How tasteless, spiteful and gruesomely distorted of soul can progressives get?
Don’t answer that! Please!
But, here’s something scooped up from a few miles along the path. Via Newsmax, this (or if you’re familiar with this news, just scroll to the end):
The New York Times on Monday stated that it would continue as sponsor of New York Public Theater’s production of “Julius Caesar,” despite a social uprising over the depiction of Caesar looking very much like President Donald Trump.
CNN parent company, Time Warner, also remains as a sponsor of the play in which Caesar, or Trump, in this case, gets assassinated at the end.
First, it was Kathy Griffin’s brutal depiction of herself holding a bloody severed head of President Donald Trump; now New York’s Shakespeare in the Park is casting Trump as Julius Caesar and depicting his assassination onstage.
For a video report, by Inside Edition:
Now, here in the Gulag, we do not condone violence (which of course, is to be distinguished from active defensive measures). But take note. What goes around can come around!
Via the realm of altering-right memedom and in this particular instance, @Thomas1774Paine in Twitter:
And to life-disoriented progs on Broadway and in the greater Marxstream media… you should be wary of justice. It can come from the funniest places. Seriously.
And what does this say? Click to see the featured tweet/clip.
President Trump’s speech before the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sunday did specifically condemn what he has before called “radical Islamic terrorism,” despite what we have heard from reporters and pundits for days. That he did not choose to string those words together in that order is simply beside the point.
Consider the following. Very clearly, he was speaking to Muslims about Muslims, that is, believers in Islam. Further, he directly condemned the “extremism,” or the “radicalization,” or “fanatical” interpretation of their ideology and the “terrorism” concomitant with it. So, there you have it. In the following excerpts, emphasis is added to make the point.
Trump began to draw the lines early in the address, “But in sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim, and Middle-Eastern nations. They have born the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.”
But what fanaticism and violence did Trump describe? Very soon he specified: “The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It also must be counted in generations of vanished dreams.” Later in the speech, he added Iran and its ally/puppet, Syria to the litany. What major strand do these terrorist entities have in common, but Islam?
Further quotations from the president, spelling out what all in the know realize he has addressed as “radical Islamic terrorism”:
But this untapped potential, this tremendous cause for optimism, is held at bay by bloodshed and terror. There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.
Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith. Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.
If we do not act against this organized terror, then we know what will happen. Terrorism’s devastation of life will continue to spread. Peaceful societies will become engulfed by violence. And the futures of many generations will be sadly squandered.
If we do not stand in uniform condemnation of this killing—then not only will we be judged by our people, not only will we be judged by history, but we will be judged by God.
[…]
Starving terrorists of their territory, of their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology will be the basis for easily defeating [them].
[…]
But you can only unlock this future if the citizens of the Middle-East are freed from extremism, terror, and violence.
[…]
Will we be indifferent in the presence of evil? Will we protect our citizens from its violent ideology? Will we let its venom spread through our societies? Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth? If we do not confront this deadly terror, we know what the future will bring: more suffering, more death, and more despair. But if we act, if we leave this magnificent room unified and determined to do what it takes to destroy the terror that threatens the world, then there is no limit to the great future our citizens will have.
Semantically, it should also be noted that where Trump spoke of this violent form of Islam (commonly singled out as political and violent Islamism, or Jihadism) free of the word “radical,” he lays the issue more squarely at the feet of any and all Muslims, not less so, letting them sort through the crisis. When a sect presents a radical version, after all, it means to offer to change something at its root. But Trump at times let the roots simply lay wherever they may be found.
Since there are many passages in the Quran which call for violence, since its eschatological promise and aim is violent, and since Muslims are commanded to emulate the (extortive and violent) life of Mohamed, it is only right to express humanity’s concerns of Islamic violence, whether divergent or central, and whether episodic or systematic, to all Muslims.
Behold the NWO* Deep State’s own Robert Mueller, now the official independent counsel assigned to Donald Trump, with Democrats hoping he will become America’s new Inspector Javert to President Trump’s Jean Valjean.
Of course, in the vast authority given him, Mueller can also investigate the misdeeds of the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and their camps, at least during or beginning with this last campaign and pre-inaugural season. Do we think he will?
Summing up this video, as he and James Clapper assert in presser answers during a 2010 counter-terrorism seminar:
America can fight “Jihadis” as long as we never use such (Koranic) terminology anywhere they might hear it. We can also train them in FBI techniques! And we must never label Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth Jihad as what it is, since that organization, formerly designated as a terrorist or terrorist-sympathizing entity, is too big to fail among America’s Muslim population, 99.9% of which is “every bit as patriotic as” you or me!
Yeah, never mind the percentage who fund terrorism directly, to say nothing of indirectly. Don’t discredit the American patriotism of those who just happen to be faithful enough Muslims to believe in Jihad (global caliphate-building warfare) one of its most fundamental tenets. Don’t even think about the many American Muslims who believe in Sharia Law, or who refuse to denounce terrorist Hamas and Hezzbollah in Israel, or ISIS for that matter. And never mind that the most powerful leaders of Islam around the world insist that it is very much a global political endeavor, just as Mohamed, co-authors, and interpreting mullahs have laid out, in the Koran itself and its ever growing libraries of supporting materials.
From October, 2010 and the Center for Security Policy, via Diana West’s tweeting, today (it’s only 6 min., 47 sec.):
West, whom we are at times privileged to feature in Gulag, has been reminding (warning) us all about Robert Meuller since he was named White House Inquisitor yesterday.
How come we didn’t get such a headhunter for Barack Hussein Obama, by the way?
I also hope President Trump has at least begun to understand, by now, that he must stop trying to bring along power players in the NWO in attempts to save America from it, just as we must stop trying to bring along Jihadis to fight Jihad. That is just not America First, Mr. President. But that is the subject of another entry.
PS: Snowflakery? Snowflakistry? Snowflakidity? Should I post a Twitter poll on it? (Edit: done, please help me out here.)
________________________________
*As with the term “jihad,” the “new world order” is adopted by its own practitioners, coined because there have to be words for destroying the sovereignty of all the world’s nations, in order to bring about globally governed empire.
“’I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,’ Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. ‘He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’” – New York Times, 5/16/2017
New York Times, cant live with it, pass the beer nuts.
While I sometimes disagree with Dennis Prager’s perceptions of certain principles and solutions, I recommend his and any honest examination of this question. Such a study reveals very harmful strategies and tactics by global collectivists (they like to say “communitarian”) elites for generations.
For more on this intentional distortion of current events, history, and political philosophy, I recommend looking into Diana West’s revelatory book, American Betrayal and the work of a very underrated hero of the Twentieth Century, Norman Dodd. These recommendations go to Mr. Prager, too.
When people describe particularly evil individuals or regimes, why is it that they use the terms “Nazi” or “fascist,” but almost never “communist?” Given the unparalleled amount of human suffering communists have caused, why is “communist” so much less a term of revulsion than “Nazi?”
Communists killed 70 million people in China, more than 20 million people in the Soviet Union (not including about 5 million Ukrainians), and almost one out of every three Cambodians. And communists enslaved entire nations in Russia, Vietnam, China, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Cuba and much of Central Asia. They ruined the lives of well over a billion people. So, why doesn’t communism have the same terrible reputation as Nazism?
An Oath Keepers’ Call to Action was released on Tuesday night, April 25. It concerns the appearance of Ann Coulter at Berkeley University on the evening of this Thursday the 27th. Concerned they are, very, and they are making detailed requests of any fellow patriots planning to attend or demonstrate there.
Without a strong show of support and actual defensive potential, lives will be in danger, I concur. You know Berkeley, right? — the seedbed of the collectivists’ allegedly free speech movement, now the locus of neo-Marxist Antifa thuggery in America’s west.
Word has now gotten around that Antifa (including the San Fernando Valley’s Oak Roots Collective) is self-indicated as America’s contemporary branch of the Trotskyite movement of the same name. It was intended to be globalist from the beginning and cut its teeth in Germany’s 1930’s. There, they engaged actual fascists in violent street skirmishes and weren’t very kind to freedom lovers either. Here and now, Antifa’s fellow travelers incite them to violence with the old Bolshevik’s own charge, “Acquaint them with the pavement.”
Grab every fascist or every isolated group of fascists by their collars, acquaint them with the pavement a few times, strip them of their fascist insignia and documents, and without carrying things any further, leave them with their fright and a few good black and blue marks.
It has also been made clear in patriot media that the mayor of the City of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, is a member of a subversive group interoperational with this Antifa branch (BAMN, initials for By Any Means Necessary). It is run by Yvette Felarca. She teaches middle school. Good morning, Ms. Felarca. At a very recent protest, one reporter observed that while Berkeley cops did not step in to separate Antifa from pro-Trump demonstrators, they became very engaged when the latter came near Felarca.
Wait, WHAT!? The mayor of Berkeley is a member of BAMN? Is that why we were arrested the moment we went near their leader Felarca? pic.twitter.com/nIjqPCVtwN
This apparently answers the question of why, time after time, the Berkley Police have been ordered to stand away, instead of keeping Antifa and the pro-American demonstrators separated (video, example). They have allowed numerous people be injured, some requiring medical treatment. In a normal state, the governor would assign its National Guard, if the local government and its police department were not protecting the innocent. But this governor is Jerry Brown (D). At least one video researcher suspects police actually fired a concussion grenade into a mixed and argumentative crowd at the April 15 skirmish. The explosion in question apparently raised emotions further, immediately provoking a violent outburst (video). Such is the kind of suspicion that arises when subversion is observed.
Coming to the rescue, Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters are patriotic organizations consisting of former law enforcement officers and members of our United States Armed Services. They make it clear they are preparing for engagement, should it become necessary to protect the peaceful from harm. It is essential that pro-free speech demonstrators at Thursday’s event submit to their leadership, do what they say, just how they say, without exception. Violence of this kind tends to escalate with repeated events, especially when the promise of mass media spectacle also escalates. With Ms. Coulter setting foot on the grounds, that is assured.
Are you a local and will you be there to show your support? Remember, the whole world will be watching.
Without excerpting Oath Keeper’s bulletin, you may find it here:
Time to Stand Again in Defense of Free Speech [NOTE: This is for those within driving range. See detailed note below] Oath Keepers and patriots, NEW MISSION. ANN COULTER SPEECH, APRIL 27, BERKELEY, CA It is now confirmed that Ann Coulter will indeed speak in Berkeley California on Thursday afternoon, April 27.
God born into the flesh of man; died to pay the price of sin, for those who believe in and yield their lives to him; resurrected to overcome that separation from God above; and ascended back to Heaven till he returns — true or false? That is the crux of it, pardon the Passion season pun.
It has been said the life of Jesus, from a small town in the middle of the world called Nazareth, is the most well documented of ancient history. We have more historical detail and validation of his biography than, for example, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan.
Further, he is the subject of the most extensive study of any human, ever since. And the most “extreme” view of him is actually the shared eyewitness view of his followers and the contemporaries they convinced, now generation upon generation. They corroborate his own attestations with courtroom consistency.
Beyond that, in the most mutually corroborative accounts, the Bible’s four Gospels (i.e., “Good News” in Ancient Greek) he is shown to have fulfilled Old Testament prophecies spread over hundreds, even thousands of years. Many of these were regarded as confounding mysteries… until he solved them by bringing them to pass. That is, if one believes all the documentation is not an astoundingly vast and intricate work of conspiracy concocted right under the noses of Jesus’ contemporary skeptics and powerful opposers.
Yet beyond this, one of the often cited proof points of Christian apologists is the historic accounting of so many people so consistently willing to die for sake of this story, their confession. And these were renown for seeking to uphold the morality and ethics taught in the Bible, martyrs including those original eyewitnesses, Jesus’ disciples and chroniclers.
Must all this testimony be further corroborated by less interested historians of approximately that time, to dare be believed? J. Warner Wallace has briefly summarized just such accounts in a single article, “Is there Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?” His site is called Cold Case Christianity.
Wallace suggests the decision of what to believe about Jesus is not unlike the same kind of evaluation concerning two much more recent happenings.
Two well documented historical events with a rich set of evidences. In spite of this, both events have been interpreted in a variety of ways. It shouldn’t surprise us then to find the historical records of Jesus Christ might also experience the same type of scrutiny and diverse interpretation. Did Jesus truly live, minister, died and rise from the grave as the Gospels record or was it an elaborate conspiracy? One thing we know about the Kennedy assassination and the World Trade Center attack: regardless of interpretation, there were eyewitnesses to the events, and the events did truly occur. In a similar manner, the ancient evidence related to Jesus reveals there were eyewitnesses and He did exist in history. Is there any evidence for Jesus outside the Bible? Yes, and the ancient non-Christian interpretations (and critical commentaries) of the Gospel accounts serve to strengthen the core claims of the New Testament.
He refers to historians, Thallus (52AD), Tacitus (56-120AD), Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD), Phlegon (80-140AD), Pliny the Younger (61-113AD), Suetonius (69-140AD), Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.), and Celsus (175AD). He also cites the Talmudic references of Medieval Jewish writings. Not all were kindly disposed to Jesus of Nazareth being the Bible’s Messiah.
What does Wallace conclude? I will let you look into that at will, but my careful suggestion as a Jesus Truther, don’t take too long.
“Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?” – Jesus, Luke 12:57.
Hey, there’s a new funny going around, very timely this July. Here’s one version.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were invited on a Pacific cruise with wealthy donors. Mid-ocean, a terrible storm seemed to come from nowhere and they were shipwrecked. Hillary and the Donald found the same life raft, alone at sea. At one point he saved her life, at another, she saved his. They washed ashore on a desert island never to be seen again and together they saved America.
What I like about it, besides the outcome, is its versatility. It can be lengthened to a shaggy dog story, or shortened to a one-liner depending on the situation.
But the time is now very short for each party to do the right thing, the very important thing, and disqualify each of these two, or overrule their tentative delegate counts, based on what should have been learned about them by now.
Brilliant work, Democrats and Republicans. Yay, America!
Are so many Americans so jaded, they can’t see tyrants in front of their faces anymore? Or, that ignorant? Both, you say? Conservatives included? Yeah.
I have tended to let others do the talking in Gulag Bound, lately. For example, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is a much better news hound, with excellent perspective. Cream of the crop.
And Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. is perhaps the world’s most authoritative source on Donald Trump’s dangerous, extreme, malignant narcissism (a.k.a., megalomania).
But if you’d like a brief synopsis of the trouble America is in, if the Republicans don’t do the right thing and disqualify Trump (and for that matter, if the evil Democrats don’t summon just a little sense and do the same with Clinton) then I may have served you well in just a few minutes this morning, talking with Dan Lynch on KUBC AM 580 in Colorado. Dan is great, too.
If that helps at all — as it should — I suggest the articles of the Bound. See our tag, #NPDTrump. (Here is #NPDTrump in Twitter, by the way.)
It seems our best hope may come from calling for the Republican National Convention to disqualify Donald Trump for his textbook mental disorder. I would say mental illness. #DisqualifyDonald!
The tulip tree (liriodendron tulipifera) official state tree of Indiana, as in “out of one’s tulip tree”
AW: The Third of May was quite an auspicious day in American history. First, we had Donald Trump’s freakish Lee Harvey Oswalding of Ted Cruz’ father Rafael. It was as if he shouted at the top of his lungs, “America! Listen! I am not fit for the U.S. Presidency!” This brought Cruz’ epic lambasting of Trump as the malignant narcissist he is (reader, catch it if you haven’t). Then, of course Hoosiers deftly proceeded to tilt the whole Republican pan of marbles to Trump, whereupon Cruz suspended his campaign. I think God is showing our country just how sensible we have gotten.
It’s been two months since I interviewed you and I’m really annoyed about a number of things, Sam. The news media are derelict of duty about Trump and his readily apparent Narcissistic Personality Disorder, despite the warnings from you and a number of other experts who have put their reputations on the line. “Trumpkins” in social media claim all politicians are narcissists, so what? Maybe the core of the matter is people don’t understand how dangerous and harmful this all is. Let’s start with that.
So, just speculatively, from your experience and observations, how dangerous do you believe a President Trump would be?
In Memoriam
Available at Amazon.com 
