Displaying posts published in

August 2016

Almost All of Hillary Clinton’s Charitable Donations Went to This One Organization By Rick Moran

According to tax returns for 2015 released by the Clinton campaign, 96% of the candidate’s charitable donations went to the Clinton Foundation.

Daily Caller:

The documents show that the power couple earned $10,745,378 last year, mostly on income earned from giving public speeches.

Of that, they gave just over a million to charity. But the contributions can hardly be seen as altruistic, since the money flowed back to an entity they control.

The other $42,000 contribution was to Desert Classic Charities. That group hosts an annual PGA golf event. Doug Band, a Clinton Foundation adviser and Bill Clinton’s longtime assistant, was on the board of directors of that organization through 2014, according to its IRS filings.

Desert Classic Charities effectively returned that donation back into the Clinton orbit. Its 2015 tax filing shows that it contributed $700,000 to the Clinton Foundation for work on obesity programs. The group handed out $1.6 million in grants that whole year.

The Clinton Foundation dispenses contracts to Clinton cronies like Doug Band while also paying for the non-political travel of the Clintons and staffers. It’s all perfectly legal — and disgustingly unethical. The Foundation is used as a slush fund that enriches friends of the Clintons while allowing foreign businesses and governments to purchase influence.

I doubt this story will get much play beyond the conservative net. It might cast Hillary in a bad light, and we can’t have that when the press now sees that it has a holy quest to keep Donald Trump from winning. CONTINUE AT SITE

Hillary’s Islamist Phalanx By Mary A. Nicholas

The number of associations is large and creepy.

Unless you had taken a course in advanced agitprop, you would not have recognized that Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando nightclub shooter, was a plant. He was part of the propaganda show for Hillary Clinton, now playing to sparse audiences from coast to coast. The show is produced and directed by radical “let it all hang out” leftists, in coordination with misogynistic Islamic supremacists, who believe in forced marriage of children under 13 and clitorectomies.

The purpose of Mateen in Florida, a state Hillary needs to win, was to change the narrative, since Khizr Khan was so successful in changing the narrative at the Democratic National Convention. Those “selected” for front- or second-row status at a presidential candidate’s event are hand-picked for ideology, gender, race, or ethnicity. There is no chance that the Clinton show did not know of and approve of his appearance.

Clinton needed to change the narrative for two reasons. First, her poll numbers are not really up as Pat Caddell, a professional pollster, has attested to, especially if you look at the abracadabra methodology. It’s a classic case of disinformation.

What if you give a candidate event, and very few voters show up? You change the narrative, as the Clinton campaign has done, PhotoShop the audience of the event to downplay the numbers, get fire marshals to close down overflowing events of the opponent, or whip up interest in the campaign events via “walk-ons” like Khan and Mateen.

Second, and more important, there are continuing photos of Hillary tripping on and off stage with Broadway lights flashing “brain freeze,” “conquers the stairs,” and more. There are numerous documented events, that is, that even the producers cannot hide.

Pakistani-born Khizr Khan published writings in support of sharia, the enemy of the U.S. Constitution. And the choice between these two is the issue of this election. To understand the importance of sharia in today’s threat to America, here is a quote from Stephen Coughlin, who formerly briefed the Pentagon and other U.S. officials on the threat of Islam:

Sweden: Summer Inferno of Sexual Assaults by Ingrid Carlqvist

Almost all the perpetrators of sexual assaults who attacked in groups and who have been apprehended, are citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia — three of the four largest immigrant groups in Sweden who fall into the category of “unaccompanied refugee children.”

A few days later, it turned out that many of the perpetrators who sexually assaulted women at the “Putte i parken” music festival in Karlstad wore the “Don’t grope” bracelet.

Many people were therefore aghast to learn that the organizers of the Trästocksfestivalen music festival in Skellefteå had decided to arrange free bus rides to the festival for the local “unaccompanied refugee children.” They claimed they were “proud to be the first music festival in Sweden that encourages a significant increase of newly arrived migrants in the audience.” By the time the Trästocksfestivalen ended, the police counted twelve reported sexual assaults.

Apparently, Swedish girls and women should learn to live with being groped and raped — or leave the public space altogether. The latter seems quite in line with what Islamic sharia law prescribes.

In the wake of the New Year’s Eve attacks in Cologne, Germany, news broke in Sweden that a large number of sexual assaults against girls and women had occurred at the music festival “We Are Sthlm” [short for Stockholm] in both 2014 and 2015, but had been covered up by both the police and the media. The National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, immediately launched an investigation to find out the scope of the problem.

The results were presented in May, in a report, “The current situation regarding sexual assault and proposals for action” — and the conclusions are frightening. Almost all the perpetrators who attacked in groups and who have been apprehended, are citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia — three of the four largest immigrant groups in Sweden who fall into the category of “unaccompanied refugee children.”

How Global Elites Forsake Their Countrymen Those in power see people at the bottom as aliens whose bizarre emotions they must try to manage. Peggy Noonan

This is about distance, and detachment, and a kind of historic decoupling between the top and the bottom in the West that did not, in more moderate recent times, exist.

Recently I spoke with an acquaintance of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and the conversation quickly turned, as conversations about Ms. Merkel now always do, to her decisions on immigration. Last summer when Europe was engulfed with increasing waves of migrants and refugees from Muslim countries, Ms. Merkel, moving unilaterally, announced that Germany would take in an astounding 800,000. Naturally this was taken as an invitation, and more than a million came. The result has been widespread public furor over crime, cultural dissimilation and fears of terrorism. From such a sturdy, grounded character as Ms. Merkel the decision was puzzling—uncharacteristically romantic about people, how they live their lives, and history itself, which is more charnel house than settlement house.

Ms. Merkel’s acquaintance sighed and agreed. It’s one thing to be overwhelmed by an unexpected force, quite another to invite your invaders in! But, the acquaintance said, he believed the chancellor was operating in pursuit of ideals. As the daughter of a Lutheran minister, someone who grew up in East Germany, Ms. Merkel would have natural sympathy for those who feel marginalized and displaced. Moreover she is attempting to provide a kind of counter-statement, in the 21st century, to Germany’s great sin of the 20th. The historical stain of Nazism, the murder and abuse of the minority, will be followed by the moral triumph of open arms toward the dispossessed. That’s what’s driving it, said the acquaintance.

It was as good an explanation as I’d heard. But there was a fundamental problem with the decision that you can see rippling now throughout the West. Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street—that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending—because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

And so the great separating incident at Cologne last New Year’s, and the hundreds of sexual assaults by mostly young migrant men who were brought up in societies where women are veiled—who think they should be veiled—and who chose to see women in short skirts and high heels as asking for it.

Cologne of course was followed by other crimes. CONTINUE AT SITE

Yes, Obama Is a Founder of ISIS By Daniel John Sobieski

Before the hyperventilating begins, let me stipulate that neither President Obama or Hillary Clinton ever sat down with Islamic State chieftain Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and signed the articles of incorporation. But were it not for their actions and inactions in facilitating a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, creating a vacuum ISIS would gladly fill, the terrorist groups’ caliphate arguably would not exist.

Trump now says he was merely being sarcastic when he said it:

Donald Trump charged President Barack Obama on Wednesday with being the founder of the Islamic State during a campaign rally in Florida.”In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama,” Trump said during a campaign stop in Fort Lauderdale. “He is the founder of ISIS.”Last week, his campaign tried to draw financial links between the Clinton Foundation and the terror group. Wednesday, he called Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton the group’s “co-founder.”

Trump has long accused Obama and Clinton for pursuing Middle East policies that created a power vacuum in Iraq that was exploited by Islamic State. He had criticized Obama for announcing he would yank U.S. troops out of Iraq, which Obama critics believe created the instability in which extremist groups thrive.

No more calls, we have a winner. Sarcasm or not, he is on the money. ISIS would not be the threat it is today were it not for the policies of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They should at least rate an honorable mention. The fact is that President Obama, who famously dismissed ISIS as a “JV team”, ignored the intelligence reports of the rise of the Islamic State and the danger it posed. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized, Obama’s later promise to “degrade and destroy” ISIS was an empty threat by a President who could have destroyed ISIS in the cradle but didn’t:

Degrade? Degrading has been the foreign policy of a president who recently said that he didn’t have a strategy yet for dealing with the Islamic State’s butchery after watching it train and prepare for a year in its Syrian base before its “sudden” expansion into Iraq.

A former Pentagon official told Fox News that Obama received specific intelligence in daily briefings about the Islamic State’s rise. The information was said to be “granular” in detail, laying out IS’ intentions and capabilities for at least a year before it seized big chunks of Iraqi territory and started beheading Americans.

Obama’s indifference to the briefings was an issue during the 2012 campaign, when former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen observed that Obama personally attended only 44% of them. Obama’s perceived lack of interest in a terror war, which he claimed was won prior to the Benghazi attack, mirrors his reported lack of interest in the rise of the Islamic State.

The fact is President Obama willfully snatched defeat from the Iraq victory of President George W. Bush. The Islamic State’s capture of Ramadi was a long way from the purple fingers Iraqi women held aloft in the country’s first free and democratic elections:

Senior Justice Official Raised Objections to Iran Cash Payment Head of national security division argued Iranian officials were likely to view $400 million payment as ransom By Devlin Barrett

The head of the national security division at the Justice Department was among the agency’s senior officials who objected to paying Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in cash at the same time that Tehran was releasing American prisoners, according to people familiar with the discussions.

John Carlin, a Senate-confirmed administration appointee, raised concerns when the State Department notified Justice officials of its plan to deliver to Iran a planeful of cash, saying it would be viewed as a ransom payment, these people said. A number of other high-ranking Justice officials voiced similar concerns as the negotiations proceeded, they said.

The U.S. paid Iran $400 million in cash on Jan. 17 as part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement of a failed 1979 arms deal between the U.S. and Iran that was announced that day. Also on that day, Iran released four detained Americans in exchange for the U.S.’s releasing from prison—or dropping charges against—Iranians charged with violating sanctions laws. U.S. officials have said the swap was agreed upon in separate talks.

The objection of senior Justice Department officials was that Iranian officials were likely to view the $400 million payment as ransom, thereby undercutting a longstanding U.S. policy that the government doesn’t pay ransom for American hostages, these people said. The policy is based on a concern that paying ransom could encourage more Americans to become targets for hostage-takers.

Mr. Carlin, as head of the division in charge of counterterrorism and intelligence, is one of the highest-profile figures at the department. That he and other senior figures raised alarms underscores how much pushback the State Department proposal provoked.

Since The Wall Street Journal earlier this month reported details of the cash shipment—stacks of euros, Swiss francs and other currencies stacked on wooden pallets—and the Justice Department officials’ objections, administration officials have defended the payment.

At a press conference last week, President Barack Obama described the controversy as the “manufacturing of outrage in a story that we disclosed in January,’’ when the U.S. settled a number of outstanding issues with Iran.

He added, “We do not pay ransom for hostages.”

In his remarks, the president didn’t mention the objections raised by his own appointees within the Justice Department, where, according to people familiar with the discussions, many officials raised alarms that the timing of the cash payment would look like ransom.

White House and State Department officials ultimately decided to proceed with the $400 million cash payment despite the Justice officials’ objections. CONTINUE AT SITE

California’s Cow Police Progressives find a new climate-change villain to regulate.

First they came after the oil producers, then manufacturers, and now they’re coming for the cows. Having mandated emissions reductions from fossil fuels, California’s relentless progressives are seeking to curb the natural gas emanating from dairy farms.

The California Air Resources Board has pumped out regulations to cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and the board worries that its climate agenda could be jeopardized by natural phenomena. To wit, cow manure and “enteric fermentation” (flatulence), which account for half of the state’s methane emissions. According to the board, methane is a “short-lived climate pollutant” with “an outsized impact on climate change in the near term.” Democratic lawmakers want to mandate a 40% reduction in methane by 2030, and the board is pondering ways to do it.

“If dairy farms in California were to manage manure in a way to further reduce methane emissions,” the board explains, “a gallon of California milk might be the least GHG intensive in the world.” And the most expensive. Many California dairy farms have already been converted into nut farms, which are more economical amid the state’s high regulatory costs.

The board suggests that dairy farms purchase technology to capture methane and then sell the biogas to consumers. Yet the regulators acknowledge that most ideas involve environmental trade-offs and are not cost-effective without substantial government subsidies and regulatory credits that can be sold to fossil-fuel producers.

For instance, “solid-scrape manure management may lead to air quality challenges.” Pasture management systems, which organic milk producers use, can eliminate methane emissions from anaerbobic decomposition of manure. But if implemented on large farms, such systems may raise “animal welfare concerns due to heat exposure.” Pasture production would also yield “higher enteric fermentation emissions per unit of milk.” Apparently, organic milk isn’t so sustainable after all.

Other brainstorms include breeding animals that belch less and testing “gut microbial interventions”—though no doubt Democrats will want to see if the anti-genetic-modification activists object. This all may be too much information for readers, but it shows that in their attempt to impose their climate religion there is no corner of the economy or life that progressives won’t try to control. CONTINUE AT SITE

ObamaCare Sicker Shock Why average premiums are soaring 18% to 23% across the country.

Hillary Clinton admits she’s running to extend the Obama legacy, and so far she’s had a free ride in defending it. She hasn’t even had to explain the increasingly obvious failures of ObamaCare to deliver the affordable insurance that Democrats promised.

The Affordable Care Act is now rolling into its fourth year, and even liberals are starting to concede that the insurance exchanges are in distress and Congress may have to reopen the law. Premiums are high and soaring; insurers have booked multimillion-dollar losses and are terminating plans; and the customer pool is smaller, older and less healthy than the official projections.

The natural result is another round of rate shock for 2017. Insurers in 49 states have submitted their premium requests to regulators, and the average “enrollment-weighted” rate increase, which accounts for market share, is in the range of 18% to 23%. The Congressional Budget Office projected 8%.
Liberals call this evidence anecdotal and premature, and they’re right that bad anecdotes are easy to find: Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, a model of the integrated care that ObamaCare attempts to promote, wants a 40% rate increase for its insurance arm. The other liberal claim is that insurance commissioners will approve rate increases somewhat smaller than the insurer requests (maybe) and that consumers can switch to cheaper plans (assuming any are left).

But consider New York, which last Friday became the second state to finalize rates for 2017. The 19.3% rate increase the insurers requested on average for the individual market came down to 16.6% after regulatory fly-specking. The New York political class is hailing this as a great victory, but overall health-care costs aren’t rising by near 16%, and middle-class incomes aren’t either.

Then there are such approved Empire State rates as high as 29.2% (Metro Plus and North Shore), 29% (UnitedHealthcare of New York) and even 89% (Crystal Run). And New York is one of the bright spots.

So is California, where 11 of the 12 health plans that sell coverage under the state’s ObamaCare’s rules turned a profit the last two years. Yet the state is now reporting a final average rate increase of 13.2%, up from 4.2% in 2015 and 4% in 2016. In states with is less competition, the exchanges are even worse off. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that as many as 664 U.S. counties (out of 3,007) may be served by only a single insurer in 2017, up from 225 in 2016.

A major problem is that more people are abusing the law’s lack of verification and undefined “special enrollment” periods. They wait to sign up until they need costly medical care like knee surgeries and then dump coverage again. CONTINUE AT SITE

The 10,000 Kidnapped Boys of Boko Haram By Drew Hinshaw and Joe Parkinson

The militant group has forced thousands to become child jihadists. As many escape, Nigeria wonders what to do with them.

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria—In a forest of thorn trees somewhere far outside this city, the Boko Haram insurgency ran a boot camp for about 100 boys. Children as young as 5 years old learned to handle assault rifles and march through the woods in flip-flops. Their teacher was only 15.

“I was terrified if I didn’t do it, they would kill me,” said Idriss, the teenage instructor, in an interview. He said he was kidnapped by the militants in 2014 but has since escaped.

While the world focused on Boko Haram’s mass kidnappings of women and girls, the Islamist group was stealing an even greater number of boys. Over the past three years, Boko Haram has kidnapped more than 10,000 boys and trained them in boot camps in abandoned villages and forest hide-outs, according to government officials in Nigeria and neighboring Cameroon, and to Human Rights Watch, a New York-based advocacy group.

Abubakar was abducted by Boko Haram and forced to participate in the violent terrorist group’s campaign in northeast Nigeria. He managed to escape a year later. Video: Gabe Johnson/Mackenzie Knowles-Coursin/WSJ

Child soldiering was a big problem in various collapsing states in the 1990s, including some in Africa. What is happening here in northeastern Nigeria is part of a disturbing rise in child jihadism. Young boys and at times girls are being indoctrinated into violent fundamentalism and used as fighters, suicide bombers and spies.

Something similar is happening in other countries battling Islamist insurrections. Commanders of al Qaeda’s branches in Yemen, Somalia and Mali have deployed youngsters. Islamic State has used children in combat, suicide bombings and in execution videos in Iraq and Syria.

Interviews with 16 young Nigerians who escaped from Boko Haram captivity and with other witnesses, soldiers, researchers, officials and diplomats in Nigeria and Cameroon provide a picture of the harrowing life endured by the children who wage jihad. The Wall Street Journal isn’t publishing their surnames.

Witnesses said the boys were trained and sent into battle, at times unarmed and often numbed with opiates. Many of the boys were beaten and some died of starvation or thirst, these people said. Their individual accounts couldn’t be independently verified but are consistent with information gathered by researchers and military officials, both in terms of timing and specific details.

“They told us, ‘It’s all right for you to kill and slaughter even your parents,’ ” recalled Samiyu, a former captive who said he witnessed a beheading on the first day of his 11 months with Boko Haram. He said other boys helped hold down the victim. “They said, ‘This is what you have to do to get to heaven.’ ”

People displaced by fighting between Nigerian troops and Boko Haram militants have settled in a camp on the outskirts of Maiduguri, Nigeria.

Witnesses recounted Boko Haram using fleets of passenger vans to move child fighters through the forests of northeastern Nigeria. Some have described camps of more than 1,000 boys and adolescents training to fight, with very few adults present.

“If you go there, you can see 12-year-olds talking about burning down a village,” said Fatima, a 20-year-old former hostage. “They have converted.”

As more such boys escape from the group and others are captured by government forces, West African officials are debating whether the boys can be returned to their families—and how.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Nigerian peacekeepers helped end the civil war in Liberia, and thousands of young boys were disarmed and returned to society. Some of those peacekeepers are now ranking officers. They must confront a new generation of child combatants raised on an ideology more apocalyptic than anything offered by the warlords of 1990s Liberia.

Boko Haram recruited children from the earliest days of its insurgency. First it tapped them as spies and couriers before shifting toward front-line mobilization, according to Nigeria’s military and Human Rights Watch. CONTINUE AT SITE

RUTHIE BLUM: ABBAS’ LATEST JAW DROPPERS

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was not able to attend last week’s Arab League summit in Mauritania, because he was in mourning for his brother, Omar, who died in Qatar a few days before the event. He therefore traveled to Doha for the funeral and sent PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki to Nouakchott in his stead.

Though Abbas has made it clear in word and deed that he will never make peace with the Jewish state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned him to extend condolences over the loss of his brother. This gesture was not merely a display of good manners. Like many relatives of Palestinian bigwigs bent on Israel’s annihilation, Omar Abbas had been undergoing regular cancer treatments at Tel Aviv’s Assuta Medical Center.

In Mauritania, Malki conveyed his bereaved boss’s message to the Muslim-Arab honchos who had gathered to discuss Middle East “issues.” The PA, he said, was planning to file a lawsuit against Britain for the Balfour Declaration, which has its 100th anniversary in 2017. Abbas, Malki explained, wanted to enlist the support and assistance of his brethren in this endeavor.

It is not clear whether any of them guffawed into their robes at the absurdity of the proposed move — or whether they were impressed at the way in which Abbas manages to outdo himself in audacity. But one thing we do know is that this year they devoted a bit less time and lip service to the plight of the Palestinians. It has always been the case that the only use they have for Abbas is tactical; as long as they echo his yammering about Israel’s being the root cause of instability in the region, they can go about plotting against and killing one another without Western focus. But things are really on a downswing for them right now, so their heart and rhetoric are not really in it for Abbas and what they know to be his — and their — phony cause.

Back on the ranch in Ramallah, Abbas has kept busy engaging in laughable behavior, without batting an eyelash or working up a blush.