Sutherland: (Democratic) Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

hcOne of the all-time classic Twilight Zone episodes starred William Shatner, as a salesman who had suffered a nervous breakdown on a commercial airline flight…

After six months’ confinement in a sanatorium, his wife arranges to have him released and books a flight home for the two of them, though she is understandably concerned that his anxiety about being on another flight might trigger a relapse.

Sure enough, when he gets on the plane to go home, the Shatner character (”Bob Wilson”) looks out and thinks he sees a “gremlin” on the plane’s wing. This creature, a mythical little monster conjured up by WWII aviators as a scapegoat for otherwise inexplicable mechanical failures, is seen deliberately reaching into one of the airliner’s engine cowlings and pulling out pieces.

When Shatner points this out to his wife and stewardess, the gremlin ducks out of sight. He knows the others think he’s crazy and might have him recommitted to a mental hospital. He’s even more fearful that if nothing is done, the damage to the plane’s engine by the gremlin will cause it to crash.

There follows a particularly scary scene where Shatner/Wilson is beginning to doubt his own sanity after the gremlin disappears for the fifth or sixth time when he tries to point out what he’s seeing to the others. The stewardess finally shuts the curtain on his window but Shatner/Wilson can’t help but look out again, only to see the grotesque face of the little monster pressed against the window!

This is altogether too much for him and, in  his terror and panic; he grabs a revolver from a slumbering police officer across the aisle. Opening the emergency exit, he is almost sucked out when the plane depressurizes but not before shooting and killing the gremlin. 

f67c4e54c98cb47f3bea8713d2d776f3All the other people on the airplane naturally think Shatner/Wilson has gone totally crazy and the pilot radios ahead for medics to meet the plane at the airport. Put under sedation, in a straight-jacket strapped to a gurney, Shatner is being loaded into an ambulance when he looks up and sees that the engine cowling has indeed been ripped open, with wiring hanging out. He knows he wasn’t crazy, his mind playing tricks on him—the gremlin was real.

I’ve felt like the William Shatner character in that episode from the Twilight Zone. Numerous times I’ve raised questions and made arguments that my liberal friends say make me “insane,” “delusional,” “paranoid,” all because I dared to question the veracity of some Democratic politician.

I remember vividly meeting former FBI agent Gary Aldrich when he came to Kansas City in 1997 to speak on his book, “Unlimited Access”. Aldrich had been with the FBI office in the White House and had some scathing things to say about the Clinton Administration. One of the tamer charges-particularly in view of later revelations—was his account of how president Clinton would leave the White House for romantic trysts with young women, by himself or with a single aide. Aldrich said the Secret Service was worried that the president was putting himself at risk from a security stand point by this practice.

Author Aldrich was careful to qualify this statement in his book by saying he had no definite proof of such allegations but that he believed the Secret Service agents who’d told him these reports.

As I recall, the outcry from the Establishment media was immediate and deafening. As soon as the book was published, Aldrich was invited onto the Sunday morning talk shows but only to grill him to poke holes in his story. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer put out one of her trade-mark hit pieces. She was invited onto one of the talk shows but would not appear face to face with Aldrich even though her article was the template for all the other attacks on Aldrich’s credibility. “Lurid night-wing fantasy,” was the mildest charge made against him.

A little over a year later, there was an avalanche of explosive disclosures about Bill Clinton’s compulsive behavior. The prurient interest in the Monica Lewinsky scandal overshadowed the disquieting aspects of the story from a national security perspective. People forget there was evidence of blackmail by foreign intelligence services. In one of Clinton’s tape recorded phone calls to Lewinsky, the president, in his inimitable Arkansas-speak, is heard to say; “We gotta be real careful. There are all these foreign embassies listening in on us!”

Did anyone who labeled Aldrich and those who took him seriously as “deranged conspiracy theorists” ever admit they were wrong, let alone apologize? Being a Clinton defender means never having to say you’re sorry!

Fast forward to my KC Confidential blog post from 2014 on Planned Parenthood.

I’ve never seen such angry responses to anything I’ve ever said, even in lawsuits!

One commentator even claimed he knew my elderly mother (giving details like her age, her address, and her hobbies) and that she had told him she wished she’d aborted me!

Part of the reason people got so enraged was my rebuttal of the specious arguments used to rationalize Planned Parenthood’s charming practice of selling fetal body parts for fun and profit. The bigger factor, I believe, was citing all the racist appeals used to justify abortion by abortion proponents. The problem was that these things were all things I had seen or heard personally.

Little did I realize that “pro-choice” icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had given an interview which confirmed my worst suspicions:

“Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don’t want too many of.” 2009 interview of RBG in N.Y. Times Magazine (“Notorious RBG” indeed!)

I think that this is conclusive proof of my point that abortion proponents slyly point out its disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor to justify the practice to affluent white suburbanites. These are the people who fund Planned Parenthood, even if they rarely use it themselves. The usual appeals to feminism and consequence free sexuality might not work with them so we need to set the hook with an old standby. One pitch is to argue that crime rates began to decline dramatically eighteen years after Roe V. Wade. I have no idea whether this supposed fact is true, but I do know what the message is i.e. let’s limit growth of “populations we don’t want too many of.” I’d just wish I’d known about this quote when I wrote my blog post but it still feels good to know I wasn’t just imaging things about peoples’ real motives.

Now we have yet another example of a question being raised about a Democratic candidate, which has led to a deafening Greek chorus of cat-calls and jeers from not just partisan supporters but the supposedly impartial media.

After the month Hillary Clinton spent largely absent from the campaign trail after the Democratic Convention, right-wing critics of the former Secretary of the State revived rumors about her health.

Recounting a history of not-so-trivial incidents – three serious falls, blood clots, and a concussion – they combined this with her seeming difficulty climbing stairs and apparent problems with her vision to argue she was concealing a serious illness.

The push-back from the “Respectable” press was loud and shrill.

The Washington Post’s chief political reporter, Chris Cilizza even ran a piece entitled, “Can’t We Just Stop Talking About Hillary Clinton’s Health Now?”

Numerous other liberal commentators joined in, claiming this was another example of a right wing conspiracy, which showed the paranoia and credulity of those who raised such questions. Then came Hillary’s collapse at the 9-11 Memorial service in New York. If it hadn’t been for an alert by-stander with a cell phone camera, the whole incident would have been concealed from the public. (Her handlers at that point had ditched the press corps that travels with her.)

The explanation for her condition went from “allergies” (Friday) to “overheating” (Sunday morning) and finally to “pneumonia” (Sunday night). Clearly, something about her health was being hidden.

In the days that followed September 11th, two other significant developments occurred.

A 2011 e-mail surfaced, thanks to Wikileaks, from Jake Sullivan, an assistant to HRC at the State Department, to the Secretary of State. Sullivan reported to her about a new drug used to treat Parkinson’s disease. On Friday afternoon, Hillary responded to a press inquiry about whether she would submit to a neurocognitive test by refusing point blank.

Given her age and health history such a test would clear up any concerns about her capacity to carry out the responsibilities of the presidency but she would not even consider it. (That’s obviously a less critical issue than what The Donald paid in federal income taxes in 1994)

Why is it that yet again the liberal default position to those raising awkward questions is to brand the questioners mentally ill? And when these concerns are shown by new facts to have some rational basis, what is the response of liberal journalists? Usually it is silence. Sometimes, however, it’s a complete about-face, with no admission that the person had ever said anything to the contrary, let alone labeled it a sign of mental illness or being a pathological liar.

We have truly arrived at Orwell’s 1984, where something is only true and good to the extent it advances the interests of “The Party” (Democratic) or “the progressive movement.”

Every inconvenient statement made or position taken goes down the Orwellian memory hole. (Or the editing booth at CNN or NBC, the present day equivalent!) The gremlins were indeed at work.

Like William Shatner in that long ago Twilight Zone episode, I really have seen the cowling torn off the plane’s engine.

This entry was posted in Dwight D. Sutherland, Jr. and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Sutherland: (Democratic) Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

  1. chuck says:

    You know I am a big fan Mr. Southerland, but I disagree with you on the Abortion Issue. “Life begins at inception”.

    “No, only when the heart starts to beat.”

    Life begins at…blah, blah, blah…

    I believe in a woman’s right to choose.

    We should be grateful, that in the coming Progressive/Fascist hegemony, that Liberals, think that it is a woman’s right to choose. Can you imagine if they thought otherwise? As the tentacles of power insidiously (Strike that, it is no longer “insidious”.), accelerate their choke hold on our lives, if the point where “Life Begins” became an issue, then Harley would be doing life, or maybe even sitting on Death Row for jacking off so much. Where does it stop? It is all subjective opinion based on so called “experts”. Those experts are subject to the whim and caprice of their own experience, intuition, insights and others opinions. It is bad enough for the women, who have to actually live with a life and death decision that is so, by definition, nebulous.


    Mea Culpa.

    Other than that, great article as always.

    • chuck says:

      Oops, sorry for the typo.


    • paulwilsonkc says:

      Chuck, I’m actually going to DISagree with you.
      I’m 100% in favor of a woman’s right to choose.
      I’m 100% in favor of a woman’s RIGHT to her body.
      I’m 100% in a woman staying a virgin OR sleeping with a different guy every night.
      But I’m also 100% in favor of her right to her body, her right to choose ALSO coming along with personal responsibility.
      If she acts irresponsibly, ends up preggers, I’m 100% opposed to her right to rectify that with a post sex abortion as birth control.
      Her irresponsibility has now introduced a new life.
      She gave up her right to choose when she chose to not BE responsibile for her body, her actions…..

      • chuck says:

        I just think determining the inception of life is too subjective buddy. The determining factor is what? “I think, therefore I am”? The heartbeat? The first trimester?

        What are the parameters for determining when and what life is, as it relates, to what the consensus is (And there isn’t a consensus.) amongst what? 51% of us? 25% of us? 75% of us?

        Is that determination ecclesiastical? Is it mystical? Objective? Does the same priest who molested our neighbors kids work at the church where they tell me when life begins?

        And whose God is it, that can kick my God’s ass, that tells me and my God, that THIS is when life begins?

        Look, I get it, that those ghouls at Planned Parenthood were selling body parts. It is categorical. That said, for the most part, in my opinion, these women, usually come to a decision like this, based on money, terrible choices in men and too much liquor and just plain poor planning.

        I think a more reasonable approach, one which would mollify many people on both sides of the issue, is addressing the legality of abortion in the first trimester and whether or not there should be interdiction after.

        This, will get me into bleeding heart Liberal territory, but I am actually uncomfortable, very uncomfortable, commanding another human being, who is female, to obey my, or my countries edicts to NOT have control over her own body.

        This is a subjective opinion and maybe I am wrong.

        Who can say?

      • Frank says:

        Have you ever been irresponsible, Paul? If so, let me know what it was so I can make the determination what should happen to you since you have given up the right to rectify your irresponsibility you sanctimonious dumbfuc$.

        • paulwilsonkc says:

          I’ve been terribly irresponsible on multiple occasions. Usually surrounding financial issues, spending too much on toys and vintage race cars, blowing through assloads of cash.
          There are times I ate too much (before losing 65 pounds) and had too many margritas.
          The solution or penalty for my actions was never taking another’s life, you sanctimonious dumbfuk.

      • Nick says:

        Jeez, Paul, give it a rest.

        Do you give up your 1st Amendment rights when you write stupid stuff? No, as much as I often think someone ought to take the quivering quill from your hand.

        Same with abortion; it’s still a woman’s prerogative what she will/won’t do with her body, regardless of your opinion.

        And, no – it’s not different because a life is involved; it’s still the woman’s body.

        • paulwilsonkc says:

          That’s the nice thing about opinions; we’re all entitled to one, even if it’s wrong.

          • Nick says:

            “…we’re all entitled to one, even if it’s wrong.”

            Sadly, especially when you assert “…she gave up her right to choose …”, which is a flat out lie. That’s not how the law reads.

            Had you prefaced that inanity of a sentence with “It’s my opinion that…”, we would have all just moved on with a shrug, and a “whatevs”, knowing we were dealing with a generational anomaly that’s swiftly becoming less and less relevant.

          • chuck says:

            The RULE OF LAW, IS THE RULE OF LAW.


        • chuck says:


  2. Born standing on third says:

    I love seeing posts like this as they are truly inspirational!

    You’ve inspired another 5 figure donation out of me to Planned Parenthood. Thank you!

    And sorry Mr. Trump isn’t working out for you. 🙁

    Perhaps you old white men will choose more wisely next time.

    • Dwight D. Sutherland, Jr. says:

      Your comments might be more persuasive if you actually tried to address the merits of my arguments rather than reacting with blind rage and ad hominem attacks.

      • chuck says:

        The now pejorative, “Old White Men” term is ubiquitous on TV everywhere now. My wife wanted to watch some show called “Bull” the other night. F*cking horrible. They used it twice in one episode.

        America hates white people.

  3. LMAO at Harley in jail for mass murder of nutsack babies.

    • paulwilsonkc says:

      Chuck brings it! I would have made the same comment but I couldn’t get off the floor laughing in time.

      • chuck says:


        Someone SHOULD be in jail for murdering Harley’s second to last brain cell.

        Although, the DA would never bring it to trial. No jury would convict.

  4. paulwilsonkc says:

    Great piece, Dwight.
    I find it interesting that Harley calls us all old. Yet in one of my pieces a week or two ago, he talked about going to Dirty Sallys on a fake ID, going as far as naming where he got it.
    Unless he did that at 15….he’s my age.

    • chuck says:

      I AM old, fat, short, bald, ugly and tetchy on my best day.

      That said, when Harley comes to “shut me up” he should be accompanied with a 7 course meal in his lunch box.

      • paulwilsonkc says:

        His accusations and lack of knowledge is staggering. I raced vintage race cars, a gentlemans sport, against Dwight’s brother for one. But according to H’douche, I have that confused with an SUV.
        I’m guessing my plane was a Flintstone mobile too.
        I prefer your inprisoned description of him you offered. #nutsackbabies

  5. over 2 months ago I said the Clinton campaign had dumpsters taxes and
    that they would be made public in October. I said even if he didn’t release them
    he would have to face the music because the IRS probably shot them over to the
    media via email.
    Well…HARLEY WAS RIGHT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    See todays New York Times! Harley knew what was coming because
    Harley knows all. And those who doubt Harley learn that it’s not smart to
    f*ck with Harley.
    Lo and behold….dumpster took some 1 billion dollars in losses. But I can
    pretty well assure you that he’s lying (like he always does)……but they also have
    all those other tax returns and rest assured they too will be made public.
    Isn’t it funny how Harley writes about things then they become public later.
    Harley knows. Harley knows the secrets that others try to hide.
    There are no secrets….on kcc…in the political world…Harley knows all.
    Wait….kcc! Harley knows all and will spill the beans. Just don’t get me mad!

  6. Kerouac says:

    “Sutherland: (Democratic) Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”

    – Democrats: ‘Unsafe at any speed’ – Ralph Nader


  7. Laura B. says:

    When two candidates have long track records, like Clinton and Trump, media investigations will turn up all manner of historical items worthy of the National Enquirer. Does they disqualify them from the presidency? No, of course not. Both candidates have had achievements and failures. What matters is what they’ll do as president. And, of course, whether they can achieve their plans given that the Senate in play this cycle.

    Hillary’s problem is her coalition is too large. On the left, nearly half of Sanders’ supporters say they won’t vote for her. If she moves left to accommodate them, she loses the Wall Street crowd and national security hawks who like her pragmatic approach to foreign policy.

    Trump’s problem is his mouth. His frequent gaffes have weakened his support among the people he needs to add in order to win: moderates and women.

    I suspect the outcome of this race depends on Trump’s ability to crack the blue firewall that benefited Obama. He’s got to carry a larger number of swing states than Clinton. Whether he can do that depends, in part, on whether he can shut his mouth long enough to broaden his base. He hasn’t yet.

    • Laura B. says:

      Correction: “Does that disqualify them” … my bad. Editing can be a beetch, LOL.

      • sorry laura…wrong again.
        Half of sanders supporters in legitimate polls are not saying they are
        Not voting for Hillary. In fact when it comes time to vote they can
        count on 85-90% of sanders voters to cast a vote for Hillary. I have seen
        the internals. And you may not know this but in past elections Harley
        has been exactly right on the numbers. 2016 will be no different.
        Since you’re new here I’ll give you a pass. Good to have a woman views
        to look at instead of all these whiny old nasty senior citizens.

        • Laura B. says:

          That’s a fair response, Harley. The young Sanders supporters I know simply won’t vote at all. Since their man isn’t running, they’ve lost the excitement they need to push them to the polls. You’re probably right that HRC will get a large majority of Sanders’ people who vote. But how many of them will show up at the polls?

          Consider the thousands of kids on college campuses who must travel home to vote on a school day. It’s difficult for kids ensconced in dorms to go home anyway. Getting them to travel home mid-week to vote for an uninspiring, deadpan candidate like HRC is an impossible task. They won’t do it.

          • Laura B. Many college students are registered
            in their city where they go to school.
            And having looked at my algorithms and models
            the landslide is taking shape.
            Hillary won’t need 100% of the sanders voters…
            maybe now 80-90% if that.
            She’s close in the white female vote…
            and early voting shows he killing trump.
            I don’t know where you get your facts but
            they are incorrect.
            Makes no difference…Hillary’s landslide is
            in process right now.
            The dumpster just sh*t on the vets coming home
            with ptsd saying they weren’t “strong”.
            Oh my…the old guys will be in bed by 8pm
            central time election night after changing their
            depends and taking their Flomax!@
            Thanks for commenting. Your comments
            though way off base are quite humorous!

        • Laura B. says:

          In response to you uttering that my comments were humorous, allow that I take comments about having some kind of inside knowledge lightly. You’ve seen the “internals?” As my grandmother would say, “Whoop-tee-doo.”

          Considering that Stein and Johnson combined took 1.5% of the vote in 2012, that begs the question who is supporting them in the reported 8-11% range this time around? It isn’t disaffected GOP members. It’s Sanders’ people, Harley.

          Consider also the strict voting requirements, say in Texas for example, that make it impossible to vote without some kind of state issued identification. The number of undergraduate students who report their dorm room as their primary residence for the purpose of obtaining a state issued ID are few.

          I’m thinking this may be the wrong site to express my reaction to articles. I accessed the site, originally, because I faithfully read Hearne Christopher in the Star. But the snarky tone of the comment section doesn’t elevate the discourse. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

          • John Altevogt says:

            Most of the commenters here are OK, Laura. Just don’t bother to read anything with Harley authoring it and you’ll be fine.

    • chuck says:

      Great comment in my opinion.

      Dead on the money.

  8. Orphan of the Road says:

    The American voter has decided throwing a malotov cocktail into the Congress is preferable to continuing any course either party has tried to follow. When an avowed Socialist takes 22 states and the party doesn’t blink (in fact doubles down) a fire bomb is understandable.

    Hilary supporter Samantha Bee hit the DNC hard for their deaf ear and profiled a Super Delegate. Who is also a lobbyist for the title loan industry. Those folks who “help” many a soldier live paycheck to paycheck.

    Mr. Sutherland, I propose we have experienced over 200-years voting for candidates the public liked, albeit some more than others) so this time we will pick from two we dislike.

    This will be held for moderation for the Samantha Bee link.

    Just to show she’s been trying to raise this issue for a loooooong time. Too much democracy for the Democrats is relatively new.

    • chuck says:

      Orphan is not only the soul of discretion, he is that siren call to all of us, drifting closer to the ship wrecking shoals that our most recent executive in Rome On The Potomac “hopes” will “change” us into a polarized, violent conflagration.

      Orphan’s eclectic, perspicuous, ‘wait for a while’ takes on politics, religion and the politically cumbrous American Zeitgeist are worth waiting for.

      Orphan’s truth, may not be your truth, or my truth, but, it is a truth worth reading.

  9. CFPCowboy says:

    Great article, but there is so much more, a left wing conspiracy, maybe? Concerning the e-mails the law in question is quite concise, not delving into intent. I am not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on tv, but I know if I am caught speeding, intent has nothing to do with it. So, even if I got out of my last speeding ticket on a failure to post technicality, my luck would not translate to other things. It is interesting that, according to the FBI, they really never investigated breaking the law, only whether or not the e-mail was secure, kind of like looking at a stop sign running from the proposition that manslaughter cannot be charged since there was no accident. It is logic at its finest, making it tougher for those abiding by the law to protect themselves, while ignoring the lawbreakers who will not follow either the old or the new law. They are outlaws, and if you’re judging intent, they intend to be. At what point does non- enforcement become anarchy or just intentional favoritism? Both are illegal. Probably the most damaging outcome to the failure to prosecute Bill Clinton for obvious perjury was justice itself. The people, in effect, said we know you broke the law. We prosecute people who break the law, but we want you to be above the law. Pretty damning! Ignore the Equal Rights Clause. Abandon crime and punishment. Welcome to anarchy, and truly allow elites to be above the law. Who enforces the laws on our enforcers? We do.

    • chuck says:

      Old laws, new laws never apply to the Clinton scofflaws.

    • Orphan of the Road says:

      The law in question was written for WWI and is crazily worded in response to Europe’s lack of a First Amendment protection for free speech.

      The very reason it has rarely been used.

      Intent is why police escape charges on so many shooting, intent is nearly impossible to prove.

      Justice is blind is not referring to an admirable quality of the system but to how f’d up it is in use.

  10. Wendy says:

    Right on, Dwight!

    Here is something with which I have been struggling re: the abortion rights subject:

    If men ever get reproductive rights (afterall, a night of unplanned passion can affect the entire life of a man as well – even egg donars have been required to provide child support), will they then have the right to stop an abortion, request sole custody, and require child support for the resulting child? If not, why not? If so, whose wishes win?

    Conversely, will men then have the right to insist a woman, at anytime in the pregnancy, get an abortion? If not, why not? If so, whose wishes win?

Comments are closed.