RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Those who support gun control and those who oppose gun control are speaking two different languages.

The Second Amendment guaranteeing the people the right to bear arms was passed by Congress September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791. The American Revolution freed the colonists from British oppression and our Founding Fathers were determined to prevent future tyranny by their newly formed federal government. The federal government would be armed but so would the citizenry – it was a balance of power arrangement.

One hundred fifty years later Mao Tse-Tung speaking in front of the Central Committee of the Communist Party famously declared:

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao is telling the Communist Party leaders that armed struggle is necessary to acquire political power. “Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

Mao Tse-Tung was a communist revolutionary seeking to overthrow the established rule of the nationalist Republic of China. He advocated arming his supporters (proletariat) against the opposition (the bourgeoisie). Mao was successful and the communist People’s Republic of China took power in 1949.

So, guns have been used to both take power from those who have power (Mao) and also to balance the power of the federal government (Second Amendment). These are the two languages of gun control.

The left-wing radical humanitarian hucksters of gun control also know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. They are disingenuously selling gun control as the altruistic answer to gun violence but in reality they seek to eliminate the Second Amendment and disarm its supporters. Why?

The Second Amendment right to bear arms gives citizens the right to defend and protect themselves against the tyranny of the armed federal government. The Founding Fathers envisioned an independent America with a strong federal government restrained by a three-part checks and balances structure and insured by the Second Amendment. Leftists today envision a Maoist public completely dependent (Marxism/Socialism/Communism) upon the federal government and completely controlled by the federal government. The Leftist dream requires dissolution of the Second Amendment.

Gun control is being disingenuously marketed as the solution to gun violence. The fiction of the gun control narrative is that gun control will keep Americans safe from the gun violence that has terrorized the country. Here is the problem. Chicago, with its strict gun control laws is a record-setter in homicides. Almost everyone killed in Chicago was shot to death. So how did gun control stop the gun violence in Chicago? It didn’t. Criminals find access to guns.

Left-wingers view Christopher Columbus’s forays to the “New World” as the original sin of imperialist, capitalist exploitation of indigenous peoples living in a heretofore untouched paradise. There are calls to replace “Columbus Day” with “Indigenous Peoples Day.” Statues honoring the intrepid explorer have been vandalized, with the New York City-based Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement threatening more destruction. “For the occasion of Columbus Day, October 9th, one of the most vile ‘holidays’ of the year,” its website warns, “the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is calling for collectives all over the country to take action against this day and in support of indigenous people in the US and abroad who have been victims of colonialism and genocide.” Ironically, the leftists demonizing Columbus and calling for removal of memorials celebrating his explorations are following in the footsteps of the Ku Klux Klan, who did the same in the 1920’s.

Former President Barack Obama seemed to be onboard the revisionist history train when he used his 2016 Columbus Day proclamation to complain of “the pain and suffering reflected in the stories of Native Americans who had long resided on this land prior to the arrival of European newcomers.” He bemoaned a past “marked by too many broken promises, as well as violence, deprivation, and disease.” He called for Americans to remember the “communities who suffered,” and to “embrace the multiculturalism that defines the American experience.”

In contrast, President Donald Trump proclaimed this Monday as Columbus Day without any of the revisionist, multicultural gibberish that appeared in Barack Obama’s 2016 proclamation. President Trump’s proclamation noted that “the permanent arrival of Europeans … was a transformative event that undeniably and fundamentally changed the course of human history and set the stage for the development of our great Nation.” He called Columbus a “man of faith, whose courageous feat brought together continents and has inspired countless others to pursue their dreams and convictions — even in the face of extreme doubt and tremendous adversity.” In short, President Trump recognized Columbus as an extraordinary man of his time who set in motion a chain of events that would lead ultimately to the creation of the world’s leading beacon of hope, opportunity and freedom.

To recognize Columbus’s accomplishments is not to say that his motives and actions were all heroic. He sought riches and had no hesitation taking back to Spain what he and his men could transport. He believed he was representing a more civilized society, which he thought justified his exercising dominion over the people he encountered in the lands he explored. In such ways, Columbus was very much a man of his times. However, Columbus was believed by some historians to have been ahead of his times with respect to at least one of his reasons for wanting to undertake his risky voyages of exploration.

The year that Columbus set out on his first voyage to what he mistakenly thought was Asia – 1492 – was also the year that his patrons, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain, issued their infamous order of expulsion, ordering Jews and Muslims who would not convert to Catholicism to leave Spain. Some Jews risked execution or imprisonment by feigning conversion, while secretly continuing to practice their Jewish faith. These “Marranos” were believed by a number of scholars who have studied Christopher Columbus’s life to have included Columbus himself. They believe that his motivation for undertaking his journey of exploration was at least in part to discover a land to which Jews could safely emigrate.

Christopher Columbus was an American-style entrepreneur. He conceived his project alone, suffering in poverty for nearly a decade while raising the money to sail west in search of a backdoor route to the Indies of the East. Most of us can’t begin to grasp the scope of Columbus’s insatiable curiosity, intellectual drive and accomplishments of navigation. Most of us couldn’t find the hamper without a GPS.

Leaving dry land in August 1492 Columbus depended entirely on his brilliant mind, experience and research to guide him. It was common knowledge no one had ventured into that vast expanse of water—lately called the Atlantic—and lived to tell the tale.

Columbus believed he could do it. He read Ptolemy and Marco Polo. His copy of Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly’s “Imago Mundi” contained 898 margin notes in Columbus’s own hand.

Europeans had been accustomed to traveling over land to China, Japan and India to trade for goods. After the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims of the expanding Ottoman Empire in 1453, those ventures became dangerous. The sea became the salvation of European trade.

After three months at sea Columbus disembarked in a place no European knew existed. He believed he had reached the Indies, when in fact he was in the Caribbean. He never set foot on the North American continent. It was a monumental achievement, just not the one he was hoping for.

Today when everything is instantly known—or we think it is—it is impossible to understand how 15th-century European attitudes shaped Columbus. He hoped the profits from his voyage could finance the liberation of the Holy Land from Muslim domination. He also hoped to spread the word of God.

It’s intellectually dicey to judge those who lived hundreds of years ago according to modern norms. Doctors who routinely infected women during childbirth out of ignorance of the germ theory of disease are not reviled today. But European explorers who were similarly ignorant about how diseases are spread are routinely abused for the illnesses that befell inhabitants of the New World from lack of natural immunity.

The Columbian exchange benefited Old World and New by spreading knowledge of science, agriculture and nutrition. Without Columbus, the Renaissance may not have succeeded. Without his discoveries, Italians wouldn’t have marinara sauce, the Irish wouldn’t have mashed potatoes, and the Swiss wouldn’t have chocolate. Because America and its freedoms exist, children no longer contract polio and many other diseases. America saved the world from totalitarianism twice in the last century.

Today Columbus’s reputation is under siege. But those seeking to delegitimize the Genoan explorer’s legacy may actually have a larger target in mind. Statues of Columbus and tributes to his achievements are in many ways proxies for the Western tradition of freedom, liberty and the rule of law. America had better protect Columbus and win this war. There is no one else to save the world next time around.

From the founding of America 241 years ago, those opposed to and threatened by America’s Founding Fathers’ noble aspirations of freedom for all and a government in which citizens and not kings or dictators decide who will represent them have waged fierce resistance.

From the Muslim Barbary Pirates who fought America’s first presidents (George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson) to today’s equally bellicose, supremacist, and fascist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, all harbor the fantasy of destroying big bad America and replacing our Democratic Republic first with socialism and finally with communism. Predictably, they are fully supported by the leftists, progressives, communists, and Islamists among us.

The virulence of their ISIS-like demonstrations is because the real powers-that-be in the globalist hierarchy are choking with rage that everything they dreamed about and worked for and thought they achieved when they implanted the poseur “president” Barack Obama in office for a full eight years was shattered to smithereens when Donald J. Trump destroyed their other puppet, Hillary Clinton, in the presidential election of November 8, 2016.

And so the arch goal, the singular mission, indeed the psychotic obsession of these temper-tantrum infants-cum-political-activists is to destroy the man who embodies everything they are against:

Freedom
Democracy
A strong military
Secure borders
Capitalism
Low taxes
A thriving middle class
A conservative Supreme Court
Free speech
Gun rights
On and on and on…

Everything, in other words, that drives the megalomaniacal globalists, the one-world-government wonks, the deep-state traitors, and the lobbyists-enriched politicians stark raving mad!

Today is the one-year anniversary of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. (I know. It feels more like 10 years ago.)https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/07/hey-lefties-where-are-your-pssyhats-now/

For days, Americans were subjected to an ongoing audio loop of a private conversation in 2005 between Donald Trump and the show’s co-host, Billy Bush. I don’t need to remind you what Trump said because anyone with a pulse can probably recite it verbatim. Some gals even have hats to commemorate Trump’s secretly recorded, indecent remarks.

The ensuing outrage should have been a clue of how intense, consuming, and exhausting the daily political climate would be under a Trump presidency. When the story broke in the Washington Post that Friday afternoon, the paper’s servers crashed due to the massive traffic to the site. The reaction from Democrats, women’s groups, celebrities and many Republicans was harsh, swift, and in some cases, way over the top. The man who was running for president against a woman married to a man who was a serial sexual harasser and assaulter, who seduced a young intern in the Oval Office when he was president and left a little reminder of one tryst on her blue dress, who was impeached for lying about his predatory behavior under oath, was compelled to publicly address his comments and apologize for the vulgar remarks. Melania Trump spoke about it. Some demanded that Trump withdraw from the campaign and several Republican rescinded their endorsements.

No group was more offended by Trump’s remarks, or so it seemed, than the newly minted Puritans of Hollywood. Celebrities went ballistic, firing off furious and anguished tweets about the Republican presidential candidate. Film producers, television actors, movie stars: everyone had something to say about Trump and many equated his remarks to sexual assault. (There is a good round-up of celeb tweets here.) And it wasn’t just about his fitness for office. Trump was the poster boy of powerful, rich men using their position to exploit and abuse women. He symbolized everything that is wrong with our white, patriarchal society.

Now, here we are, one year later, and the New York Times just published a bombshell expose about one of Hollywood’s most powerful men, Harvey Weinstein. The lecherous behavior of this disgusting man is one of Hollywood’s worst-kept secrets; no doubt the Times could have an ongoing series of articles about this movie-making, sexual predator. Like many Hollywood moguls, Weinstein parlayed his fortune and influence into political power, becoming a major Democratic party donor and fundraiser. Since 1990, he has contributed more than $1 million to Democratic PACs, officeholders, and candidates, many of whom must have been aware of Weinstein’s reputation as a first-rate vulture.

So, let’s take a little trip down Social Media Lane and see how our virtuous, high-minded celebs who wanted Trump charged with rape a year ago have reacted to the Weinstein story.

Do you hear the crickets? I sure do.

Come along then, and let us look at the Twitter timelines of some of Trump’s most indignant celebrity agitators such as Debra Messing, Chelsea Handler, Bette Midler and Lena Dunham to see if any are despairing over Weinstein’s vile behavior and the victims left in his wake. Messing? No. Handler? No. Midler? No, but she did tweet about “the deceit!! The hypocrisy! The nerve!!” of Republican Congressman Tim Murphy for asking his girlfriend to have an abortion. Lena Dunham? Oh yes, here’s something! Dunham applauds the Times reporter for breaking the story then says this about Weinstein’s victims:

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

For 55 years Americans have been expected to believe the “lone wolf” theory of murder. From President Kennedy’s shocking assassination to the savagery of radical Islamic terror and now the horrifying mass murder of concert goers in Las Vegas. In art and entertainment there is a term “suspension of disbelief” which is defined as the willingness to suspend one’s critical thinking faculties and believe the unbelievable. Suspension of disbelief is a participatory and voluntary experience of sacrificing logic for the sake of enjoyment.

Suspension of disbelief in the fifties happened when we went to the movies and allowed ourselves to believe that Clark Kent was Superman. Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter was fighting a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way.

Suspension of disbelief in 1963 was believing that President John F. Kennedy was killed by “lone wolf” Lee Harvey Oswald who shot a magic bullet that changed trajectories in mid-flight. Oswald was then conveniently murdered by terminally ill Jack Ruby. Skeptical Americans were very suspicious. After all, this was real life not the movies. The government doubled down on suspension of disbelief and the public was expected to believe the Warren Commission’s dubious conclusion that it was that “lone wolf” again shooting his magic bullet. The public was considered far too fragile to handle the truth. Suspension of disbelief applied to real life was rationalized as an altruistic act of kindness. Really?

On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by Islamic terrorists who hijacked passenger planes and flew them into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon killing over 3,000 Americans. No one could seriously posit the lone wolf theory so instead Americans were expected to believe the lone group theory – Al-Qaeda was the first enemy group to be identified. As the Islamic terrorist movement expanded more groups were created and terrorist attacks that could not be linked to a specific group were dismissed as lone wolf attacks.

Over and over again experts in Islamic theology and men and women who had lived in Islamic countries told America that there are no lone wolves. Even the terrorists themselves announced that Islam is Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Islamic terrorism is inspired by the commandments in the Koran that unite jihadis in violence against all infidels. Islamic terrorism is one of several jihadi tactics being used to re-establish the Islamic caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide.

Western left-wing liberal politicians and the colluding mainstream media continue to insist that Radical Islamic terror is not an existential threat. Instead they insist upon public suspension of disbelief and the belief in the lone wolf theory of murder. Why? Because it works!

Although it strains credulity – people WANT to believe the lone wolf theory because it calms their fears and makes them FEEL safe and secure. The problem is that feelings are not facts. We are not living in a Hollywood movie that ends in two hours. Suspension of disbelief is dangerous in real life. Islamic terrorism is a real fact of 21st century life and is an existential threat to the American way.

It is an article of faith among the president’s most ardent supporters: The Trump dossier is a completely discredited piece of garbage. Hence, its relevance is limited to one matter and one matter alone: The dossier’s suspected use by the Obama administration (specifically, the Justice Department and the FBI) as a pretext to spy on the opposition party’s presidential campaign — a ruse that included cribbing the dossier’s sensational allegations in secret court applications for wiretap warrants.

It appears that this Trumpist tenet is going to be tested. The dossier that did so much to fuel the collusion controversy is assuming center stage once more.

The dispute over the 2016 election has stalemated. The Trump-deranged are convinced that the president is a Putin puppet; Trump boosters are just as certain that “collusion” is a fictional narrative dreamt up to delegitimize their man and explain away Hillary Clinton’s defeat. For a long time, I’ve thought the latter camp had the better argument. President Trump and the FBI director he fired, James Comey, may not agree on much, but they both say Comey provided repeated assurances that Trump was not a suspect in the FBI’s probe of Russia’s 2016 campaign meddling. It makes no sense that Comey would do that if there had been solid evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin.

That still seems incontestable. But neither do I believe Director Comey would have countenanced an investigation based on nothing — a “collusion” investigation conducted solely to camouflage political spying. Something is not right here. If we’re ever going to figure it out, the dossier is the roadmap.

So, is the article of faith true? If the Trump dossier is just a tissue of lies, why are the Justice Department and FBI, now controlled by Trump appointees, concealing information about it rather than anxiously volunteering disclosure?

If I had to bet on it, I’d wager that the dossier is like many reports compiled by investigative bodies whose motives are dubious and whose sources are of varying levels of credibility — similar to what you get after investigations by politicized congressional committees, law-enforcement agents who are less than first-rate, or private detectives who, lacking subpoena power, often rely on multiple hearsay. That is, I think the dossier will turn out to be a mixed bag of the true, the false, and the shades of gray in between.

Questions about the dossier are pressing for two reasons.

First, it was leaked this week that investigators working with Special Counsel Robert Mueller have interviewed Christopher Steele. He is the former British spy who composed the so-called dossier during and after the 2016 campaign. At the time, Steele was a private contractor conducting political opposition research on behalf of Trump’s adversaries. The dossier, formatted to resemble official spy-agency intelligence reports, is a set of investigative summaries, based on Steele’s interviews with sources.

We don’t know the whole story at this point, but claims from Trump supporters that the dossier is a Clinton campaign project are overstated. Steele runs a private intelligence firm in London (Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd.) and was retained to dig up dirt on Trump by the Washington-based opposition-research firm, Fusion GPS. Fusion does a lot of work for the political Left, but it was originally hired by anti-Trump Republicans, not the Clinton campaign. Only later, when it was apparent that Trump would win the nomination, was the project handed off to Clinton backers.