infraction for which he received a warning. Nevertheless, soon after, he took to the dais to tell his colleagues about the racist cop who was picking on him because of his skin color. Just like Sandra Bland. Then came the video of the polite and deferential officer giving the lawmaker a few tips about slowing down.

Racist police stop? Never happened.

In Jacksonville, Florida, two black city council members bitterly complained about racial profiling after one was stopped driving a car with stolen license plates. One body cam video later, this was clear: It never happened. A national police news site characterized the councilman at the wheel as a “lying scumbag.”

In Chicago, congressman and former Black Panther leader Bobby Rush said he was pulled over, then used and abused because he was black. Never happened.

In Orlando, a black state attorney was stopped because her license plate did not show up in a police computer. She complained of racial profiling. Then came the video featuring a polite cop and surly driver. Her fairy tale? Never appenhed.

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, city, state, and national media were falling over themselves to investigate racist letters threatening black cops. After a year, the full story came out. Never happened: Black cops manufactured the letters and were caught.

College professors have a special affection for claiming white racism during routine interactions with police. In Princeton, a black professor’s story of racial woe during a traffic stop for unpaid warrants attracted national attention. Then came the video: It never happened.

In Texas, a professor of journalism wrote an op-ed for the major daily paper in Dallas, recounting a hostile experience with two white cops who stopped her for walking in the middle of the road. The root of the nasty behavior directed at her? Her race. Then came the video. It never happened.

College campuses are particularly ripe for any con man or woman with a claim of racial hatred. At the University of Delaware, a Black Studies co-ed said she found a noose in a tree. Proof positive of racial hatred that required the campus police to wake up the school president. The school immediately went on full Cat 5 storm alert. An anti-racist rally was scheduled for later that day. A few hours before the rally, they figured out the noose was really a piece of string from a paper lantern, left over from an alumni party.

The rally went on, as scheduled, to protest a piece of string. The hate crime never happened.

At Albany State University in New York, three black students claimed they were attacked by 20 white people on a bus. Even Hillary Clinton got in on that one through Twitter. After lots of rallies and national attention, police released the videos from the 12 cameras on the bus. The white on black violence? Never happened. They lied.

Even after the videos, even after the trial, the three girls and their lawyers claimed they were still victims of white racism, which somehow forced them to lie.

At Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, hundreds of students turned on the outrage in protests and marches and twitter when racist graffiti was found scrawled throughout the campus. National media chimed in, as with almost all of these fake stories, saying it was just another example of the hate crimes sweeping the country in the Trump era. The kind you read about in the Washington Post and in fundraising letters from the SPLC.

It never happened: A black guy did it.

At Michigan State University, the campus was in a panic after a black student found a noose in her dorm. Never happened. It was just a pair of shoelaces on the floor.

Not to be outdone, a Moslem student at the University of Michigan claimed that three Trump supporters with bad personal hygiene beat her and threatened to set her on fire because of her religion. Never happened.

At the University of Maryland, the campus was on full anti-racist alert after racist graffiti was found. Never happened. A black guy did it.

The College Fix fills in the blanks with lots more stories of fake hate crime and fake outrage. Find it here. Even better, check the Fake Hate Crimes website.

In New Hampshire, national media fixated on the story of a black boy lynched by white racists — complete with rope burns.  It never happened. The kid was white. The Post, of course, swallowed it with gusto: hook, line, sinker, rod, reel and boat.

At the University of Louisiana in Lafayette, a black person reported a hate crime involving some rough-looking white dudes wearing Trump hats in a pickup truck throwing rocks. Never happened.

At Bowling Green State University, a black student took a picture and told the world of a secret meeting of the Ku Klux Klan — right on campus.  Never happened: The hoods were just covers for lab equipment. Even Kat Timpf figured that one out.

At North Park University in Chicago, a gay student was very proud of her courage (and newfound popularity) in the face of repeated — and well publicized — threats from Trump supporters. Never happened.

Cops of course, are targets of constant claims of racial hatred on the job. In Rainbow City, Alabama, a black family said racist cops beat their son and threw him off a bridge. Never happened. He was a wanted criminal, as was his passenger, and on video he ran. He jumped over a bridge railing, not knowing it was a long way down. No ghetto lottery for them.

In Memphis, a black lawyer in a nice suit told a tale of a harrowing racial encounter where he felt his life was in danger because of a trigger-happy racist cop. The video showed it never happened.

In DeKalb county, two black firefighters filed a complaint alleging racial abuse at the hands of a black cop. It never happened.

You might think Hollywood actresses would know a bit more about video, but not in these two cases. Taraji Henson, start of the TV hit Empire, said her son was racially abused in Glendale for one reason and one reason only: He was black. When police released the video, it showed a hyper polite cop giving her son a warning — and some fatherly advice — even after catching him blowing through a pedestrian crossing with pot and prescription drugs. All on video.

In West Hollywood, a black actress with a part in Django Unchained told the world about the racial indignity she suffered at the hands of a white cop — all while she and her boyfriend were just sitting in their car. When the audio and video tapes were released, it was revealed they were having sex in public, the neighbors reported them, the cop was polite, and everything she said Never Happened.

By far, the greatest amount of fake racial hatred was inspired by the election of Donald Trump. A smattering:

In Malden, Massachusetts, a black man garnered a lot of sympathy — and attention — for his story of some white guys who threatened to lynch him because Malden was now “Trump Country.” Never happened.

In Santa Monica, Chris Ball told his friends that a group of Trump supporters beat him because he was gay and because everyone knows Trumpers hate gay people. Santa Monica police said that never happened. Even Snopes.com, which rarely met a hate crime it did not love, had to beg off on that fairy tale, because it Never Happened.

In Philadelphia, residents of that Democrat city were not surprised to learn that Trump partisans were spray painting racist slogans all over town following his election. Only it never happened. A black guy did it.

But even the most jaded Philly partisan was surprised at this story. It started off like all the others: Big bad Trump people were spreading hateful graffiti in the City of Brotherly Love. It never happened: A blue blooded member of the city attorney’s staff was caught in the act. A white guy, in an expensive suit carrying a glass of white wine.

Down in Mississippi, some Trumponian miscreant set a black church on fire, leaving behind racist and pro-Trump graffiti as a calling card: It never happened: A black church member did it.

Out in Chandler, Arizona, it was clear to members of a local synagogue that Trump supporters vandalized a Jewish cemetery. It never happened. But they did arrest four black people for doing it. That happened.

This is a long list with lots more to be found on my YouTube playlist of fake hate crimes. Or just about any copy of the Washington Post at random.

Some of the lies the Post and the SPLC love to spread have consequences. In Charlotte, thousands of black people rampaged through the streets, destroying property and hurting cops — 16 ended up in the hospital — all because reporters and public officials took the hate bait and believed a fairy tale that the cops killed a black person for no reason what so ever. Never happened.

Then it happened again a few nights later: Black ministers were among the dozen or so people who insisted that — during a protest for the fake racist killing — cops killed a Black Lives Matter protestor. For no reason whatsoever. Giving the violence a boost.

It never happened. A black guy was killed by another black guy at close range over the same kind of beef that gets black guys killed every day. That happened. The rest? Just two big fat lies — swallowed whole by the Post.

Similar lies were told and swallowed wholesale in Milwaukee, sparking even bigger riots.

But by far the biggest lie with the greatest consequences came out of Ferguson, Missouri. Thousands of reporters from across the country could not repeat often enough the greatest lie of the last two years: Police martyred St. Michael Brown with his hands in the air saying “don’t’ shoot.”

Even the Washington Post almost a year later got around to admitting that Hands Up, Don’t Shoot was a lie — naming it as one of its top Pinocchio’s of the Year. Curiously, the Post neglected its own role in spreading this lie, with hundreds of its editorial employees signing off on more than 100 stories in every nook and cranny of the paper.

They even repeated the lie of St. Michael a few months later during a story on black activism at Howard University.

There are so many more of these fake stories reporting fake hate crimes. How many do you want? That’s how many there are. All eagerly reported. All desperately denied when they are found to be fairy tales.

But by far, my favorite hate crime hoax story was another one perpetuated by the Potok and the SLPC. They said an intrepid reporter uncovering black mob violence in previously unknown quanities was the one really responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing.

That dashing reporter apparently created a climate of hate, all by himself.  That’s what he told Rachel Maddow as she smiled knowingly.

And the reporter responsible for that disaster? That was me.

When not causing Moslem hate violence in Boston, Colin Flaherty is the author of that scintillating best seller, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victmization and those who enable it. Everything in that book is actually true.

The Washington Post promised us that fake hate crimes are “rare.”  The news hounds of D.C. know that because the Southern Poverty Law Center, America’s greatest purveyors of fake hate crimes, told them so.

That is the biggest hoax of all.

The occasion for their latest prevarication was this week when even the Post had to admit that three recent nationally publicized stories of white on black hate crimes were fake as a nine-bob note. At the Air Force Academy Prep school, a black student admitted he was responsible for the racist graffiti that drew so much virtue display from so many high places. Ditto for racist drawings in Lawrence, Kansas and racist graffiti at a Missouri church.

Despite the recent hoaxes of white racism, the Post its satraps at SPLC felt the need to reassure us that white racist hate crimes are real and widespread and of course all the fault of Donald Trump.

That’s the fantasy. The reality is that black victimization is the biggest hoax of our lifetimes, and fake hate is a part of that huge liberal con game. And it is easy to see with even a cursory look at a list of recent fake hate stories that gathered national attention.

The SPLC tells so many fibs about so many fake hate crimes even they have trouble keeping track. After the election of Donald Trump, Mark Potok and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews were talking about the millions — or was it billions? — of hate crimes that Trump supporters were creating all over the universe when they settled on one particularly egregious example of a Moslem woman in New York whose hijab was torn from her sainted head. Trump supporters did it, of course, all the while threatening even more violence.

It never happened. Even the New York Times figured that out a few months before. But that hardly mattered to Potok and Matthews. Here’s a link to the conversation and the hoax.

This is a long list: Each one featuring the boy who cried wolf, and a bevy of reporters eager to forget the first and only rule of journalism: If your mother says she love you, check it out.

So let’s take a look at a few dozen recent examples of fake hate crimes, starting with black public officials who love to lie about black victimization. All with links.

In Texas, a state legislator blew by a state trooper doing 94 miles an hour — his third speeding infraction for which he received a warning. Nevertheless, soon after, he took to the dais to tell his colleagues about the racist cop who was picking on him because of his skin color. Just like Sandra Bland. Then came the video of the polite and deferential officer giving the lawmaker a few tips about slowing down.

Racist police stop? Never happened.

In Jacksonville, Florida, two black city council members bitterly complained about racial profiling after one was stopped driving a car with stolen license plates. One body cam video later, this was clear: It never happened. A national police news site characterized the councilman at the wheel as a “lying scumbag.”

In Chicago, congressman and former Black Panther leader Bobby Rush said he was pulled over, then used and abused because he was black. Never happened.

In Orlando, a black state attorney was stopped because her license plate did not show up in a police computer. She complained of racial profiling. Then came the video featuring a polite cop and surly driver. Her fairy tale? Never appenhed.

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, city, state, and national media were falling over themselves to investigate racist letters threatening black cops. After a year, the full story came out. Never happened: Black cops manufactured the letters and were caught.

College professors have a special affection for claiming white racism during routine interactions with police. In Princeton, a black professor’s story of racial woe during a traffic stop for unpaid warrants attracted national attention. Then came the video: It never happened.

In Texas, a professor of journalism wrote an op-ed for the major daily paper in Dallas, recounting a hostile experience with two white cops who stopped her for walking in the middle of the road. The root of the nasty behavior directed at her? Her race. Then came the video. It never happened.

College campuses are particularly ripe for any con man or woman with a claim of racial hatred. At the University of Delaware, a Black Studies co-ed said she found a noose in a tree. Proof positive of racial hatred that required the campus police to wake up the school president. The school immediately went on full Cat 5 storm alert. An anti-racist rally was scheduled for later that day. A few hours before the rally, they figured out the noose was really a piece of string from a paper lantern, left over from an alumni party.

The rally went on, as scheduled, to protest a piece of string. The hate crime never happened.

At Albany State University in New York, three black students claimed they were attacked by 20 white people on a bus. Even Hillary Clinton got in on that one through Twitter. After lots of rallies and national attention, police released the videos from the 12 cameras on the bus. The white on black violence? Never happened. They lied.

Even after the videos, even after the trial, the three girls and their lawyers claimed they were still victims of white racism, which somehow forced them to lie.

At Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, hundreds of students turned on the outrage in protests and marches and twitter when racist graffiti was found scrawled throughout the campus. National media chimed in, as with almost all of these fake stories, saying it was just another example of the hate crimes sweeping the country in the Trump era. The kind you read about in the Washington Post and in fundraising letters from the SPLC.

It never happened: A black guy did it.

At Michigan State University, the campus was in a panic after a black student found a noose in her dorm. Never happened. It was just a pair of shoelaces on the floor.

Not to be outdone, a Moslem student at the University of Michigan claimed that three Trump supporters with bad personal hygiene beat her and threatened to set her on fire because of her religion. Never happened.

At the University of Maryland, the campus was on full anti-racist alert after racist graffiti was found. Never happened. A black guy did it.

The College Fix fills in the blanks with lots more stories of fake hate crime and fake outrage. Find it here. Even better, check the Fake Hate Crimes website.

In New Hampshire, national media fixated on the story of a black boy lynched by white racists — complete with rope burns.  It never happened. The kid was white. The Post, of course, swallowed it with gusto: hook, line, sinker, rod, reel and boat.

At the University of Louisiana in Lafayette, a black person reported a hate crime involving some rough-looking white dudes wearing Trump hats in a pickup truck throwing rocks. Never happened.

At Bowling Green State University, a black student took a picture and told the world of a secret meeting of the Ku Klux Klan — right on campus.  Never happened: The hoods were just covers for lab equipment. Even Kat Timpf figured that one out.

At North Park University in Chicago, a gay student was very proud of her courage (and newfound popularity) in the face of repeated — and well publicized — threats from Trump supporters. Never happened.

Cops of course, are targets of constant claims of racial hatred on the job. In Rainbow City, Alabama, a black family said racist cops beat their son and threw him off a bridge. Never happened. He was a wanted criminal, as was his passenger, and on video he ran. He jumped over a bridge railing, not knowing it was a long way down. No ghetto lottery for them.

In Memphis, a black lawyer in a nice suit told a tale of a harrowing racial encounter where he felt his life was in danger because of a trigger-happy racist cop. The video showed it never happened.

In DeKalb county, two black firefighters filed a complaint alleging racial abuse at the hands of a black cop. It never happened.

You might think Hollywood actresses would know a bit more about video, but not in these two cases. Taraji Henson, start of the TV hit Empire, said her son was racially abused in Glendale for one reason and one reason only: He was black. When police released the video, it showed a hyper polite cop giving her son a warning — and some fatherly advice — even after catching him blowing through a pedestrian crossing with pot and prescription drugs. All on video.

In West Hollywood, a black actress with a part in Django Unchained told the world about the racial indignity she suffered at the hands of a white cop — all while she and her boyfriend were just sitting in their car. When the audio and video tapes were released, it was revealed they were having sex in public, the neighbors reported them, the cop was polite, and everything she said Never Happened.

By far, the greatest amount of fake racial hatred was inspired by the election of Donald Trump. A smattering:

In Malden, Massachusetts, a black man garnered a lot of sympathy — and attention — for his story of some white guys who threatened to lynch him because Malden was now “Trump Country.” Never happened.

In Santa Monica, Chris Ball told his friends that a group of Trump supporters beat him because he was gay and because everyone knows Trumpers hate gay people. Santa Monica police said that never happened. Even Snopes.com, which rarely met a hate crime it did not love, had to beg off on that fairy tale, because it Never Happened.

In Philadelphia, residents of that Democrat city were not surprised to learn that Trump partisans were spray painting racist slogans all over town following his election. Only it never happened. A black guy did it.

But even the most jaded Philly partisan was surprised at this story. It started off like all the others: Big bad Trump people were spreading hateful graffiti in the City of Brotherly Love. It never happened: A blue blooded member of the city attorney’s staff was caught in the act. A white guy, in an expensive suit carrying a glass of white wine.

Down in Mississippi, some Trumponian miscreant set a black church on fire, leaving behind racist and pro-Trump graffiti as a calling card: It never happened: A black church member did it.

Out in Chandler, Arizona, it was clear to members of a local synagogue that Trump supporters vandalized a Jewish cemetery. It never happened. But they did arrest four black people for doing it. That happened.

This is a long list with lots more to be found on my YouTube playlist of fake hate crimes. Or just about any copy of the Washington Post at random.

Some of the lies the Post and the SPLC love to spread have consequences. In Charlotte, thousands of black people rampaged through the streets, destroying property and hurting cops — 16 ended up in the hospital — all because reporters and public officials took the hate bait and believed a fairy tale that the cops killed a black person for no reason what so ever. Never happened.

Then it happened again a few nights later: Black ministers were among the dozen or so people who insisted that — during a protest for the fake racist killing — cops killed a Black Lives Matter protestor. For no reason whatsoever. Giving the violence a boost.

It never happened. A black guy was killed by another black guy at close range over the same kind of beef that gets black guys killed every day. That happened. The rest? Just two big fat lies — swallowed whole by the Post.

Similar lies were told and swallowed wholesale in Milwaukee, sparking even bigger riots.

But by far the biggest lie with the greatest consequences came out of Ferguson, Missouri. Thousands of reporters from across the country could not repeat often enough the greatest lie of the last two years: Police martyred St. Michael Brown with his hands in the air saying “don’t’ shoot.”

Even the Washington Post almost a year later got around to admitting that Hands Up, Don’t Shoot was a lie — naming it as one of its top Pinocchio’s of the Year. Curiously, the Post neglected its own role in spreading this lie, with hundreds of its editorial employees signing off on more than 100 stories in every nook and cranny of the paper.

They even repeated the lie of St. Michael a few months later during a story on black activism at Howard University.

There are so many more of these fake stories reporting fake hate crimes. How many do you want? That’s how many there are. All eagerly reported. All desperately denied when they are found to be fairy tales.

But by far, my favorite hate crime hoax story was another one perpetuated by the Potok and the SLPC. They said an intrepid reporter uncovering black mob violence in previously unknown quanities was the one really responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing.

That dashing reporter apparently created a climate of hate, all by himself.  That’s what he told Rachel Maddow as she smiled knowingly.

And the reporter responsible for that disaster? That was me.

When not causing Moslem hate violence in Boston, Colin Flaherty is the author of that scintillating best seller, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victmization and those who enable it. Everything in that book is actually true.



Source link

Senate Republicans Aim to Torpedo House GOP Tax Reform Bill


If reports about the Republican Senate amendments to the House tax reform bill are true, we could be witnessing the GOP’s suicide.

The House GOP tax bill is, as I’ve argued, a fundamentally flawed bill in some ways.  But in many others, it’s a pretty good one.  In what could only be described as an epic feat of failure, though, Senate Republicans are reportedly seeking to double down on its flaws, and undo much that is good about it.

Let’s begin with a simple fact.  Not conjecture, but a fact.  A bill which cuts taxes for all Americans cannot be immediately revenue neutral for the government.

Efforts to craft a tax bill which is revenue neutral requires that government pick winners and losers among its taxpayers, because immediate revenue neutrality can only be accomplished by zero-sum exchanges in order to achieve it. 

For example, to cut taxes for the middle class while remaining revenue neutral would require that the same amount of uncollected revenue be shored up by other means.  Governments tend to then arbitrarily target specific groups to make up for that lost revenue.  Often, because it’s politically expedient to do so, higher-income earners and/or wealthier Americans – not always the same people – are targeted. 

If this is what you believe to be a “tax cut,” you must admit that socialists like Bernie Sanders are incredible advocates of tax-cuts.   

Somewhat problematically, the House tax bill includes some such exchanges.

The bill does dramatically simplify the tax code.  It reduces the number of marginal brackets from seven to four, and reduces the tax liability across the board via marginal rate thresholds. These are very good things for American income earners, and specifically for advocates of actual tax cuts, because it allows Americans’ to keep their earned money (which is their rightful property before it is the government’s) and because we believe individuals to be better stewards of their own money than our government, which has proven to be infinitely wasteful. 

But even the House bill does other shifty things to shore up that revenue from higher income earners.  It includes deep limitations to the state and local income tax deduction (up to $10K only) and mortgage interest deduction (only on debt up to $500K), which are meant to specifically and negatively impact higher earners in particular areas of the country.  Most notably, though, the bill has a sneaky mechanism to “phaseout” or ultimately eliminate the lowest 12% income bracket for married earners over $1.2M annually, for example, taxing some of their earnings at 45.6% in order to do so. 

Those are some of what I believe to be the bad things which target higher income earners to help “pay” for the tax cuts.  But what about the good things?

Simplifying marginal tax rates from seven to four brackets?  The Senate is reportedly considering keeping the seven brackets, while suggesting that they hope to modestly reduce the rates and/or lower the thresholds for each bracket. 

State and local tax deductions limited to $10K?  The Senate may double down on this targeting of the higher earners in specific states by eliminating the deduction altogether,  according to the Washington Post.

Corporate tax reductions?  Sure, but they may have to wait a bit to do that.  “While Senate Republicans say they still hope to make corporate tax cuts immediate and permanent,” the Post reports, “they are planning to pair any potential delay with other initiatives to limit its impact on the economy.” 

If Republicans choose to amend the House bill to not include corporate tax cuts in 2018, Republicans may get creative and allow companies “to immediately deduct capital investments in 2018 from their taxable income,” which would “avoid having companies wait until 2019 to spend on the economy.”

If allowing corporations to retain more capital will spur spending on the economy, why wait to 2019 cut corporate taxes?  It makes no sense.  Unless… this is an olive branch to Democrats to give the appearance of “paying” for the tax cuts.  This is dangerous, if only because the “permanence” of a 2019 corporate tax cut may be threatened by the 2018 midterm elections.

Here’s what’s most aggravating to me, though.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had a pretty good answer to the question of revenue neutrality in the bill.  When asked by a reporter to respond to criticism about the plan not being revenue neutral, he said:

There’s all kinds of reports about all kinds of proposals.  On the Senate side, we haven’t laid out our proposal yet.  But you know from the budget, that the $1.5 trillion-dollar gap, would be closed if we only had four-tenths-of-1% growth in the next ten years.  Which is a really modest projection of what growth would be.  So we fully anticipate that this tax proposal, in the end, would be revenue neutral for the government, if not a revenue gainer.

The tax cuts will yield more money in Americans’ hands, which will yield substantially more economic growth, which will yield greater tax receipts in the long run.  Why is it so difficult to run with that message and move forward with only modest amendments to the House tax reform bill?  We conservatives are not about growing government’s power, but we certainly know that tax cuts can lead to economic growth, and along with that, government revenue can increase as an ancillary outcome.

Sure, the House tax reform bill is not perfect for small-government, big liberty loving Americans like me (to loosely borrow from Mark Steyn).  And frankly, as a conservative voter, I’m bothered that we can’t get nearer to perfect than the House bill, given Republican control of Congress and the White House. 

But maybe the problem keeping us from a perfect bill is in Republicans’ fundamental messaging.  As described by Ed Feulner, founder of The Heritage Foundation: 

Just tinkering with the tax code, though, may not be a political or economic winner.  The system needs to be rebuilt – made simple and pro-growth.  Market research shows that that what Americans want most from the tax system is “fairness,” so shaping the popular definition of that term will be key to winning the policy debate.


A fair tax system isn’t one that takes from the rich to give to the poor.  It’s one that requires everyone play by the same rules. 

Though they have the opportunity to rebuild the tax code, Republicans haven’t done enough to shape this definition of fairness as effectively as Democrats have shaped their definition of fairness to mean that the government should take from the rich to give to the poor as the highest of moral causes. 

Nonetheless, if the Senate’s answer to the House bill is to subvert its positive core measures, while keeping or exacerbating much of what is bad in order to appease Democrats and promote the Bernie Sanders mantra that corporations and high-income earners should finance tax cuts for everyone else, then Republican promises to cut taxes may prove just as empty as their promises to repeal Obamacare.

Just as the GOP should have simply repealed Obamacare when they had the chance, they should just simply cut taxes today.  But it appears that they’re getting lost in the swamp again.

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.

If reports about the Republican Senate amendments to the House tax reform bill are true, we could be witnessing the GOP’s suicide.

The House GOP tax bill is, as I’ve argued, a fundamentally flawed bill in some ways.  But in many others, it’s a pretty good one.  In what could only be described as an epic feat of failure, though, Senate Republicans are reportedly seeking to double down on its flaws, and undo much that is good about it.

Let’s begin with a simple fact.  Not conjecture, but a fact.  A bill which cuts taxes for all Americans cannot be immediately revenue neutral for the government.

Efforts to craft a tax bill which is revenue neutral requires that government pick winners and losers among its taxpayers, because immediate revenue neutrality can only be accomplished by zero-sum exchanges in order to achieve it. 

For example, to cut taxes for the middle class while remaining revenue neutral would require that the same amount of uncollected revenue be shored up by other means.  Governments tend to then arbitrarily target specific groups to make up for that lost revenue.  Often, because it’s politically expedient to do so, higher-income earners and/or wealthier Americans – not always the same people – are targeted. 

If this is what you believe to be a “tax cut,” you must admit that socialists like Bernie Sanders are incredible advocates of tax-cuts.   

Somewhat problematically, the House tax bill includes some such exchanges.

The bill does dramatically simplify the tax code.  It reduces the number of marginal brackets from seven to four, and reduces the tax liability across the board via marginal rate thresholds. These are very good things for American income earners, and specifically for advocates of actual tax cuts, because it allows Americans’ to keep their earned money (which is their rightful property before it is the government’s) and because we believe individuals to be better stewards of their own money than our government, which has proven to be infinitely wasteful. 

But even the House bill does other shifty things to shore up that revenue from higher income earners.  It includes deep limitations to the state and local income tax deduction (up to $10K only) and mortgage interest deduction (only on debt up to $500K), which are meant to specifically and negatively impact higher earners in particular areas of the country.  Most notably, though, the bill has a sneaky mechanism to “phaseout” or ultimately eliminate the lowest 12% income bracket for married earners over $1.2M annually, for example, taxing some of their earnings at 45.6% in order to do so. 

Those are some of what I believe to be the bad things which target higher income earners to help “pay” for the tax cuts.  But what about the good things?

Simplifying marginal tax rates from seven to four brackets?  The Senate is reportedly considering keeping the seven brackets, while suggesting that they hope to modestly reduce the rates and/or lower the thresholds for each bracket. 

State and local tax deductions limited to $10K?  The Senate may double down on this targeting of the higher earners in specific states by eliminating the deduction altogether,  according to the Washington Post.

Corporate tax reductions?  Sure, but they may have to wait a bit to do that.  “While Senate Republicans say they still hope to make corporate tax cuts immediate and permanent,” the Post reports, “they are planning to pair any potential delay with other initiatives to limit its impact on the economy.” 

If Republicans choose to amend the House bill to not include corporate tax cuts in 2018, Republicans may get creative and allow companies “to immediately deduct capital investments in 2018 from their taxable income,” which would “avoid having companies wait until 2019 to spend on the economy.”

If allowing corporations to retain more capital will spur spending on the economy, why wait to 2019 cut corporate taxes?  It makes no sense.  Unless… this is an olive branch to Democrats to give the appearance of “paying” for the tax cuts.  This is dangerous, if only because the “permanence” of a 2019 corporate tax cut may be threatened by the 2018 midterm elections.

Here’s what’s most aggravating to me, though.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had a pretty good answer to the question of revenue neutrality in the bill.  When asked by a reporter to respond to criticism about the plan not being revenue neutral, he said:

There’s all kinds of reports about all kinds of proposals.  On the Senate side, we haven’t laid out our proposal yet.  But you know from the budget, that the $1.5 trillion-dollar gap, would be closed if we only had four-tenths-of-1% growth in the next ten years.  Which is a really modest projection of what growth would be.  So we fully anticipate that this tax proposal, in the end, would be revenue neutral for the government, if not a revenue gainer.

The tax cuts will yield more money in Americans’ hands, which will yield substantially more economic growth, which will yield greater tax receipts in the long run.  Why is it so difficult to run with that message and move forward with only modest amendments to the House tax reform bill?  We conservatives are not about growing government’s power, but we certainly know that tax cuts can lead to economic growth, and along with that, government revenue can increase as an ancillary outcome.

Sure, the House tax reform bill is not perfect for small-government, big liberty loving Americans like me (to loosely borrow from Mark Steyn).  And frankly, as a conservative voter, I’m bothered that we can’t get nearer to perfect than the House bill, given Republican control of Congress and the White House. 

But maybe the problem keeping us from a perfect bill is in Republicans’ fundamental messaging.  As described by Ed Feulner, founder of The Heritage Foundation: 

Just tinkering with the tax code, though, may not be a political or economic winner.  The system needs to be rebuilt – made simple and pro-growth.  Market research shows that that what Americans want most from the tax system is “fairness,” so shaping the popular definition of that term will be key to winning the policy debate.


A fair tax system isn’t one that takes from the rich to give to the poor.  It’s one that requires everyone play by the same rules. 

Though they have the opportunity to rebuild the tax code, Republicans haven’t done enough to shape this definition of fairness as effectively as Democrats have shaped their definition of fairness to mean that the government should take from the rich to give to the poor as the highest of moral causes. 

Nonetheless, if the Senate’s answer to the House bill is to subvert its positive core measures, while keeping or exacerbating much of what is bad in order to appease Democrats and promote the Bernie Sanders mantra that corporations and high-income earners should finance tax cuts for everyone else, then Republican promises to cut taxes may prove just as empty as their promises to repeal Obamacare.

Just as the GOP should have simply repealed Obamacare when they had the chance, they should just simply cut taxes today.  But it appears that they’re getting lost in the swamp again.

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.



Source link

New York to ISIS: Keep Killing Us! We're Resilient!


The press conference that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo held after the ISIS-directed mass murder by “Diversity Scratch-Off” winner Sayfullo Saipov was a master class in inculcating a gullible urban herd to helplessness, passivity, insane misattribution of danger, and un-American government dependence in response to murderous jihad.

De Blasio and Cuomo essentially said to ISIS: We request the honor of your presence in our state.  To prove the sincerity of our invitation, we promise to conceal your identity and lie for you within minutes of your slaughtering us in the street.

There’s a Southern saying for hypocrites like Bill de Blasio: he’s slimier than a bowl of boiled okra.  The mayor began with a phony request to be allowed “to be frank” and, with a mask-like expression, stated the obvious: “It was an act of terror.”  He used the word “terror” once, and never said “Islamic,” “ISIS,” “terrorist,” “terrorism,” or “war,” but he employed the vague, minimizing terms “tragedy” and “loss” for the rest of his remarks.  Cue the firm resolve face: “We know that this action was intended to break our spirit.”  No, Billy, your words are intended to break our spirit; Saipov intended the glory of killing as many infidels as possible.

De Blasio continued, “But we also know New Yorkers are strong.  New Yorkers are resilient.  Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence, an act meant to intimidate us.”  Remaining unmoved when religious fanatics are slaughtering you is not resilience; it is mental illness.  His face reset again as he regurgitated the cynical cliché about worthless watchfulness, termed vigilance.  “Be vigilant,  Live by ‘If you see something, say something.'” This is the snake oil of security measures, because vigilance without profiling equals conditioned helplessness.

Under de Blasio’s direction, and the demands of the vile Linda Sarsour, the informed, skilled vigilance of the NYPD was stopped, and the responsibility to say something was diffused among diversity-addled shleppers terrified of being labeled Islamophobic.  In 2014, de Blasio shut down the Demographics Unit, which secretly surveilled places suspected of fostering weaponized Islamism.  By “be vigilant,” de Blasio means that New Yorkers should live in helpless trepidation everywhere, all the time.  And if they focus attention on the relevant demographic, young Islamic males, then they are bigots.

When historians label the Obama administration, they should call it the Great Treason.  The Great Treason has been a comprehensive assault on the sovereignty and safety of the United States.  As the years pass, the doctrines of this era of anti-Americanism become more insupportable, evil, and blatantly insane.  A central tenet of the Great Treason de Blasio and Cuomo artfully promote is that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  ISIS, no – ISIL, maybe, because ISIL is the justified retaking of the Levant from the interloper Jews.

A subtext in the denial of Islamic terrorism is that fiends like Saipov are “home-grown” or “lone wolves.”  There is no such thing as American homegrown Islamic terrorism.  Homegrown ISIS is like American homegrown kangaroos.  Islamic terrorism and kangaroos always come from overseas, which is why merit-based immigration is essential to our national defense – and not to keep the kangaroos out.

Cuomo also never uses the word “Islamic.”  He said, “The new terrorist tactic which they’ve called for publicly are these lone wolves who commit an act of terror.”  Who are they?  The lone wolf meme of the Great Treason serves two purposes.  It gratifies “blame America first” because all evil starts here.  It also serves border elimination, because if terrorism is homegrown, it doesn’t matter who comes in or from where.

In his haste to minimize Saipov’s evil, Cuomo said, “This is all very preliminary.  It’s only been a couple of hours, but at this point, there’s no evidence to suggest a wider plot or a wider scheme, but the actions of one individual who meant to cause pain, and harm and probably death[.]”  Probably death?  This is not a sane description of the incident.  Furthermore, aren’t the facts that Saipov wrote a statement of allegiance to ISIS and wanted an ISIS flag in his cell even subtle hints of a wider scheme?

Cuomo seized on one of the benefits of terrorism: a reason to strengthen the power of the police state over law-abiding citizens.  “We will be vigilant.  More police everywhere.  You’ll see them in airports.  You’ll see them in tunnels.  It is not because there’s any evidence of any ongoing threat; it is just out of vigilance and caution.”

Cuomo then articulated the fundamental principle of the Great Treason: there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  He said, “And the truth is New York is an international symbol of freedom and democracy.  That’s what we are and we are proud of it.  That also makes us a target for those people who oppose those concepts.”  You see, Saipov was involved in a political protest against Jeffersonian democracy, not in Islamic terrorism.  That’s because, according to the likes of de Blasio and Cuomo, there is no affirmative ideology of Islamic terrorism from the Quran or a mosque or ISIS, or even the dreadful shadow that may pass over the human heart, blocking out Light.

Cuomo concluded, “We’ve lived with this before, we’ve felt the pain before, we feel the pain today, but we go forward together, and we go forward stronger than ever.”  He closed with “Don’t let them change us or deter us in any manner, shape, or form.”

In other words, change nothing; do nothing.  The golden invitation to the next Saipov still stands, the tenets of the Great Treason go unchallenged, and while the streets are still crimson with the blood of innocents, we are magically stronger because we are so resilient.

The press conference that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo held after the ISIS-directed mass murder by “Diversity Scratch-Off” winner Sayfullo Saipov was a master class in inculcating a gullible urban herd to helplessness, passivity, insane misattribution of danger, and un-American government dependence in response to murderous jihad.

De Blasio and Cuomo essentially said to ISIS: We request the honor of your presence in our state.  To prove the sincerity of our invitation, we promise to conceal your identity and lie for you within minutes of your slaughtering us in the street.

There’s a Southern saying for hypocrites like Bill de Blasio: he’s slimier than a bowl of boiled okra.  The mayor began with a phony request to be allowed “to be frank” and, with a mask-like expression, stated the obvious: “It was an act of terror.”  He used the word “terror” once, and never said “Islamic,” “ISIS,” “terrorist,” “terrorism,” or “war,” but he employed the vague, minimizing terms “tragedy” and “loss” for the rest of his remarks.  Cue the firm resolve face: “We know that this action was intended to break our spirit.”  No, Billy, your words are intended to break our spirit; Saipov intended the glory of killing as many infidels as possible.

De Blasio continued, “But we also know New Yorkers are strong.  New Yorkers are resilient.  Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence, an act meant to intimidate us.”  Remaining unmoved when religious fanatics are slaughtering you is not resilience; it is mental illness.  His face reset again as he regurgitated the cynical cliché about worthless watchfulness, termed vigilance.  “Be vigilant,  Live by ‘If you see something, say something.'” This is the snake oil of security measures, because vigilance without profiling equals conditioned helplessness.

Under de Blasio’s direction, and the demands of the vile Linda Sarsour, the informed, skilled vigilance of the NYPD was stopped, and the responsibility to say something was diffused among diversity-addled shleppers terrified of being labeled Islamophobic.  In 2014, de Blasio shut down the Demographics Unit, which secretly surveilled places suspected of fostering weaponized Islamism.  By “be vigilant,” de Blasio means that New Yorkers should live in helpless trepidation everywhere, all the time.  And if they focus attention on the relevant demographic, young Islamic males, then they are bigots.

When historians label the Obama administration, they should call it the Great Treason.  The Great Treason has been a comprehensive assault on the sovereignty and safety of the United States.  As the years pass, the doctrines of this era of anti-Americanism become more insupportable, evil, and blatantly insane.  A central tenet of the Great Treason de Blasio and Cuomo artfully promote is that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  ISIS, no – ISIL, maybe, because ISIL is the justified retaking of the Levant from the interloper Jews.

A subtext in the denial of Islamic terrorism is that fiends like Saipov are “home-grown” or “lone wolves.”  There is no such thing as American homegrown Islamic terrorism.  Homegrown ISIS is like American homegrown kangaroos.  Islamic terrorism and kangaroos always come from overseas, which is why merit-based immigration is essential to our national defense – and not to keep the kangaroos out.

Cuomo also never uses the word “Islamic.”  He said, “The new terrorist tactic which they’ve called for publicly are these lone wolves who commit an act of terror.”  Who are they?  The lone wolf meme of the Great Treason serves two purposes.  It gratifies “blame America first” because all evil starts here.  It also serves border elimination, because if terrorism is homegrown, it doesn’t matter who comes in or from where.

In his haste to minimize Saipov’s evil, Cuomo said, “This is all very preliminary.  It’s only been a couple of hours, but at this point, there’s no evidence to suggest a wider plot or a wider scheme, but the actions of one individual who meant to cause pain, and harm and probably death[.]”  Probably death?  This is not a sane description of the incident.  Furthermore, aren’t the facts that Saipov wrote a statement of allegiance to ISIS and wanted an ISIS flag in his cell even subtle hints of a wider scheme?

Cuomo seized on one of the benefits of terrorism: a reason to strengthen the power of the police state over law-abiding citizens.  “We will be vigilant.  More police everywhere.  You’ll see them in airports.  You’ll see them in tunnels.  It is not because there’s any evidence of any ongoing threat; it is just out of vigilance and caution.”

Cuomo then articulated the fundamental principle of the Great Treason: there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  He said, “And the truth is New York is an international symbol of freedom and democracy.  That’s what we are and we are proud of it.  That also makes us a target for those people who oppose those concepts.”  You see, Saipov was involved in a political protest against Jeffersonian democracy, not in Islamic terrorism.  That’s because, according to the likes of de Blasio and Cuomo, there is no affirmative ideology of Islamic terrorism from the Quran or a mosque or ISIS, or even the dreadful shadow that may pass over the human heart, blocking out Light.

Cuomo concluded, “We’ve lived with this before, we’ve felt the pain before, we feel the pain today, but we go forward together, and we go forward stronger than ever.”  He closed with “Don’t let them change us or deter us in any manner, shape, or form.”

In other words, change nothing; do nothing.  The golden invitation to the next Saipov still stands, the tenets of the Great Treason go unchallenged, and while the streets are still crimson with the blood of innocents, we are magically stronger because we are so resilient.



Source link