Displaying posts published in

October 2016

The Republican White Togas at Work for the Queen of Sleaze By Clarice Feldman

Are Americans so addlepated as to pick an incompetent, thoroughly corrupt globalist over an often-vulgar man who loves his country and has accomplished a great deal?

Years ago I wrote of my contempt for the white togaed squishes of the right who flee the grounds of the forum when jackals attack their allies in order to keep their garb free of stain. This week in the lead up to the second presidential debate tonight, they’re at it again.

Just as evidence of the Clinton corruption is once again made manifest in the release of more of her emails and a closer look at the late revised Clinton foundation filings, they flee Trump because of a suspiciously timed tape of an eleven-year-old conversation with GHW Bush’s nephew, Billy Bush. If, like a toddler, you are easily distracted by shining objects you’ll fall for it. If you’re a grownup who realizes the fate of the world and this country depend on your vote you won’t.

1. How Hillary Broke the Law and Destabilized North Africa, creating a Refugee Crisis and a catastrophe in Libya and Syria

General Mike Flynn laid out the catastrophic results of then Secretary of State Clinton’s actions in Libya, based on false claims that Qaddafi was engaged in widespread attacks on civilians.

While no saint, Qaddafi was key to our counterterrorism efforts in the area. Ignoring the advice of the secretary of defense and lawyers in her own department, she allowed 18 shipments of arms from Qatar to Libyan jihadis who were on the State Department’s own list of foreign terrorists, in apparent violation of federal law (28 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B). The arms shipments were funneled through a Qatar cleric “who brokered their release from prison” after Clinton persuaded the President to grant the terrorists full diplomatic recognition,

If that wasn’t bad enough, Flynn underscored the connection to the Clinton foundation in her otherwise puzzling conduct:

Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.

Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law — again.

2. Hillary’s speeches to Big Donors Reveal clearly her Deceptive nature and her view of Trump and Sanders supporters

Wikileaks revealed a batch of new hacked emails involving Hillary this week. As people sort through them, some gems from the well-paid speeches she gave to big corporate donors showed up.

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]”

Putin’s Puritan Piety: The Ideological War against the West by Giulio Meotti

Russia is one of the few countries in the Western world in which religion is becoming increasingly important and not less.

To establish his authority on the Russian society, President Vladimir Putin has shaped a doctrine mobilizing the entire Russian society against a perceived Western “decadence”. He has declared that Russian traditional family values are a bulwark against the West’s “so-called tolerance — genderless and infertile.”

The first Cold War was a clash between Western democracy and the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat. The new Cold War is a one between Western liberalism and Russian conservatism.

During the Cold War, American conservatives used to label the Soviet Union “the godless nation” on the verge of collapse because it had purged religion from the Russian society. Two decades later, the Kremlin is occupied by a former officer of the KGB, secretly baptized, who launches the same accusation of atheism at the United States and the West.

Welcome to “Putin’s covert war on Western decadence”, as The Spectator defined it:

“Putin’s Russia is fast becoming a very puritan place. Ever since returning to the presidency in 2012, Putin has pursued an increasingly religious-conservative ideology both at home and abroad, defining Russia as a moral fortress against sexual licence and decadence, porn and gay rights”.

Recently, Russian officials censored porn websites. When the largest pornography site on the internet, PornHub, offered the Russia’s official communications and media watchdog a premium account in exchange for lifting the ban, Russian officials replied: “Sorry, we are not in the market and the demography is not a commodity.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ideological war against the West is getting cocky and self-confident. In a televised speech from a Kremlin hall, Putin declared that Russian traditional family values are a bulwark against the West’s “so-called tolerance — genderless and infertile.”

“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have abandoned their roots, including Christian values,” said Putin. The patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Kirill, echoed Putin by charging the West of being engaged in a “spiritual disarmament” of the Russian people, and by criticizing the European laws that prevent wearing religious symbols in public. “We have experienced an era of atheism and we know what it means to live without God”, Kirill said.

Hungary to Amend Constitution to Block EU Migrant Plan “Brussels or Budapest, that was the question, and the people said Budapest.” by Soeren Kern

The Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, all former Communist countries, also oppose the EU plan to relocate 160,000 “asylum seekers,” which they say is an “EU diktat” that infringes on national sovereignty.

“One of the principals underpinning the system is the primacy of EU law.” — Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for European Commission.

“In the early autumn of 2015 we erected a fence on the external green border of the European Union and the Schengen Area. This was to protect the European Union’s greatest achievement: free movement within the common area of the internal market…. We do not want to distribute the migration burdens falling on Europe, but we want to eliminate them: to put an end to them.” — Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, July 11, 2016.

“We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries… That is a historical experience for us.” — Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, September 3, 2015.

“We lose our European values and identity the way frogs are cooked in slowly-heating water. Quite simply, slowly there will be more and more Muslims, and we will no longer recognize Europe.” — Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, September 30, 2016.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has proposed amending the Constitution to prevent the European Union from settling migrants in Hungary without the approval of Parliament.

In a speech on October 4, Orbán said the amendment would be presented to Parliament on October 10, and, if approved, it would come into effect on November 8.

Hungarian voters overwhelmingly rejected the European Union’s mandatory migrant relocation plan in a referendum on October 2, but failed to turn out in sufficient numbers to make the referendum legally binding.

More than 97% of those who voted in the referendum answered ‘no’ to the question: “Do you want the European Union to be entitled to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary without the consent of the National Assembly?”

Voter turnout was only 40%, however, far short of the 50% participation required to make the referendum valid under Hungarian law.

The Nobel Appeasement Prize By Rachel Ehrenfeld

The Norwegian Nobel Committee bestowing the Peace Prize on Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, for his concessions to the narco-terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), reinforces the trend to legitimize terrorism, legalize drugs, and reward criminals. This contradicts the instructions Alfred Nobel gave in his will, which clearly states the Peace Prize should be rewarded to those who “have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Had Nobel been alive today, he, like the Colombian people, would have voted against the Cuban and Venezuelan-sponsored deal, which was negotiated and signed in Havana. The agreement, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize, is aimed at whitewashing the violent drug-trafficking FARC. Over the past fifty years, the group has claimed the lives of more than 220,000 Colombians and displaced some six million people. The agreement, however, re-labeled the FARC members as “fighters” and “rebels,” whose cause was to “[improve] the country’s rural areas.” Not surprisingly, Raul Castro, John Kerry, the Obama Administration, the European Union, and the United Nations, among others, hailed the agreement, as did the international media. All were “shocked” when the agreement was rejected in the plebiscite held on October 2, 2016.

This is not the first time that negotiations with the FARC have failed. The first initiative to negotiate with the narco-terrorists began in 1997, during the Bill Clinton Administration. Peace talks have been chosen to resolve a criminal conflict and to appease dangerous criminals under the guise of a political agenda. In 1999, Colombian Pres. Andres Pastrana told the Argentine newspaper, Clarin, “there is no evidence that the FARC are drug traffickers.” On the contrary, Pastrana claimed, “The FARC have always said they are interested in eradicating illegal crops.” To boot, then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, used the Left’s favored “blame America first” motto, claiming the extensive growth drug supply from Colombia is not the FARC’s fault, but the fault of “our [America’s] demand for drugs.”

Indeed, this slogan has become the mantra of drug traffickers smuggling ever growing quantities of illegal drugs to the United States, as well as the international movement to legalize drugs, which has been launched and funded by Bill and Hillary’s long-time and generous supporter, George Soros. In the early 1990s, after he made at least one billion dollars bidding against the Bank of England, Soros positioned himself as a social reformer and set out to create an “open society.” Since then he has been using his philanthropy to “change” or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the world’s leading democracy. He declared war on the “war on drugs’ because, like the Castro brothers in Havana, he understood that corruption by drugs and ultimately drug money, can take advantage of even the most advanced, democratic, capitalistic system.

MY SAY: OH PULEEZ! GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES

Eleven years ago Donald Trump was taped using vulgarity and boasting, like many playboys and locker room machos, about his prowess with women. Disgusting? Sure…but spare me the high dudgeon elicited by strategic release of those tapes, just as Wikileaks revealed more chicanery by Clinton.

Even some conservatives have joined the caterwauling declaring that this is proof positive that Trump is not “presidential.” Presidential??? That bar was lowered decades ago.

Was it presidential when John Kennedy invited Mafia molls to the White House for a roll in the hay? Was it presidential when he and his brother Triborough Fitzgerald Kennedy shared the sexual favors of a pathetic movie star?

Was it presidential when his successor, Lyndon Johnson- purveyor of the ruinous entitlement scam known as “The Great Society” showed his class in conducting press conferences from the toilet?

Was it presidential when Bill Clinton used government employees to find him sex partners? Or how about his encouragement of a besotted intern to become his er….private server…in the oval office?

Ted Kennedy had the gall to attempt a run for the White House and did anyone question whether it was presidential to back off a bridge into water and permit his passenger to drown while he swam away and tried to convince his cousin to take the rap? And Kennedy’s friend Chris Dodd also tried to get into the race for the White House even after he and Kennedy squeezed a waitress between them and fondled her in a sordid incident that begat the name “the Dodd-Kennedy sandwich. Did anyone say that Dodd was not presidential?

And finally, is it presidential for Obama to invite rappers to the White House who extol the murder of policemen and call women bitches and Blacks “niggas?” One was named “Common” and his poem includes : “They watching me, I’m watching them”Them dick boys got a lock of c*** in them.” The most recent presidential invite was in January 2016 when Kendrick Lamar met with President Obama in the Oval Office on Monday. Lamar’s “To Pimp A Butterfly” album shows a group of Black men in front of the White House holding champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills on top of the dead body of a white judge. Obama has said the rapper’s “How Much a Dollar Cost” which is on that album was his favorite song of 2015. That’s presidential?

Dumping on Trump is stumping for Hillary and that is truly deplorable.

Interview with Majid Oukacha by Grégoire Canlorbe

What I care about more than anything else is freedom of thought. It is criminalized by the Koran.

My goal is to warn the French people. The day when France will be a Muslim country, it will be almost impossible to back out…. Wherever there is Islam, there are only conflicts of cultures, women who feel guilty for being attractive and who are infantilized and abused; and above all, a continual extinction of creativity and imagination.

A majority of French Muslims may well declare themselves peaceful, but Islam is the cultural common denominator of all the Frenchmen who have told me that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered during the massacre of January 7, 2015, “had it coming to them.”

I prefer the individualism of intellectual ideals and moral values ​​of modern Western civilization to the Islamic “big-brotherian” system that criminalizes liberties.

No matter what the Muslims of France—torn between the Western cultural codes and the Koran—say, the majority of Muslims feel closer to an Islamist Muslim who wants to stick to the letter of the laws of the Koran than they do to a non-Muslim who ignores the Koran.

France, and other countries in the West, are increasingly the victim of a cruel twist of irony in which their own founding values and principles are turned​ against them.

The French politicians who currently govern us have no interest in recognizing or solving these rifts.

I have no desire to make political compromises with Islamist politicians who worship a pro-slavery and misogynist book that criminalizes freedom of belief.

Majid Oukacha is a young French essayist who was born and grew up in a France which he recognizes less every year. “A former Muslim but an eternal patriot,” as he sometimes likes to describe himself, he is the author of Il était une foi, l’islam… (literally “Once upon a time Islam…”, the French title of a book soon to be released in English under a different title), a systematic critique, without value judgments, of the most inconsistent and imprecise Koranic laws.

Majid Oukacha (Image source: Video screenshot from “The Fred Connection”)

Grégoire Canlorbe: Could you start by reminding us of the circumstances and motives of your abandoning Islam — and of your decision to take up your pen to unravel your former religion for the public at large?

Majid Oukacha: Like all Frenchmen who were born and grew up in France in the late twentieth century, I am fortunate to belong to a peaceful nation that allowed me to enjoy rights and freedoms for which I never personally had to fight. My parents, French citizens of Algerian origin and Muslim persuasion, provided me with a religious education, which destined me to remain a devout Muslim. They also gave me a civic, social and ethical education based on respect for France and its values, as embodied in its motto, “liberty, equality, fraternity.”

I started going to the mosque at the age of eight. The first imam who taught me, and who came from a foreign country, had a perfect French accent, a big, cheerful smile, and he was careful never to give orders to his students outside the walls of the mosque. The courses I took quickly led me to see that what I thought was a blessing — to be born into a faith able to save me from Hell, which, according to the Koran, spares only Muslims — would also become a permanent burden.

When one is a Muslim, every trivial action of daily life is codified, from how to drink a glass of water upon waking to how to go to bed. I submitted to Allah to avoid the torments of His wrath in the afterlife; I obeyed codified rituals that sometimes seemed a waste of time or a nonsense. My non-Muslim friends were accustomed to hearing me tell them I had to interrupt a game of football or cards to go to the mosque. There, I essentially learned to do the salat, the Muslim five-times-a-day prayers, as well as the bottomless pit of behavioral codes established as virtues by the romanticized figure of the prophet Muhammad.

In the middle of the uniform flock — blindly imitating a distant spectrum imposing its obligations and prohibitions — I was not afraid to ask “hard” questions.

“Why in Koranic law about the need to cut off the hand of thief (Surah 5, verse 38), does Allah not say which hand is to be cut off (the right one or the left one)? Why does He specify no minimum value for the theft from which the hand of a thief can be cut off? Stealing an apple for the first time in one’s life, does it really deserve to have a hand severed? And why does Allah not say the minimum age of a thief who must have a hand cut off? Should a 12-year-old who has never stolen before really be held as responsible as a 40-year-old repeat offender?”

“Why should one walk seven circles around the Black Stone during the Hajj and not six or eight? What will happen if I walk around it eight times?”

“The Prophet Muhammad explains in his Sunnah that a woman, a black dog or a donkey passing in front of a praying Muslim can cancel his prayer; but, as usual in the Sunnah, Muhammad merely advances a judgment without explaining why it should be that way. To someone who does not believe in Islam, such a statement sounds like a superstition. Why not give the intellectual journey linked to it, instead of just a dogmatic sentence? If it is Allah Himself who gave him this knowledge, why didn’t the Hadith that mentions this prophetic story become a verse of the Koran? The Koran is supposed to represent the messages of Allah which the prophet Muhammad passes on to his contemporaries to inform them about what their creator expects of them. If a woman passes one kilometer from someone who is praying, is the prayer canceled then? What is the maximum distance from which a prayer is cancelled altogether?”

The logical “domino effect” of these questions is only a small part of the many thoughts that can, and should, keep one’s mind alert — far from the corset of indoctrination that is closed to doubt. I never heard satisfying answers to the limits of this juridical Islam to which I had always pledged allegiance, so I decided to seek them directly from Allah himself. Just before entering university, I tried to understand Islam with an unbiased look, rather than to learn it as an unquestioning believer.

I had decided to read the entire Koran, from the first to the last sentence, and to register impressions, doubts, and questions in a notebook. Reading the Koran that way not only forced me to have to admit that almost all Islamic laws and dogmas had no scientific or rational basis, but it also highlighted that Islam, under its founder, was a misogynistic religion, preaching slavery, and an enemy of freedom of thought. I had fallen. My trust in what was both obvious and intangible had deceived me all this time. It is the libertarian and egalitarian values ​​of secular and humanist France — which I have learned to love and respect — which gave me the strength to refuse to give in to the fear of blackmail in the form of eternal Hellfire.

Leaving Islam confirmed my longtime fear that one day I would witness the French people lose all these freedoms and this lifestyle that make France a beloved and envied country throughout the world. All revolutions do not necessarily begin or end in a bloodbath. In a democracy, the majority has the power to make or break a revolution, away from anarchy and war. The day an Islamic majority in France will vote for a president and parliamentarians able to define for all of us what separates right from wrong, good from evil and fair from unfair, what choices then will remain for us?

You cannot flee from problems indefinitely. You have to fight them at one time or another. I need to convince the maximum of my contemporaries that Islam is a threat to our individual rights and freedoms, and I choose to fight using words, because communication (through writing, speech) is the weapon that gives me my strength. I am, as far as I know, the only author who has made a comprehensive critical study of the principal legal and doctrinal aspects of Islam, by addressing the technical inaccuracies of the laws but without ever stating any moral or value judgment. I have no taboos so I dealt with explosive topics: slavery, pedophilia, criminalization of freedom of conscience… I think this is the most effective method to demonstrate to the widest possible audience the obscurantism and danger of Islam: a universal legislation that cannot coexist with difference.

Grégoire Canlorbe: This objective look at the technical limitations of Koranic laws seems rare. Is it possible to do the same work with religious books from Christianity or Judaism?

Majid Oukacha: For Muslims, every sentence in the Koran is meant to be a tale whose author is Allah Himself, the creator of the world, and who is an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect God. This God proclaims many draconian universal laws that are not limited by place or time.

This base makes analyzing the Koran far simpler than analyzing some of the sacred texts of Judaism or Christianity. The Talmud cites original narratives and interpretations thought by humans. It is up to today’s Jews to decide whether to adhere to these passages or to question them. We can say the same of the New Testament, which is dear to Christians.

Today, the countries where one lives best, if one is a woman or a free thinker, are precisely the countries with Christian and Jewish roots: France, the United States of America, Israel, Australia, England… These countries defend the individual freedoms of the weakest and the most varied people more than any Muslim country in the world has ever done. If a Muslim wants to criticize a misogynistic passage from the Bible or the Torah for example, good for him!

I judge a tree by its fruit. To me, the critique of Christianity or Judaism will never be anything other than an intellectual hobby. The critique of Islam, however, is a political responsibility because this “tree of knowledge” seems to produce chaos wherever it takes root. In France, wherever Christianity and Judaism are the dominant cultural force, women can walk around more peacefully than elsewhere and free-thinkers like me can disbelieve freely. Have you ever heard of a former Christian or Jew in the 21st century who must live hidden away because he criticized his former religion?

Grégoire Canlorbe: You insist on reminding everyone that the demographic Islamization of the French people is rampant, and that the ability of Muslims one day to constitute the majority of voters exposes France to the risk of Islamization. Yet the majority of Muslims living there today seem to practice their religion in a moderate, tolerant and peaceful way.

Majid Oukacha: If you take French Muslims one by one and interview them in the eye of a camera, the overwhelming majority of them will honor the slogans that promote human rights. They will talk about freedom, equality and peace. A majority of French Muslims may well declare themselves peaceful, but Islam remains the cultural common denominator of all the Frenchmen who have told me that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered during the massacre of January 7, 2015, “had it coming to them.”

Another topic: verse 34 of Surah 4 of the Koran allows men to beat their wives — from whom they actually fear disobedience. Generally, when I talk with a Muslim who tells me that, according to the Koran, women are beings not inferior to men, I ask the following question: “Does Verse 34 of Surah 4 of the Koran forbid or allow to hit a disobedient wife?” As far as I can remember, no Muslim has ever answered me that this verse forbids Muslims to hit a disobedient wife. What I get are attempts to minimize or hide the significance of this act.

I cannot even count the number of Muslims who have told me that Muslim husbands should beat their disobedient wives softly or hit them with a small wooden stick such as a miswak (a teeth-cleaning twig). French law forbids hitting a “disobedient” wife — period. Hitting a “disobedient” wife “gently” is still hitting and humiliating her.

No matter what the Muslims of France — torn between the Western cultural codes and the Koran — say, the majority of Muslims feel closer to an Islamist Muslim who wants to stick to the letter of the laws of the Koran than they do to a non-Muslim who ignores the Koran. There are speeches, and there are facts. When a Muslim country is ruled by an Islamist, no popular revolution overthrows him in favor of a head of state who supports human rights. The Islamist Mohamed Morsi was the victim of a military coup-d’état, not of a popular overthrow. When popular revolutions happen in the Muslim world, they dismiss Westernized dictators, such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi or Tunisia’s Ben Ali.

Peace is not verified by claims; it is verified by deeds. The worst places to live in the world when one is an atheist or a woman are precisely the countries where Islam is the dominant cultural force. Muslim societies turn out to be authoritarian and coercive because of the divine character that Muslims attribute to the Koran, which is basically pro-slavery, misogynistic and freedom-destroying.

Grégoire Canlorbe: When it comes to elaborating on the creeping Islamization of laws and mores in French democracy, what do you see as the symptoms of Islamic domination in the first place?

Majid Oukacha: Far from the political speeches, you just have to listen to people describe problems that did not exist in France only 50 years ago but have become increasingly recurrent. Most local officials who court the votes of Muslims in local elections have been violating the principle of the total separation of religion from state, laïcité, which in France is still the cement of the stability pact among citizens of differing cultures. Mosques are showing up everywhere, all too often thanks to the taxpayers of France. The Christmas tree that used to stand in the kindergarten of my childhood has today become an offense to the religious faith of certain people. I will let you guess who they are.

Also today, French Christians, atheists or agnostics who eat or drink in the street during Ramadan can be confronted — sometimes violently — for allegedly showing disrespect to Muslims, by daring to consume a sandwich or a drink in a public place in broad daylight. Muslims who pretend to be pacifists and republicans should first cleanse their own ranks, at least by daring to admit that some problems almost systemically come from people claiming the same religious affiliation as them. I have never heard of any Frenchman reproached for using a phone or driving during the Sabbath day.

At present, in France, when we approach the issue of Islamization with the benefit of hindsight, one can clearly observe that in neighborhoods where Islam has been the dominant cultural force for several generations, “living together in harmony” does not exist. When Islam dominates some areas of France that have not always been Islamized, the majority of non-Muslims who have financial means run away.

The French politicians who currently govern us have no interest in recognizing or solving these rifts. In a manner of “divide and conquer”, pitting people against each other in elections allows these officials to keep their positions. It also diverts the attention of the French away from the failure to solve the economic crisis.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Ideologists and heads of state in the Islamic world often present Islam as the solution to the materialistic decay that is supposedly leading Western civilization to its doom. Sayyid Qutb, the spiritual guide of Osama bin Laden, wrote in 1964, in Milestones:

“Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice… The Western world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind… Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life.”

How would you respond to this charge of permissiveness, consumerism and individualism in Western societies?

Majid Oukacha: I sometimes have the impression that our leaders have less and less shame in safeguarding their moral purposes by immoral means. Under the pretext of fighting “the radicalization of Islam,” for instance, many of our politicians would like French secularism to give way to a system that legally and socially recognizes a “state-controlled” version of Islam, knighted, promoted and financed by public authorities.

The only Islam which the current French state could recognize would obviously be a religion defined as peaceful and tolerant by its founder, the prophet Mohammed. Muslims are so numerous in France and they represent such an electoral weight, that in public opinion, it would be like a bomb going off to have to admit that they worship a God who thinks that if you do not believe in Islam, it is a crime that will cause you to burn in Hell forever.

France and other countries in the West are increasingly the victims of a cruel twist of irony in which their own founding values and principles are turned​ against them. I am a defender of freedom of belief and equality between all humans, regardless of gender, skin color or religion. But I do not want safeguarding these ideals to require the public school textbooks French children read to be filled with Islamophilic propaganda.

The media and political systems, which make the rain fall or the sun shine in France, have more and more trouble denying inconvenient truths. They appear to prefer reassuring lies. Yesterday, we were told that “the Muslim migratory invasion is a far-right-wing fantasy.” Today, we hear that “anyway, they are there lastingly, we cannot do anything about that it because there are now too many, so we have to deal with them in order to avoid a civil war.”

I have no desire to make political compromises with Islamist politicians who worship a pro-slavery and misogynist book that criminalizes freedom of belief. I prefer the individualism of intellectual ideals and moral values ​​of modern Western civilization to the Islamic “big-brotherian” system. I prefer the freedom to have sex before marriage; the freedom not to believe in a religion or to convert to another religion; the freedom to mock the mighty (which includes these eternal mighty from Islam such as Allah and Mohammed).

Grégoire Canlorbe: Islam seems to call into question the sort of freedoms that we feel empower our society. Islam looks like a religion that has turned its citizens into slaves of a totalitarian system, but that has succeeded by the bonding power of blood and the bonding power of killing others. In the long run, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini did not meet, however, the same success as Mohammed in their totalitarian enterprises. How do you explain that Islam has managed to impose itself in face of the Western societies for more than a thousand years, while Fascist and Soviet regimes collapsed in less than a century?

Majid Oukacha: Nazism and the totalitarian communism in the USSR were both led by fallible men who could know military defeats, betrayals which they had not managed to predict; and, ultimately, death. Islam is a totalitarianism headed by an eternal God, who cannot be defeated or submitted. From the perspective of Muslims, the Koran was written by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God, who imposes as His supreme legislation laws valid at all times and in all places — until Judgment Day. The most efficient totalitarianism in the world is by far Islam: it is impossible to overcome its non-existent God. What does not exist cannot lose and cannot die.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Would you like to add anything else?

Majid Oukacha: What I care about more than anything else is freedom of thought. It is criminalized by the Koran, which sends to eternal Hell all those who have never been Muslims. A country is primarily defined by the people living there and the Islamization of France is a reality that fewer and fewer people deny. I am not naive: it is through childbirth and immigration that Islam will become the majority faith in France.

I invite the French people to judge the tree of Islam by the fruit that it produces in reality. Wherever Islam culturally dominates, there are only conflicts of cultures; women who feel guilty for being attractive and who are infantilized and abused; and above all, a continual extinction of creativity and imagination. The rare artists and scientists of the Muslim world who manage to stand out and be known worldwide all received a Western education, far from the opportunities their homeland, which standardizes humans, would have offered them.

The French, who fear the Islamization of France through politics or war, can no longer be silent. The situation is critical. We must dare to talk and act. The day France becomes a Muslim country, it will be almost impossible to back out. Those who secretly wait and hope behind a closed door, far from the course of action, should not complain when their right to remain silent becomes a duty to remain silent.

Majid Oukacha, author of Il était une foi, l’islam… wishes to thank companies such as Google and Twitter, which have made available to the greatest number of people free tools promoting the diversity of opinions and freedom of expression in a way that no French mainstream media has ever done. https://twitter.com/MajidOukacha

Grégoire Canlorbe, a journalist, currently lives in Paris. While presently collaborating with acclaimed author Howard Bloom, he has conducted many interviews for journals such as Man and the Economy, founded by Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase, and think-tanks such as Mises Institute. Contact: gregoire.canlorbe@wanadoo.fr

Why Hillary Clinton’s E-Mail Scandal ‘Lawyers’ Are So Problematic Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson should have been treated as suspects by the FBI — not privileged Clinton attorneys. By Andrew C. McCarthy

The more information that drips out about the Clinton e-mail investigation, the more we learn that two key subjects, Hillary confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, got extraordinarily special treatment — concessions that would never be given to subjects in a normal investigation. The primary reason for this is that the Obama Justice Department was never going to charge Hillary Clinton and her accomplices with crimes.

The guise under which Mills and Samuelson got the kid-glove treatment was their status as lawyers. Crucially, this status was the Justice Department’s pretext for resolving that potentially incriminating evidence against them, and against their “client,” Mrs. Clinton, had to be shielded from investigators pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

Except neither Mills nor Samuelson was eligible to represent Clinton in matters related to the e-mails, including the FBI’s criminal investigation. Moreover, even if they had arguably been eligible, attorney-client communications in furtherance of criminal schemes are not privileged.

I wrote on Tuesday about the jaw-dropping allegation by House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R. Va.) that the immunity deals given to Mills and Samuelson were accompanied by at least two “side agreements.” One severely hampered the FBI’s examination of Mills’s and Samuelson’s laptop computers — the ones used to vet e-mails on Hillary Clinton’s server in order to determine which ones would be turned over to the State Department and which ones Clinton would hoard and destroy, falsely claiming that they were all “personal” in nature. The other side deal, astonishing if true, is said to have called for the FBI to destroy the laptop computers after the Bureau’s limited examination was concluded.

In congressional testimony last week, FBI director James Comey did not mention the side deals but did attempt to defend the immunity grant. He claimed it was justifiable because it is always very complicated for investigators when a lawyer’s computer becomes evidence in a criminal probe — it’s “a big meghillah” as he put it.

However colorfully expressed, Comey was making a category error. When a lawyer is implicated in a criminal investigation, which is not all that unusual, searching the lawyer’s computer tends to be complicated because there are likely to be privileged attorney-client communications on it. If the lawyer has a busy practice, many of those communications will have nothing to do with the investigation in which the lawyer is a suspect. That is not an immunity issue. It is a privilege issue. The problem is routinely addressed, without a grant of immunity, by a screening procedure that prevents the prosecutors and agents investigating the case from getting access to any communications that are legitimately protected by attorney-client privilege.

Chairman Goodlatte’s letter indicates that just such a procedure was employed in the limited search of the Mills and Samuelson computers. This underscores that the immunity grant was wholly unnecessary. Granting immunity does nothing to resolve attorney-client privilege complications, just as the screening procedure does nothing to shield the lawyer from prosecution for any non-privileged incriminating evidence.

Mills and Samuelson were given immunity in exchange for surrendering their laptops not because searching lawyers’ computers is complicated, but because the Justice Department had no intention of prosecuting them. That is also why Justice severely limited the FBI’s search of the laptops, just as it severely limited the FBI’s questioning of Mills. Mills and Samuelson were given immunity because Justice did not want to commence a grand-jury investigation, which would have empowered investigators to compel production of the laptops by simply issuing subpoenas. Justice did not want to use the grand jury because doing so would have signaled that the case was headed toward indictment. The Obama Justice Department was never going to indict Hillary Clinton, and was determined not to damage her presidential campaign by taking steps suggestive of a possible indictment.

Obama Welcomes Rapper Kendrick Lamar to the Oval Office By Nicholas Ballasy January 13, 2016 see note please

Trump’s comments were lewd and he acted like a lout…but look who was invited to the White House? rsk
Hip-hop artist Kendrick Lamar, whose latest album boasts a controversial cover and explicit lyrics, met with President Obama in the Oval Office on Monday.

The two reportedly discussed a variety of issues. The White House has not commented on the content of the meeting but Lamar said in a “Pay It Forward” PSA that they talked about topics related to the inner cities and the importance of youth -mentoring programs.

The PSA was created in support of the National Mentoring Partnership, which supports affiliate mentorship programs, and featured photos of Grammy-winner Lamar with Obama. The president declared January National Mentoring Month.

Obama has said the rapper’s “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015.

That was off Lamar’s “To Pimp A Butterfly” album, which shows a group of African-American men in front of the White House holding champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills on top of the dead body of a white judge.

During an interview last year, Lamar commented on the meaning of the cover.

“You look at these individuals and you look at them as bad people or a menace to society, but they’re actually good people, just a product of their environment,” he said. “Only God can judge these individuals right here. Not no one with a gavel handing out football numbers of years and not giving these kids a chance at life. Every n**** is a star.”

Lamar’s Interscope Records albums have a “parental advisory” label and consist of several songs with explicit lyrics referencing sex, drugs, alcohol and guns.

“Me and my n***** four deep in a white Toyota. A quarter tank of gas, one pistol, and orange soda. Janky stash box when the federales roll up. Basketball shorts with the Gonzales Park odor. We on the mission for bad bitches and trouble,” Lamar raps on the song, “The Art of Peer Pressure.” “I hope the universe love you today ‘cause the energy we bringing sure to carry away a flock of positive activists and fill the body with hate if it’s necessary.”

New Emails Show That White House and State Dept. Coordinated to Manage Clinton Email Scandal By Debra Heine

Newly revealed State Department emails from last spring show that senior White House officials were coordinating with senior State Department officials about how to manage damaging stories about Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The emails feature Jen Psaki, a former State Department spokesperson who is now the White House communications director; senior State Department official Patrick Kennedy; Jennifer Palmieri, the former White House communications director who is now Clinton’s campaign communications director; and Heather Samuelson, the Clinton staffer who received immunity during the FBI investigation into her emails. The new information makes clear that the Obama administration worked with State to downplay the controversy right from the beginning, even though publicly the president was feigning a hands-off approach to the scandal.

The Republican National Committee obtained the 17 pages of records through one of several Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

Via the Washington Examiner:

In one exchange from March 2015, White House and State Department staff discussed an effort to prevent John Kerry from facing questions about Clinton’s emails in an upcoming interview on an CBS’ Face the Nation.

“Think we can get this done so he is not asked about email,” said Jennifer Palmieri, the former White House communications director who went on to serve in the same position on Clinton’s campaign.

Transcripts from the March 15, 2015 appearance show Kerry was not asked about the emails during his appearance.

In another, Patrick Kennedy and Heather Samuelson, a Clinton aide who received immunity during the FBI investigation into her emails, complained about a “wildly inaccurate” Politico story that suggested, in May 2015, that Clinton had done the “wrong thing” by operating a private server.

The Politico story in question simply quoted what a State Department representative had said during a Senate hearing. The agency’s inspector general later confirmed that Clinton’s email practices violated State Department record-keeping practices.

Psaki wrote to Palmieri and bragged in March 2015 that she was “good to go on killing CBS idea.”

Read the emails here: 326702703-clinton-coordination-emails-chronological-order-1

The emails were first provided to the Wall Street Journal.

2016 Election Is a Referendum on Government Corruption : Joe Miller Republican Candidate for Senate in Alaska

There is a litmus test. http://joemiller.us/2016/10/2016-election-referendum-government-corruption/

If you would like to know how a Hillary Clinton administration would operate, remind yourself of how her email scandal was handled, not just by Hillary and her aides, but by the Obama Department of Justice, the FBI and the Republicans in Congress — one might say they are all unindicted co-conspirators in a cover-up.

It is a scandal punctuated by government lying and stonewalling and a conspicuous absence of moral courage by those in a position to do the right thing.Author of “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer, said that this secrecy and financial scandal is unprecedented in terms of scale.

The efforts taken by the Clintons to avoid transparency by setting up a private server and the quantity of money flowing to them dwarfs any previous government scandal. During Hillary’s public service, about $250 million went to the Clintons directly and about $2 billion to the Clinton Foundation, an entity seemingly designed to intentionally evade the laws preventing foreign interests from influencing American politics and policy decisions.

If allowed to stand without accountability, the scandal will itself become a precedent for other greedy politicians to follow, essentially putting America up for sale to the highest international bidder.

According to reports, Hillary Clinton established her private email server on Jan. 13, 2009, eight days prior to her confirmation by the Senate as secretary of State. She later identified March 18, 2009, as the date she began using the private server.

Her use of a private nonsecure server for government business, including the exchange of classified material, remained known only to high officials in the Obama administration until after the Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

As a consequence of that attack, the nonpartisan government accountability organization Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of State for Benghazi-related emails and other information on Nov. 7, 2012.

Sometime during the week ending on March 15, 2013, Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, aka “Guccifer,” accessed the email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidant, indicating that Hillary had received sensitive, confidential information on what was later revealed to be the private server she improperly used for government business.

It was not the vigilance of government that uncovered Hillary’s private email server, but the intrusions of a computer hacker and the pressure brought to bear on the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and the FBI through ligation by Judicial Watch.

By March 2015, even the Hillary-friendly New York Times finally admitted that she did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure as secretary of State and she exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business, a potential violation of the Federal Records Act.

And what about Congress?