Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

A Tough but Sensible Immigration Policy By The Editors

By on September 2nd, 2016

After two weeks spent waffling on immigration, and making noises on the subject largely indistinguishable from those of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, Donald Trump has settled on a hawkish position — and a practical one. Trump’s crowd-pleasing antics aside, in his immigration speech in Phoenix, Ariz., on Wednesday he laid out a sensible, realistic path forward on genuine immigration reform.

Trump’s plan, even in its most primitive iterations, always has been based on the entirely commonsensical principle that America’s immigration policy should serve American interests. Taking this as a starting point, Trump laid out a ten-point policy that emphasizes securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens, and creating the legal and economic disincentives necessary to reduce illegal immigration in the long term.

These are the right priorities. On border security, Trump renewed his commitment to a “physical” wall on the southern border (as well as, alas, his absurd promise that Mexico would pay for it), pledged to swell the ranks of the understaffed Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agencies, and vowed to deploy technology, such as below-ground sensors, to aid them. He also promised an end to the catch-and-release policies that have defined the Obama-era commitment (or lack thereof) to border security and to defund sanctuary cities (an initiative that would, of course, have to come out of Congress). And as Trump noted, about half of America’s illegal-immigrant population overstayed legally gotten visas, meaning that a comprehensive visa-overstay tracking system of the sort he is proposing is also crucial part of any real enforcement agenda.

Trump would add to this an expanded use of E-Verify, which would help prevent employers from exploiting illegal labor and so make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to find work. “Turning off the jobs and benefits magnet,” to use Trump’s words, would make the prospect of entering and residing in the country less enticing for foreigners. If immigration trends at the height of the Great Recession are any indication, a sizable number of illegal immigrants are likely to return home when jobs are not readily available.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Serving Muslim Interests With American Foreign Policy The lethal consequences of the Clintons’ foreign policy leadership. Joseph Klein

By on September 2nd, 2016

A Hillary Clinton presidency would likely continue along the pro-Islamist foreign policy arc that both her husband’s administration and the Obama administration have developed.

President Bill Clinton committed U.S. military resources to help Muslims during the so-called “humanitarian” intervention in Bosnia. However, he chose to turn a blind eye to the genocide that swamped Rwanda during his administration. As G. Murphy Donovan wrote in his American Thinker article “How the Clintons Gave American Foreign Policy its Muslim Tilt,” “Muslim lives matter, Black Africans, not so much.” Noting that “it was Muslim unrest that precipitated Serb pushback, civil war, and the eventual collapse of Yugoslavia,” Donovan added, “Bosnians are, for the most part, Muslims with a bloody fascist pedigree.” Nevertheless, with no strategic U.S. national interest at stake, Bill Clinton tilted American foreign policy in favor of the Muslim side in the Bosnia conflict. We are now reaping the lethal consequences of that tilt. Donovan points out in his article that, on a per capita basis, Bosnia Herzegovina is the leading source of ISIS volunteers in all of Europe.

President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, took the side of Islamist “rebels” against the secular authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria that had managed to keep the lid on jihadist terrorism for many years. These Islamists included members of al Qaeda as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Libya, Hillary Clinton was the leading voice pressing for military intervention against Col. Muammar el- Qaddafi’s regime. She did so, even though, according to sources cited in a State Department memo passed on to Hillary by her deputy at the time, Jake Sullivan, in an e-mail dated April 1, 2011, “we just don’t know enough about the make-up or leadership of the rebel forces.” In fact, as subsequently reported by the New York Times, the only organized opposition to the Qaddafi regime that had developed underground during Qaddafi’s rule were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist group, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The author of the State Department memo had acknowledged the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s terrorist past but said they “express a newfound keenness for peaceful politics.” Was Hillary Clinton relying on such assurances of a reformed “peaceful” Islamic group fighting against Qaddafi, even though it had been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 2004 and one of its leaders, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, praised al Qaeda members as “good Muslims” in a March 2011 interview? If so, that is just another indication of her bad judgment.

As for Egypt, Hillary was informed by her outside adviser and confidante Sid Blumenthal, in an e-mail dated December 16, 2011, that the Muslim Brotherhood’s intention was to create an Islamic state. Moreover, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and other radical groups was “complicated,” Blumenthal quoted a source “with access to the highest levels of the MB” as saying. Blumenthal also reported, based on a confidential source, that Mohamed Morsi, who was then leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, believed that “it will be difficult for this new, Islamic government to control the rise of al Qa’ida and other radical/terrorist groups.”

Continue reading →
MEDIA, POLITICS Comments turned off

Thornton: We Citizens Have to Guard the Media ‘Guardians’ Mainstream media journalists rationalize their war on Trump. Bruce Thornton

By on September 2nd, 2016

The mainstream media’s lopsided coverage of the presidential campaign has gotten so blatantly anti-Trump and pro-Hillary that even some progressives are starting to notice. The New York Times’ media reporter Jim Rutenberg last month had a front-page column slyly justifying the bias by a clever use of rhetorical questions: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Rutenberg’s dubious implication is that Trump is so outrageously unprecedented and dangerous a candidate in American history that he can’t be covered objectively. “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.” But Rutenberg says he rues this development, for it compromises “that idealistic form of journalism with a capital ‘J’ we’ve been trained to always strive for.”

Say what? Was it an “idealistic form of journalism” when the media carried on its “slobbering love affair,” as Bernie Goldberg put it, with Barack Obama in 2008? Where were the intrepid “guardians” of the public weal when the media ignored the gaps in Obama’s history, his fabrications in his memoirs, and his associations with the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres? Or when Journolist, an online discussion group of journalists and activists, colluded to downplay these unpleasant facts and coordinate negative coverage of the Republicans?

Or how about CNN Political Correspondent Candy Crowley in the 2012 presidential debate, violating every canon of professional objectivity when she intruded herself into the debate in Obama’s favor by backing up his false claim that he had called the Benghazi attacks an act of terror? And don’t forget Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who recently wrote in Time magazine, “Like it or not, this election is a plebiscite on the most divisive, polarizing and disrupting figure in American politics in decades. And neutrality is not an option.” Or CNN calling “false,” without any evidence, AP’s story that more than half of Hillary’s non-governmental meetings while Secretary of State were with donors to her foundation. Are these examples of “idealistic” journalism?

Despite all this contrary evidence, Rutenberg recycles one of the progressive media’s most cherished self-justifying myths, that there really is an “objective” journalism they supposedly practice. Such a notion has seldom existed in American history, and has especially been scarce since the 1960s, when activist journalism came out of the closet with its ideological coverage of Vietnam and then Watergate, all perfumed with the spurious claim to journalistic integrity and public service.

The truth is, journalism has been a form of political activism long before Jim Rutenberg noticed. Orville Schell, dean of the prestigious UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism from 1996-2006, was not shy about embracing this role for journalism: “In a democracy,” Schell wrote over a decade ago, “indeed in any intelligent society, the media and politicians have to lead. The media should be introducing us to new things, interesting things, things we don’t already know about; helping us change our minds or make up our minds, not just pandering to lowest-denominator wisdom.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Muslim Terrorists and Jewish Anti-Semites Against Trump Moderate Saudi businessmen who fund terror warn of Trump’s “extremism.” September 2, 2016 Daniel Greenfield

By on September 2nd, 2016

“I was often the ‘designated yeller.’”

That’s how Hillary Clinton described her relationship with the Israeli prime minister. Yelling and cursing was her particular specialty.

One marathon Hillary yelling session allegedly lasted 45 minutes. Afterward the Israeli ambassador said that relations between the United States and Israel had reached their lowest point.

Her favorite name for Netanyahu was, “F____ Bibi.”

But it wasn’t just about her hatred of any particular Israeli leader. The same year that Hillary was yelling herself hoarse at a man who had fought terrorists on the battlefield, she addressed the American Task Force on Palestine, a leading terror lobby, and blasted Israel and praised Islamic terrorists.

Hillary told the terror lobby, “I may have been the first person ever associated with an American administration to call for a Palestinian state.” She praised Mahmoud Abbas, the PA terror dictator who had boasted, “There is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.”

She celebrated Naomi Shihab Nye who had written of the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli cities, “Oppression makes people do desperate things.” Echoing her, Hillary denounced the “indignity of occupation”. A few years later she accused Israelis of a lack of “empathy” in understanding “the pain of an oppressed people”.

Perhaps they were too busy mourning their dead to emphasize with the terrorists who were killing them.

But fighting for her political life, Hillary and Huma dug through her closet and threw on a blue and white pantsuit. Her campaign placed an editorial in the Forward headlined, “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Probably by yelling “F___ Bibi” at him for another 45 minutes.

When Hillary Clinton promised to reaffirm her “Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu” it was in the pages of The Forward. And, striving to sell a rotten radical to skeptical Jews, the left-wing paper has decided to run a piece claiming that “Trump Would Be Israel’s Worst Nightmare”. As if anyone in Israel goes to bed dreaming of eight years of Hillary.

The Forward shares Hillary’s view of Netanyahu. And it violently loathes Israel.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

A Lonely Pro-Trump Psychiatrist Speaks By Peter A. Olsson MD

By on September 2nd, 2016

As a lonely psychoanalyst Trump supporter, I feel the need to exercise my First Amendment right to speak up. I think the majority of my psychiatrist, psychologist, and psychiatric social worker colleagues feel dislike, distain and antipathy towards Donald Trump. Many psychologists state that he is mentally ill and could damage mental health in America. I disagree with these colleagues.

American voters usually are exposed to a variety of clever political demagoguery, obfuscations, deceptions, and a spectrum of lies from little white ones to whoppers. With Donald Trump’s bombastic campaign style, a new glossary of terms is needed to understand his evolving policies and predict his way of leading and governing if elected. The new glossary would include words and concepts such as bombast, sarcasm (cruel at times), overt insults, crude personal verbal attack, hyperbolic impulsive statements to focus large group attention, paradoxical intention, mixed simultaneous use of an object as symbol and reality (i.e., a wall as the need for clear national boundaries and rules of behavior as compared to an actual wall). And, extemporaneous free associations about the powerful emotions beneath political issues, ambivalent political relationships and evolving policy statements.

The author imagines the following inner soliloquy of Donald Trump as he decided to run for president:

I observe America floundering. I see the economy sputtering after almost eight years of Obama’s incompetent leadership, mushrooming regulations that hamstring job creation and ever mushrooming national debt. I see bad trade deals with China, Mexico and other countries that hurt America. I see tax policies that drive jobs and industries out of America. I see increasing unemployment especially of young black Americans. I see law and order declining especially in big urban areas like Chicago, Obama’s hometown. I see migrants and illegal immigrants given government assistance as Americans go deeper into debt and poverty. Big expensive government programs favored by Democrat politicians are redundant and often failing.

I see American military power, political leadership in the world decline to the extent that other nations laugh at us behind our backs as they give smarmy smiles to Obama. The Obama administration seems bound and determined to teach white America and Americans in general to be ashamed of their/our alleged hidden racism, bigotry, islamophobia, homophobia and xenophobia. He shames us and our political leaders who he paints as bad guys if they disagree with him.

The constant search for micro-aggressions and political incorrectness by Obama-ites repulses me. I watched Obama and his minions insult, lie about, and distort the motives, intentions and character of sweet gentlemen like John McCain and Mitt Romney. I know I can be a strong, powerful and benevolent leader to rescue America. Obama uses his sneaky phone and pen to bring America down a peg or two and share it’s /our wealth around in some neo-socialist ways. I know and have participates in the rigged American political system that is floundering. I know where the crooked bodies are buried. I made billions legally through the flawed system in America. I will be a benevolent Trojan Horse to lead a hopefully bloodless revolution in America. I will use a P.T. Barnum, applied reality TV model of politics to win. I can’ t be bought by anyone. America will be great and safe again. I love America so much that I will make mistakes and try to honestly correct them. I will listen to as many Americans as I can. I will talk straight to them about what I see as the truth of where America must go to be great and safe again.

I will re-make the Republican party into a modern this time successful Bull Moose Populist Republican Party. Here I come, a new TR!

In recent days, psychologists have defied the Goldwater Rule. Most of the opinions from the American Psychological Association members have been extremely negative about Trump. They call “Trumpism” fascist, bullying, misogynistic, bigoted, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic. Some psychologist colleagues even say Trump would be destructive to the mental health of America. I suspect many psychiatrists and psychoanalysts would agree.

Continue reading →
MEDIA, POLITICS Comments turned off

New depth plumbed in how far the media go to stop Trump By Thomas Lifson

By on September 2nd, 2016

Headline News, the sister network of CNN, is willing to make itself look ridiculous in order to avoid broadcasting anything that reflects well on Donald Trump. We have seen sophisticates like Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times rationalize anti-Trump bias and make himself look ridiculous, too, but in order to appreciate the humor, one has to actually read and comprehend an article that has numbers of multi-syllabic words.

But thanks to HLN, we have a dramatic graphic representation of extreme media bias, and as a bonus, it is laugh-out-loud funny. Big Fur Hat of iOTWReport spotted the obsessive lengths to which HLN will go:

Clinton Network News affiliate HLN interviewed a man who saved a baby from a hot car.

HLN wouldn’t allow the man’s Trump shirt to get on the air.

Donald Trump has a huge opportunity to make the media’s bias against him an asset. He should have a blowup of the screen grab made and have someone bring it out and ridicule the blurring of his name. Most people hate and distrust the media. The criticism of him can be turned back against the critics, who continually makes asses of themselves over Trump.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

New Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails Show Blurred Lines With Foundation Contacts Conservative group Judicial Watch points to request for diplomatic passport for charity official’s trip to North Korea By Byron Tau and Peter Nicholas

By on September 2nd, 2016

WASHINGTON—A new set of Hillary Clinton emails shows how politics, diplomacy and philanthropy would periodically converge during her tenure as secretary of state, with top aides drawing on Clinton Foundation contacts to cope with crises facing the U.S. government overseas.

A batch of emails released Thursday by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch, which received the documents from the State Department under a court order, includes an exchange from July 2009 involving Clinton Foundation official Douglas Band. In the exchange, Mr. Band asked Mrs. Clinton’s senior deputy, Huma Abedin, for diplomatic passports for himself and two others, saying theirs had lapsed. Ms. Abedin wrote back, “OK” and “will figure it out.”

Officials on Thursday said the passports were tied to a humanitarian mission: former President Bill Clinton’s trip to North Korea later that summer to help free captive journalists. The passports were never granted. Instead, the North Koreans agreed not to stamp the passports of Mr. Clinton and the aides, including Mr. Band, who traveled with him to help free Euna Lee and Laura Ling. A person familiar with the matter cited concerns about having a North Korean stamp on individual passports.

A previous cache of emails released last month showed Mr. Band seeking a meeting between Mrs. Clinton and the crown prince of Bahrain, calling him a “good friend of ours.” The Kingdom of Bahrain has donated between $50,000 and $100,000 to the foundation.

Critics have said such contacts underscore how the Clinton Foundation enjoyed special access to the highest reaches of the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s watch. Now, in the final stretch of the presidential bid, Mrs. Clinton is facing growing scrutiny over the entanglements between the foundation and her work as the nation’s top diplomat.

Mrs. Clinton has been forced to defend arrangements in which key aides played overlapping roles. At various times during Mrs. Clinton’s four-year tenure, for example, Ms. Abedin worked for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a private New York-based consulting firm co-founded by Mr. Band in 2011. Ms. Abedin is now co-chair of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“The idea that the State Department would even consider a diplomatic passport for Clinton Foundation executives is beyond belief,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In reply, Clinton allies say the foundation has been driven solely by its charitable mission. They see the criticism as unfounded, citing the foundation’s work combating AIDS and easing poverty. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

FBI’s Clinton email probe found evidence of effort to evade federal records law by John Solomon and Kellan Howell

By on September 2nd, 2016

http://circa.com/politics/accountability/fbis-hillary-clinton-email-probe-found-evidence-of-effort-to-evade-federal-records-law

New government sources have come forward to say that the former Secretary of State’s email abuse was “systemic and intentional” and began as soon as she took office in 2009 – according to a new report by John Solomon at Circa News. The FBI was building a solid case that Clinton violated the federal records law numerous times, but ultimately there was a decision to hide the email scandal that raises significant questions about the decision not to indict. Secretary Clinton kept the private server in order to avoid public scrutiny under the FOIA. When asked to turn over all private emails, sources confirm that about 15,000 emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account were not given up. Of course, intentionally concealing, removing or destroying federal records violates the Federal Records Act and carries a fine and imprisonment up to three years. More than that: Violators “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The decisions to hide the private email server were intentional and meant to go around the Federal Records Act.

The abuse was so bad that witnesses in the FBI investigation were forced to plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. John’s confirmed an agent was “scolded” by a supervisor and told never to raise the issue again.

THIS IS THE REPORT

Though it was not their primary mission, FBI agents who investigated Hillary Clinton’s email collected significant evidence suggesting she and her team violated federal record-keeping laws, including persisting to use a private Blackberry and server to conduct State Department business after being warned they posed legal and security risks, government sources tell Circa.The evidence was compelling enough to convince FBI Director James Comey that the Clinton team had not complied with record-keeping laws and to cause at least one witness to raise their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an investigative interview, the sources said.

In public, the FBI recommended not filing criminal charges against Clinton on national security grounds. But in private, the Bureau chose to defer to the State Department on whether to recommend anyone to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution on records law violations, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

Each email transmission of a government document that was not preserved or turned over to the State Department from Mrs. Clinton’s tenure could theoretically be considered a violation of the Federal Records Act, the main law governing preservation of government records and data.

Other federal laws make it a felony to intentionally conceal, remove or destroy federal records as defined under the Act, punishable with a fine and imprisonment of up to three years. A single conviction also carries a devastating impact for anyone looking to work again in government because the law declares that any violator “shall forfeithis office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

The Art of the Steal By Joan Swirsky

By on September 2nd, 2016

Hillary doesn’t want a fair fight. Or even an unfair fight. She wants to cripple the GOP so it can’t fight at all. It’s the ultimate rigged election….

We’re a little more than two months from the November 8th election and everyone knows that all Democrats, a good number of Republicans and conservatives, and almost the entire media have been agonizing over and militating against the fact that billionaire businessman Donald Trump is the last man standing in a contest that pits him against Crooked Hillary for the presidency of the United States.

But why are no professional political commentators—on TV, radio, or in print—explaining exactly why Mr. Trump is such a mortal threat? After all, he has proven himself to be an upright citizen, a wildly successful businessman, the bestselling author of over a dozen books, a philanthropist, the father of five respectful and loving children the eldest of whom are also impressively contributory members of society, the representative of every value Republicans and conservatives traditionally stand for—low taxes, fewer regulations, secure borders, a strong military, strict conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, et al—and significantly a person who has never been accused of being complicit in the deaths of U.S. servicemen, under the ominous investigation of the FBI, or operating an international money-laundering slush fund that compromises the national security of the United States.

Here is the answer: It’s all about the deal!

Underneath the veneer of “service” our elected politicians purport to be driven by, underneath the “ethical standards” our financial centers pretend to operate, and underneath the gauzy illusion of objectivity the media pretend they represent, the so-called culture of the D.C.-Wall St.-media complex is all about cozy arrangements that inevitably line the pockets of those engaged in the following kinds of local, regional, national and international deals, to name but a few:

under-the-table deals
pay-to-play deals
greasy-palm deals
foundation slush-fund deals (sound familiar?)
mutual back-scratching deals
hush-hush deals
access-to-power deals
good-stories-in-the-media deals (sound familiar?)
bad-stories-in-the-media-about-your-political-enemies deals (yep)
sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll deals
immense wealth-producing lobbyist deals
On and on…

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Latest email disclosure is just more proof that Clinton lied By Andrew C. McCarthy

By on September 1st, 2016

On Tuesday, The Post’s Daniel Halper broke the news that Hillary Clinton continued recklessly mishandling classified information even after stepping down as secretary of state. The revelation is bracing — but hardly surprising.

We already knew Clinton’s email practices remained a national security vulnerability after she left the State Department at the end of President Obama’s first term.

For nearly two years, she maintained the servers through which her unauthorized, non-secure homebrew communication system had operated. As we now know, about 62,000 emails were stored on those servers, over 2,000 of which contained classified information, including some of the most sensitive national defense secrets — and the highly classified sources and methods for acquiring those secrets — maintained by our government.

The latest classified email disclosure is a joke. The document is so chockablock with classified information — meaning it is so thoroughly redacted — that the State Department might just as well have issued a blank page. This reminds us of how cynically the Democrats’ presidential nominee looked the American people in the eye and assured us, for over a year, that she never sent or received classified information.
When this preposterous claim was exploded, she tried Clintonian parsing: None of the emails, we were told, was “marked classified.” But the latest email discovery illustrates how farcical this talking point has always been.

Officials with security clearances know the categories of information that are classified pursuant to an executive order — whether they’re “marked” as such or not. Clinton not only knew the rules, she was in charge of enforcing them throughout her department.

And in any event, as FBI Director James Comey conceded, Clinton did send and receive some emails with classified markings.

We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she’d surrendered every single government business-related email upon the State Department’s request.

This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved government business — some of it highly sensitive and significant (such as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government records to one’s own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if no classified information is involved.

Continue reading →