Displaying the most recent of 91920 posts written by

Ruth King

Hillary’s Neoliberals Some Republicans have cultural and political affinities that are pulling them away from Trump and toward Clinton. By Victor Davis Hanson

Many elections redefine political parties.

The rise of George McGovern’s hard-left agenda in 1972, followed later in the decade by Jimmy Carter’s evangelical liberalism, drove centrist Democrats into the arms of Richard Nixon and later Ronald Reagan.

These so-called neoconservatives (“new conservatives”) grew tired of liberals’ perceived laxity about fighting the Cold War. In foreign policy, the neoconservatives were best known for supporting idealistic nation-building abroad. They distrusted the rise of what would become political correctness and ever more government. They worried about violent crime and higher taxes. So decades ago, these Democrats joined the Republican party.

Since the 1980s, the neoconservatives have made up the elite of their newly adopted party — despite their unease with the conservative orthodoxy of border enforcement, fierce resistance to gun control, and opposition to abortion.

Now, a few neoconservatives are reinventing themselves again and returning to the Democrats to support Hillary Clinton. We could call them “neoliberals.”

They believe that socialist Bernie Sanders made the hard-Left Clinton seem like an acceptable centrist. As neoliberals, they hope that beneath her opportunistic embrace of Obamism, Clinton still could recalibrate herself as more of a Democrat of the 1990s, a period when her husband, President Bill Clinton, championed balancing the budget while intervening abroad.

Neoliberals — along with some members of the conservative establishment — consider Republican party nominee Donald Trump to be toxic. Many of them are supporting Clinton because they do not like Trump’s idea of building a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration. Nor do they appreciate Trump’s slogans about “putting America first” when negotiating trade deals, conducting alliances, and avoiding optional foreign interventions. They hate Trump’s crude, take-no-prisoners invective more than Hillary’s polished and refined lying.

The 2016 neoliberals were never very culturally conservative. So they are certainly not bothered by Clinton’s pro-choice advocacy. They do not mind her promotion of gun control, and they are open to global warming agendas and soft multiculturalism. They see Clinton as preferable to Trump and his unapologetic nationalism. Many of the neoliberal converts supported the Obama–Clinton intervention in Libya and oppose Trump’s get-tough trade stance on China.

Neoliberals also find themselves more in the same class — defined by income, education, and cultural tastes — with Clinton’s elite Democrats than with Trump’s new army of lower-middle-class cultural and economic populists.

Neoliberals get along well with the small elite class that fuels the Clinton machine — similarly wealthy, well-educated grandees on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, along with those in big media, academia, the arts, and the top echelons of state and federal bureaucracies.

Democrats no longer win over the middle classes, who lack the culture of the elite and the romance of the distant and subsidized poor. NASCAR and the NRA are anathemas to Democrats and were never popular with neoconservatives either.

Will the old neoconservatives/new neoliberals who support Clinton instead of Trump ever come back to the Republican party after the election?

It depends on three unknowns.

Islamic State ‘calls on jihadists’ to target Miss Universe competition in the Philippines Isis terrorists have been attempting to expand their reach into south-east Asia.ByPriyanka Mogul

Islamic State (Isis) terrorists have called on jihadists to attack the Miss Universe competition being held in the Philippines in January 2017. The call for the terrorist attacks was made through their online networks and directed “everyone who can” to launch an attack on the global beauty pageant.

According to SITE Intel Group, which reports on jihadist threats online, a Filipino jihadi telegram channel posted a video on how to make suicide belts. It suggested followers “create [the] bomb for Miss Universe”.

The call for jihadists addressed “brothers who love martyrdom”. The annual beauty pageant is due to be held in the Philippines capital Manila in January 2017.

A statement from SITE Intel Group said: “A pro-Islamic State telegram channel posted an explosive belt manufacturing video and a timed hand grenade manual, and suggested to ‘create bomb for Miss Universe’, referring to the beauty pageant to be held in the Philippines in January 2017.”

Although the online threats could not be verified, Isis has been expanding its presence in the Philippines and attempting to recruit more jihadist fighters from the country. In June 2016, the terrorist group released its first recruitment video for the Philippines and its neighbouring countries.

Blatant Cronyism in Newly Released Clinton Emails By Debra Heine

Forty-four more work email exchanges Clinton hadn’t turned over. She continues to insist she gave everything.

On Tuesday, Judicial Watch released 296 pages of Hillary Clinton’s email records as part of its lawsuit against the State Department. Within the release are 44 government email exchanges that had not previously been turned over to the State Department, falsifying Clinton’s oft-repeated claim that she had turned over all of her government emails.

The messages were found during a search of agency computer files of long-time Clinton aide Huma Abedin. They reveal that while in office — and in violation of ethics agreements she agreed to when she was appointed secretary of State — Hillary Clinton interacted with lobbyists, political and Clinton Foundation donors, and business interests:

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

As a close friend of Bill’s and a top donor to the Clinton foundation, Chagoury was indeed a “key guy” to the Clintons:

He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Canadian ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist Planned Suicide Bombing of Major City, Killed in Overnight Police Operation By Patrick Poole

A Canadian man known as an ISIS supporter and who was released in February on a peace bond has been killed in an overnight police raid in his hometown of Strathroy, Ontario. Authorities said that Aaron Driver, aka Harun Abdurahman, had planned a suicide attack on a major Canadian city. An alert sent to Canadian law enforcement authorities yesterday indicated that an attack was imminent.

This is the most recent example of what I have termed “known wolf” terrorism, where a suspect was already known to law enforcement.

And reports of at least one raid early this morning may indicate that Driver was not acting alone.

CBC reports:

CBC News has confirmed that Aaron Driver, a suspect being sought in connection with a terror threat, has been killed in a confrontation with police in Strathroy, Ont.

A family member confirmed the death of the 24-year-old.

CBC News has learned that Driver’s family was told by the RCMP that police shot Driver after he detonated an explosive device that injured himself and another person. The family was also told Driver had another device that he was going to detonate, which is why police shot him.

A senior police official told Canadian Press Wednesday the suspect allegedly planned to use a bomb to carry out a suicide bombing mission in a public area but was killed in a police operation.

The RCMP were conducting an operation in a residential southwestern Ontario neighbourhood of Strathroy on Wednesday evening after it said credible information of a potential terrorist act was received earlier in the day.

So despite being released by Canadian authorities on a “peace bond” in February, Driver was apparently able to build or receive multiple explosive devices under the noses of law enforcement.

Driver was well known to authorities and had been the subject of numerous media reports over the past two years going back to his support for the October 2014 Parliament Hill shooting that killed one military honor guard and ended in a shootout inside Canada’s Parliament building.

But despite his open support for ISIS, he assured authorities and the media he was no threat.

Impeach Obama for Smuggling Cash to Iran From Carter to Obama, it’s time for politicians to pay a price for appeasing Iran. Daniel Greenfield

The Islamic Republic of Iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. That move came several years after Iran had seized American hostages while demanding $24 billion in cash and gold to be paid into a Muslim bank for their release.

The total, according to Secretary of State Muskie, came out to $480 million per hostage.

Carter eventually reached a deal to release billions to Iran while Muskie claimed that the ransom payment meant that “the United States emerged stronger and Iran emerged weaker.” Such counterintuitive arguments have become a staple of Obama rhetoric which insists that appeasing terrorists somehow weakens them and strengthens us.

Muskie also said the deal would “not to make any arrangement to encourage terrorism in the future”.

That of course was not true. Paying out ransom to terrorists only encourages more terrorism. While the hostages were freed, the terror tactic never went away.

In 1989, Iran was still trying to blackmail President George H.W. Bush by offering to free yet more American hostages in exchange for around $12 billion in assets. The hostages had been seized by terrorist affiliates of Iran which by now had been on the state sponsor of terror list for nearly half a decade.

Carter’s ransom deal blatantly violated the law. His Treasury Department ordered banks to defy the courts which were addressing claims of damages by American companies. While he and his administration insisted that they were not paying ransom because it was Iran’s money (a familiar claim that has been repeated by Obama with his own ransom payment), that’s exactly what they were doing.

It’s how Iran saw it. It’s why Iran kept taking hostages and demanding ransoms.

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation “See no evil” ought to be the motto of the Obama administration. Matthew Vadum

The highly politicized Department of Justice swatted down pesky FBI requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, CNN reported yesterday.

CNN buried the lede, as it frequently does on news stories that make Democrats look bad. The online version bears the innocuous-sounding headline, “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.”

It is not until the 25th paragraph that the article states that an unidentified law enforcement official gave CNN a heads-up earlier this year. As the probe of Clinton’s private email servers was ramping up “several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”

At that time, the article continues, the Justice Department “declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to open a case.”

Not even enough evidence to look into the foundation’s affairs?

Not more than a year after the publication of Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, opened the floodgates for investigative reporters to dig into the matter.

As I’ve written before, various lawyers have told me there is already a strong legal case against Mrs. Clinton. The fact that she destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.

Cynthia E. Ayers : Fraud, Waste and Sabotage

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Cynthia E. Ayers is currently Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. Prior to accepting the Task Force position, she served as Vice President of EMPact Amercia, having retired from the National Security Agency after over 38 years of federal service.

“A few blows from a sledge hammer in the right place, can stop a power station working [sic].”

George Orwell

George Orwell, in his 1942 essay entitled “The Meaning of Sabotage,” discussed the ability of a few within Europe to significantly inhibit the workings of Hitler’s military industrial base. His discription of active, physical sabotage was instructive; but he also explained the concept of “passive sabotage” – a form of willful demolition that is much less recognizable as such. This type of vandalism can be accomplished by slowing processes; encouraging confusion, complexity and chaos; and otherwise “preventing it [e.g. the system, organization, etc.] from working smoothly.”

If Orwell were alive to analyze the current status of U.S. federal bureaucracies, what would his findings be? Can fraud and waste be categorized as vandalism? Do our federal systems work “smoothly?” If not – why?

The extent to which governmental megasystems have become bogged down in red tape, regulatory obstacles, remunerative favoritism, and politically biased tendencies should be obvious, at this point, to even the casual observer. Extensive scandals associated with the VA, IRS, GSA, EPA, OPM, DOJ, and other “alphabet soup” organizations that would have been unimaginable 15 or 20 years ago seem almost as if ripped from the pages of an Orwellian novel. Confusion, complexity and chaos? Yes! Sabotage? Perhaps. Intent may be hard to prove, yet it appears that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

What about waste? In addition to the wasteful spending on vacant buildings and unused property, reports of bad accounting practices and unwanted/unnecessary “stimulus” projects fuel the fire of taxpayer fury. Billions of dollars have been spent on dubious research, programs such as commodity advertisements, subsidies for alternative energy sources, community restoration and entertainment (beach re-sanding, private golf courses, teen centers), “humanitarian” benefits (broadband access, cell phones), and unneeded equipment (jets, airplanes, cars, tanks, office decor). Some estimates include at least a few billion dollars of the huge amounts exported under the label “foreign aid.” Is there waste? Unquestionably.

Peter Huessy: Risking Armageddon for $1 Billion a Year

Everybody is looking for defense dollars. The latest sleuth is Luke O’Brien, an Army “Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Fellow” at the National Defense University. He thinks he has found a $62 billion pot of cash if we just got rid of our land based ICBMs. The money could then be spent on more important conventional military needs.

It is true nuclear modernization of the USA deterrent force will cost $700 billion over the next 25 years according to a study done by the Center for Security and International Studies. At first glance that is a great deal of money. But it averages $28 billion a year for nearly 500 missiles, submarines and bombers, 5-12 types of warheads, the command and control associated with the force, and the nuclear laboratories and facilities supporting warhead production, safety and refurbishment.

This comes to 4.6% of the current defense budget and a projected ½ of 1% of the Federal budget in 2025 at the initial peak of modernization spending.

Now it is also true that to improve military readiness now and restore both our nuclear and conventional deterrent, we need more defense funding in the next five year defense plan, and certainly in the next decade. Otherwise we may end up with a hollow military much as we did at the end of the Carter administration. But killing ICBMs simply doesn’t solve either problem.

In the next ten years the nuclear platforms including nuclear capable bombers, land based missiles, and submarines will cost $135 billion. These funds are roughly divided between sustainment of old systems and modernization for new ones.

The ICBM sustainment is $15 billon while another $7 billion would be for modernization. A modest additional amount is also projected to be spent on ICBM warheads and new command and control systems bringing the total to around $24 billion for the next decade.

Turkey, Europe’s Little Problem by Burak Bekdil

Europe is giving signals, albeit slowly, that it may be waking up from the “Turkey-the-bridge” dream. Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmaier said that his country’s relations with Turkey have grown so bad the two countries have virtually “no basis” for talks.

“Italy should be attending to the mafia, not my son,” said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Typically, he does not understand the existence of independent judiciary in a European country. He thinks, as in an Arab sheikdom, prosecutors are liable to drop charges on orders from the prime minister.

“We know that the democratic standards are clearly not sufficient to justify [Turkey’s] accession [to the European Union].” — Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern.

Nations do not have the luxury, as people often do, of choosing their neighbors. Turkey, under the 14-year rule of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist governments, and neighboring both Europe and the Middle East, was once praised as a “bridge” between Western and Islamic civilizations. Its accession into the European Union (EU) was encouraged by most EU and American leaders. Nearly three decades after its official bid to join the European club, Turkey is not yet European but has become one of Europe’s problems.

Europe’s “Turkish problem” is not only about the fact that in a fortnight a bomb attack wrecked a terminal of the country’s biggest airport and a coup attempt killed nearly 250 people; nor is it about who rules the country. It is about the undeniable democratic deficit both in governance and popular culture.

In only the past couple of weeks, Turkey was in the headlines with jaw-dropping news. In Istanbul, a secretary at a daily newspaper was attacked by a group of people who accused her of “wearing revealing clothes and supporting the July 15 failed coup.” She was six months pregnant.

Also in Istanbul, a Syrian gay refugee was murdered: he had been beheaded and mutilated. One social worker helping LGBT groups said: “Police are doing nothing because he is Syrian and because he is gay.”

Turkey is dangerous not only for gays and refugees. A French tourist was left bloodied and beaten by Turkish nationalists after he refused to hold a Turkish flag. Grisly footage shows the gang, encouraged by Erdogan to patrol the streets on “democracy watch,” telling the man “You will be punched if you don’t hold the flag.” The tourist is alone and does not appear to speak Turkish.

Is Israel about to Sign a Terrible Deal? by Shoshana Bryen

100% of the money will be spent in the U.S., while Israel is presently able to spend 25% in Israel. This is a subsidy for U.S. defense industries and constrains Israel’s defense choices by forcing the IDF to exclude weapons from Europe and elsewhere.

Without the ability to spend some money in Israel, it will be harder for smaller defense and high-tech industries to keep up.

Israel will be prohibited from asking Congress for additional funds for ten years, effectively removing a bipartisan center of support for Israel’s security from the equation and reducing Israel’s flexibility in addressing rapidly emerging threats.

This could be particularly problematic: an administration that opposes missile defense in principle — as does the Obama administration — could effectively stifle Israel, which protects its people with a layered missile defense system.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between two parties — in this case, the governments of Israel and the United States. It is less than a treaty, more than a handshake. The first MOU was signed in 1981, recognizing “the common bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel and builds on the mutual security relationship that exists between the two nations.” The current MOU, signed in 2007, represented a 10-year commitment. The Obama Administration and the government of Israel have been negotiating a new 10-year agreement that will come into effect in 2017.