chapter fourteen

A dream, in focus

"The American Dream is freedom, prosperity, peace -- and liberty and justice for all. That's a big dream. It's not always easy to achieve, but that's the ideal. More than any country in history, we've made gains toward a democracy that is enviable throughout the world. Dreams require perseverance if they are to be realized. Fortunately, we're a hard-working country and people. We're the luckiest people in history, just by the fact that we are Americans."

-- Donald Trump, 3/22/2007 Forbes interview

How to define the America of which Trump spoke so passionately?

Its founding was historic, an inspirational example to people around the world of men daring to stand in defiant renunciation of monarchical tyranny. America has to its credit landmark triumphs: An entrepreneurial economy that cultivated developments benefiting all. Medical technologies that draw global envy. Military might that bows to no one. World defense against the oppressive Nazi and communist ideologies (and, today, that of radical Islamic terrorism). Important strides toward equality for all of its people. And a boldly blazing torch of liberty that stirs men the world over to dream, attempt, and succeed.

Such was the proud legacy left us by our forbears. They crafted a Constitution whose arrangement of governmental authorities and processes, and guarantees of personal liberty not subject to authorities' beneficence, stands yet as a marvel among formal documents.

But is the traditional definition immutable, or can (and should) it transmogrify according to changing attitudes of its people? Doesn't a free citizenry have the right to make changes it feels are appropriate to its evolving nature?

Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing after the 2005 Van Orden v. Perry decision, argued that: "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that -- thumbs up, or thumbs down -- as their personal preferences dictate."

Scalia offered further wisdom during a 2008 NPR interview: "If you somehow adopt a philosophy that the Constitution itself is not static, but rather it morphs from age to age to say whatever it ought to say -- which is probably whatever the people would want it to say -- you eliminate the whole purpose of a Constitution."

Candidate Trump frequently cited Scalia as representative of a judicial philosophy he found compelling. With understandable pride, he boasted to audiences that Maureen Scalia, the late justice's widow, maintained in her yard a Trump campaign sign. February 2017 press accounts noted her presence at Trump's first national address before Congress.

The Constitution's drafters understood that a foundation was necessary for the ensuring of order and freedom. Certainly, progression as might be desired by a changing citizenry can be pursued. Change must always, though, be realized within the existing constitutional frame. Yes, the Constitution provides for amendment, that potential being necessary to meaningful self-determination. But the founders wisely put in place a process requiring arduous, large-scale effort. Such changes cannot be made easily. Nor should they be, considering that national stability and citizen liberty hang in the balance.

Like any nation, America has a cultural identity. Unlike many other nations, though, America's is a composite of influences. Some suggest that diversity is our strength. It is not. Our country's true strength is articulated in the motto E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. It is when Americans of all backgrounds unite in recognition of shared national interests that we are truly formidable.

The Donald Trump-Mike Pence campaign gave voice to an all-American sense of citizens bonded together by common cause perhaps unseen since the WWII era. During the incipient Trump Revolution, it was again thought admirable to be unashamedly patriotic. 

And the Trump Revolution rekindled something many may have forgotten: That it's OK to believe in something bigger than yourself. A spirit with roots in yesterday, a reawakened resolve today, and confidence that tomorrow holds the potential for wonders that we can, as a free nation, make real. 

We're a unified people whose courage, wisdom, inventiveness, and indomitable independent nature mark us as exceptional.

It may be that President Donald Trump's resurrection of that truth in American hearts will go down in history as his finest accomplishment. 

But then, only time will tell. 

"Together, we will make America strong, again. We will make America wealthy, again. We will make America proud, again. We will make America safe, again. And yes, together, we will make America great, again!  God bless you."

- President Donald Trump, 1/20/2017 Inaugural address

Something wicked this way marches

This movement, created by students, lead by students, is based in emotion. It is based in passion, and it is based in pain.
- Student Delaney Tarr, survivor of the Stoneman Douglas school shooting, in a recent address.

Movements perpetuated by passions not leavened by intellectual regard and common sense judgement are merely self-indulgent. 

The students involved survived a truly horrible event. For a couple, there may be immature political leanings and perhaps professional fantasies. These may be encouraged by irresponsible parents and other adults.

But in the main, survivors' sincerity should not be questioned. Sadly, lurking in the maltreated teens' back shadows is a familiar swarm, ideological long knives aflash.

Theirs is an ugly, vintage philosophy. And these crafty agitators have found this tragedy and the ensuant youthful heatedness a felicitous conveyance.

The militation against citizens' Second Amendment right to self-defense is of a part with ones presently mounted athwart other Constitutional protections, such as freedom of religion, speech, due process, and even life, itself. 

It is a general hostility toward the concept of Constitutional guarantees for the individual, something hated by collectivists long before the terrible shootings at Stoneman Douglas.

The students are being ridden like hell. Are the bloodsuckers atop them completely without decency?

It can only be said if there's money to be made
Fox News host Howard Kurtz bends knee  

Alternative opining about news makers and events is often irreverent by nature. Its represents defiance of status quo mores and parameters.

And it seldom enjoys the lacy liking of establishment media discourse arbiters and corporate welfare absolutists.

Howard Kurtz, the host of Fox's Sunday Mediabuzz show, sympathized with the elitist idea that outsider media voices challenging orthodoxy be shut down, and that 'tech giants' profit concerns should determine citizens' online speech accessibility.

During an interview with "tech analyst" Shana Glenzer, he attacked Gateway Pundit and its owner, Jim Hoft, for daring to question the official narrative that sprang into establishment-accepted being following the horrific Stoneman Douglas school shooting. 

Commentary in Gateway Pundit, and other alternative political media like Breitbart and Infowars, had speculated that some student speakers suddenly ubiquitous in fawning mainstream press venues might not be wholly credible, or without political or hoped-for professional motivation.

For Fox figure Kurtz, skepticism, orthodoxy challenging, and upstart outlet independence from the political-corporate news media complex are not healthy traits to be saluted, but distasteful ones deserving to be crushed beneath pricey shoe heel.

He effectively endorsed the concept of big money determining citizen speech facility. 

Kurtz: "Why can't these tech giants, these giant companies, stop the bullying, stop the lies, stop the harrassment, and the fraudulent videos? What would it take?"

Glenzer: "I think the first thing it would take is a lot of money. I'm not sure that they're willing to spend it. But, even then, there's always people that are worried about stomping on 'free speech.' And these tech giants, they don't want people fleeing their network because they're policing content. But, I do feel that there will be a tipping point coming up, where people will stop coming to sites because they're disgusted by content." 

"Right," Kurtz agreed.

"That will incite more change, more quickly," Glenzer ended.

"And ultimately hurt their business," Kurtz noted -- as if that were really the important consideration at hand.

He did not acknowledge Prager University's pending lawsuit against Youtube for removing videos out of viewpoint discrimination, or the many conservatives, like Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Project Veritas' James O'Keefe, and conservative blogger John Hawkins, who've alleged they were banned for ideological reasons by Youtube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

Kurtz did not remark on the fundraising and professional services ties tech titans like Jeff Zuckerberg of Facebook and Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet, have to the Democrat party. He made no mention of increasing calls from the Washington Times and others for Department of Justice anti-trust investigations and related litigation. 

He did not even note alarms against Silicon Valley's formidable influence -- one that impacts speech, elections, trade, immigration, and ideological diversity -- regularly sounded by his own Fox News colleague, Tucker Carlson.

Kurtz may in the past have criticized those, And if he did, he deserves acknowledgement. But he did not take the opportunity to do so, this time -- and it was an appropriate moment. Instead, he championed mainstream media narrative exclusivity, and the mouth-gagging nature of corporate sensibilities. 

Beware this fake 'Resistance' meme

This deceptive meme depicts 2009 Texas Fort Hood mass shooter Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal Hassan. It is currently being reposted online by persons sympathetic to the 'Resistance' against American democracy and duly elected President Donald Trump.

Whether all spreaders of the calculatedly nonfactual propaganda know it to be false is irrelevant to its potential for despoiling legitimate debate.ere lock
If, as the dodgy production claims, Hassan was indeed "surrounded by guns," he had no need to fear them. They were locked away, per indifferent Washington decree, Texas military base Fort Hood, like public schools, was a 'soft target' attractive to terrorists.ed away, per Writing in Breitbart in 2013, Awr Hawkins recalled that "A mere twenty years ago, 'gun free zones' made their way to these facilities under the watch of President Bill Clinton.

"According to a Washington Times editorial written days after the Nov. 5, 2009 attack on the soldiers at Fort Hood, one of President Clinton's 'first acts upon taking office...was to disarm soldiers on military bases...

"As the Times editorial put it, "Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood."

("When Did Military Bases Become 'Gun Free Zones?" http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/17/when-military-gun-free/ Breitbart 9/17/2013).

Wikipedia: "Once, while presenting what was supposed to be a medical lecture to other psychiatrists, Hasan talked about Islam, and said that, according to the Koran, non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats...According to the Associated Press, Hasan's lecture also 'justified suicide bombings.'"

"According to eyewitnesses, Hassan had the gone around behind a desk and bowed his head for several seconds when he suddenly stoos up, shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' and opened fire," Wikipedia later added.

("2009 Fort Hood Shooting" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting Breitbart)

Also observed by Wikipedia is the the U.S. government under Barrack Obama "declined requests by survivors and family members to categorize the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism or motivated by militant Islamic convictions."

Gasp. That's a shocker.

In sunny times not far away, thanks to the Trump Revolution, it will be as if the wretched Obama presidency had never been perpetrated on America.

Until then, it is the wise man that questions superficial partisan messaging like the Resistance anti-gun meme.

A rare Trump misstep, but a big one 

During a school safety roundtable he held within days of the Stoneman Douglas shootings, President Trump speculated some blame for youth violence might belong to popular media, specifically films and online video games.

We have to look at the internet, because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds and their minds are being formed. And we have to do something about maybe what they're seeing and how they're seeing it.

And also video games. I'm hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people's thoughts. And you go one step further, and that's the movies. You see these movies and they're so violent. Maybe they have to put a rating system for that.

Trump specified youth. But the idea he voiced is an invalid one, no matter the age group at which it is directed. 

If the notion that art (even of the spectacularly crude variety) is responsible for any consumer's wrongdoing sounds familiar, it should. Politicians, religious figures, and leaders of popular pressure crusades have long exploited it in attention-seizing variations. 

Globally, there have for centuries been voices decrying paintings, sculptures, and works of music. Focusing on post-WWII America, remember 1950s agitations against rock and roll and girlie magazines? Or the 1980s song lyrics-decrying, record-labeling PMRC and Reagan-era Meese Commission on Pornography?  

A contemporary iteration holds the rap genre blameworthy for criminal phenomena.

The undergirding 'causal link' supposition can be easily put away by reflecting that the overwhelming majority of us can enjoy creativity without misbehavior resulting. We are not robots, incapable of exercising autonomous judgement.

Artistic conceptions and vogues certainly can impact attitudes (advertising does work, after all), but they cannot compel healthy consumers to act out in ways that conflict with their fundamental characters and senses of right and wrong.

If someone does perpetrate horrible violence after playing an online game, watching a film, hearing a song, or reading a book, they had a predisposition toward it, or at least a weakness that cannot reasonably be assigned to art.

Besides, no creative person should be expected to fashion only works so elementary and flavorless as to be appropriate for even the psychologically troubled, or persons so obtuse as to not understand what might appear before them. 

President Trump is usually correct. But not in this.

They're depraved 'cause they was deprived


In its 2/17 Sunday Review, the New York Times ran "Trump Is Making MS-13 Stronger," an essay by online El Faro reporter Oscar Martinez.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/sunday/trump-ms-13-gang.html

The essayist pursued two ambitions, each as morally malignant as it was logically laughworthy: Delegitimize President Trump and American laws and sovereignty, and impute to MS-13 a legitimacy it does not possess. 

Astoundingly, Martinez portrays those illegal immigrant, animalistic murderers as innocent lost souls daily victimized by an evil United States not properly attentive to their tender longings. 

A scabrous tenor was established by the author's outset dismissal of duly elected Commander In Chief Trump as having "torpedoed" a proposed immigration scheme (that would not have served citizens' safety and sovereignty interests) in favor of his own "harsher plan."

"But one thing is clear: Any plan that purports to make America safer by making it harder for immigrants to obtain legal status and increasing deportations will actually do the opposite," claims the vicious gang's unofficial pressbox promoter.

So, to eradicate crime, apparently, societies must abolish applicable legal penalties? Falderol.

Cue sad violins.

In the PR-peddling author's fabulistic rendering, the blood-lusting savages of MS-13 are, in truth, vulnerable urchins deserving of empathy and comfort.

Martinez breezily recounts without criticism that two MS-13 members were charged for the 2016 beating deaths of Long Island girls. He apparently finds that atrocity neither objectionable nor even particularly interesting. Instead, he endeavors to inspire teary outpour for the gang members' benefit.

"The people accused of murdering those girls were not hardened murderers with tattoos, members of a 'cartel,' as Mr. Trump described the gang in 2017," Martinez assured. [Are the beating death victims somehow less dead because those accused were not inked?] They were teenagers. They were also part of the gang's hard core American ground forces; young immigrants, either with or without papers [read: illegal] lost and lonely in a new and violent world, where they have responded to the first institution that has lent them a hand -- MS-13, not the United States government.

"To say that the gangs 'win over' these young people is misleading, because it implies that the American government is doing something to compete with them, which it is not. The United States is not fighting for these boys." 

Martinez never explains why America's government should "fight for" the loyalties of non-citizens, including those who've already violated this country's laws. No nation's government is obligated to "compete with" criminal gangs for anyone's affection. 

Besides, what statement is made about someone's character that, for lack of respectable fraternity, they run through angry streets with beast men who abuse, torture, and even burn alive opponents? 

In the bottom-over-top philosophizing of Martinez, legal and law-abiding American citizens and our president are demons to be despised. The lethal foot soldiers of terrorist gangs like MS-13, though, are otherwise good-natured "young people" driven into savagery's salvational arms by inclement circumstance.

To most reasonable observers, surely, criminal gangs are roach leagues meriting only society's shoe. But to the anti-Trump Oscar Martinez and the New York Times, they are neglected lads with trembly chins, struggling to keep their heads above hostile waters. 

Sniff. Sniff.


-----

Fact checking Snopes.com's Brooke Binkowski 
This is not pretty

In a 2/15 Twitter post, Brooke Binkowski, managing editor at self-billed "fact-checking site" Snopes.com, sought to discredit Jalen Martin. Martin had presented himself as a Parkland, Florida Marjory Stoneman Douglas senior. Following the shooting at that school, he had challenged the emerging mainstream narrative in an Infowars telephone interview.

Binkowski's retaliatory tweet read: "I deleted my previous tweet because it was meanspirited, but this is actually 'Jalen Martin' and unless he has a hell of a commute, he's not a high school senior anywhere in south Florida." (This post, too, has been deleted. At least, my check for it just now was fruitless.)

In subsequent critical coverage of Binkowski, Infowars noted: "However, records reveal the student, Jalen Martin, does in fact attend Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School." 
Infowars reproduced on its site Martin's "Stoneman Douglas HS Schedule." The document detailed his first semester classes and listed his particulars, including date, grade level, and street address. *

("Snopes editor bullies shooting survivor, claims not a student" 

https://www.infowars.com/snopes-editor-bullies-shooting-survivor-claims-not-a-student/)

Here, this grows still more interesting.

Another of that school's students, David Hogg, offered himself to media interviewers as poised, articulate, and in confident command of pro-FBI / anti-Trump messaging. 

But Gateway Pundit's Lucian Wintrich characterized Hogg -- the admitted son of a retired FBI agent -- as groomed and rehearsed. Included in Wintrich's article was raw video footage of Hoggs's practices, line stumblings, repetitions, and rhetorical retakes. 

("Exposed: School Shooting Survivor Turned Activist David Hogg's Father In FBI, Appears To Have Been Coached On Anti-Trump Lines" https://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/exposed-school-shooting-surviver-turned-activist-david-hoggs-father-fbi-appears-coached-anti-trump-lines-video/  Gateway Pundit 2/19)

Snopes' Managing Editor Binkowski, not uncoincidentally, follows Hogg in her Twitter circle and has retweeted him. Oh, and Binkowski has shared past condemnation of Wintrich with her Twitter followers.

After the Gateway Pundit piece ran, she retweeted attacks on that site and its founder, Jim Hoft, sent out by various mainstream media figures. These included Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner and Andrew Kaczynski, of CNN. (Neither disputed the story itself, nor offered substantive argument. Each only pitched slop.)

"It's a sign of how potent these kids are, just speaking for themselves, that the pro-Trump media has turned to efforts to discredit and slime them," read a 2/19 tweet from New York Times writer Nick Confessore. The tweet included Hoft's announcement of Wintrich's Hogg article, and was retweeted by Binkowski.


This writer doesn't know if Confessore issued similar public reproof of Binkowski's rickety denouncement of Jalen Martin. But if one ever were committed to print, Binkowski certainly did not retweet it.

As the Infowars article warns, of Snopes.com: "This is the same 'fact checking' publication tech giants Google and Facebook rely on to vet what's real and fake to their users."

-------