Displaying posts published in

August 2016

Hillary Clinton’s loose e-lips

Normally, Iran’s execution of a nuclear scientist who gave information to the United States would draw no unusual attention — but this one popped up in Hillary Clinton’s infamous e-mails.

The then-secretary of state discussed Shahram Amiri with several aides in communications kept on her unprotected private server — including just days before he abruptly left America to return to Tehran.

That raises a fresh flood of questions about Clinton’s home-brewed setup — which she insists was well protected but the FBI believes was most likely hacked by “hostile” interests.

Amiri’s is a bizarre case, to be sure. For years, he reportedly provided info from inside Iran about its nuclear program. Then he went missing in Saudi Arabia in 2009, only to resurface a year later in two Internet videos. In one, he claimed he’d been kidnaped and tortured by the CIA. In the other, he said he was free and safe in America.

In July 2010, he appeared at the Pakistani embassy in DC saying he wanted to return to Iran, where his wife and young son still lived. He did so days later and was given a hero’s welcome — before vanishing.

Last week came word Iran had hanged Amiri for treason — having likely lured him home with threats against his family.

In one e-mail to Clinton, just days before he showed up at the embassy, Clinton energy envoy Richard Morningstar urged that “our friend has to be given a way out” and claimed his was a “psychological issue.”

Proper stuff for top folks at State to address — on secure systems, unlike Clinton’s. Even with zero sign that these e-mails contributed to Amiri’s fate, it still underscores just how reckless Clinton was with classified information — a fact she still won’t admit.

And if US enemies did hack her server, this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Want a job? Give to the Clinton Foundation right away!

Here’s fresh proof that Hillary Clinton can indeed create jobs — for loyal patrons of Clinton, Inc., that is.

Documents released Tuesday by the good-government group Judicial Watch show Clinton’s top State Department people doing favors for Clinton donors.

The information includes 44 e-mail exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department by the ex-secretary or her aides — despite their sworn statements to have shared all records.

In April 2009, then-Clinton Foundation chief Doug Band pushed Hillaryites Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills to find a position for an associate: It’s “important to take care of [name redacted].” Abedin replies: “We all have had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

Without the name, we can’t know who got what job — but other e-mails show Band intervening for a foundation donor.

That same year, he pushed for State to give high-level access to Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire. Noting that Chagoury is a “key guy there [in Lebanon] and to us,” he tells Mills and Abedin to connect the donor with State’s “substance person” on Lebanon.

Abedin supplies the name: “its jeff feltman,” the US ambassador to Lebanon and later assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. And, she says, “Ill talk to jeff.”

Band doesn’t let go: “Better if you call him. Now preferable. This is very important. He’s awake I’m sure.”

Chagoury has a murky past: In a 2000 plea deal on Swiss money-laundering charges, he repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government. But, hey, he also gave at least $1 million to the foundation and pledged a cool $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.

The e-mails show other “employment opportunities”: Big-time Clinton fundraiser Lana Moresky asked Clinton to arrange another hire at State. The secretary told Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant — and to “let me know” how the job hunt ended.

JIHADI NURSERY RHYMES :BRUCE CORNIBE

Islamic radicals know how important it is to influence the Muslim youth in order to shape their impressionable minds for jihad. Some jihadists don’t even wait until children are out of diapers before they start indoctrinating them. The UK’s Express reports that an Islamic nursery (“part of a larger Islamic association” with aneducation center for kids up to eighteen years old) in the Floridsdorf District of Vienna, Austria has been linked to terrorism and is now closed. ISIS’s Mohamed Mahmoud and Firas H. were known to have went to the school. Apparently the teachers at the nursery were giving Quran lessons to youngsters up to three years old despite being warned not to do so by authorities in Austria. In addition, the teachers were supposedly “badly trained and had poor language skills[.]” Unfortunately, other Austrian nurseries have also been known to radicalize its children:

Over the past months, Islamic nurseries have been hitting the headlines in Austria after one in the Viennese district of Favoriten was described by Austrian daily newspaper Osterreich as a place where “holy war” was taught.

Furthermore, the UK’s Express cites a study that reveals”Islamic nurseries were forcing boys and girls to praise Sharia law and reject the Western way of life.” Individuals such as Professor Ednan Aslan, from the University of Vienna’s Institute for Islamic Studies, have alluded to theparallel society within Austria that many Muslim parents are creating for their kids. Aslan states, “Many parentswant to create a one hundred percent Islamic environment for their children[.]” This sounds a lot likeSharia, which is an all-encompassing ideology that dictates every part of a Muslim’s life. This not only hinders “integration” efforts but one could argue this kind of social isolation from Austrian society also makes Muslim kids more susceptible to radical jihadist influences within the Islamic community. If Muslim toddlers are essentially being taught to hate their country and to despise its laws why wouldn’t they look down on their fellow Austrians and even go so far as to wage jihad? Children deserve better than to be taught Islamism and jihad by their superiors. This type of indoctrination is despicable and the dangers of Sharia law being taught from the nursey to theuniversity needs to be addressed by Western countries. The next generation of Islamic radicals are learning their ABCs in Sharia while much of the West looks the other way.

Islam’s “Quiet Conquest” of Europe by Giulio Meotti

“Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam.” — Tariq Ramadan.

In 1989, Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques.

In Britain, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques.

Civil war in France is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.

Real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with France’s director of domestic intelligence, Patrick Calvar. “The confrontation is inevitable,” Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street.”

These Salafists openly challenge France’s way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists’ threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.

There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles, “the quiet conquest”. It is “moderate” Islam’s sinuous project of producing submission. “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely”.

That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq’s novel, Submission: Mohammed Ben Abbes, the “moderate” Muslim who becomes France’s president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.

In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with “anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad… ”

Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France,” the report states, “it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions.”

In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this “moderate Islam.” The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l’Unione delle comunità ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan’s first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader’s husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: “It is a historical mistake, a scam”, he wrote on Facebook. His solution? “Ctrl + Alt + Delete”.

Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy’s Democratic Party in an open letter: “The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard”.

Take two “stars” of this French “moderate Islam.” The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Germany’s Migrant Rape Crisis Spirals out of Control Suppression of data about migrant rapes is “Germany-wide phenomenon.” by Soeren Kern

Germany’s migrant rape crisis has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. Germany now finds itself in a vicious circle: most of the perpetrators are never found, and the few who are frequently receive lenient sentences. Only one in 10 rapes in Germany is reported and just 8% of rape trials result in convictions, according to Minister of Justice Heiko Maas.

Up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police.

“There are strict instructions from the top not to report offenses committed by refugees. It is extraordinary that certain offenders are deliberately NOT being reported about and the information is being classified as confidential.” — High-ranking police official in Frankfurt, quoted in Bild.

Sexual violence in Germany has reached epidemic proportions since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into the country more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Gatestone Institute first reported Germany’s migrant rape crisis in September 2015, when Merkel opened up the German border to tens of thousands of migrants stranded in Hungary. A follow-up report was published in March 2016, in the aftermath of mass attacks against German women by mobs of migrants in Cologne, Hamburg and other German cities.

Germany’s migrant rape crisis has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. Germany is effectively under siege; public spaces are becoming increasingly perilous. Police have warned about a potential breakdown of public order this summer, when young male migrants are likely to see women lightly dressed.

During the month of July 2016, hundreds of German women and children were sexually assaulted by migrants (see Appendix below). The youngest victim was nine; the oldest, 79. Attacks occurred at beaches, bike trails, cemeteries, discotheques, grocery stores, music festivals, parking garages, playgrounds, schools, shopping malls, taxis, public transportation (buses, trams, intercity express trains and subways), public parks, public squares, public swimming pools and public restrooms. Predators are lurking everywhere; safety nowhere.

Dozens of women and children have been assaulted by migrants at summer festivals and public swimming pools — staples of ordinary German life.

Sexual violence in Germany has reached epidemic proportions since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into the country more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The government has been facing a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to “educate” migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right).

In July, at least 24 women were sexually assaulted at the Breminale music festival in Bremen. Women were also assaulted at outdoor festivals in Aschheim, Balve, Gerolzhofen, Grenzach-Wyhlen Heide, Loßburg, Lütjenburg, Meschede, Poing, Reutlingen, Sinsheim, Wolfhagen and Wolfratshausen.

In July, women and children were also sexually assaulted at public swimming pools in Babenhausen, Dachau, Delbrück, Hamm, Hilchenbach, Kirchheim, Lörrach, Marklohe, Mönchengladbach, Mörfelden-Walldorf, Oberursel, Remagen, Rinteln, Schwetzingen and Stuttgart-Vaihingen.

The Other Root of Terrorism by Louis René Beres

For today’s terrorist, whether in Paris, Orlando or Nice, the mass murder of noncombatants is a typically satisfying expiation, a scapegoating operation that brings to mind certain ritualistic processes of bloodletting, religious sacrifice and an outlet for sadistic sexual excitement. For the jihadist in particular, terror may find a ready ideological shelter in Islam, but the expressed theology is likely little more than a useful cover for acting on otherwise forbidden wishes. The ready supply of adherents only indicates how widespread these forbidden wishes are — but have little to do with politics.

“Man differs from the animal by the fact that he is a killer; he is the only primate that kills and tortures members of his own species without any reason… and who feels satisfaction in doing so.” — Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.

Throughout the world, many people suffer from some form or other of mental illness. Of these, a substantial number are also inclined to various expressions of aggression. When conditions arise to dignify their irrepressible violent urges under the purifying rubric of some “higher cause” — such as revolution, rebellion, or jihad — some will gratefully seize upon those “exculpatory” opportunities.

There is a singularly important lesson for the West’s growing struggle against terrorism. It is that in many instances, the events that occur in religion and politics do not do so for the reasons given. Rather, allegedly noble causes that are ascribed are merely after-the-fact rationalizations of certain barbarous human inclinations.

“Homo homini lupus,” said Freud: “Man is a wolf to man.” In essence, this observation lies at the heart of all forms of terrorism, as it also does of war, genocide, and many iterations of violent crime. It follows that if we should ever really want to declare a sincere “war on terrorism,” we would first have to seek beyond the usual assemblage of military remedies. They can generally never exceed a more-or-less futile tinkering at the margins of what is really most important.

Years back, Harold Lasswell, the great American political scientist, described political figures as those who would “displace their private motives on public objects, and rationalize the displacement in terms of public advantage.” What he meant by this psychological explanation was that the core motives of politicians may be deeply personal, relate primarily to apprehensions over deference or status, and still be reassuringly justified or “sanitized” by their owners in terms of some elevated motive. No candidate for the American presidency will ever acknowledge that he or she is running for office to maximize compelling private needs, but all candidates will readily affirm that they have somehow been “called” to rescue an imperiled nation from one or another of the “usual suspects.”

Tony Thomas Hillary’s Shameless Media Shills

Two political conventions, two grieving parents, two very different presentations of their respective stories. Khizr Khan used the death of his son to lambast Donald Trump and was hailed for his bravery. Patrica Smith directed a similar change against Hillary and was attacked for her partisanship.
The mainstream media, let alone the ABC, no longer even pretends it is providing an unbiased coverage of the presidential quests of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

As a case study in partisan journalism, this piece will look at media coverage of Khizr Khan, the Muslim father whose soldier son, Humayun, was killed in Iraq in 2004 while defending his squad. Then, by way of contrast, I’ll examine the attention given to bereaved mother Patricia Smith, who opposes Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. Patricia who, you ask? Exactly! You have likely never heard of her, as she is definitely not part of the media narrative — despite, or because — her son was killed by terrorists who attacked the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012 during Hillary’s term as Secretary of State. So here we go…

There are not many positive things the media can find about Hillary. Number one, she’s the first female presidential nominee. Second, horrible people call her names like “bitch”[i] and “lock her up”. Third, err, see 1 and 2.

Her term as Obama’s Secretary of State from 2009-13 was marked by endless disasters, such as the premature US pullout from Iraq (2007-11), IRS targeting of conservatives for tax audits (2010-12), and Al Qaeda’s sacking of the US consulate in Benghazi. Her successes? Hmm. I’ll get back to you.

As icing on Hillary’s rancid cake, there was her use of a private email server for State business and her official connivance in the money-making corruptions of husband Bill, who has enhanced the couple’s wealth by $US150 million-plus since 2001 (such as taking $US500,000 from Moscow for a speech in 2010 concurrent with Hillary’s department approving a Russian takeover of US uranium resources). By a further coincidence, Hillary clean forgot her undertaking to Obama to disclose $US2 million-plus gifts to the Clinton Foundation from those uranium interests.

Hillary’s record is therefore of no interest to the mainstream media. Instead they focus on the latest gaffe or infelicity of her Republican rival, Donald Trump. Trump is dubbed a racist, violence-promoting, dangerous fool. Like the magicians who distracts his audience’s attention with a waved handkerchief, the object is to distract the audience — America’s voters — from what’s actually important.

This month the story was all about how Trump, on July 30, disparaged the parents, particularly the silently grieving mother, of the (genuinely) brave Captain Humayun Khan. ABC TV continues to wallow in Schadenfreude about Trump’s boorishness. Cut to visual of Captain Khan’s headstone in Arlington cemetery. Cut once again to father Khizr Khan giving Trump that serve at the Democrat National Convention in mid-July. Hillary would never sink so low as to disparage the parents of a dead patriot, was the ABC’s unstated premise. And yes, even conservative ABC viewers probably found Trump’s behavior (as distilled by the ABC) indefensible, ungracious and discomfiting.

Peter Smith: Slaughter, Silence and an Open Secret

Whenever the cry of ‘Allahu-Akbar’ rings out and yet more innocents are slain, Muslims disassociate themselves, organisations, communities and, most of all, their religion from the violence against unbelievers that their holiest scriptures quite specifically endorses
Tricky Dick had a dirty secret or two, as did Bill Clinton. Probably if you put some effort into it you could find lots of dirty secrets in history. They would have one thing in common. They were hidden before being uncovered. After all, that is the nature of dirty secrets. Except, that is, for one. One dirty secret is on open display.

Come on, you might say, how can that be. Easy, people systematically look the other way. Journalists look the other way. Politicians look the other way. Christian leaders look the other way. “Nothing to see here,” they all proclaim. Of course not everyone looks the other way, but such people, like, say, blogger Robert Spencer (banned from entering the UK by the Home Office in 2013 for not looking the other way), tend to be on the fringes of debate and the main players double down by ignoring them.

These days with so much widespread, vicious and well-publicised Islamic terror, so-called moderate Muslim leaders are often asked to comment. To a man and hijab’d woman they disassociate themselves, their organisations, their communities and, prominently, their religion from violence. Whenever “Allahu-Akbar” violence occurs, it has nothing to do with Islam – the religion of peace, we are told. And that surely must be true; Pope Francis says so.

At the back of the papal plane, hopes are raised; hopes are dashed. Following two Islamic terrorists slitting the throat of Fr. Jacques Hamel, an 85-year-old French priest, the Pontiff declares that we are at war. At last, muscular Christianity on show, a not-before-time holy war of words is in the offing to protect Christians! Alas, his minders at the front of the plane quickly re-educate their man. He dutifully returns to the back of the plane and recants. “When I speak of war, I am not speaking of a war of religions. No. There is war, a war for interests, for money, for natural resources, for domination of peoples … All religions want peace; others want war.”

So there we have it on papal authority. It is beyond parody. The bloody mayhem stretching from the Middle East and North Africa into the heart of Europe and America is not about religion, it is all about money. And all the while the jihadist playbook is in full view. If only someone from the great and good would take a look.

So it was that I tuned last week into the Bolt Report on Sky News. Andrew Bolt is interviewing Keysar Trad, the new President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. Bolt does something that is exceedingly rare among his fellow journalists. He quotes from the Koran. He opens the playbook at verse 9:29. He outs the dirty secret.

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled.”

The Idaho Muslim Migrant Rape Case: How Could This Have Happened? The answer lies in…Islam. Robert Spencer

Amid a great deal of obfuscation, the horrifying truth has emerged: a five-year-old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho, was gang-raped by three young Muslim migrant boys. Her parents are still encountering tremendous difficulties in trying to get justice — apparently because the incident conflicts with Barack Obama’s agenda to flood the country with Muslim migrants.

The victim’s mother told Pamela Geller what the little girl told her: “This is what my daughter has told me: that they grabbed her at knifepoint and forced her into the laundry room and told her that if she tried to leave, they would kill her. The seven-year-old boy took her clothes off. She tells me he put his private in her mouth and peed in her mouth, and put it in her private, and then peed all over her.”

According to Idaho law, that is rape: “Rape is defined as the penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with a penis…”

The mother continued: “And she said they recorded her, too… She also told the emergency room CARES doctor that they had a knife as well, and they found on her neck a cut. Then the day after, they claimed it was a scratch, when in fact it looked like a cut.”

The girl’s father told Geller what he saw on the video that one of the attackers took of the rape, and triumphantly showed him: “I watched the 8-year-old boy push my daughter up against a wall and pull her pants down and his pants down; he then attempted to penetrate her from behind. She was able to run away and crouch in a corner shaking in fear while the boy danced around naked laughing at her. I stopped watching after that.”

Amid all the controversy surrounding this terrible incident and the solicitude of Idaho officials for the attackers, not the victims (Wendy J. Olson, the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for Idaho, threatened: “The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law”), one question has never been answered: why would these boys do this to this girl?

Obama, Clinton and the Power of Mendacity Why Hillary will be just as dangerous in the White House as her predecessor. Caroline Glick

Over the weekend, the Iranian regime unexpectedly announced it executed its former nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri. As reports of Amiri’s demise make clear, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton may very well be partially to blame for his death. Amiri spent several months in the US between 2009 and 2010, when he returned to Iran. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton claimed at the time that Amiri came to the US willingly.

US government sources told the media that Amiri, who worked on Iran’s nuclear program, was a longstanding US intelligence agent. Amiri, they said, received $5 million for his information. He left the funds in the US when he returned to Iran.

For his part, Amiri claimed he was kidnapped by US officials during a religious pilgrimage to Medina and brought to the US against his will. Amiri alleged that he was tortured during his time in the US, but that he refused to betray his country.

During his time in the US, the regime reportedly threatened to harm Amiri’s young son, who remained behind in Iran with Amiri’s wife. In July 2010, Amiri went to the Iranian interest section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington and asked to be repatriated. Amiri received a hero’s welcome upon arriving in Iran. He was later sentenced to 10 years in prison for traveling to the US.

He had served five years of his sentence when he was charged in a secret trial for espionage, found guilty and hanged.

It is impossible to know what caused the Iranians to suddenly execute Amiri.

But if the Iranians had harbored doubts regarding whether Amiri or Clinton were telling the truth about his arrival in the US, those doubts were dispelled last summer with the publication of Clinton’s emails.

Two of those emails outed Amiri as a US agent. In one, sent to Clinton nine days before Amiri turned himself over to Iranian authorities, Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy informed Clinton, “We have a diplomatic, ‘psychological’ issue, not a legal one. Our friend has to be given a way out. Our person won’t be able to do anything anyway. If he has to leave so be it.”