Tube workers in London found a bomb on an underground train Thursday, prompting the government to raise the threat level in the city to “severe.”

Tube workers in London found a bomb on an underground train Thursday, prompting the government to raise the threat level in the city to “severe.” The device didn’t detonate and no one was injured, but the incident is a reminder that Britain’s vulnerability to terrorism is increasing even as—or because—Islamic State now finds itself on the defensive in Iraq and Syria.

Police the next day detained a 19-year-old man on suspicion of plotting terrorism, although he hasn’t been charged. A search of a house in Devon in connection with the case turned up a second improvised explosive device on Saturday. Police later determined it would have been a dud, which is hardly cause for reassurance.

The heightened threat climate prompted International Development Minister Rory Stewart to warn on Sunday that Britain could face fresh attacks from Islamic State if the group tries to take revenge in Europe for its setbacks in Mosul and elsewhere. Islamic State has encouraged such retaliatory attacks in the past, targeting France in particular over its participation in air strikes. The U.K. is among the Western nations backing the Iraqi effort to liberate Mosul.

Britain has been fortunate to avoid a mass-casualty attack since the 7/7 bombings of 2005, but Theresa May can’t afford complacency.

The Prime Minister developed a good track record on antiterror policing and surveillance as David Cameron’s Home Secretary. She could enhance that record by insisting that immigrants assimilate British values, and by further enhancing the surveillance capabilities of the police and domestic intelligence service. More defense spending will also be necessary to revive the U.K.’s atrophied expeditionary capabilities for counterinsurgency and counterterror missions. CONTINUE AT SITE

‘We Need to Clean This Up’ Cheryl Mills plays Harvey Keitel in ‘Pulp Fiction Emails.’

Did President Obama mislead the public about what he knew about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server? That sounds possible based on the latest batch of WikiLeaks released Tuesday.

In March 2015 Mr. Obama said in an interview that he found out about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server “the same time everybody else learned it, through the news reports.” But we now know that answer alarmed Mrs. Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills, who emailed adviser John Podesta the same day: “We need to clean this up—he has emails from her—they do not say”

So the President emailed with his Secretary of State over an address that wasn’t on the official government network. Hmmm.

“The President did not suggest he hadn’t traded emails with her,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday in an attempt to explain the seeming contradiction. “Of course the President had possession of Secretary Clinton’s email address but he did not have any knowledge of where her server was located or what sort of arrangements had been made to store her email.”

We suppose a President wouldn’t pay close attention to the email addresses of his cabinet officers, though that lack of sure was a red flag. The fact that he said he didn’t know about the server may also have protected him from an FBI interview. In any case, the Cheryl Mills email is more evidence of the ethical messes that attend the Clinton entourage, as well as the perpetual need to “clean this up” without coming clean to the American people.

Accountability for ObamaCare Democrats should pay a political price for this historic failure.

ObamaCare has suddenly been injected back into the 2016 election debate, on the news of the law’s 25%-plus average premium increase for 2017. Even Donald Trump is talking about it. With only two weeks to go, this is a moment for voters to hold accountable the Democrats who imposed this debacle on the country over voter objections.

Next year’s enormous price increases are merely the latest expression of ObamaCare’s underlying problems, and the dysfunction is undermining the health security of Americans who lack employer coverage. A wave of major insurers have quit the exchanges, and those that are left have raised deductibles and copays and restricted choices of doctors and hospitals. The public is witnessing—and the unlucky are experiencing—the collapse of one progressive promise after another.

At every stage of the ObamaCare saga, liberals said not to worry. Sure, the law was unpopular when Democrats rammed it through Congress on a partisan vote in 2009-10, but voters would learn to love it once the subsidies started rolling. That didn’t happen, and in 2014 President Obama tried to buck up Democrats by saying that “five years from now” people will look back on the law as “a monumental achievement.” Two years later it’s worse.

Nothing could shake the liberal faith in their supposed landmark: Not the website fiasco of 2013, or the millions of individual health plans that were cancelled despite President Obama’s promise about keeping them. The left kept the faith as the entitlement subtracted from economic growth, hurt incomes and killed jobs. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber called the critics stupid, and Mr. Obama denigrates anyone who disagrees with him as illegitimate or politically motivated.

Now reality is confirming what the critics predicted. ObamaCare’s regulatory mix—benefit mandates, requiring insurers to sell coverage to all comers, and narrow ratings bands that limit how much premiums can vary by health status—was tried by several states in the 1980s and ’90s. Every one saw the same results that are now unspooling nationally: high and rising costs, low and declining enrollment, and less insurer and provider competition.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to solve these predictable disruptions with subsidies and a mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But most people don’t think ObamaCare plans provide value for the money, especially if they are non-subsidized. CONTINUE AT SITE

‘We Need to Clean This Up’: More Evidence Obama Lied about Hillary’s Private E-mails WikiLeaks has released e-mails showing Hillary Clinton’s advisers knew there was a problem when President Obama denied knowledge of Clinton’s private e-mail system. By Andrew C. McCarthy

There was panic in Camp Clinton when President Obama falsely told the public he had not known about then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of private e-mail until he heard about it “through news reports.”

In reality, Obama and Clinton exchanged at least 18 e-mails through Clinton’s private account and homebrew server system. And we now know, based on investigative reports released by the FBI, that Obama used a pseudonym in at least some of his e-mails with Clinton. Moreover, as I noted in a column ten days ago, top advisers to Obama and Clinton flagged the Obama–Clinton e-mails problem before Obama issued his false denial of knowledge.

Asked by Bill Plante of CBS News in a March 7, 2015, interview when he learned about Clinton’s private e-mail system, the president responded, “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

This assertion spun the Clinton campaign up, according to the latest WikiLeaks disclosure of e-mails hacked from the account of John Podesta. A longtime Clinton aide, Podesta was Obama’s top White House adviser until transitioning to the Clinton presidential campaign, which he chairs, in February 2016.

At 6:15 p.m. on March 7, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin e-mailed Jennifer Palmieri and several other Clinton campaign staffers, alerting them: “Jen, you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news.”

Sanctimony, Inc. Time was, leftists complained of rigged elections, the media paid attention to dirty tricks, and conservatives cared more about results than rhetoric. By Victor Davis Hanson

“It also remains a curious artifact of this election that many conservatives are outraged far more by Trump’s obnoxiousness, crudity, and rhetorical excesses than they are by Hillary’s concrete record of premeditated criminality and habitual prevarication — especially given the likelihood that on illegal immigration, defense spending, Obamacare, abortion, the debt, taxes, and regulation, Trump’s published agenda is the far more conservative. Apparently a vicious, insider liberal establishmentarian poses less threat to the republic that does a more conservative outsider fop.”

Donald Trump, in characteristically muddled and haphazard fashion, said he thought the election might end up “rigged” (if he lost). Therefore, he would not endorse the November 8 result if he found that fear confirmed — unless, of course, in Jacksonian fashion, he managed to win.

All hell broke loose, from both the Left and principled conservatives, that Trump’s allegations had somehow undermined the American electoral process itself.

Not likely.

Questioning the integrity of election votes was a national pastime in 1824 (“corrupt bargain”), 1876 (“compromise of 1877”), and again in 1960. Bitching over losing, of course, is not the same thing as armed insurrection in the fashion of 1860, when furor erupted over Lincoln’s election.

Any candidate, whether feeding conspiracies or out of genuine concern for electoral misconduct, can say whatever he or she wishes, without the deleterious national consequences that pundits decry. Bad sportsmanship and manners are not synonymous with constitutional subversion.

“Selected, not elected” was a Democratic talking point after the 2000 Bush victory. In a speech two years after that election, a now sanctimonious Hillary Clinton echoed those “selected” charges against the Bush presidency. But so what?

Oh, No, Virginia: There Is No Such Thing As Voter Fraud Do the Democrats know something we don’t? Kenneth R. Timmerman

Democrats tell us all the time: there is no such thing as voter fraud. Show them the evidence – such as this report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation that found more than 1,000 non-citizens registered to vote in Virginia -– and they reply, well that is just anecdotal.

And if Project Veritas captures the Democrat Commissioner on the New York City Board of Elections admitting in an undercover video that Democrats “bus people around to vote” all the time, why, that’s just gonzo journalism by a “convicted felon.”

Rest assured, Virginia: our elections are secure. There is no organized voter fraud, and to suggest otherwise – as Donald Trump did last week – is just downright un-American. How do we know this? Because President Obama just told us so.

Of course, when Obama first ran for President in 2008, he expressed concern that hackers could gain access to electronic voting machines to alter the results, and told supporters he wanted to set up a non-partisan election integrity division at the Justice Department “that is serious about investigating cases of vote fraud.”

That division has been extremely active over the past eight years investigating – sorry. Obama never established the voter integrity division at DoJ. Instead, he had his attorney general quash the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of Top Secret classified information on her private email server.

Should we be concerned about the integrity of the electronic voting machines in use by many states around the country?

You bet we should.

The 131 Black Men Murdered by Black Lives Matter Obama cheers on the country’s greatest force killing black people. Daniel Greenfield

Black Lives Matter was called into being to protest what the racist hate group claimed was the killings of black men by police. Activists with the extremist organization have accused law enforcement of genocide. According to a study widely touted by activists, 300 black people were shot by police in 2015.

That same year 320 black people became homicide victims in Baltimore alone.

In 2014, 189 died. And then Baltimore came under assault from Black Lives Matter over the Freddie Case leading to riots and the Ferguson Effect crippling law enforcement efforts. The police became the villains. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake offered the racist rioters and looters space to destroy. Along with the businesses and sense of security, here is what else was destroyed.

An additional 131 black men died in 2015 in Baltimore. 16 black women were murdered in both 2014 and 2015. The huge increase came at the expense of black men. The biggest bump in homicides, 49 to 99, happened among young black men aged 18 to 25. This year’s incomplete toll already stands at 68.

The second biggest increase marked black men aged 26 to 34 whose death toll rose from 60 to 108.

277 black men were shot in 2015. Up from 141 in 2014. Shootings overall in Baltimore rose 72%.

These are the same black men that Black Lives Matter and its torrent of shrill supporters claim to care about.

Shariah Marches on in Florida and New York By Michael Epstein

On Friday, October 21st, the Miami, FL, Commission; the Monroe County, NY, Legislature; the Rochester, NY, Board of Education; and the Rochester, NY, City Council announced proclamations condemning hate speech against Muslims. These proclamations define neither hate speech nor the person or persons who will decide what constitutes hate speech. Far from benign calls to let peaceful Muslims go about their lives and prayers in peace, these proclamations represent a step towards elevating Shariah (Islamic law) over the Frist Amendment.

Why do I make this claim? Backtrack to 2012 and the aftermath of Benghazi, when President Obama told the UN, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The subtext of this statement was lost amidst several nods by Obama to the First Amendment later in his speech. The subtext was this: slander in Shariah is not telling lies that hurt someone’s reputation; rather, slander in Shariah is telling a truth or a lie which someone doesn’t want to be told. Slander in Shariah is thus defined by what the potentially aggrieved party wants or doesn’t want to hear, not by evidence.

For evidence of this, see Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. On page 730 of the English translation of this law manual – – which has been endorsed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Al-Azhar University, the premier authority in Sunni Islam – – slander is defined as follows: “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.”

Also consider the authentic hadith (report on the words and/or behaviors of Muhammad, the founder of Islam) from Sunan Abu Dawud #4856: “The Prophet was asked: ‘Apostle of Allah! What is slander?’ He replied: ‘It is saying something about your brother which he would dislike.’ He was asked again: ‘Tell me how the matter stands if what I say about my brother is true.’ He replied: ‘If what you say of him is true, you have slandered him, and if what you say of him is not true, you have reviled him.”

Can the long and sordid Clinton record render the polls meaningless? By Joseph Smith

Every corner of the media is pouring cold water on what they view as the wreckage of the Trump campaign. It is so pervasive that one friend, an ardent Trump supporter, said he listens to nothing but his own thoughts.

The message is to move beyond Trump to building a mandate and a Democrat Congress for Hillary.

Oh, and you people who were crazy enough to listen to Trump and your own values and beliefs might as well forget about it and stay home. And those silly “Trump: Make America Great Again” signs? If they have not already been vandalized, you can put them with your Goldwater buttons and your Bibles.

There will be time after November for denial and disbelief, and then the final grief and eventual hardening to the reality of another unbearable president, should Trump not emerge victorious. But this is not that time.

One can quickly get lost in the weeds of poll samples, weightings, and methodologies, but that is best left to the professionals. The way things are is made obvious even to irredeemable clingers by a statistic contained in one recent poll that found Hillary up by twelve points but also contained the finding on page 24 that Obama voters outnumbered Romney voters in the sample by 46 to 32.

Fortunately, there is competition even among pollsters, and there remain three reputable national polls that consistently indicate a tight race nationally.

While the wizards of talk in their cloistered network studios harp endlessly about the coarse and vulgar Mr. Trump, who just can’t seem to act like a normal politician, there is much more still in play in this election.

The Las Vegas Review Journal, owned by major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, came out this weekend in support of Trump for president, noting that voters “clamor for an alternative” to the corruption “dominating the capital” and that voter “discontent isn’t confined by ideology or political philosophy.”

Rigged? In What Way Is This Election NOT Rigged? By Robert Spencer

The political and media elites are outraged beyond measure by Donald Trump’s charge that the election could be rigged. How dare he suggest such a thing, they say, for the system is as honest as the day is long!

It shows he knows he is going to lose, they say. It shows that he has no faith in the American system, and is really a fascist at heart.

In reality, it shows no such thing, but it does show that a conversation about whether this election — and the political system in general — is rigged is one that the elites most desperately do not want to have.

And that is why we must have it.

And, if we’re going to have it in an honest fashion, the question should be framed not as “Is the system rigged?” but as “In what way is the system not rigged?”

First, there is the media.

Richard Nixon complained of media bias as long ago as 1960, but even he never envisioned the state propaganda machine we have today. Even just a decade ago, conservative media watchdogs were tallying up mainstream media stories that were favorable and unfavorable to conservative politicians and issues, and finding that unfavorable ones vastly outnumbered favorable ones — which did, however, exist.

Now, even the idea that anything or anyone not left-of-center would get even the briefest fair hearing in the mainstream media seems quaint.