Displaying posts published in

2016

Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.By Michael B. Mukasey

While the State Department and intelligence agencies finish picking through messages recovered from the private email server Hillary Clinton used to conduct public business as secretary of state, the contents of the periodic document dumps have become increasingly sensitive. State has been referring any email that appears to contain sensitive information for further consideration by the agency with jurisdiction over the relevant data. Thus the most problematic emails are dribbling out last.

As the number of disclosed classified messages from Mrs. Clinton’s server has climbed above 1,300, her explanations have come to look increasingly improvisational and contrived. Recall that last summer—even after abandoning the claim that she maintained a private email account for convenience and because she was too busy solving the world’s problems to navigate the intricacies of a government account—she insisted that, “I did not send classified information and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know that something is.”

When asked whether she had her server “wiped,” she assumed an air of grandmotherly befuddlement: “What, like with a cloth or something?” she said. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

The current news, reported in the Journal and elsewhere, is that her server contained information at the highest level of classification, known as SAP, or Special Access Program. This is a level so high that even the inspector general for the intelligence community who reported the discovery did not initially have clearance to examine it.

Amid Elbow-Rubbing in Davos, a Potential for Awkward Encounters – Netanyahu and Zarif By Felicia Schwartz and Carol E. Lee

DAVOS — Here in this luxe Swiss ski town, dozens of world leaders are taking advantage of one another’s presence at the massive, multi-day economic summit to get together and talk shop.

But the annual conference also draws some leaders who’d prefer not to. On Thursday morning, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were spotted one floor apart at the InterContinental hotel.
Mr. Zarif was eating breakfast in the hotel restaurant, just a floor above where Mr. Netanyahu and Vice President Joe Biden met. Mr. Zarif left the restaurant about 20 minutes before Messrs. Biden and Netanyahu’s meeting started. Mr. Biden’s national security adviser was also two tables away from Mr. Zarif.

Mr. Netanyahu has been a fierce and vocal opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal and U.S. engagement with Tehran. He’s warned that the accord will strengthen and embolden Iran’s leaders, who he has said will funnel money to Israel’s regional foes such as Hezbollah and Hamas as well as Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad and shiite militias.

U.S. Tightens Visa-Waiver Rules Following Terror Attacks Nationals of visa-waiver program countries who are also citizens of Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria will no longer gain automatic admission to the U.S. By Miriam Jordan

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in California and Paris, the Obama administration on Thursday tightened a program that allows nationals of certain countries to travel to the U.S. without a visa by restricting entry for those who have dual citizenship in Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria.

Under the program, nationals from 38 countries, primarily in Europe, may enter the U.S. for tourism or business without a visa. Nationals of these countries who also are citizens of the four predominantly Muslim nations will no longer be eligible to gain automatic admission to the U.S., according to a joint statement by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

In addition, those who don’t hold dual nationality but have visited those four countries on or after March 2011 no longer will be eligible for visa-free entry, the statement said.

People in both categories must “apply for a visa using the regular immigration process at our embassies or consulates,” the statement said. That means they will undergo vetting and an interview with a U.S. consular official overseas.

North Korea Detains U.S. Student North Korea says Otto Frederick Warmbier was detained for committing a ‘hostile act’ By Alastair Gale

North Korea said Friday it was holding a U.S. student for committing an unspecified “hostile act,” the latest in a series of detained American tourists and missionaries that Pyongyang has at times used to try to win diplomatic leverage with Washington.

Otto Frederick Warmbier, an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia, was accused of being manipulated by the U.S. government, according to a brief report from the Korean Central News Agency. The report provided no details of Mr. Warmbier’s actions other than to allege that he entered the country “for the purpose of bringing down the foundation of its single-minded unity.”

Mr. Warmbier was detained in Pyongyang on Jan. 2, according to Troy Collins of Young Pioneer Tours, the tour company that took him to North Korea. Mr. Collins declined to provide further details but said Mr. Warmbier’s family had been informed of his detention.

U.S. Payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran Raises Questions of Ransom Wiring of disputed money to Tehran coincided with departure of plane carrying 3 Americans By Jay Solomon

A deal that sent $1.7 billion in U.S. funds to Iran, announced alongside the freeing of five Americans from Iranian jails, has emerged as a new flashpoint amid a claim in Tehran that the transaction amounted to a ransom payment.

The U.S. Treasury Department wired the money to Iran around the same time its theocratic government allowed three American prisoners to fly out of Tehran on Sunday aboard a Dassault Falcon jet owned by the Swiss air force.

The prisoner swap also involved freedom for two other Americans held in Iran as well as for seven Iranians charged or convicted by the U.S.

The announcements coincided with the implementation of the nuclear agreement with Iran, lifting international economic sanctions in exchange for Iran curtailing its nuclear program.

The $1.7 billion financial settlement ended a 35-year legal saga that centered on a purchase of U.S. arms by Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, that were never delivered because of the Iranian revolution in 1979.

The White House described the settlement as a victory for taxpayers, arguing that the U.S. was likely to lose in arbitration under way in The Hague, Netherlands, and could have been held liable for billions more if the process had dragged on.

THE GLAZOV GANG NONIE DARWISH MOMENT: WHY IS OBAMA DEFENDING ISLAM AT ANY COST?

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/01/21/nonie-darwish-moment-why-is-obama-defending-islam-at-any-cost-2/

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Nonie Darwish Moment with Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.

Nonie focuses on Why is Obama Defending Islam at Any Cost?, unveiling the true reason the Radical-in-Chief positions Muslims as victims in every speech on terror.

Don’t miss it!

MY SAY: “IT AIN’T OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY SINGS”

The definition of this colloquialism is: ” one should not presume to know the outcome of an event which is still in progress. More specifically, the phrase is used when a situation is (or appears to be) nearing its conclusion.”

Her pac and friends are still humming“Now it’s time for us to stand up with Hillary.” Well, she can’t wash Bernie Sanders or the FBI right out of her hair…

Hmmmm…perhaps she should learn the lyrics to “This Nearly Was Mine” from South Pacific…

Open Hillel Welcomes the Enemy into the Jewish Tent Israel-hating academics want to force Palestinianism down Jewish students’ throats. Richard L. Cravatts

Winston Churchill could have been observing the sorry state of academic free speech today when he observed that “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” As if to confirm Churchill’s prescience, this month a cabal of 55 high-minded but morally incoherent American and Canadian professors formed Open Hillel’s Academic Council, a group comprised of well-known Israel-haters who condemned “Hillel International’s Standards of Partnership [which] narrowly circumscribe discourse about Israel-Palestine” and which, in its view, “only serve to foster estrangement from the organized Jewish community.”

This group of academics and intellectuals, who almost, to a person, promote a one-sided, anti-Israel view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and whose teaching and so-called scholarship perpetuates a historically false and factually defective narrative in which Israel is the world’s greatest manifestation of malevolence and the Palestinian Arabs are innocent victims of colonial oppression, feel very free to tell Hillel how to achieve its mission: “Hillel’s recent aggressive attempts to police discourse about Israel place it in direct conflict with the spirit of the academy,” the Council bloviated, adding that “Just as our classrooms must be spaces that embrace diversity of experience and opinion, so must Hillel.”

This sentiment is not surprising from these particular academics, given the ideological composition of a group that includes: Peter Beinart, associate professor at the City University of New York, who justifies the BDS campaign because “its recruits are progressives, and that what tips them toward BDS is despair that there seems no other way to end Israel’s immoral, undemocratic control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip;” Berkeley’s feminist philosopher, Judith Butler, who notoriously and who almost surreally commented that it is important to view “Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left;” Stanford’s Joel Beinin, a self-proclaimed Marxist and rabid anti-Zionist who singles out Israel for criticism of its varied and frequent transgressions, all the while excusing the social and political defects of the neighboring Arab states who surround it and blaming the pathologies of the Middle East on Western imperialism and the continuing colonial impact of the U.S.’s proxy in the Levant, Israel; and UC Irvine’s Mark LeVine, associate professor of history, who claims that Israel, like America, essentially receives what it deserves, contending that, “In Israel the violence and terrorism of the latest intifada cannot be understood except as emerging out of decades of occupation, discrimination and dispossession.”

We Could Have Seen Europe’s Muslim Rape Crisis Coming What didn’t we learn from the suffering of Muslim women? January 21, 2016 Abigail R. Esman

Reprinted from InvestigativeProject.org.

In the aftermath of New Year’s Eve’s mass rapes of European women by Muslim refugees, the questions have been repeated: Should we have known this kind of thing would happen? Could we have known? And from local bars to parliaments, from family dinners to the nightly news, the answers keep coming back: Yes; we could. Yes, we should.

But interestingly, the people who say this with the most conviction are not right-wing Muslim-bashers, or activists opposed to the settling of Syrian refugees in Europe. They are Muslims, and mostly Muslim women.

Over and over, these women, and other Western women who have worked in the Middle East and North Africa, pointed out the commonality of rape in the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia (the MENASAS region), and noted the oppression of women in most cultures there. (The Kurds form a notable exception.)

Many point to the rapes in Tahrir Square in 2011 and 2013 as cautionary tales, describing the so-called “circle of hell” that women faced then: lone women surrounded by men whose hands groped and pulled, ripped and pressed, and eventually overpowered. A 2013 study conducted after the attacks showed that a stunning 99 percent of Egyptian women had experienced some sort of sexual harassment.

High Court To Hear Amnesty Challenge Will Democrats’ gain 5 million new voters with the stroke of a pen? Matthew Vadum

The Supreme Court has decided to hear 26 states’ challenge to President Obama’s unpopular and constitutionally dubious plan that amnesties up to 5.5 million illegal aliens and provides incentives for foreigners to have so-called anchor babies in order to gain legal immigrant status here.

After the Obama administration lost twice in lower courts, the high court gave the administration a win Tuesday when it decided to review a November ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding Brownsville, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s order earlier last year halting implementation of Obama’s executive amnesty.

As attorney Gabriel Malor writes at The Federalist:

“At the most basic level, this case is about stopping yet another President Obama end-run around Congress. In accordance with its constitutional authority, Congress has established an elaborate immigration scheme governing which aliens may enter the United States, how long they may stay, and which aliens must be removed. Obama and the Democrats do not like Congress’ immigration scheme, but they lack the votes to change it.”

The decision to take up the politically explosive issue sets the high court up for high drama in this election year in which illegal immigration, and immigration policies in general, figure prominently. The Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on the merits of the case by June. Led by Donald Trump, most Republican presidential candidates oppose amnesty in varying degrees while all Democrats favor it.