Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Hillary - Female Robin Hood? Keep Them Chained - Outlaw Voter ID. Huma Abedin - Who Is She?

A world health organisation (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland) study shows that eating ham and salami at each meal while drinking a glass of good wine… reduces the risk of becoming an Islamic Terrorist by at least 99% 

Think young:
Generosity and charity begin at home? (See 1and 1a below.)

Hillary is a female Robin Hood. She takes money from Hollywood so she can give it to her foundation which then supports her lifestyle so she can campaign among the poor and tell them how the Clinton's feel their pain!

She is so busy with this charade she does not have time to meet the press.  She has been slow walking and it might be too late for Trump to overcome his own missteps.

I am constantly being asked how I can vote for Trump and my reply is why I cannot vote for Hillary: "I cannot vote for a crook who cares less about protecting America and those who serve.  She is white trash and an older Jane Fonda."

Trump is not who I wanted to see nominated but I knew, when I voted for Kasich in the Georgia Primaries,  he would not win because he lacked personality. Alas, the only thing going for him was a long record of achievements. If Hillary was not who she is I would consider voting for Johnson but I consider that too dangerous under the circumstances..

This friend a dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 1b below.)
Cal Thomas writes what I have been saying. Keeping recipients chained to welfare by any method is critical. (See 2 and 2a below.)
So who is Hillary's, Huma Abedin? (See 3 below.)
It is about time someone proposed this legislation! (See 4 below.)
Finally Chaffetz has a few pertinent questions. (See 5 below.)
1)Generous’ Clintons Donated $1,042,000 To Themselves in 2015

Keeping with that theme, of the $1,042,00 they gave to charity, $1 million went to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton’s charitable organization hasn’t proven that they actually do anything to help people, but it sure is under fire for being corrupt. As far as anyone can tell, the Clinton Foundation is a way for rich people to buy favors from the Clintons, especially Hillary.

Giving a million bucks to the Clinton Foundation is as bullshit as it gets in terms of making a charitable donation, but hey, they did give another $42,000 to a real charity, right? Not so fast. That 42k went to Desert Classic Charities, which is golf tournament.

Are you effing kidding me? They just gave all of that money to themselves.

This is a tax fraud scheme. They gave 10% of their income to “charity,” wrote that off their taxes, and then these Clinton-owned charities will launder the money back to them. And guess what? The rest of us paid for that.

In addition to writing off $1,042,000 in charitable donations, the Clintons found another $1,358,000 in tax deductions. Again, they don’t actually do anything. What the hell are they writing off? Almost all of their money comes from speaking fees. How do you get almost a million and a half worth of write-offs from talking to people?

Do you really think that Hillary is on the level when she says she is going to make millionaires pay their fair share? No way in hell is she going to mess with the tax system that she and her husband benefit from so lucratively.

Besides ripping off the American people, this shows how little the Clinton’s actually care about their fellow man. There are so many worthy charities they could have donated to. They could have helped out veterans, they could have given to medical research, or they could have aided people with mental illness. Instead, they decided they themselves were most in need of help and gave to the Clintons.

And what about all of that stuff that Hillary is running for president on and claims to care about deeply? Reproductive rights? Black lives? Gun control? Immigrants? She didn’t a give a liberal dime to any of those things.

This is pathetic. They didn’t buy Girl Scout cookies, boost the local high school football team, or even donate semen-stained clothing to the Goodwill. I gave more to actual charity last year than these two elitists and I don’t make a hundredth of what they do.

1a) Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State


WASHINGTON (AP) - More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

Clinton's campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

"It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton's basis for meeting with these individuals," spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it "a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered "lie after lie after lie."
"Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office," he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office."

Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.

On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.

Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.

"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."

Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.
"If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.

Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.

Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics."

State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations - including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal."

Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.

S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.

Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed.

Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.

American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation - a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure.

By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money - a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.

"Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.

Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.
Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP."

Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed."
Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank."

Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.

In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.
Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.

Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.

The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.

Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.

MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.

When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team.

Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.

"The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.

1b) Hillary Clinton is simply not worthy of the Presidency of the United States of America.
She is a congenital liar:
·         “I turned over all government-related emails from my server to the State department.”
·         “I never sent or received any classified information on my server.”
·         “The Benghazi attack was caused by an  internet video” (and this lie she told to relatives of those killed at Benghazi after she knew for certain that it was not true)

She flew around the world for four years as Secretary of State, generating untold amounts of carbon dioxide with only one original accomplishment. That, of course was the   so-called Russian Reset. And look how that worked out.
She signed an affidavit that she would keep completely separate the State department and the Clinton foundation. One of her key advisors, Huma Abedin was on both the Federal payroll and that of the Clinton Foundation at the same time.
There, so far, is no “smoking gun” relating to contributions to the Clinton foundation leading to government contracts, but there is plenty of evidence relating donations to access to the Secretary and other government officials.
She has perfected what I call the “Clintoon” method of evading attacks. Deny, deny again, obfuscate, and delay until the news cycle changes.
Her husband, then-President Bill Clinton gave her authority to propose a redo of our health system. She proceeded in secret, with not one physician on her consulting team, to have her ides rejected by the American people as well as Congress.
When asked by her husband to nominate an Attorney General, she ran through some losers, such as Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood before she arrived at Janet Reno. Anybody remember Waco? 
This lady served as a U S Senator for six years without sponsoring or conceiving a single bill.
She can boast of no accomplishments beyond her own enrichment, and is the very definition of a corrupt politician.
Despite having the main stream media serve as her de facto press secretary, she has not held a public news conference for over 250 days. Is it a health issue, or simply fear of facing unanswerable questions.
Please vote on November 8.

IDs and Voter Fraud

To ID or not to ID?
By Cal Thomas

Every election cycle we must endure challenges and allegations about fraud (conservatives) and discrimination (liberals) when it comes to voter ID laws. This year is no different.
A federal court ruled that the Texas Voter ID law passed in 2011, requiring voters to present official photo identification, discriminated again poor, minority and disabled voters and ordered a judge to approve new interim rules for the Nov. 8 election. The new rules will broaden the list of acceptable forms of ID. Voters will now be able to present, among other things, an expired ID, a government check or a current utility bill. “Supporting documents don’t have to have a photo, reports The Austin Chronicle, “but if they happen to, then voters will need to present the original. Otherwise, they can present a copy.”
Similar battles over voter identification laws are being waged in other states, notably Wisconsin and North Carolina.
It’s worth reviewing the list of the seven forms of identification currently accepted by Texas law — a Texas driver license issued by the Department of Public Safety (DPS); a Texas election identification card issued by DPS; a personal identification card issued by DPS; a license to carry a handgun issued by DPS; U.S. military identification card containing the person’s photo; U.S. citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph; a U.S. passport.
Granted, most poor people are unlikely to have a passport, but the state will issue any legal resident an identification card. Are civil rights groups who sued the state contending that poor and minority people are so inept that they can’t apply for an identification card? If that is their position, how are they able to apply for SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program) benefits, which require a photo ID? Why is voting the one category in which you don’t have to prove your citizenship and legal residence?
I will answer that question in a moment.
Three years ago during a similar controversy, Ashe Schow of The Washington Examiner compiled a list of 24 things that require a photo ID.
You must have a photo ID if you are 25 or under and wish to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. Store signs say so. Want to open a bank account? Photo ID required. Here are the rest of the categories: applying for welfare, Medicaid and Social Security (presumably poor people take advantage of one or more of these programs); unemployment benefits (ditto); rent/buy a house, or apply for a mortgage; drive/buy/rent a car; get on an airplane; get married; buy a gun; adopt a pet; rent a hotel room; apply for a hunting or fishing license; buy a cellphone; visit a casino; pick up a prescription (or buy restricted over-the-counter medications); donate blood; apply for a license to hold a demonstration; buy an “M”-rated video game; purchase nail polish at CVS.
Again, why is voting placed in a separate category? Why are liberal groups determined to repeal laws requiring proof of citizenship and residence? The answer is found in a definition of the word fraud: “deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.”
Since many poor people are receiving government benefits, they are responsive to Democrats’ claims that Republicans want to cut them off, so they had better vote early and vote often, as the saying goes, or else. Notice the left never focuses on emancipating people from poverty. That might make the poor independent of government, which would be intolerable to the left. They need a reliable voting bloc and keeping the poor dependent on government is a modern form of slavery that is cynical in the extreme.
Unless discrimination against an individual can be proved, these voter ID laws should be upheld. Otherwise, expect more votes from dead people, illegal aliens, people with false addresses and even Mickey Mouse. All of these scenarios have occurred in previous elections and are likely to be repeated in this and future ones without proper identification.


Video Captures Pro-Clinton Voter Registrar In The Act

"... she thinks she is immune to the law ..."


Video Captures Pro-Clinton Voter Registrar In The Act

"... she thinks she is immune to the law ..."
 PrintVideo Captures Pro-Clinton Voter Registrar In The Act

A supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who was registering voters in Nevada appears to have broken the state’s voter laws, according to The Gateway Pundit.
The woman, identified as Susan Berman, president of the Impact Research International, was caught on video registering citizens to vote while also displaying leaflets against Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to the report.
In the video, the registrar is seen with a sign on her registration clipboard that reads “Stand Up To Trump” in English and “Register Yourself” in Spanish, with a picture of the candidate inside a circle and a slash across his image.
Under Nevada law, a voting registrar may not “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate, speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate, or distribute any petition or other material concerning a candidate or question which will be on the ballot for the ensuing election.”
The video was uploaded by a YouTube user called Pizzazz Picasso, whose real name is William Renaud.
Contacted by Western Journalism, Renaud said he was concerned after seeing the woman distribute partisan material on other occasions.
3) New York Post: Abedin's Anti-Fem outrage

  Hillary Clinton's top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.
One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.

However, soon after that “historic and transformational” 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton

Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.

“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)

“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.

In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.

“ ‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,” Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.
“By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,” she argued, “Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.”

“Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising a nd homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”

She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of “the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.” While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.

She added in her 31-page treatise: “More men are victims of domestic violence than women. . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.”

She opposed the UN conference widening the scope of the definition of the family to include “gay and lesbian ‘families.’ ”
Huma Abedin does not apologize for her mother’s views. “My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,” she said in a recent profile in Vogue.
Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:
“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions. . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Huma Abedin is Clinton’s longest-serving and, by all accounts, most loyal aide. The devout, Saudi-raised Muslim started working for her in the White House, then followed her to the Senate and later the State Department. She’s now helping run Clinton’s presidential campaign as vice chair and may end up back in the White House.
The contradictions are hard to reconcile. The campaign is not talking, despite repeated requests for interviews.

Until now, these articles which Abedin helped edit and publish have remained under wraps. Perhaps Clinton was unaware she and her mother took such opposing views.
But that’s hard to believe. Her closest adviser served as an editor for that same Saudi propaganda organ for a dozen years. The same one that in 1999 published a book, edited by her mother, that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law, while claiming “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women.”
And in 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

At no point in her long visit there, which included a question-and-answer session, did this so-called champion of women’s rights protest the human-rights violations Saudi women suffer under the Shariah laws that Abedin’s mother actively promotes. Nothing about the laws barring women from driving or traveling anywhere without male “guardians.”

If fighting for women’s rights is one of Clinton’s greatest achievements, why has she retained as her closest adviser a woman who gave voice to harsh Islamist critiques of her Beijing platform?

Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”
4)  No Saudi Money for American Mosques
by Daniel Pipes

Saudi Arabia may be the country in the world most different from the United States, especially where religion is concerned. An important new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance.

Consider those differences: Secularism is a bedrock U.S. principle, enshrined in the Constitution's First Amendment; in contrast, the Koran and Sunna are the Saudi constitution, enshrined as the Basic Law's first article.

Anyone can build a religious structure of whatever nature in the United States, so the Saudis fund mosque after mosque. In the kingdom, though, only mosques are allowed; it hosts not a single church – or, for that matter, synagogue, or Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Baha'i temple. Hints going back nearly a decade that the Saudis will allow a church have not born fruit but seem to serve as delaying tactics.

Pray any way you wish in America, so long as you do not break the law. Non-Muslims who pray with others in Saudi Arabia engage in an illicit activity that could get them busted, as though they had participated in a drug party.

The United States, obviously, has no sacred cities open only to members of a specific faith. KSA has two of them, Mecca and Medina; trespassers who are caught will meet with what the Saudi authorities delicately call "severe punishment."
The Saudis have spent an estimated $100 billion spreading Wahhabi Islamism abroad.
With only rare (and probably illegal) exceptions, the U.S. government does not fund religious institutions abroad (and those exceptions tend to be for Islamic institutions). In contrast, the Saudi monarchy has spent globally an estimatedUS $100 billion to spread its Wahhabi version of Islam. Products of Saudi-funded Wahhabischools and mosques have often been incited to political violence against non-Muslims.

The Saudis have been arrogantly indiscreet about spending to promote Wahhabism. For example, a 2005 Freedom House report reviewed some of the extremist literature provided to the public by Saudi-funded institutions and concluded that it poses "a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself." The monarchy has also given multiple and generous grants to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most aggressive and effective Islamist organization in the United States.

This discrepancy, a version of which exists in every Western country, demands a solution. Some Western governments have taken ad hoc, provisional steps to address it.

• In 2007, the Australian government turned down a Saudi request to send funds to the Islamic Society of South Australia to help build a new mosque. "Obviously we don't want to see any extremist organisation penetrate into Australia," explained then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Eight years later, Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks affirmed the kingdom's intense interest in influencing Islamic politics in Australia.

• In 2008, the Saudis offered to finance construction of amosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, prompting three Russian Orthodox groups to write an open letter to then-King Abdullah suggesting that his kingdom lift its ban on churches.

• In 2010, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støreturned down Saudi funding for a mosque on the grounds that the Saudi kingdom lacks religious freedom.

• In July, reeling from multiple attacks over 18 months that killed 236 people on French soil, Prime Minister Manuel Valls mused about prohibiting foreign funding of mosques "for a period of time to be determined," provoking an intense debate
These one-off responses may satisfy voters but they had almost no impact. That requires something more systematic – legislation.

Brat's proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the "Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act," makes it unlawful for "foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes." Hello, Saudi Arabia!

The bill needs more work: it omits mention of religious buildings, offers no criteria for seizure of property, and does not indicate who would do the seizing. But it offers an important beginning. I commend it and urge its urgent consideration and adoption.To "promote a religion" includes funding "religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature." Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.

Americans cannot abide aggressive unilateral actions by Riyadh (or, for that matter, Tehran and Doha) exploiting their oil bonanza to smother the secularist principles basic to Western life. We must protect ourselves.

House Oversight Chairman Has Questions for FBI Regarding Clinton Email Storage

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz is demanding answers from the FBI regarding the possibility that unauthorized people such as Hillary Clinton’s lawyers and IT staffers mishandled classified emails. This comes a week after Chairman Chaffetz and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte sent a letter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia outlining the case for perjury against Hillary Clinton, citing several examples where her sworn testimony before Congress was incompatible with evidence collected by the FBI in their investigation into her private email server.

On Monday, the Utah Republican sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey asking if the possibility of "spillage" had been "fully investigated and remediated."

“Just as classified information may not be provided to anyone without an appropriate clearance, classified information must also not be stored on a computer system that is not authorized to store it,” Chaffetz wrote. “The transfer of classified information from a computer system authorized to store it to one that is not is called spillage.”

According to The Hill, information about the storage of Clinton’s classified emails at her lawyers’ offices was not included in the documents the FBI gave to Congress last week.
Documents requested in the letter:
  • Information as to whether the FBI investigated the possibility that Secretary Clinton’s classified emails were improperly stored or accessed by her personal representatives or by individuals at Williams & Connolly LLP, including on any unauthorized electronic devices or media, such as desktops or servers, and the Bureau’s conclusion if it did investigate that;
  • A description of the manner in which Clinton’s personal representatives and individuals at Williams & Connolly stored any electronic devices and media and physical documents containing Secretary Clinton’s classified emails when they were not in use, and a description of the physical location in which those devices, media, and documents were accessed when they were in use, including the Bureau’s assessment of whether those met applicable security requirements;
  • What steps were taken to remediate any possible spillage of classified information stored on electronic media or in any of the other various locations in which Secretary Clinton’s emails were stored and accessed;
  • Whether the FBI informed Secretary Clinton of the classified findings in its investigation and, if so, when;
  • Whether the FBI is conducting any other related investigations, or has attempted to do so, and the current status of each such investigation;
  • Whether the FBI referred any of its findings to any other agency for review for potential security violations or misconduct or disciplinary proceedings;
  • An unclassified copy of the documents provided to the Committee on August 16, 2016, with all classified information redacted.
Full text of the letter can be viewed here.
Comey stated during his July 7 testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Clinton's lawyers did not have the requisite security clearances to handle classified information.

Incredibly, the State Department still allowed Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, to store 55,000 Clinton emails in his unsecure office.

"We want the FBI director to look at those people that Hillary Clinton gave access to this information who did not have a security clearance," Chaffetz told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News' On the Record Tuesday evening.

He said that some of the information was so classified that even he as the chairman of the oversight committee couldn't see it. Yet Hillary Clinton gave the classified documents to people who don't have  security clearance.

"She testified under oath that they had gone through it [the emails] in great detail," Chaffetz explained. "But the FBI director testified to us in Congress that that wasnot the case."

He pointed out  that as the secretary of State, Clinton was dealing with classified information on an hourly basis. "It's reasonable to think that her information is chock full of classified information -- and it was."

"Who are these people that had access to this information?!" Chaffetz exclaimed.

While it is unfathomable to think that the FBI did not look into the improper storage of Clinton's emails, it seems to be an open question. If Director Comey decides to look further into the "spillage" issue, the closed Clinton email investigation may have to be cracked back open.

No comments: