Displaying posts published in

May 2016

FBI investigation of McAuliffe leaked: why? By Thomas Lifson

The stunning news that the FBI has been investigating Virginia Governor (and key Clinton Machine operative) Terry McAuliffe for a year is widely seen as an ominous sign for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But a lot of tealeaf reading is necessary to figure out what is really going on.

CNN obtained the scoop:

Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and prosecutors from the Justice Department’s public integrity unit, U.S. officials briefed on the probe say.

The investigation dates to at least last year and has focused, at least in part, on whether donations to his gubernatorial campaign violated the law, the officials said. (snip)

As part of the probe, the officials said, investigators have scrutinized McAuliffe’s time as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative, a vehicle of the charitable foundation set up by former President Bill Clinton.

Now who might those “US officials briefed on the probe” be? People with political motives to leak this news. Four basic alternatives suggest themselves:

Someone who wants to damage the Hillary Clinton campaign and is anxious to open a new front in the public controversies over her political machine, including the Clinton Foundation.
Someone anxious to demonstrate that the ongoing FBI probe is serious, and that the Justice Department will not take a dive on pursuing the issues beyond the negligent handling of classified material.
Someone who wants to crate pressure on the Justice Department to act on whatever FBI referrals may be coming.
Someone wants to warn McAuliffe and his associates that they are under scrutiny.

None of these alternatives is good news for the Clinton Machine.

American campus craziness comes to Oxford by DanielHannan

Would you hire a lawyer who couldn’t handle references to violence? If not, then be wary of anyone who graduated from Oxford with a law degree in 2016.

Lecturers at my old university are being told that they should issue ‘trigger warnings’ when discussing ‘potentially distressing’ cases. I suppose it was only a matter of time before this latest madness spread from American to British campuses.

Oxford undergraduates reading English, for example, are now given a “trigger warning” about Robert Lowell’s 1964 poem, “For The Union Dead,” because it contains the following stanza about Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and the all-black 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry that he led during the Civil War:

Shaw’s father wanted no monument

Except the ditch,

Where his son’s body was thrown…

Never mind that the poem is about a memorial to the black and white heroes who fought side-by-side against slavery, all in the midst of the civil rights movement of Lowell’s day. Context is never a defense in these cases. A student’s readiness to take offense trumps the literary canon.

In much the same way, an older student and janitor at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis was disciplined in 2008 for racial harassment just because during his break, he had been seen reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan.

The book is a sympathetic history of Notre Dame students’ opposition to a Ku Klux Klan march in South Bend, Ind., in 1924. But one of his co-workers on the school’s janitorial staff took offense at the image of a Klansman on the cover, and that was all that counted.

British students are having to learn the bizarre newspeak with which Americans are familiar: “micro-aggression,” “safe space,” “cultural appropriation.”

Peter Murphy :Populism Rising

Everything is up for grabs. No one can predict the outcome of the Republicans’ unplanned and uncontrolled stab at an on-the-run renaissance. Whatever happens, it is almost certain to affect Republicans and the American centre-Right for a generation.
One of John Howard’s many virtues was his ability to stamp on populist political movements. He dispatched the “Joh for PM” circus in 1987 and asphyxiated Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in the late 1990s. Howard was a master of judicious centre-Right liberal-conservatism.[1] He had no toleration for the capricious and illiberal character of populist politics. Bjelke-Petersen’s and Hanson’s movements both originated in Queensland. Ditto, the Palmer United Party, the political vehicle of a blustering self-proclaimed billionaire with a penchant for crony capitalism and state largesse. Like modern clothing labels, populism is emblazoned with its creator’s name: Pauline Hanson’s United Australia Party; the Palmer United Party.

By its nature populism is anti-institutional. It downplays party and parliamentary organisation. It favours leaders who have strong media personalities and communicate directly with the general population. The first of these historically was William Jennings Bryan. A magnetic and obsessive public speaker, Bryan captured the US Democratic Party presidential ticket a remarkable three times, in 1896, 1900 and 1908, despite never winning the presidency. Populist politics have been common in Latin America since the 1930s and emerged in Europe after 1945. Populism today is on the rise internationally. In recent elections in Europe the Danish People’s Party won 25 per cent of the vote, the UK Independence Party 12 per cent, Austria’s Freedom Party 20 per cent, France’s National Front 17 per cent, and Norway’s Progress Party 16 per cent. In the wake of Angela Merkel’s open-borders policy folly, the neophyte Alternative for Germany Party received between 12 and 24 per cent in the 2016 state elections. Although these figures fall well short of governing majorities, they indicate populism’s capacity to mobilise votes.

What’s the source of attraction? Almost all discussions of successful populist parties describe their leaders as “charismatic”. Charisma is a hard word to nail down. It suggests an aura around these party leaders but doesn’t explain what produces it. This is not religious charisma. All the same it has a mystery character. It is enigmatic. The enigma lies in the way populists defy the standard polarities of democratic politics: socialist v liberal, liberal v conservative, labour v conservative; in short left v right. Populism plays havoc with these orthodox dichotomies.

Populists don’t fit the pattern. Unsurprisingly then they invariably describe themselves as anti-establishment—that is, as standing outside regular politics. The Left-Right paradigm doesn’t explain them. We see some of this in the first prominent populist, Bryan. He was a theologically fundamentalist Presbyterian elder whose main political effect was to destroy the power of the free-market Bourbon Democrats and rally opposition to US intervention abroad. Populists are often depicted as being on the “hard”, “radical” or “far” Right. In reality they cross over between the boisterous Left and Right or (less commonly) between classic liberalism and national conservatism. They are politically perplexing as a result. Because they are anti-institutional, populist parties necessarily rely on charismatic leadership. Populist leaders appeal over the head of institutions directly to electorates through the media. Populism cannot succeed unless it can focus media attention on the personality of the leader. National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen first achieved a significant vote in the 1984 French elections only after François Mitterrand lifted the

Bronx Man Charged With Supporting Islamic State Sajmir Alimehmeti thought he was helping someone travel to Syria to fight; the person was an undercover agent By Nicole Hong

A 22-year-old Bronx, N.Y., resident was arrested Tuesday and accused of sympathizing with Islamic State, part of a continuing effort by the U.S. to catch the terrorist group’s supporters before they travel overseas or commit violence.

Sajmir Alimehmeti was charged by Manhattan federal prosecutors with providing material support to Islamic State and with passport fraud.

He is accused of facilitating the travel of an individual he believed was heading to Syria to fight for Islamic State. He allegedly gave the individual advice, downloaded encrypted apps onto the individual’s phone, helped purchase supplies and accompanied the individual to the airport. That individual turned out to be an undercover law-enforcement agent, one of four used in the case against Mr. Alimehmeti.

A lawyer for Mr. Alimehmeti hasn’t yet been identified.
Since early 2014, more than 80 individuals have been charged by the U.S. on similar allegations related to the terrorist group. They tend to be in their mid-20s.

The use of undercover agents and paid informants to catch Islamic State supporters has sparked criticism from defense lawyers, who say the government is luring young people into committing crimes. Officials say they target dangerous individuals who would have been predisposed to commit a crime and are careful not to entrap a suspect. CONTINUE AT SITE

Notable & Quotable: David Malpass ‘The Fed has been hurting growth and causing income inequality by misallocating capital to bond issuers.’

From economist David Malpass’s statement to the House Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee on monetary policy and trade, May 17:

I think the Fed has been hurting growth and causing income inequality by misallocating capital to bond issuers. By constantly replenishing its giant long-maturity bond portfolio, it biases the credit system in favor of bond issuers at the expense of smaller borrowers, notably the small new businesses that are critical to U.S. dynamism. The Fed should change direction, including downsizing its balance sheet, reducing its $2.4 trillion in bank debt, reducing the interest rate it pays banks, and shortening the maturity of its $4.2 trillion bond portfolio. These steps would increase growth and income, especially for the middle class which has seen an unprecedented decline in real income during the recovery. . . .

Though I’m critical of Fed policy due to its negative impact on growth and median income, I want to make clear that I support the Fed as an institution. The problem is that Fed policies aren’t working. Its concept of its mission has grown way too large and is not sufficiently focused on maintaining a strong and stable dollar. It has created a huge balance sheet and regulatory apparatus that hurt growth, and it is allowing itself to house inappropriate executive branch functions such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ObamaCare: A Crony Capitalist’s Best Friend Congress blocked the law’s bailout of insurers—who are now suing to reinstate the sweetheart deal, Marco Rubio

The evidence keeps mounting: Six years after being signed into law, ObamaCare is a costly and unsustainable disaster.

Look at what has happened in the past month alone. A federal court ruled that the Obama administration violated the law by spending money on ObamaCare subsidies without an appropriation from Congress.

In Florida, 15 health insurers are seeking an average increase in premiums of 17.7% for 2017. The continued raiding of Medicare Advantage—ObamaCare was projected in 2012 to cut $156 billion from the program over a decade—hurts many seniors in my home state and nationwide.

The health law’s sweeping mandates continue to target faith-based organizations like the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor. These nuns remain tied up in litigation because they rightfully believe that God and the Constitution’s religious-freedom protections are higher authorities than President Obama and his administration’s unconstitutional and liberal agenda.

ObamaCare is also bringing out corporate America’s worst crony-capitalist impulses. The health-insurance lobby has teamed up with trial lawyers to sue the federal government—through individual lawsuits and a $5 billion class action—for not following through on a sweetheart bailout deal buried in the law. This provision of ObamaCare would have required taxpayers to bail out insurers for losing money on the health-care exchanges.

I was the first person in Congress to take action to stop these bailouts. In late 2013 I introduced legislation to repeal this provision entirely and later another bill to make this so-called “risk corridors” program “budget neutral.” My conservative colleagues and I sounded the alarm about the likelihood of a taxpayer-funded bailout of health insurers (and were mocked as Chicken Littles for it). But we built a coalition to stop the bailouts.

When it came time to pass a spending bill at the end of 2014, we succeeded in making it the law of the land that the ObamaCare bailout program could not cost taxpayers a single cent—which ended up saving taxpayers $2.5 billion. In December of last year, we came back and repeated the feat. Now I am urging leaders in both the House and Senate to make this a priority and stop the bailout a third time.

That the health-insurance companies are suing to try to get their bailout is disgusting. The law—not to mention corresponding legal opinions issued by the federal government—makes clear that Congress must appropriate any net spending by the risk-corridor program.

In fact, one reason it was important to make clear in the law that the risk-corridor program must be budget-neutral was to protect the federal government from this exact kind of lawsuit that insurers have now filed against it. Because payments are being made only using fees paid by the insurance companies, the program is fulfilling its statutory obligation. CONTINUE AT SITE

Austrian Freedom Party: Victory in Defeat Austrian Presidential Elections Reveal Deeply Divided Country by Soeren Kern

European political and media elites have been quick to hail the election of Van der Bellen, who campaigned on a pro-immigration, pro-EU platform. They seem to believe his razor-thin win validates their uninterrupted pursuit of European multiculturalism.

Meanwhile, European elites have expressed relief at Norbert Hofer’s defeat. Their reactions would indicate that they unaware that they are largely responsible for the rise of anti-establishment parties in Austria and other parts of Europe.

“Europe has been polarized for years by misguided policies pursued by the old major parties, not only in Germany but in many European countries. The fact is that it must be our task to preserve freedom, democracy and the rule of law across the continent. And the policy of open borders does exactly the opposite.” — Frauke Petry, Alternative for Germany party.

Norbert Hofer of the anti-immigration Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) has been narrowly defeated in his bid to become Austria’s next president.

Alexander Van der Bellen, former leader of Austrian Greens party, won 50.3% of the vote, compared to 49.7% for Hofer. The margin of victory was 31,026 out of nearly 4.5 million votes cast.

European political and media elites have been quick to hail the election of Van der Bellen, who campaigned on a pro-immigration, pro-EU platform. They seem to believe his razor-thin win validates their uninterrupted pursuit of European multiculturalism.

UCI 911: Police Rescue Jewish Students as Intifada Returns to Campus By Rabbi Yonah Bookstein

Hearing chants of “Long live the Intifada” on video shot at UCI Wednesday night brings back the tumultuous and scary days as a campus rabbi at University of California, Irvine. (Video below)
As the campus rabbi at UCI for almost five years, I became accustomed to constant anti-Israel programs, racist and anti-semitic speakers, anti-Israel marches, protests and disruptions and an administration that looked the other way or denied how bad it was.
The atmosphere was so toxic, that in a blog post in May of 2006, I coined the phrase “UC Intifada” to describe their hateful anti-Israel, anti-Jewish campaign.
The Muslim Student Union later adopted it as their motto, made t-shirts, and it can be seen today on the Students for Justice – UCI Facebook page.
The most infamous episode — but by no means the worst — was in February 2010, when eleven Muslim students conspired to prevent Ambassador Michael Oren from speaking, and then lied about it. This embarrassed then UCI President Drake and the University, and the climate improved as the ring-leaders were now having to defend themselves on criminal misdemeanor charges. They had less time to parade hate and racism. I was asked by a prominent muslim leader to sign a letter requesting charges be dropped. I agreed on condition the group apologize for their behavior. They showed zero remorse.

TOM GROSS: DISPATCHES…

“Relax, Lieberman won’t bomb Egypt… He’s a pragmatist and he’s harmless”
100 years on, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Jon Stewart and Joe Biden all agree…
Aryeh’s violin: The Improbable Happiness of Israelis (& Turkish brawl as MPs beat up Kurds)
How British leftists omitted Jews from the list of Holocaust victims

“Relax, Lieberman won’t bomb Egypt… He’s a pragmatist and he’s harmless”I attach several articles concerning the agreement in Israel to bring the Yisrael Beiteinu party into the governing coalition, and appoint its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, as defense minister.

Delegitimizing Israel in Our Classrooms Ziva Dahl

The New York Times Upfront magazine, distributed by paid subscription to approximately 1 million American 8th to 12th graders, recently included an article, “How the Middle East Got that Way.” Author Joseph Berger, former Times reporter, blames the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 for the current mess in the Middle East.

In his view, “a century ago, two diplomats carved out lines on the Middle East map, creating new nations and sowing the seeds for much of the strife in the region today.”

Referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Berger tells students, “Most Arabs opposed the Zionist movement, which called for a Jewish state in Palestine. But world pressure to create a Jewish homeland increased after World War II… because 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.”

The article emphasizes that Western imperialism created the Arab-Israeli conflict because Sykes (British) and Picot (French) disregarded the wishes and rights of the indigenous Arab population and, Berger writes, “Arab leaders were angry” and “felt betrayed.”

The article continues, “In 1947, Britain, with approval from the United Nations, came up with a partition plan (to) create the nations of Israel and Palestine…. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries rejected it… (and) fought an unsuccessful war…. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel expanded territory…by capturing lands where many Palestinians were living…. The occupied Palestinians continue to demand a state of their own.”

Reading this description of historical events, young students, with little pre-existing knowledge about the topic, have no idea why the Jews would want a nation-state in the Middle East, which Berger characterizes as “Arab.” The author portrays the Arabs as victims of Western domination, legitimizing their 1948 rejection of a Jewish state and their subsequent war against newly declared Israel.

Neither the article nor the teacher’s guide or handouts mention the 3,000-year historical connection of the Jews to the area, the continuous Jewish presence in this land, the Jewish immigration to their historic homeland in the late 19th and early 20th century or the promise made to the Jews for a national homeland in Palestine in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Also lacking is information about the 1922 League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine to create a Jewish national home in today’s Israel, the “West Bank” and Sinai and the UN’s assumption of that international legal commitment.

The article’s failure to provide historical and legal context for the Jewish presence in the Middle East and the establishment of the Jewish state delegitimizes the creation of Israel. The Jews are made to look like foreign colonialists taking Arab land — the false narrative promoted by Arabs and Western progressives.