RUTHFULLY YOURS

Campaign official says Hillary Clinton received more than $5 million from book ‘Hard Choices’

WASHINGTON—Hillary and Bill Clinton earned more than $30 million in the past 16 months, with $25 million coming from the delivery of 104 paid speeches and more than $5 million coming from Mrs. Clinton’s book, “Hard Choices.”

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, released the figures on the same day her campaign filed a personal financial disclosure statement going back to the beginning of 2014, which is required by the Federal Election Commission.

Mrs. Clinton’s financial disclosure reported assets ranging from $11.3 million to $52.7 million. She reported no liabilities. In her last financial disclosure before leaving the State Department, which covered 2012, Mrs. Clinton reported assets totaling between $5.2 million and $25.5 million. Government officials are generally required to report financial information in ranges, rather than specifics.

If the BBC reported 9/11 like it reports attacks against Israel….

Arabs massacred by Americans in day of tit-for-tat violence The cycle of violence in America spiralled out of control today when a series of violent incidents left thousands dead. Those killed are known to include many Arab and Muslim civilians. UN sources and Al Jaziera have confirmed that many of the Arabs killed were refugee children who had fled from oppression. Although an American spokesman claimed that they too suffered “many civilian deaths”, this has been denied by the UN-affiliated relief workers in the Al Quaeda organisation who maintain that the only Americans killed were military personnel and illegal settlers.

The violence started when one of five unarmed Arab civilians, who boarded a 767 aircraft in Boston, was refused permission to fly the plane, despite having a valid flying licence. The American authorities have been imposing increasingly tight restrictions on the freedom of movement of Arab civilians within the US. This humiliation to their dignity has created, not unsurprisingly, deep anger and resentment among even moderate Arabs and other Muslims. When the fully qualified pilot was denied the opportunity to work in his chosen profession, he became understandably angry. The outnumbered Arab men were then attacked by members of the crew, but what really happened next may never be known. What is certain is that all of the five Arabs were killed, along with the plane’s other occupants (primarily military and intelligence personnel along with some illegal American settlers) when the plane crashed into the North tower of the World Trade Center. Al Jaziera and the UN confirmed that the building (which housed a mosque) contained many Arab refugee children, who were all killed in the attack along with a number of Muslim workers. Some illegal American settlers dressed as businessmen may also have perished.

I have sent this to a couple of news outlets.

Why are Western countries expected to take in unlimited Muslim “refugees” while far wealthier (and under-populated) Muslim countries like Qatar, Saudi, UAE, Bahrein, etc never are despite them sharing the same religion, language and culture as the “refugees”?
Why is it a cause for celebration when Americans, Brits or Arabs kill Islamic terrorists, but a ‘war crime’ when Israel does it?
Why is the only country in the Middle East that is not an apartheid state (Israel) the only one that is accused of being an apartheid state?
How is it that the people who call Israel an ‘apartheid’ state also generally insist that every single Jew must leave ‘Palestinian territory’?
Why are antisemitic activists who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel always called “Pro-Palestinians” rather than what they really are?
Can you identify a single pro-Palestinian activity (as opposed to anti-Israel activity) that has ever been carried out by any Western “pro-Palestinian” activist?

Did the Clintons profit from the sway they held over American foreign policy? It sure looks like it. Bill Clinton recently defended his high-priced speeches by explaining that he’s “gotta pay our bills,” but Peter Schweizer’s much-discussed forthcoming book Clinton Cash suggests that there’s a sense in which Hillary Clinton has been the real family breadwinner of late. “The really troubling thing about Bill’s speeches is the apparent correlation between his fees and Hillary’s decisions during her tenure as secretary of state,” Schweizer writes in the book, which comes out tomorrow. “The timing of the payments, the much higher than average size of some of them, and the subsequent actions taken by Hillary raise serious questions about just what those who underwrote these exorbitant fees were actually paying for.”

The problem with George Stephanopoulos’s Clinton-gate mess is that his own words prove him to be both a bully and a hypocrite, as well as abjectly unethical.

Set aside the fact that — if not outed — he would likely never have informed his viewership about his contributions to the Clinton Foundation (and presumably would have continued to grill authors like Peter Schweizer for attacking the pay-for-play Clinton culture). Set aside the fact that, in Clinton Foundation tax-reporting fashion, he “forgot” a $25,000 donation when he initially and erroneously stated that he had contributed $50,000 rather than the actual $75,000. And that he confused the news source that originally discovered his gifts. What we are left with is George Stephanopoulos indicting George Stephanopoulos.

I spent about 20 years getting people ready to answer questions from tough and even hostile inquisitors. It is what trial lawyers do. I can thus attest that over-preparing a witness can be worse than failing to prepare the witness at all. Ironically, this is especially so with a smart witness.

A person of merely average intelligence is apt to follow advice. A seasoned lawyer can quickly demonstrate how foolish he can be made to look if he doesn’t listen carefully to the questions, or if he readily accepts a loaded question’s premise. The smart guy who radiates self-confidence is often a different story. He outsmarts himself. He thinks, “What would I ask me?” Worse, he manages to hear the question that he calculates should be asked, which is not always the question that is actually asked. When he is over-prepared — when he and his handlers have pored over his vulnerabilities and meticulously scripted what he will say when grilled about them — the smart guy will give the scripted answer. It can end up sounding dumb, even smarmy, if he has the question wrong.

I think that’s what happened to Jeb Bush when he was asked about Iraq by Fox News’s Megyn Kelly this week.

Uzay Bulut is a journalist based on Ankara, Turkey.

“The international community must aim at strategic and long-term alliances based on common values. I do not think there is a big difference between ISIS and the Iranian authorities… The Iranian regime cannot be part of a long-term solution.” — Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, Neuroscientist and spokesperson for Iran Human Rights (IHR).

The international community tries to solve the most immediate problems without taking into account the long-term effects of their policies. … As long as the Iranian authorities do not have the popular support of their people, they cannot be regarded as reliable partners.” — Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam.

“A democratic Iran where human rights are respected is the only sustainable solution. … This can only be achieved by more international focus on the human rights situation.” — Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, a Norwegian-Iranian neuroscientist who left Iran together with his older siblings in the early 1980s, is the spokesperson of Iran Human Rights (IHR). The organization was started about 10 years ago as a network of defenders of human rights, and in recent years has developed a broad network inside Iran.

The contention that there are only two options in dealing with the rogue Ayatollahs’ regime – negotiation or military option, which supposedly amounts to war – defies reality. Such a contention is either mistaken or misleading.

The threat of a limited surgical naval or air force bombing of critical nuclear installations – with no ground troops – would not amount to a war, would deter the Ayatollahs, possibly moderating their nature, and – if activated – would permanently cripple their pursuit of nuclear capabilities, and could be repeated if necessary from US military bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Indian Ocean or from US aircraft carriers.

Recent precedents document that there are many military options, which are dramatically short of war, but are critical to moderate the nature of rogue regimes and prevent war. On the other hand, the removal of a military option from the table – while negotiating with rogue regimes – whets their appetite and fuels war.

In great measure, the roots of present-day Islamic terrorism lie in the partition of India, according to a comprehensive narrative by Narendra Singh Sarila, author of The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition. Sarila, a former senior-level Indian civil servant and aide-de-camp to England’s last ruler in India, Lord Montbatten, argues that the British used a divide-and-conquer strategy in India, fostering and exaggerating Muslim-Hindu acrimony, to safeguard British regional power against the Russians and maintain U.K. access to Middle East oil fields.

Pursuing a divided India in which they could maintain a measure of control, the British warded off pressure from U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Indian leadership for a unified, independent India. Using diplomatic legerdemain, the British created a separate Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, giving Muslims territorial launching points to pursue jihadist expansion in the region that continues to this day.

The Vatican this week agreed a treaty with the Palestinians, to cover its interests in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza, which referred to its treaty partners as the “state of Palestine.”

When the newly elected Pope Francis came to Israel last year, making the Holy Land his first overseas visit, he let it be known that he wanted to put relations between the Vatican and the Jewish people onto a different footing.

Now we know what that meant.

The Vatican this week agreed a treaty with the Palestinians, to cover its interests in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza, which referred to its treaty partners as the “state of Palestine.” A Vatican spokesman said: “Yes, it’s a recognition that the state exists.”