Displaying posts published in

October 2016

MY SAY….NO ONE SAYS IT BETTER THAN VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

ON FACT CHECKING AND MODERATORS:

‘‘​Fact-checking’

Few any longer believe in fact-checking, largely because it was exposed as an arm of progressive campaigns.

The embarrassing recent statements of Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, were a frightening synopsis of rank bias defined up as disinterested audit. So were the obsequious check-ins by toady journalists with the Clinton campaign to remind Podesta, Inc. of their own lack of ethics.

Fact-checkers inordinately go after conservatives. Or they make up rules about what constitute “facts” as they go along, providing context and supposed noble intent to water down progressive inaccuracies. Or they use adverbs like “mostly” to suggest that false liberal assertions are “mostly” true and other accurate statements of non-liberals are “mostly” false. Fact-checking is postmodern truth that depends on who says something and for what purpose.

When Hillary Clinton in the second debate directed the audience to her own website to “fact-check” Trump, we came full circle from naiveté to farce.

Fact-checking might have been a neutral concept, not inherently better or worse than the original “facts” themselves — given that it is entirely predicated on the character and ability of those who fact-check (who, as we see from WikiLeaks, can be just as sanctimonious and deceitful as the politicians they audit). Fact-checking in the age of the Internet arena will go the way of America Online or Myspace.

Debate Moderators

There are no such persons any longer as “debate moderators.” The enterprise has devolved into artifice, in which the moderator is supposed to argue with the conservative candidate, “fact-check” him or her in mediis rebus, while being deferential to the like-minded progressive candidate.

Debate moderators follow assumed premises: an Anderson Cooper, Candy Crawley, Lester Holt, or Martha Raddatz envision themselves as crusaders hammering away at selfish and dangerous conservatives, in behalf of an ignorant audience that needs their enlightened help to avoid being duped. In a few of the worst cases, a scheduled debate question is leaked to the liberal candidate to ensure she is not embarrassed.

If a conservative candidate seems to have tied his opponent, the liberal moderator — witness a Matt Lauer — is considered a sell-out, soon to be shunned by the right people. Most are thus deterred from moderating “incorrectly.”

After 2016, we should either let the candidates go at it, or, better yet, let robot time keepers run things.” The entire column can be read below.

Our Neutron Bomb Election The shells of our institutions maybe survive the 2016 campaign, but they will be mere husks. By Victor Davis Hanson http://www.nationalreview.com/node/441158/print

Our Neutron Bomb Election The shells of our institutions maybe survive the 2016 campaign, but they will be mere husks. By Victor Davis Hanson

The infamous neutron bomb was designed to melt human flesh without damaging infrastructure.

Something like it has blown up lots of people in the 2016 election and left behind empty institutions.

After the current campaign — the maverick Trump candidacy, the Access Hollywood Trump tape, the FBI scandal, the Freedom of Information Act revelations, the WikiLeaks insider scoops on the Clinton campaign, the hacked e-mails, the fraudulent pay-for-play culture of the Clinton Foundation — the nuked political infrastructure may look the same. But almost everyone involved in the election has been neutroned.

In theory, there are nominally still such things as a D.C. establishment, the Republican party, still abstractions known as “fact-checking,” still something in theory called “debate moderators,” still ex-presidents’ “foundations.” But, in fact, after this campaign, these are now mere radiated shells.

Who are the big losers of 2016, besides the two candidates themselves?

The D.C. ‘establishment’ and its ‘elites’

Collate the Podesta e-mails. Read Colin Powell’s hacked communications. Review Hillary’s Wall Street speeches and the electronic exchanges between the media, the administration, and the Clinton campaign. The conclusion is an incestuous world of hypocrisy, tsk-tsking condescension, sanitized shake-downs, inside profiteering, snobby high entertainment — and often crimes that would put anyone else in jail.

The players are also quite boring and predictable.

They live in a confined coastal cocoon. They went largely to the same schools, intermarried, traveled back and forth between big government, big banks, big military, big Wall Street, and big media — and sound quite clever without being especially bright, attuned to social justice but without character. Their religion is not so much progressivism, as appearing cool and hip and “right” on the issues. In this private world, off the record, Latinos are laughed off as “needy”; Catholics are derided as near medieval and in need of progressive tutoring on gay issues. Hillary is deemed a grifter — but only for greedily draining the cash pools of the elite speaker circuit to the detriment of her emulators. Money — Podesta’s Putin oil stocks, Russian autocrats’ huge donations in exchange for deference from the Department of State, Gulf-oil-state-supplied free jet travel, Hillary’s speaking fees — is the lubricant that makes the joints of these rusted people move. A good Ph.D. thesis could chart the number of Washington, D.C., insider flunkies who ended up working for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Goldman Sachs — the dumping grounds of the well-connected and mediocre.

Black Lives Matter Infiltrating Public Schools Teachers engage in week-long protest to promote a movement built on race hatred. Joseph Klein

The toxic Black Lives Matter narrative is continuing to infiltrate our mainstream culture. It is even finding its way into our public schools. Case in point is the plan by about 1000 teachers in the Seattle public school system, with the strong backing of the school system administration, to wear “Black Lives Matter” T-shirts this week. Some of the educators’ t-shirts include a raised fist, not exactly a symbol of racial harmony and peaceful dialogue.

The participants in this solidarity “wear-in” also want a school curriculum that indoctrinates students to counter what one Black Lives Matter activist and Seattle high school teacher, Jesse Hagopian, called “institutional racism”and the “multiple oppressions that our kids face.” Hagopian opposes standardized testing as an example of such institutional racism.

The Seattle Education Association (SEA) Representative Assembly passed a resolution unanimously supporting the Black Lives Matter initiative. The SEA is a public teachers’ special interest organization. Its resolution stated that SEA will “endorse and participate in an action wearing Black Lives Matter t-shirts on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 with the intent of showing solidarity, promoting anti-racist practices in our schools, and creating dialogue in our schools and communities.”

The superintendent of schools also supports the demonstration of solidarity with Black Lives Matter on school premises.

The Seattle school system is not the bastion of “institutional racism” that Black Lives Matter and its supporters are making it out to be. Seattle is one of the most progressive cities in the nation. Its school district had passed a landmark “Ensuring Educational and Racial Equity Policy” in August of 2012, which called for the elimination of “the racial predictability and disproportionality in all aspects of education and its administration.” It also mandated the use of a Racial Equity Tool to ensure that “race be clearly called out and institutional and structural racism be addressed within our own organization.” The intent was to devise policies and curricula that close the “opportunity gap” holding students of color back.

Undercover Video: Democrats Caused Violence at Trump Rallies “Conflict engagement” means paying leftist agitators, the homeless and the mentally ill, to cause melees at Trump rallies. Matthew Vadum

The frequent outbursts of violence at Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign rallies have been orchestrated and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, a stunning new undercover video suggests.

Why isn’t the mainstream media apart from Fox News covering this new scandal? Perhaps because reporters overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton in the election. In terms of dollars donated to the Clinton and Trump campaigns, journalists favor Clinton by a factor of 27 to 1. They’ve given more than $382,000 to Clinton’s campaign compared to just $14,000 to Trump’s campaign, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

This newly revealed Reichstag fire of a plot by Democrats at the highest levels is “a direct assault on democracy and the rule of law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night. “This is a hundred times bigger than Watergate.”

Gingrich may be on to something. Thanks to the video provided by Project Veritas Action, Americans will now be able to see that the Left has been running a clandestine operation against Trump for some time now.

The idea was to concoct evidence that Trump supporters were crazy, knuckle-dragging thugs in order to discredit the billionaire businessman’s campaign for president. Many left-wingers already call Trump a fascist or a Nazi so creating the appearance at Trump rallies that the candidate’s supporters are violent put some meat on the bone, so to speak. It’s the Big Lie American-style, a huge false-flag operation generated by a real-life vast left-wing conspiracy.

This, of course, is what the Left does. Its agenda-setters dislike stories that deviate from their preferred narrative. They will lie and distort in order to shoehorn events to support their worldview. This is why Americans were told over and over again that the Tea Party movement was violent and dangerous, while Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street are gentle and benign. This is why we are told Republicans are greedy, heartless, and racist, while Democrats are selfless, compassionate, and color-blind.

In the video, Americans United for Change (AUfC) operative Scott Foval is shown on camera saying, “One of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate.”

Vassar College’s Propagandists for Hamas “Resistance is not Terrorism.”

Last night the Freedom Center’s poster campaign to expose the links between campus anti-Israel activists and Hamas terrorists targeted the terrorist-supporting network at Vassar College. Vassar is the smallest campus on the Center’s list of “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists,” but one of the most extreme in its advocacy of the genocidal claims of Students for Justice in Palestine and the BDS movement against Israel.

Vassar College supports a highly active Hamas-inspired and funded boycott movement that successfully passed a BDS resolution on campus last spring. BDS is a toxic movement that even Hillary Clinton has denounced as anti-Semitic The Vassar chapter of SJP also distributed a pamphlet celebrating Omar Barghouti the founder of the BDS movement, which is a genocidal attempt orchestrated by terrorists to strangle the Jewish state. Vassar SJP celebrates terrorism by selling T-shirts picturing convicted anti-Israel terrorist Leila Khaled holding a gun with the words “Resistance is not Terrorism.” The chapter also posted a 1940’s era anti-Semitic Nazi graphic on social media.

The Freedom Center’s poster operation campaign identifies Students for Justice in Palestine as a campus front for Hamas terrorists and the Hamas intermediary American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). AMP was revealed in recent congressional testimony to be funneling terrorist dollars to Students for Justice in Palestine to support the Hamas-sponsored, anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in America.

One of the posters features Vassar College Professor Joshua Schreier who is described on the poster as “SJP Supporter, BDS Supporter, Anti-Israel Activist.”

The posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign to Stop the Jew Hatred on Campus. The campaign is designed to confront the agents of campus anti-Semitism and expose the financial and organizational relationship between the terror group Hamas and Hamas support groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine. As part of the campaign, the Freedom Center has placed posters on several campuses including San Diego State University, Brooklyn College, San Francisco State University, and the University of California-Los Angeles. The campaign also recently released a report on the “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists” which may be found on the campaign website, www.StoptheJewHatredonCampus.org. Vassar College is among the campuses listed in the Top Ten report. The section of the report demonstrating Vassar College’s support of anti-Israel terrorists follows below.

Seven Clinton Policy Priorities That Would Devastate America Staring at years 9 to 12 of the Obama administration. John Perazzo

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will seek to move the country in the same hard-left direction as Barack Obama. This article focuses on seven Clinton policy priorities that will have the most devastating impact on the American people.

1. Importing 65,000 Syrian “Refugees”

In order to address “the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II,” Mrs. Clinton has explicitly called for bringing some 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible. This represents a 550% increase over Barack Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees, which Clinton describes as merely a “good start.”

Clinton is committed to this reckless policy even though ISIS has vowed to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees with its own bloodthirsty operatives; even though more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015 alone; and even though high-ranking officials like FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Michael Steinbach have all made it clear that it is impossible to reliably screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees.

2. Amnesty & Open Borders

Mrs. Clinton vows to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship” within her first 100 days in office, and pledges to “go even further” than the two unconstitutional executive orders (DACA and DAPA) by which President Obama has already protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation. It is all part of the Democrats’ long-term master plan to transform the American electorate into a permanent Democrat voting bloc by importing massive numbers of people who can be counted upon to support the political party that offers them the largest number of welfare-state benefits. Clinton also supports what she terms “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” And she smears those people who wish to enforce immigration law as “obstructionists” whose “backward-looking” mindset is “fundamentally un-American.”

3. Sanctuary Cities

Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police officers and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. Though sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places, Clinton explains that without such arrangements, “people from the immigrant community … may not talk” to police who are trying to solve crimes there because “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” As Xochitl Hinojosa, a Clinton presidential campaign director, puts it: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

Exxon Fighting Back Against Dem AG Climate Change Witch Hunters By Rick Moran

Exxon is fighting back against subpoenas filed by 16 state attorneys general who accuse the company of state securities violations and consumer fraud in their views on climate change.

Last Thursday, the company won a significant victory in Massachusetts. And now they’ve filed an injunction request, accusing the AGs of mounting a“coordinated effort to silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.”

Washington Times:

The filing represents a more aggressive approach for Exxon, which has fought the Massachusetts civil investigative demand while cooperating with the New York subpoena issued last year, turning over more than 1 million documents so far.

Since then, however, the oil and gas giant has gained the upper hand in court, most recently with Thursday’s ruling by a federal judge ordering Ms. Healey to submit to discovery over concerns about her “bad faith” in pursuing the investigation.

The order could allow Exxon to obtain emails, phone records and other internal communications related to her probe.

“Attorney General Healey’s actions leading up to the issuance of the [civil investigative demand] causes the Court concern and presents the Court with the question of whether Attorney General Healey issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover,” U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade said in his order.

His ruling cited concerns about the “anticipatory nature” of her statements, including her comments at a March 29 press conference with former Vice President Al Gore and 16 other attorneys general announcing the launch of a joint prosecutorial effort called AGs United for Clean Power targeting fossil-fuel companies and their supporters.

At the press event, Ms. Healy vowed to combat climate change in her role as an elected official and said that “[f]ossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held accountable.”

In its Monday filing in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, Exxon said the Democrats “are incapable of serving as “disinterested prosecutors required by the Constitution” as a result of their “improper political bias.”

“Attorney General Schneiderman has publicly accused Exxon Mobil of engaging in a ‘massive securities fraud’ without any basis whatsoever, and Attorney General Healey declared, before her investigation even began, that she knew how it would end: with a finding that Exxon Mobil violated the law,” Exxon said in the amended complaint.

Ms. Healey and Mr. Schneiderman have defended their investigations as legitimate inquiries into whether Exxoncommitted fraud by misleading the public about its climate change research.

Project Veritas: Political Operatives Describe Clinton Camp and DNC Plot to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies By Debra Heine

A new Project Veritas investigation confirms our worst suspicions about the DNC/Clinton campaign collusion behind violent protests that have been “bird-dogging” Trump at so many of his rallies. “Bird-dogging” is a practice where trained left-wing activists infiltrate Republican rallies and try to provoke violence. WikiLeaks in July published DNC emails that showed DNC involvement with these anti-Donald Trump protests. The extent of the DNC and Clinton campaign’s involvement and the dark money funding the anti-Trump violence has not been made plain until now.

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf*cker.”

In James O’Keefe’s explosive undercover video, you hear a Democrat operative describe a text-messaging chain of communications about the protests between the Clinton campaign, Democracy Partners and other super PACs that they call “the Pony Express.” These communications may be illegal or even criminal, legal experts say.

The video features one of the most nefarious creatures of the organized left — convicted felon Bob Creamer, the Alinskyite agitator husband of Illinois Socialist Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Creamer has been a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

He now heads up an organization called Democracy Partners, a group with deep ties to the Clinton campaign as well as to Barack Obama’s White House and the DNC. “Wherever Trump and Pence are, we are going to have events, and we have a whole team across the country that does that,” Creamer said. “Both consultants, and people from the Democratic party and the Democratic party apparatus and people from the campaign — the Clinton campaign” are involved with the effort, he added.

The narrative that they have endeavored to project — which has been picked up and disseminated by the mainstream media — is that the people at Trump rallies are violent crazies. The truth is — and has always been — that left-wing agitators protesting Trump are the violent crazies. And I mean that quite literally.

Scott Foval, another nefarious actor, actually said on tape, “We have mentally ill people that we pay to do sh*t — make no mistake.”

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: by Soeren Kern

“Sharia councils are thriving because there is no other authentic and credible mechanism for Muslim women to obtain an Islamic divorce. If the government offered an alternative, 90% of the work of sharia councils would end.” — Moulana Raza, Director of the Muslim Law Council UK.

Peter Sutcliffe, who was convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women and attempting to kill seven more, has faced daily death threats since arriving at Frankland Prison. Muslim gang members have offered to protect him, but only if he converts to Islam. They told Sutcliffe that changing faith will also allow him access to a special diet, more time out of his cell and the right to refuse certain types of prison work.

Kamran Ahmed, 27, was sentenced to ten years in prison for raping a 12-year-old girl. Ahmed, a Pakistani man who moved to the UK to wed a British-born woman in an arranged marriage, had been in the country less than six months when he raped the girl after trying to groom her for sex.

“Take off your tight jeans or you’re going to burn in hell, kafir [unbeliever]. I’m going to follow you home and blow up your house.” — Krissoni Henderson, a 31-year-old Muslim bodyguard.

“If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison. I will radicalize everyone in prison.” — Anjem Choudary, sentenced to five years, six months in prison for activities supporting Islamic State.

“There is only one punishment for insulters: cut off their heads, cut off their heads, cut off their heads.” — Tanveer Ahmed, 32, who murdered a Glasgow shopkeeper for “disrespecting Islam,” calling on supporters to behead other “insulters.”

Home Office statistics released to the Daily Express under Freedom of Information laws revealed that 12,000 migrants seeking asylum in the UK are missing.

September 1. A team of University of Oxford sociologists published a paper about why young, highly educated Muslim women who live in modern urban environments are choosing to wear Islamic veils. The report says that in social situations in which Muslim women mix with non-Muslim friends, work outside the home or interact with strangers, they may wear the veil as “a signal to others in their community to show that mixing with others does not compromise their religious piety.” Veils may also be used “to strengthen their own sense of commitment to their faith and its values in a secular world.” The report says that efforts by Western governments to ban the veil in public might be counterproductive because it would “deprive Muslim women from integrating.” It suggests that if they cannot signal their piety through wearing the veil, they might be forced to stay at home.

Obama Quietly Empowers Iran’s Military by Majid Rafizadeh

This sanctions relief not only gives legitimacy to the Revolutionary Guards globally, but emboldens and empowers Iran’s elite military unit by allowing them legally to conduct business and transfer money.

Many Iranian companies are owned by senior figures from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and judiciary who have been involved in crimes against humanity, violating international laws, breaching UN resolutions, money laundering and monstrous human rights violations. Nevertheless, the new sanctions relief allows foreign companies to do business with them without repercussions.

Furthermore, the Obama administration secretly agreed to remove sanctions on several Iranian banks, including banks have long been sanctioned by the UN due to their illegal activities in missile financing and skirting UN security resolutions regarding the arms embargo.

Iranian leaders have become cognizant of the fact that their hardball political tactics pay off very well with President Obama. They continue to obtain concessions from President Obama even in his last few months in office. They see that intransigence works with the White House, and that threatening the U.S. will lead to Obama offering more concessions to Iran. For Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), giving concessions means weakness.

After a series of anti-American statements and lashing out at the U.S. by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif, the Obama administration eased more critical sanctions on Iran through new regulatory measures by the Treasury department.

The new measures, in loosening further sanctions against Iran, are critical, as they directly lift sanctions against powerful entities in Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The timing of the new sanctions reliefs is also intriguing: it was implemented quietly, right before the presidential debate and before the three-day holiday in Congress, probably in an attempt not to attract media attention or Congressional criticism.

Both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have been extremely critical of the Obama administration’s continuing appeasement policies and loosening of sanctions against Iran.

According to the Treasury’s website, one of the new guidelines in easing crucial sanctions on Iran is:

“It is not necessarily sanctionable for a non-US person to engage in transactions with an entity that is not on the SDN (Specifically Designated Nations) List but that is minority owned, or that is controlled in whole or in part, by an Iranian or Iran-related person on the SDN List.”