POLITICS Comments turned off

The FBI/State Department scandal By J. Marsolo

Posted By on October 17th, 2016

The Watergate “smoking gun” was that Nixon suggested the CIA tell the FBI to back off the investigation because of national security reasons. The CIA was never instructed to do so and the FBI did its investigation. Here the Obama State Department “pressured” the FBI to alter documents so Hillary’s story would be believable, and State offered some goodies like slots in overseas embassies. The Obama State Department actually did what Nixon only dreamed and talked about.

On October 15, 2016, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported:

“A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.”

In plain English, the Obama State Department asked the FBI to phony up the emails marked confidential so the emails were consistent with Hillary’s story. In return the FBI would get some juicy overseas slots. This shows what the Obama State Department thinks of the FBI: the Comey FBI can be bought with a couple of overseas slots.

There is no way that Patrick Kennedy, or anyone at State, would have made the move to the FBI to fix Hillary’s emails unless the move was approved by higher-ups. In these political conspiracies there are “buffers” between guys like Patrick Kennedy and the higher ups. The Obama State Department is run by John Kerry, who does what Obama tells him to do.

This begs for an investigation by an independent prosecutor, and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees should immediately subpoena Kennedy, Kerry, Comey, and the agents involved.

Comey should have revealed this in his July 5 news conference when he listed Hillary’s lies and extreme negligence but gave her a pass.

The FBI has been compromised by Hillary and Obama. Its once sterling reputation is shattered. Comey should have recommended indictment of Hillary along with those who made the offer to phony up the documents. If we had a Justice Department, there would be a grand jury right now issuing subpoenas to the FBI agents and Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry, and all other buffers between Kennedy and Hillary and Obama.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Trump and the Jewish Vote By Karin McQuillan

Posted By on October 17th, 2016

“On our issues trump is perfect,” declares the grassroots organization Jewschoosetrump.org, calling on fellow Jews across the country to remember, a word resonant with religious and historical meaning for Jews.

It can’t be true–the American Jewish community has “forgotten,” or more accurately no longer chooses to remember, the existential threat to Israel, America, and Western civilization posed by Iran and the Iran Deal. (snip) Our children and grandchildren [will] ask us what were we thinking or were we even thinking when we ignored and denied the dangers facing us.

(snip) Are American Jewish leaders once again going to deny reality, hope for the best, engage in altruistic surrender and denial, and feel good and superior for caring first about others rather than the future of our children? This is pitiful and incredibly dangerous. Maybe a psychologist could figure out why our history has crippled our instinct for survival, but shame on us anyway.

(snip) It is an easy choice. We don’t even need to scrutinize destroyed emails and hidden speeches. Hillary is for the Iran Deal–she is proud of it and expresses support for Obama’s handling of Iran. Trump trashes the Iran Deal and vows to end it. This is reason enough for us as American Jews to choose Trump.

Although Jews are a “rare” minority in America, only 2% of Americans, they are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because of the importance of Florida, Jews could determine the Electoral College tally if the election is as close as expected.

Do we have a chance? The answer is a qualified yes. Jews voted Republican from Abraham Lincoln until FDR. Ronald Reagan broke through the FDR Jewish mindset and garnered almost 40% of the Jewish vote. In recent times, as few as 14% of Jews identified as Republican. That was before Barack Obama’s anti-Israel and anti-American passions led to policies that have destabilized the Middle East and promoted Iran as a hegemonic and soon to be nuclear power. As a result of the Democratic disaster in the Middle East, Romney won 30% of the Jewish vote. Things have gotten much, much worse since then, with Europe overrun by violent anti-western Muslims, and ISIS creating a terror threat in America.

The entire country is less Democratic thanks to Barack Obama, despite what voters are willing to admit to pollsters when asked simply if they approve of the President. Jews have fled the Democratic Party in even greater numbers, according to Gallup:

POLITICS Comments turned off

Donald Trump’s Moral Fervor By James Lewis

Posted By on October 17th, 2016

At a time when the “news” media betray their own hyped up values of objectivity and fairness, I am beginning to hear a growing voice of moral outrage in America – and it’s actually expressed in clear words, day after day, by the Republican nominee for president of the United States. That would be Donald Trump.

That last sentence is bound to set any lost and lonely lefty loony screaming with hysterical laughter, but hyenas are what they are. From the hyena’s point of view, Republicans are just another meat. The GOP establishment is shivering in the foxholes, and its members are losing voters as fast as Trump gains them. If Trump tells his supporters to vote against down-ballot Republicans, the establishment will reverse course. They count on our stupidity and our goodwill, but we are no longer stupid.

The Clintons and Obamas have made normal Americans despair, but the voters care. They care a lot. Americans who care haven’t had a voice in U.S. politics for a long time, but if normal people had given up on the stench from D.C., the Rasmussen polls would not be showing a neck-and-neck race. Enough Americans care to make this a game-changing election.

We have been deeply disappointed often by the One Party Machine. But we care enough to keep listening for that voice in the desert.

Rush Limbaugh keeps pointing out that the chief goal of the left is demoralizing Americans. He is right. If they can keep you home on election night, they win. They know how to kill off our best leaders. Saul Alinsky said it in his little book, the one Hillary wrote her B.A. thesis about, way back when.

(Hillary’s B.A. thesis is now only a click away, and it’s “must” reading for Americans. That thesis gives us the key to Hillary’s life. She was cult-indoctrinated at Wellesley College at an age when young people are notoriously vulnerable. She might have become a Scientologist, but she became a hard leftist instead. Hillary’s generation of ambitious feminists are now in jobs of power and influence, and most of them go along with the immiseration of women and children in the reactionary world of jihad. Hillary chose her lifelong path at Wellesley, and she has a one-track mind.)

Yes, Donald Trump is a flawed human being, as the hyena pack keeps yodeling in the night. But as far as I know, he is not a serial abuser like Bill Clinton, nor is he a feminist enabler of randy male misbehavior like Hillary.

EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Ivy League Doesn’t Need Taxpayers’ Help Colleges that hoard cash—endowments of $2 million per student—should be encouraged to spend it. By James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley

Posted By on October 17th, 2016

onald Trump criticized universities last month for hoarding their endowments, saying that they “use the money to pay their administrators, to put donors’ names on their buildings.” He added that “many universities spend more on private-equity fund managers than on tuition programs.” Mr. Trump suggested that he would work with Congress to encourage colleges to direct more of their investments toward students.

That’s a laudable—and achievable—goal. Many of the schools with large endowments, such as those in the Ivy League, will protest that they are private institutions, and that the government shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money. But these colleges also receive massive cash transfers from the federal government, giving Washington a way to impel them to put their endowments to more responsible use.

As of 2014, the eight Ivy League schools had 58,982 undergraduate students and total endowment funds on hand of about $117 billion, according to a study from OpenTheBooks. That works out to roughly $2 million per student. Yet between 2010 and 2014, according to the same study, these schools received some $30 billion of taxpayer contracts, grants, direct payments, student assistance and tax exemption. In other words, federal cash and subsidies over that time averaged nearly $102,000 per student each year.

Washington is effectively paying colleges not to spend their endowments. Americans worry about skyrocketing tuition, but federal funds are allowing schools to shift cash to new buildings and administrative salaries, while taxpayers take care of the students.

Congress should pass a simple law to rectify the situation. Schools with swollen endowments should face a choice: Keep tuition below the rate of inflation, or lose access to federal loans, scholarships and research programs. The rule could apply to any college whose endowment exceeds $1 million per undergraduate student. That would include at least 30 institutions—almost entirely private colleges and universities.

Universities protest that their financial situation isn’t as rosy as it appears. Of 35 liberal-arts colleges that belong to a fundraising group called Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals, nearly a third are lagging in this fiscal year, compared with the one before. Almost two thirds had fewer donors, according to the New York Times. And endowments have taken a beating in the market as well. According to data collected by InsideHigherEd, Dartmouth’s fell 1.9% this year and Cornell’s is off by 3.4%. Harvard’s has fallen 2%. But these funds exist for this reason—to help schools hedge against tough times.

FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

U.S. Probes Third Attack on Ship Off Yemen’s Coast Investigation comes days after USS Mason came under attack from territory controlled by Houthi rebels By Asa Fitch

Posted By on October 17th, 2016

DUBAI—The U.S. is investigating a possible new missile attack against a navy destroyer in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, the navy’s Middle East-focused branch said Sunday.

The crew on the ship, the USS Mason, had “indications of a possible inbound missile threat and deployed appropriate defensive measures,” the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement. All U.S. ships and sailors were safe, and the navy was assessing the situation, the statement said.

If confirmed, the attack late on Saturday would be the third such attempt on the USS Mason in recent days as it patrols international waters near Yemen, where a bloody 18-month war is raging.

U.S. officials said two missiles were fired at the ship from territory controlled by Yemen’s Houthi rebels last Sunday. On Wednesday, the ship came under attack from two more missiles apparently fired by the Houthis. None of the missiles hit its target.

In response to the repeated barrages, U.S. destroyed three radar sites along Yemen’s western coast using Tomahawk missiles fired from the destroyer Nitze, significantly deepening American involvement in the conflict. The radar sites had been used to track U.S. ship movements, a Pentagon spokesman said.

The Houthis, a Shiite rebel group that controls Yemen’s capital, San’a, denied targeting the USS Mason, and condemned the U.S. strikes on the radar sites.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The NAACP’s Disgrace The civil-rights group votes to keep minorities trapped in poverty.

Posted By on October 17th, 2016

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has a storied history, but many organizations outlive their moral purpose and it’s now clear this one has. The civil-rights outfit has come down firmly on the side of trapping poor minority children in education failure factories.

On Saturday the NAACP’s national board voted to ratify a resolution adopted at its 2016 national convention calling for a moratorium on the expansion of charter schools. Considering the state of urban K-12 education, this is the equivalent of opposing Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The NAACP is so blinded by ideology that it is endorsing separate and unequal education for poor minority children for years to come.

The NAACP’s statement Saturday shows how out of touch its well-to-do board members are with American education. It calls for a ban on new charters until “charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools.”

Hello? Inner-city schools are the definition of unaccountable as they promote failure year after year. Charters should be held accountable, and some charter operators have done a poor job. But they can be and are shut down. The proof of charter performance are the long waiting lists in most cities to get in. Parents vote for charters with their feet when spaces are available.

The NAACP statement also wants a charter ban until “public funds are not diverted to charter schools at the expense of the public school system.” But charters are public schools, albeit without the union and tenure rules that retard student learning. A 2015 Stanford study found that urban charters on average provide 40 more days of learning in math and 28 days in reading than comparable traditional schools. The NAACP rejects this evidence of educational advancement in favor of bowing to the union desire for political control. CONTINUE AT SITE

POLITICS Comments turned off

Public piety, private contempt for Hillary Clinton and aides By Mercedes Schlapp –

Posted By on October 16th, 2016

In public, Hillary Clinton talks about how she would represent all Americans and pushes the “Stronger Together” campaign theme. But behind closed doors, there is no room for people of faith in her America. Privately, the Democratic nominee and her campaign advisers are pushing a liberal agenda hostile to religion and targeting faith organizations that do not adapt to their liberal “religion.”

The Clinton campaign is no friend of the cause of religious liberty. Internal emails exposed by WikiLeaks showed how her top campaign aides mock believers and view evangelicals and Catholics as backward in their beliefs. Mrs. Clinton herself even said publicly “deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Well, her staff certainly seemed ready and willing to do just that, particularly Chief of Staff John Podesta.

Top Hillary Clinton advisers ridiculed individuals for raising their children Catholic, referring to Catholics as being “systematic in thought and severely backwards.” It was disturbing to read about how liberals characterize conservative Catholics as being responsible for an “amazing bastardization of faith.”

Catholics and evangelicals should be troubled by Mrs. Clinton’s hidden agenda to influence and alter the tenets of Christian and Catholic orthodoxy. Perhaps what is most disturbing is that Mrs. Clinton’s team will pander publicly on the stump to Catholics, Christians, Southerners and Hispanics, and then take a very different stance behind closed doors from the comfort of their keyboards. There they express vicious contempt for the very voters they need to win the election.

ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The United Nations Is Run By A Bunch Of Depraved Totalitarians, Villainous Barbarians, And Anti-Semitic Scum by David Harsany

Posted By on October 16th, 2016

The United Nations (UNESCO, to be specific) recently adopted an anti-Israel resolution that disregarded the Jewish connection to the faith’s two holiest sites, the Temple Mount and Western Wall. The motion was supported by 24 nations, including Russia and China. Only six countries opposed it.

Now, the UN is too impotent to make history, much less redraft it. Still, it’s never a waste of time to remind people of its long record of empowering cheerleaders and perpetrators of violence against Jews.
It’s not merely that UN organizations like the “human rights commission” or UNESCO are often led by Islamic supremacists, but that the majority of first-world nations have — with few exceptions, like the United States and the United Kingdom — been enablers of anti-Semitism for over 50 years.

This new motion, which claims freedom of worship has been curtailed by “escalating aggressions and illegal measures,” was submitted by the Palestinians and backed by various other twelfth-century strongholds like Morocco (where it’s illegal to possess a Bible written in Arabic), Algeria (where Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men and insulting Muhammad is punishable by death), Iran (with restrictions too long to list), Pakistan (where the death penalty or life in prison is mandated for apostasy), and Sudan (where converting to Christianity is punishable by death.)

Did I mention UNESCO is an organization that claims it encourages “international peace and universal respect for human rights”? Why would the United States lend its credibility to such a sham?

For those of you unfamiliar with the specifics of this effort: The UN has long fueled the false hope of Palestinians that they will rule an ethnically cleansed, Judenfrei West Bank (regrettably, a position embraced by United States, as well) with Jerusalem as its capital. Since the very case for a modern Palestinian state is built on a historical myth (read Benny Morris’s recent Haaretz piece debunking the biggest myth of Israel’s founding), historical fiction has been an enduring feature of anti-Israel doctrine.

When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited his religion’s holiest site in September 2000, Arabs used it as a pretext to launch the Second Intifada. Anti-Israel activists still talk about this Sharon visit as if the man were leading the Crusaders towards Mecca. Most often, though, Israel does what it can to avoid irritating the prickly sensibilities of Arabs offended by the sight of Jews or Christians. The site itself is administrated by an Islamic trust, not Israel. Politicians are told not to go there. And so on.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Daniel J. Flynn :The FBI in open revolt against a deceitful director.

Posted By on October 16th, 2016

James Comey presides over an FBI in revolt over his leadership, a former U.S. attorney tells The American Spectator, and pursues “paranoid, delusional, and vindictive” measures to prevent negative information leaking out to the public.

“I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt,” Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator. “There is a revolt against the director. The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop. They believe that he threw the [Hillary Clinton email] case. They do not know what he was promised in return. But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director.”

The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau’s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose.

“There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he cannot lead the bureau,” diGenova explains. “They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray, the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River. The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action. It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau. The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing.”

Comey maintained in July that he came to the decision to recommend not indicting Clinton for the inclusion of classified material in 110 emails stored on a private server based on an “entirely apolitical and professional” investigation despite conceding that others in a similar spot would face “consequences” and that “evidence of potential violations” existed. He insisted then, “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

But agents trained to sniff out malfeasance smell something rotten here.

“When the director said that it was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution, that was a lie,” diGenova points out. “In fact, the people involved in the case were outraged at his decision, which he made by himself. When people realized that he was lying publicly about their role and when they knew he had approved of the destruction of laptops that were subject to congressional subpoena, that flipped the switch.”

Critics of the FBI and the broader handling of the case by the Justice Department remain skeptical over investigators’ ostensible belief in Clinton’s claim that she “lost” 13 Blackberry devices and did not understand that documents marked “C” meant confidential. Decisions to grant Clinton aide Cheryl Mills attorney-client privilege in a case involving her, to destroy her laptop and with it any evidence desired by Congress, and to limit the investigation’s search to documents from before January 31, 2015 to obstruct any possible obstruction of justice case against Mills also similarly baffled. Direct evidence of Clinton hiding public business on a private server (and thereby making it easier for enemy governments to see what the American government could not) and “bleaching” her hard drive after the story became public presented the FBI clear evidence of wrongdoing. But authorities sought to protect rather than prosecute the malefactors.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Vatican Submits to Islam (2006-2016) by Giulio Meotti

Posted By on October 16th, 2016

“[Pope Benedict XVI] has has doubted publicly that it [Islam] can be accommodated in a pluralistic society… and tempered his support for a programme of inter-religious dialogue run by Franciscan monks at Assisi. He has embraced the view of Italian moderates and conservatives that the guiding principle of inter-religious dialogue must be reciprocità. That is, he finds it naive to permit the building of a Saudi-funded mosque, Europe’s largest, in Rome, while Muslim countries forbid the construction of churches and missions”. – Christopher Caldwell, Financial Times.

In that lecture, Benedict did what in the Islamic world is forbidden: freely discussing faith. He said that God is different from Allah.

Since then, apologies to the Islamic world have become the official Vatican policy. Pope Francis denied that Islam itself is violent and claimed that the potential for violence lies within every religion, including Catholicism. Previously, Pope Francis said there is “a world war” but denied that Islam has any role in it.

“It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world…But we find it hard to recognize this reality and to respond by defending the Christian faith (…) I have heard several times an Islamic idea: ‘what we failed to do with the weapons in the past we are doing today with the birth rate and immigration’. The population is changing. If this keeps up, in countries like Italy, the majority will be Muslim (…) And what is the most important achievement? Rome”. — Monsignor Raymond Burke, US Catholic leader.

If 9/11 was the declaration of jihad against the West, 9/12 will be remembered as one of the most dramatic knee-bends of the Western cultural submission to Islam.

On September 12th 2006, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) landed in Bavaria, Germany, where he was born and first taught theology. He was expected to deliver a lecture in front of the academic community at the University of Regensburg. That lesson would go down to history as the most controversial papal speech of the last half-century.