Another Crazy Person Up In Flames

“Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities”
Voltaire (1765)

This is sadly part 2 of this topic, the first is here and was inspired by the politically motivated suicide of an Air Force member:

I have always been about reality, and so I will warn you if you are sensitive:

DO NOT WATCH THIS FIRST VIDEO AS IT IS GRAPHIC…
You Have Been Warned

As a history buff of the Vietnam War, I am familiar with self-immolation

While this is said to be suicide… it is quite literally murder – as much as I think euthanasia of people are. The recent self-immolations by the Air Force serviceman and the guy yesterday were suicides… and if someone doused them with gasoline, led a trail away from them and lit the trail – that person would be facing criminal charges. Plain and simple. Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Đức is doused… let me repeat that… is doused with gasoline by “team monks” during a protest demonstration in Saigon, on June 11, 1963

THE ATLANTIC has an article titled Stop Glorifying Self-Immolation Here are some excerpts, and, it primarily is written with the Air Force kid setting himself on fire:

In 1963, the monk Thich Quang Duc soaked himself [no, he did not – RPT] in gasoline and lit himself on fire to protest the government of the Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem. Within a few years, dozens more had killed themselves the same way. A Quaker named Norman Morrison stood outside Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s office, handed off his 1-year-old daughter to a stranger, and cremated himself. Back in Vietnam, a nun named Nhat Chi Mai wondered to a friend whether the tactic had lost its power through overuse. “Fasting and even self-immolation no longer wake people up,” she said. “We have to be imaginative!” She suggested they take part in a mass public disembowelment. Her friend said she’d think about it. In 1967, Nhat knelt before statues of the Virgin Mary and Quan Am, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, and stuck with Plan A. She was 33.

This past weekend, a 25-year-old U.S. Air Force enlisted man livestreamed his self-immolation in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. He said he could no longer abide being “complicit” in “genocide,” and the last comprehensible words he uttered before collapsing were “Free Palestine!” Among the effects of his suicide was to disturb the many people scrolling through social media who (like me) inadvertently saw him dancing and chanting while engulfed in flames, and to inspire many supporters of the Palestinian cause to celebrate his act. The theologian and presidential candidate Cornel West praised his “extraordinary courage and commitment.” “Rest in power,” Jill Stein, the former Green Party presidential candidate, posted on X, with an image of the young man ablaze.

I won’t speculate on the dead man’s mental health. He grew up in a cult, described himself as an anarchist, and generally eschewed what Buddhists might call “the middle way,” a life of mindful moderation, in favor of extreme spiritual and political practice. In addition to being an immoderate act, self-immolation is a violent one, indeed one of the most violent, and if you dislike violence, then you should abhor it no matter your view on the war in Gaza. Self-immolators choose that method over hunger strikes, civil disobedience, marches, and a long menu of other morally exemplary tactics.

It is also a tactic that succeeds and fails depending on the situation, and whether the moment is ripe for horrific violence or (as Nhat speculated) needs violence even more ghastly than can be achieved with gasoline. Virtually no one before Quang Duc had burned himself in protest of anything. The tactic is contagious. Another man had set himself on fire in December outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta. Already the D.C. self-immolator is being turned into a hero, and that risks compounding this tragedy for no good reason.

There is a Buddhist tradition of suicide that values the shedding of one’s body as an end in itself. About 1,500 years ago, a Buddhist monk named Daodu declared that his body was “like a poisonous plant,” and burned himself alive to get rid of it. But for nearly all the self-burnings in the modern era, the goal was more worldly: to call attention to alleged injustice and stress one’s devotion to ending it. In a letter to Martin Luther King Jr., the monk Thich Nhat Hanh said that burning oneself will “prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance,” and demonstrate “determination and sincerity.”

The most comprehensive survey of the practice is by the Oxford sociologist Michael Biggs. He notes that some self-immolators inspired others to rededicate themselves to the immolator’s cause, and some—such as Morrison and Quang Duc—really did spur political change. (Diem’s government fell months after Quang Duc’s death.) But “most acts of self-immolation fail to generate any collective response,” Biggs writes.

[….]

I wonder if I am the only one left who would be more moved and persuaded by an absence of fanaticism. 

[….]

I have serious doubts about the value of discussing anything with someone who brings a jerry can and a Zippo to the conversation. The Palestinian cause is already associated with death cultism: Hamas arrives at the conversations pre-drenched. Certain factions of the Israeli right seem excessively open to conflagration too. The tendency to celebrate and encourage this behavior, or even to be moved by it, strikes me as deeply sick. I am moved only to check the inspection certificate on my office’s fire extinguisher.

And RED STATE shows the hero worship of these potential mass killers. In my previous dealing 2-months ago, I noted this – adapted anew:

  • The one positive that I can pull out of these two self-immolators, Aaron Bushnell & Max Azzarello, is, that at least they hurt themselves. It’s tragic. I wish someone could have been able to talk them out of it. But, hurting themselves versus hurting fellow service members or protestors to make a statement… I’m going with the the former. Much of the distorted view within the Left that radicalizes it is a narcissistic victim mentality, and this often leads to violence. So thinking through this, this morning, I would add that had the propensity to harm others as part of his statement based in lies and his egoism.

Again, Voltaire:

  • “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities”

How did the media try and spin this? That he was a right winger… but MOONBATERY noted the following:

He left a manifesto, which reveals an unsurprising political orientation.

Azzarello had a paranoid interest in conservative tech billionaire Peter Thiel, believed that “capitalism is unsustainable,” and fretted about fascism and climate change. He had worked for Democrat congresscritters Tom Suozzi and Ami Bera, as well as for the self-described “social justice organization” Liberty Hill Foundation. His LinkedIn photo was a picture of him standing next to Bill Clinton. He described himself as “a huge proponent of left unity” and an “anarchocommunist” — i.e., a radical moonbat of the type you might expect to do something really crazy in a public park.

Nonetheless, the media will spin his viewpoint as nonpartisan even pro-Trump if they think they can get away with it….

And the BEST post so far I have come across on the crazy guy can be found over at POST MILLENNIAL. They post readable pictures of the pamphlets the guy was touting when he burned himself. Here is one of the “political” grabs from  Maxwell Azzarello’s REDDIT posts:

NOT THE BEE notes the media’s attempt to say this guy was a righty: “The media is out there right now hinting that the man who set himself on fire outside Trump’s trial in NYC is a Trump supporter himself.”

They go on to list similar points that the above sites do from his manifesto, like these:

I’ve archived Max’s Substack manifesto here in case it gets memory holed. It is clearly an insight into how people are stressed and hopeless these days, so I wouldn’t recommend reading through the whole thing unless you are able to handle the madness.

I’ll simply highlight a few things here.

  • He says “we are victims of a totalitarian con” before outlining a Ponzi scheme involving tech billionaire Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley Bank, and cryptocurrency that will “take down half the stock market.”
  • He believes the elites set up a “secret kleptocracy” and that the Republican v. Democrat divide is entirely fake, presenting us with opposites like George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton or Trump and Hillary to keep us distracted while they gobbled up all the resources and money.
  • Their reasoning, he argues (and this is the important part) is “capitalism is unsustainable, and they knew it.” He says they wanted to “gobble up all the wealth they could, and then yank the rug out from under us so they could pivot to a hellish fascist dystopia.”
  • He then implies that Walt Disney, The Beatles, George Orwell, “Simpsons” creator Matt Groening, and the 1960s film “Easy Rider” were all part of the propaganda machine meant to hide this “secret kleptocracy.” This is an actual quote of his:

When we realize that the secret fascists long planned to use new technology like computers and smart phones to pump us full of misinformation, we realize that Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey was ‘predicting’ a future that was already planned out.

So yeah, this guy was deranged.

I’m not writing this to entertain the man’s manifesto. Some of his points may sound valid to you because most insane people start with a few valid points, like elites being greedy, and get more fantastical from there.

Let’s not get sidetracked by that. The point here is to give you an idea of who he was and to dispel the idea that this man was anything close to a conservative or a Trump supporter before the CNN headlines drop….

One last thought, what rolled thru my mind when I saw him pictured with Newt Gingrich… leading some to speculate he was a Republican.

Max is wearing an “Eat the Rich” T-Shirt. I thought it was Ironic because he BBQed himself. After I thought that I thought the pain from this death into a second death — which is eternal seperation from God [more torment than mere flames] — must be unimaginable. And I praise God I do not have to imagine it.

And on that note I exit stage right.

 

Timing of the Trump Indictments (+ Jack Smith’s Exculpatory Foibles)

‘Fox & Friends’ co-host Ainsley Earhardt compares the timeline of former President Trump’s four indictments and key developments in the Hunter Biden probe.

There is another twist to this story. Granted, in the end [so far] it is hearsay. But noting the timing above, it seems probable. Newt Gingrich claims he heard through “remarkably good sources” that Monday’s indictment of Donald Trump was thrown into motion last minute at the urging of “somebody” in D.C.

MEDIA’ite has more:

“The reaction is so bad on Friday that I am told — this is hearsay, but I am told by a reliable source that Friday evening, somebody from Washington called the district attorney in Atlanta and said, ‘You have to indict on Monday. We have to cover up all of the mistakes we just made with Wiess,’” Gingrich alleged, referring to District Attorney Fani Willis.

“And she said, apparently, ‘My jurors aren’t coming back till Tuesday.’ And they said, ‘You didn’t hear me. You have to indict on Monday.’ And she said, ‘Well, they’re not going to get here before noon.’ They said, ‘That doesn’t matter.’ She said, this means it’s going to be eight or nine or ten o’clock at night. And they said, ‘It doesn’t matter. We need the news media shifting off of Weiss,’” Gingrich said.

Although Gingrich was unaware of who made the call, he said the source he was talking to was someone with “remarkably good sources.”

Well, this may have been a deflection for the many missteps Jack Smith [Special Council appointed by Biden to investigate Trump] has made. One being this:

Under what is called the Brady rule, prosecutors in a criminal trial have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence to a defendant’s legal team, including information that is favorable to the accused and could reduce a potential sentence.

[….]

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team made a startling admission in its case against former President Donald Trump, acknowledging in a new court filing that it failed to turn over all evidence to Mr. Trump’s legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that it had.

(EPOCH TIMES)

Former Trump Attorney Tim Parlatore: Jack Smith Did Not Even Download Exculpatory Evidence Until 2 Days After Indictments

Jack Smith has a troubling past for the cause of freedom!

Impeachment Lies – Democratic Chaos

Below you will see in my upload (3rd video below), that it is true that the witnesses the Democrats call are refuting their narrative. EVEN WITHOUT REPUBLICANS calling witnesses of their own. So while the total count on the committees are 58 Democrat and 47 Republicans — the Founders set it up for the entire House to be involved. And as you will see, the inquiry has begun last week (again, 3rd video).

And when they are allowed to cross examine (the Democrats often times stop this from happening by shift which committee is handling the interview, or making it an Intel case), QUID PRO QUO is not crossing the witnesses lips:

  • REP. RATCLIFFE: Ambassador Taylor again today I found him to be forthright. He had very strong opinions on Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But again the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. Under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!

I put together a “collage” of issues detailing why Republicans would “STORM” these secretive — nonConstitutional — hearings in order to try and make them public. Public. They are not trying to cover up anything, they are trying to make it fair and open. You would think the media would flock to this idea… however they are not. What follows are talking heads, politicians, and the like discussing and clarifying the issues.

Here is a person intimately involved in the process during the Clinton process in the house, Newt Gingrich. His NEWSWEEK article is excellent!

two very different approaches can be seen in the voting pattern in the House. In November 1973, the House voted to fund the investigation into President Richard Nixon on a bipartisan 367-51 vote. By February 1974, everyone was so convinced that Rodino was being fair and nonpartisan that the resolution to conduct a formal investigation passed 410-4.

[….]

The result of our openness was that a substantial number of Democrats continued to vote with us on the procedures despite intense pressure from the White House and outside groups. In September 1998, the House voted to release the Starr report by 363-63 (nine failed to vote). Among Democrats, 138 voted to proceed in a fair way, and only 63 voted against investigating President Clinton.

Think about that. In 1998, we carried House Democrats by better than 2:1 to investigate President Clinton.

In the current atmosphere—with the dishonest, one-sided rigged game, and indeed, an obvious liar as chair of the investigation—can you imagine two-thirds of the House Republicans voting with Pelosi and Schiff for a witch hunt conducted under totally partisan rules?

Everyone who is interested in better understanding how fair people used judicial standards and basic fairness in 1973 and 1998 should read former Congressman and current Judge Jim Rogan’s personal history of the process in an important book: Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment.

It will make crystal clear that the current partisan actions are a complete sham.

Mark Levin had an excellent dressing down of Jake Tapper from CNN regarding his recent commentary on the GOP “STORMING” the sham process the Democrats are calling an impeachment inquiry. Levin plays audio of Jake Tapper discussing the impeachment issue of the recent “STORMING” of the sham process the Democrats have made the vaunted impeachment inquiry. The GOP, mind you, merely wants the process in the public with the same rights afforded to Trump as were afforded to Nixon and Clinton. You would assume the media want the same thing… but in fact they are supporting the “Star Chamber” like process.

What kind of issues might the GOP regarding witnesses they would call up? Hunter Biden maybe? Joe Biden? Bill Taylor… in cross-examination? Maybe on the following snippet from ACE OF SPADES?

No big deal, but Bill Taylor — Adam Schiff’s star chamber witness — also has ties to the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council.

Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats’ controversial impeachment inquiry yesterday, has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, even writing Ukraine policy pieces with the organization’s director and analysis articles published by the Council.

The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has co-hosted events with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted jointly by the Atlantic Council and Burisma.

Meanwhile, a search of government records reveals that Joe Biden intervened with both the DHS and the DOJ on behalf of Graft Hunter’s clients.

From the Washington Examiner. Outline.com link here.

Joe Biden privately contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice when he was a senior and influential U.S. senator to discuss issues that his son Hunter’s firm was being paid to lobby on, according to government records.

On at least two occasions, Biden contacted federal departments to discuss issues related to Hunter’s firm’s lobbying clients, according to records reviewed by the Washington Examiner.

Government records show that Biden, who has always insisted he knows nothing about his son’s business activities, helped Hunter’s work with strategic and highly specific interventions that could have benefited his son to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars….

If the hearing was fair and honest… the Democrats know they would lose the public confidence. Hence the secrecy. Even with the Republicans — with biased rules, are prevailing when allowed to cross examine.


More Video Fodder


After Rep. Adam Schiff read a false version of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky and claimed it to be parody, Larry decides to do a little investigating into why the Congressman is so confident in the whistleblower, whether he had contact with him, and whether the whistleblower actually had firsthand knowledge of the call. Larry also takes a look into why the whistleblower process requirement for firsthand knowledge was mysteriously removed.

ELDER

GRAHAM!

BONGINO

The Impact of the Next President ~ Deroy Murdock

Here is a portion of Deroy’s article that he is talking about above with Dennis Prager:

A President Hillary Clinton would nominate hundreds of people to top positions that require Senate approval. She would hire hundreds of thousands of others and unleash them to perpetrate Hillaryism — a toxic blend of lies, elitist nannyism, secretive paranoia, and snarling contempt for the law. These people would enjoy police powers, fat salaries, mouth-watering benefits, and bullet-proof job security — at taxpayer expense.

If Hillary nominated only one liberal jurist to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, she could nudge the Court to the left for decades. Free speech, religious liberty, gun rights, separation of powers, free enterprise, federalism, and unborn Americans all would be in the cross hairs.

But her influence would go far, far beyond that.

Other Supreme Court vacancies could arise, of course.

Thirteen federal appeals-court seats are empty. So are 77 federal trial-court benches. Also, 14 other judges have announced their plans to retire between now and June 2017.

All told, by next Independence Day, Hillary could name 105 like-minded judges to these federal courts.

And that’s just the judicial branch.

Hillary would nominate 15 cabinet secretaries who share her collectivist vision. The secretaries of state, treasury, labor, transportation, and others, in turn, would be encircled by platoons of undersecretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, and their secretaries.

The federal government includes “137 independent executive agencies with 268 components,” according to USA.gov. Hillary would employ the heads of these bodies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and many, many more. Beyond that, ad hoc boards, commissions, and blue-ribbon panels also would clamor for chiefs.

And then we have the Indians.

Obama employed at least 143,000 federal staffers during his first term, Investor’s Business Daily estimates. Hillary likely would hire as many federal workers in her image or merely leave thousands of Obamites in place and let them keep on keeping on. Neither prospect is appetizing.

[….]

A President Trump would nominate his own candidates for the Supreme Court and lower benches. The 20 well-respected jurists whom he identified as potential justices all would return the High Court to a more constitutionalist path. So would his circuit- and district-court nominees. As for his cabinet appointees and top aides, just imagine these patriots working to clean up after Obama and help Trump make America great again:

  • Secretary of State Newt Gingrich
  • Treasury Secretary Steve Forbes
  • Defense Secretary KT McFarland
  • Attorney General Rudolph W. Giuliani
  • Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Ben Carson
  • Office of Management and Budget Director Steve Moore
  • United Nations Ambassador Laura Ingraham
  • Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Arthur Laffer
  • CIA Director John Bolton
  • Federal Reserve Chairman Lawrence Kudlow

While this dream team is almost too good to be true, some of these experts and activists already advise Trump and would help him govern. If asked, many of them would serve our country in a Trump Administration.

(read more)