Displaying posts published in

January 2018

New Strzok/Page Texts Suggest Lynch Knew About Clinton Exoneration Well Before Comey Announcement By Debra Heine

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch already knew that ex-FBI Director James Comey would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton when she announced she would accept any FBI recommendation, according to new documents turned over to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

Comey announced that he would not recommend charges against Clinton during a press conference on July 5, 2016.

Lynch had previously stated that she would the accept the “determinations and findings” of the FBI’s investigation, suggesting she was completely out of the loop.

That revelation and others were found in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that the Justice Department turned over to HSGAC on Friday. Strzok and Page are the two FBI officials who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations. In one particularly damning text, the two discussed needing an “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to become president.

Unfortunately, in the cover letter accompanying the texts, the FBI notified Congress that they “failed to preserve” five months’ worth of the pair’s text messages exchanged during the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.

The texts that we have are illuminating. As Sharyl Attkisson reported at The Hill, the timeline of the text messages indicates that Lynch knew that Clinton would not face charges “even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.”

DACA: Trump and Congress Must Look Before They Leap 800,000 DACA aliens just became 3.6 million. Michael Cutler

There is a bit of sage advice that warns, “Look before you leap.”

Motorists are also warned to not attempt to drive through a flooded street because it may be impossible to know the depth of the water.

Those warnings certainly apply to any politician, President Trump included, who may be inclined to reach a compromise on DACA.

It has been estimated by the DHS that about 800,000 illegal aliens have enrolled in DACA. The media and advocates for legalizing these aliens repeatedly describe them as having been brought here as children who, supposedly, had no control over their situation.

Most folks are not aware that in order to qualify, these aliens had to claim that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays but could have applied to participate in this program if they did so prior to their 31st birthday. Today those aliens may be as old as 36 years of age.

Now, reportedly, the administration is seeking a compromise to deal with these aliens who will begin losing their temporary protection from deportation on March 5th.

However, in the parallel world of Washington, DC, what you see may not be what you get.

On January 18, 2018 USA Today reported, “There are 3.6M ‘DREAMers’ — a number far greater than commonly known.”

That estimate, according to USA Today, was provided by the Migration Policy Institute.

Advocates for legalization of DACA aliens, who enrolled in the Obama program, are also now demanding that any aliens who claim they would have qualified as “DREAMERS” and claim they entered the United States before their 18th birthdays be granted lawful status as well.

Durbin is seeking a massive legalization program through extortion, holding the U.S. government and Americans hostage.

The December 4, 2018 Chicago Tribune report, Durbin rallying support for Dream Act, included this sentence:

The Dream Act would grant “conditional permanent residency” to an estimated 1.8 million immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before age 18 and can meet requirements similar to those under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Erdogan to US: Get out of the way so we can kill Kurds Turkey under Erdogan has long ceased to behave like a NATO ally. Kenneth R. Timmerman

Over the weekend, the killing began in earnest.

Turkey used its U.S.-supplied fighter jets to bomb more than one hundred targets in the predominantly Kurdish province of Afrin in Northern Syria on Saturday, killing civilians and YPG fighters alike.

On Sunday, Turkish ground troops crossed the border, invading Syria.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made his intentions abundantly clear, vowing repeatedly to crush the Kurdish-led democratic government in Afrin, on Turkey’s southern border.

But it was Erdogan’s threats last week to U.S. troops serving as advisors to Kurdish fighters in northern Syria that were the real show stopper.

“This is what we have to say to all our allies: don’t get in between us and terrorist organizations, or we will not be responsible for the unwanted consequences,” Erdogan said in a speech in Ankara.

“Either you take off your flags on those terrorist organizations, or we will have to hand those flags over to you, Don’t force us to bury in the ground those who are with terrorists,” he said.

In other words, Get out of the way, or you die.

Erdogan was ostensibly responding to a statement from a U.S. military spokesman a few days earlier, who revealed that the U.S. was working with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) “to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force.”

‘Deplorable’ Professor Fights Back Against Campus Totalitarians An interview with the “Anti-PC NYU Prof.” Mark Tapson

“In the fall of 2016,” New York University professor Michael Rectenwald recently told The Daily Caller, “I was noting an increase of this social justice ideology on campuses, and it started to really alarm me. I saw it coming home to roost here at NYU, with the creation of the bias reporting hotline, and with the cancellation of the Milo Yiannopoulos talk because someone might walk past it and hear something which might ‘trigger’ them.”

Rectenwald, himself a leftist, created an initially anonymous Twitter account, @antipcnyuprof, to speak out against that ideology and the “absolutely anti-education and anti-intellectual” classroom indoctrination he was witnessing, as well as the collectivist surveillance state that the campus was becoming, as students were urged to report each other for the sin of committing microaggressions.

In October of that year, he outed himself as the man behind the controversial Twitter account, and “all hell broke loose.” He swiftly found himself the target of shunning and harassment from his colleagues and the NYU administration. In true Cultural Revolution fashion, several colleagues in his department in the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group published an open letter declaring him guilty of incorrect thinking. “The thing that is interesting here is that they were saying that because I don’t think like them, I am sick and mentally ill,” Rectenwald said to the Daily Caller.

Instead of kowtowing to the campus totalitarians, Rectenwald declared himself done with the Left in a February 2017 tweet (“The Left has utterly and completely lost its way and I no longer want anything to do with it.”) and has gone on to become an even more fervent defender of free speech and academic freedom. He has appeared often in conservative media to discuss those issues and the harassment he has received from the Left.

Recently Rectenwald even filed a lawsuit against NYU and four of his colleagues for defamation. He consented to answering some questions for FrontPage Mag about his conflict with the NYU ideologues.

Mark Tapson: A year ago on Twitter you wrote, “Goodbye to the Left, goodbye.” Can you describe your intellectual journey from “left-liberal activist” to outspoken “deplorable” and what drove that seemingly sudden transition?

Michael Rectenwald: In hindsight, I think that the transition was less sudden than it might have appeared. I had gone from a left-liberal activist to a left communist before I became “deplorable.” I narrate the history of the transition in my book, discussed below. But I’ll tell something of the transition here.

Nicholas M. Gallagher:Justice Delayed at Guantanamo Bay Paralyzed by endless litigation over procedure, the 9/11 war-crimes commission grinds on.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, arrives in court dressed in a headdress, tunic and short white trousers (strict fundamentalist style, purportedly emulating Muhammad). His overgrown beard is dyed orange. He sits smugly, legs dangling, and talks with his attorneys while prosecutors play video footage of the Twin Tower attacks in the ultrasecure courtroom.

Walid bin Attash, who helped select and train hijackers, and Ramzi bin al Shibh, a member of al Qaeda’s Hamburg cell, wear camouflage jackets and headdresses, as if they were still in the Afghan mountains. But the camo is hunting gear from Sears—the Guantanamo Military Commission won’t let them wear anything realistic enough to be confused with the guards’ uniforms.

Ammar al Baluchi, KSM’s nephew and a courier for Osama bin Laden, dresses like a prince in a fictional epic: maroon, fez-like headcap, fancy, dark velvet vest. A richly embroidered prayer rug is slung over the back of his chair.

Mustafa al Hawsawi, a money man, looks like a martyr dressed for the grave, in white linen and a shawl embroidered with Palestinian flags. One way or another, all five are projecting versions of the fantasies common to radical Islamists.

This weeklong December hearing, which I attended as an observer, marked the U.S. government’s first formal presentation of evidence against the five living men most culpable for 9/11. It came during the fifth year of pretrial motions. The trial, now projected to take place in 2019, will no doubt be followed by many appeals. By the time it’s over, justice will have been delayed by decades. CONTINUE AT SITE

Single-Payer Health Care Isn’t Worth Waiting For An orthopedic surgeon challenges Canada’s ban on most privately funded procedures. Sally Pipes

Ms. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of “The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care,” forthcoming from Encounter.

When Brian Day opened the Cambie Surgery Centre in 1996, he had a simple goal. Dr. Day, an orthopedic surgeon from Vancouver, British Columbia, wanted to provide timely, state-of-the-art medical care to Canadians who were unwilling to wait months—even years—for surgery they needed. Canada’s single-payer health-care system, known as Medicare, is notoriously sluggish. But private clinics like Cambie are prohibited from charging most patients for operations that public hospitals provide free. Dr. Day is challenging that prohibition before the provincial Supreme Court. If it rules in his favor, it could alter the future of Canadian health care.

Most Canadian hospitals are privately owned and operated but have just one paying “client”—the provincial government. The federal government in Ottawa helps fund the system, but the provinces pay directly for care. Some Canadians have other options, however. Private clinics like Cambie initially sprang up to treat members of the armed forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, those covered by workers’ compensation and other protected classes exempt from the single-payer system.

People stuck on Medicare waiting lists can only dream of timely care. Last year, the median wait between referral from a general practitioner and treatment from a specialist was 21.2 weeks, or about five months—more than double the wait a quarter-century ago. Worse, the provincial governments lie about the extent of the problem. The official clock starts only when a surgeon books the patient, not when a general practitioner makes the referral. That adds months and sometimes much longer. In Novemberan Ontario woman learned she’d have to wait 4½ years to see a neurologist.

Some patients would gladly go to a clinic like Cambie for expedited care, paying either directly with their own money or indirectly via private insurance. But Canadian law bans private coverage for “medically necessary care” the public system provides and effectively forbids clinics from charging patients directly for such services. The government views this behavior as paying doctors to cut in line. Doctors who accept such payments can be booted from the single-payer system.

GLAZOV GANG: ISLAM’S HATRED OF DOGS AND CRUELTY TO ANIMALS VIDEOS

On this special edition of The Glazov Gang, we are featuring our 2-part series with Dr. Hammond, the founder of Frontline Fellowship, on Islam’s Hatred of Dogs and Cruelty to Animals, in which Dr. Hammond examines the Islamic theological foundations that inspire a hatred of and sadism toward animals.

See both Parts I and II below: http://jamieglazov.com/2018/01/22/glazov-gang-islams-hatred-of-dogs-and-cruelty-to-a

Part I: Islam’s Hatred of Dogs and Cruelty to Animals.

Israel’s sustained economic growth Yoram Ettinger

1. Tourism to Israel rose by 24.6% in 2017 and reached a record level of 3.6MN tourists, 800,000 from the USA. Tourism comprises around 2.5% of Israel’s GDP and is a substantial employer – a 35% growth in employment since 2010. (“Economist Intelligence Unit,” January 15, 2018).

2. Israel’s national debt-to-GDP ratio declines, systematically, from 70.6% in 2008, 69.6% in 2010, 67.1% in 2012 and 64.8% in 2014 to 60.6% in 2016 (Globes Business Daily, January 12, 2018). Israel’s exports are challenged by the appreciation of Israel’s Shekel, reflecting the robust performance of Israel’s economy (e.g., keeping inflation at 1%-3%; 4.1% unemployment, rising GDP and GDP per capita, etc.). In 2017, Israel’s exports surged, for the first time, beyond $100BN ($43BN hightech) – a 5% increase over 2016.

3. Israel-India commercial, defense, intelligence and counter-terrorism cooperation is second only to Israel-US. Israel is involved in 80% of the irrigation-solution market in India – which is expected to reach a value of $4BN in four years – as represented by the India-Israel multi-national corporation Na’anDanJain, which is active in 100 countries, considering Africa a top target. Israel and India collaborate in the area of agricultural development with India providing the production resources, while Israel generates the knowhow. According to Index Mundi, the economic profile of India includes an impressive annual economic growth of 7% during 1997-2016, a 5% unemployment, a 5.2% inflation and an $8.7 trillion GDP.

Democrats raise objections to a Trump nominee. His fight against BDS isn’t one of them.By Ron Kampeas

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Kenneth Marcus has worked for years inside and outside government to advocate for civil liberties. He has also been involved for years in Jewish community advocacy.

Now Marcus, the founder and president of the Louis S. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, is up for a prestigious job at the Department of Education — assistant secretary for civil rights. On Thursday, the Senate Health and Education Committee approved Marcus along party lines, and now his nomination goes to the full Senate.

In recent weeks, my inbox has been cluttered with statements pushing a narrative that what’s keeping Democrats from backing Marcus is his role in fighting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.

What’s remarkable is that both sides of the BDS equation — the movement’s supporters and opponents — are colluding unintentionally in advancing the narrative.

Groups that back BDS have argued against Marcus’ nomination, pointing to his aggressive tactics while heading the Brandeis Center to counter anti-Israel activities on campus by defining them as an attack on the civil rights of Jewish students. Two organizations, Palestine Legal and Jewish Voice for Peace, have lobbied hard against Marcus.

“Marcus not only poses a danger to those who advocate for Palestinian human rights, but to all students and to the spirit of the university itself,” Jewish Voice for Peace said in a statement following the committee vote.

Which makes sense — interest groups nudging their issue to the center is not new. What is not immediately clear is why organizations ostensibly committed to making BDS go away are giving their issue oxygen.

A coalition of 60 pro-Israel groups wrote a letter Jan. 15, before the committee vote, urging the panel to approve Marcus across party lines. It included a statement from Jeff Robbins, a Democrat and Clinton-era U.S. delegate to what was then the U.N. Human Rights Commission, noting that the nomination “has been bitterly criticized by the fringe and unhinged groups who operate something of an anti-Semitism lobby. Democrats in the Senate would do well not to fall for it.”

But why bring it up when Democrats in the Senate barely seem to be paying attention to criticism of the nominee’s posture on Israel or anti-Semitism? Notably, no major centrist or liberal group signed on to the letter; the signatories trend conservative and hawkish in Israel, including Americans for a Safe Israel, CAMERA and the Zionist Organization of America. I asked the publicist who is touting the letter why the groups are making Israel a central issue when there is little evidence it is a central issue. She said she would canvas the signatories, but by press time she did not come up with a reply.

On Dec. 5, I logged into the Senate Health and Education Committee website and listened to hours of Marcus being grilled and praised. Not once did BDS come up.

Yet now The New York Times has taken up the narrative, framing Marcus’ Israel advocacy as central to the controversy over his nomination. “An Advocate for Israel Draws Fire as He Nears Confirmation to Civil Rights Post” was the headline Thursday on its website.

Only twice did I hear a reference to Marcus’ Jewish advocacy during his committee appearance. The first time, in introducing Marcus, the committee’s chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., picked from a pile of endorsements before him a letter from Hillel International describing Marcus as “a longtime champion for civil rights and for college students.”