Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

JED BABBIN- HILLARY THE VIOLENT HUMANITARIAN

Her record on defense and foreign policy offers a cautionary tale

After yet another meeting of diplomats failed to resolve the war in Syria, our ever-clueless secretary of state, John Kerry, said on October 15 that diplomacy would continue because of “the urgency of trying to find something that works other than military action.”

As if it were intended to illustrate Kerry’s foolishness, a Russian navy battle group led by the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov sailed for Syria less than a week later to engage its combat aircraft against the U.S.-backed forces trying to topple Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Sending the Kuznetsov wasn’t a militarily necessity. Other Russian aircraft could have easily been deployed to Syria. But sending the aircraft carrier is a demonstration of Russia’s ability to project power and a reminder to America and its allies that diplomacy cannot succeed unless it is backed by the threat of military force.

Though he may do more harm before he leaves office, President Obama will soon be irrelevant. It’s time to look to the future. As ghastly as that prospect is, unless the most reliable pollsters are badly wrong, that president will be Hillary Clinton.

Her record provides all the evidence we need to derive the bases on which she would decide matters of defense and foreign policy as well as the most likely result. Those factors compel the conclusion that the events of the next four years will prove far worse than we expect.

The relentless ineptitude of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team did not proceed from the same foundation as Mrs. Clinton would on her own. She is campaigning on her claims of experience in making the hardest decisions a president has to make.

There are four key proofs that enable us to determine the manner and means by which Mrs. Clinton will decide foreign policy and defense matters.

Clinton Crony’s Allies Donated $675,000 to Political Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife By Andrew C. McCarthy

A thick fog of impropriety continues to linger around Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal.

Every time you think you must have heard the last of the irregularities in the Clinton e-mails investigation, another shoe drops. So now we learn that the political backers of a longtime Clinton crony and fixer, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, made $675,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to the election campaign of the wife of the FBI official who later ran the investigation of Mrs. Clinton.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, the contributions went to the 2015 Virginia state senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, the wife of then-associate-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. McAuliffe had recruited Dr. McCabe to run. After her campaign ended unsuccessfully (Dr. McCabe lost to incumbent Republican Dick Black), Andrew McCabe was promoted to deputy director, a role in which he assumed oversight of the Clinton e-mail investigation.

The donations to Dr. McCabe’s campaign included nearly half a million dollars from McAuliffe’s political action committee. The Virginia Democratic party, which McAuliffe substantially controls, also contributed over $200,000 in the form of “mailers.” McAuliffe is reportedly under investigation due to unrelated allegations of campaign-finance violations.

The appearance of impropriety here is disturbing, but it should be put in perspective. The FBI investigation overseen by Deputy Director McCabe uncovered significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton and her associates — they obviously put together a strong case despite being significantly undermined by the Justice Department. The decision to recommend against prosecution was made by FBI director James Comey, not McCabe. It was highly unusual for the FBI to make a public recommendation about prosecution, and Comey’s was primarily based not the evidence but on his legal analysis of the relevant statutes (which is even more unusual since that is not the FBI’s job).

The ultimate decision, moreover, was made not by the FBI but by the Obama Justice Department. On that score, we now know (a) the president, using an alias, had willfully e-mailed Clinton’s private account, notwithstanding that he later told the public he’d learned about her use of private e-mail from news reports, so any charges brought against Clinton would have implicated him — that was not going to happen; (b) while the investigation was still underway, President Obama endorsed Clinton, and he made public statements indicating her actions did not endanger national security, undermining the case against her; and (c) Obama’s attorney general furtively met with former President Bill Clinton — i.e., the husband of the main subject of the investigation — shortly before announcing (after Comey’s unusual public recommendation) that the case was being closed without charges.

Between Nazism and communism Hungary is commemorating 60 years since the 1956 uprising against the Soviet communist regime • Hungarian Jews feared that the locals would once again turn on them and the fact that some of the rebel leaders were Jewish just fed the anti-Semites’ hatred. Ronen Dorfan

Last weekend, Hungary marked the 60th anniversary of its famous 1956 uprising against the Soviet regime. The revolt, which lasted three weeks before it was quashed by Red Army tanks, was the first significant military conflict on European soil since World War II. The events echoed worldwide as the first crack in the Soviet bloc.

When it came to internal Hungarian affairs, the political story was complicated and remains so even today, since the leaders of the revolt against the Soviet communists were mainly idealistic Hungarian communists, who became mythical heroes to the country’s modern Right, and even the extreme Right.

The revolt broke out 11 years and four months after the end of the Holocaust, which in Hungary was perpetrated mainly by locals. The Jewish community was still very afraid of a rise in Hungarian nationalism. The revolt created a problem of loyalty for the Jews of Hungary, whom the Soviet Union had saved from Hitler and his collaborators. The fact that a few of the communist leaders were Jews just fueled the hatred of the anti-Semites.

Sixty years after the revolt, Israel Hayom spoke with some Jewish Hungarians who were there. They describe the tragedy of a generation trapped between Nazism and communism.

‘We woke up to the sound of tanks’

Eva Fahidi did not need the 1956 revolt to understand that sometimes life is an ideological lie. In 1936, when she was 11, her father took the whole family to church to convert to Christianity. He thought that converting would save them from further troubles in a country that had already passed sweeping anti-Semitic laws. Eight years later, the family ended up in a cattle car on a train to Auschwitz, with 14,000 other Jews from Debrecen. Two of Fahidi’s aunts survived the war, although one, a doctor, committed suicide two years later, unable to bear the memories.

Hillary F. Clinton Curses Those Who Keep Her Safe Hillary routinely berated her security detail — and in the worst language possible. By Deroy Murdock

Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”

Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying.

“She derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.

In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those who work for her spans decades.

While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words.

“I’m not voting for Clinton,” Air Force staff sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.

“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9 handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.”

“One of my last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”

According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that f***ing dog away from me.”

“Then she turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’”

“Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but Hillary.”

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through “Oversamples” by Tyler Durden

Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary. Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.

“METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats – Republicans – Independents.”

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll.

Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily “rig” a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters. Therefore, even a small “oversample” of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points. Moreover, the pollsters don’t provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to “fact check” the bias…convenient.

ABC Poll

Now, for all of you out there who still aren’t convinced that the polls are “adjusted”, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to “manufacture” the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.”

Tavis Smiley’s Slaves Racial privilege, guilt and oppression. Daniel Greenfield

PBS personality Tavis Smiley stopped by Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a private “Hidden Ivy” with a modest $45K tuition and was asked about whether slavery might make a comeback.

“Mr. Smiley, do you believe that given the crisis state of our democracy, we black folk could ever find ourselves enslaved again?” a student at this elite institution asked the millionaire.

Smiley assured readers of Time Magazine, the flagship product of a multi-billion dollar corporation headquartered near the World Trade Center, that slavery could very well make a comeback.

Why? What possible reason did Tavis Smiley have for anticipating the return of not merely Jim Crow, but cotton plantations and chains? Because the Senate has yet to act on Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The South will rise again… because a judicial nominee’s confirmation was delayed. It’s the sort of thing Senate Democrats used to think was good clean fun.

One of the victims of their judicial delaying tactics was Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a sharecropper’s daughter, who was blocked for years. Judge Garland, unlike Judge Brown, is white. Why does blocking him from tilting the Supreme Court further to the left represent the return of slavery?

Merrick Garland, a man whom Tavis Smiley, like the rest of the left, couldn’t have been bothered to sneeze at a few years ago, is now suddenly the litmus test for the return of slavery. It’s not about Garland. It’s about Obama. And, more specifically, it’s about the insecurity and guilt of the Smileys.

The curious characteristic of this current wave of angry activism is the privileged nature of the activists.

Consider Colin Kaepernick with his $114 million salary standing up to oppression, the $150 million social justice activism of Black Lives Matter, Yale students shrieking themselves silly over Halloween costumes and a dialogue between a millionaire PBS host and a student at a prestigious college over whether slavery might be coming back. These people are not oppressed by grinding poverty, deprivation of civil rights or any other plausible metrics of discrimination. They are oppressed by their privilege.

The State Department’s Disproportionate Animus Toward Israel The hypocrisy of Mark Toner’s condemnation of Israel’s plan to resettle Amona evacuees. Joseph Puder

U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner issued, on October 5, 2016 a statement that “strongly condemned” Israel’s plan to resettle the Amona evacuees whose settlement is to be demolished by an order of Israel’s Supreme Court. Toner stated that “proceeding with this new settlement, which could include 300 units, would further damage the prospects of a two-state solution.” The same term “strongly condemn” was used by the State Department when the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons against civilians. Equating the murder of innocent civilians by a brutal dictator with 300 new housing units to resettle Israeli civilians in Shiloh, whose homes are due to be demolished in December, is disproportionate to say the least.

Toner’s boss, Secretary of State John Kerry in London with British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, issued the following statement (October 16, 2016), “Suffice it to say that all of us are more than concerned and deeply, deeply disturbed by and outraged by what is happening in Aleppo, which is in the year 2016, in the beginning of the 21st century, a horrendous step back in time to a kind of barbarianism, a use of force that is of insult to all of the values that the United Nations and most countries believe should guide our actions.” Secretary Kerry expressed “concern” and was “deeply disturbed” by events in Aleppo, but did not “strongly condemn” the killing of thousands of Syrian civilians in Aleppo. The U.S. State Department has disproportionality displayed animus in its attitude toward Israel, and it smacks of a deep bias on top of a long history of anti-Semitism at Foggy Bottom.

In response to a reporter’s question as to why President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry did not use the term “strongly condemn” that the State Department spokesman used, Toner replied: “Well, there have been times in the past when it has come – these kinds of words have come from either Secretary Kerry or President Obama, and the message is always the same, which is we view settlements as counterproductive and counter to Israel’s interests. We’re going to keep up with that message and we’re going to keep conveying it to the Israeli Government when they take these kinds of actions. I think this one was, as we noted in the statement, particularly exceptional in the fact that it came mere days after we had concluded this memorandum of understanding, and also in the wake of one of Israel’s leading statesmen, Shimon Peres’s death.”

Hillary vs. The Education of American Children What Clinton’s proposed amnesty for illegal aliens would really do. Michael Cutler

Two recurrent claims made by Hillary Clinton are that she will stand with Americans families against powerful interests and corporations and that she will increase spending on educating children to help them succeed.

These populist promises may resonate with many Americans. However, as my mom used to say, “Actions speak louder than words.

Hillary Clinton’s grandiose plans to provide unknown numbers of illegal aliens with lawful status would make her other promises impossible to keep.

During the last debate she stated that she would do whatever she needs to do so that workers will have good jobs with rising incomes.

However, for Hillary and the administration, American workers literally don’t count.

Today tens of millions of working-age Americans have left the labor force and are not counted by the Labor Department when it provides unemployment statistics. In point of fact each month the United States admits more foreign workers than the number of new jobs that are created.

Legalizing millions of new foreign workers would serve to flood the labor pool with many more authorized workers providing unfair competition for beleaguered American workers, especially within the low income sector. Under the principle of “Supply & Demand” flooding a market with a commodity drives down the value of that commodity. Labor is not unlike any other commodity such as petroleum, steel or aluminum.

It is a bit ironic that during the third and final debate Hillary Clinton attacked Trump, alleging that he had used steel and aluminum that had been “dumped” in the United States by China. Dumping is an economic crime when it involves dumping a large quantity of a commodity into the marketplace in order to artificially reduce the value of that commodity. This is precisely what the open-border policies of the administration that Clinton promises to not only continue but expand, where the commodity of foreign labor is concerned.

Saint Louis University: Islamic Stronghold The campus’s mistreatment of Col. Allen West for daring to say “radical Islam” is only the tip of the iceberg. Matthew Vadum

Founded two centuries ago, Saint Louis University began as a Roman Catholic institution, but given its antics in recent years, one could be forgiven for believing that it might be better classified as an Islamic university. The most recent example of this transformation took place last month when more than a hundred students, egged on by campus administration, walked out of a speech by black former congressman Allen West because he dared to use the phrase “radical Islam.”

“Radical Islam” is the same expression that Muslim sympathizer President Barack Hussein Obama refuses to say. Obama, who claims to be a Christian, famously waxes poetic on the Muslim call to prayer, describing it as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” With his head firmly planted in the sand, the president is also reluctant to label Muslim terrorist attacks as such, preferring to use the fuzzy abstraction “violent extremism.”

At Saint Louis University the campus administration tried to dictate the contents of the national security-themed speech in late September sponsored by Young America’s Foundation (YAF), but West, an outspoken conservative who represented a Florida district in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2013 as a Republican, refused to buckle under pressure. An SLU administrator told conservative and Republican students promoting the event that advertisements for it could not contain the words “radical Islam.”

SLU president Fred Pestello called West a “provocateur” and said in an email to students that he stood in “solidarity” with them.

Student Claire Cunningham whined to the Riverfront Times about her hurt feelings.

“Our administrator made a request for him to tailor his speech to our community, and in response he made a lot of hateful comments about our students,” she said.

No Justice in the Netherlands by Judith Bergman

It is deeply troubling that the court already before the criminal trial has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and “inconvenient” political views?

If you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including problems with immigrants and other population groups.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”

In its case law, the Court has stated that Article 10 “…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety.

Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no longer independent and impartial state institutions.

A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders’ appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”