Loretta Lynch and her Tryst With Bill Clinton.
<
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Last year in several memos I warned that Sharia Law would gain a foothold and then grow. (See 1 below.)
===
Other Bhengazi "Commentary." (See 2 below.)
===
I continue to maintain Hillary and her available campaign billions will hurt her more than help.
Why? Because the more exposure she gives herself the worse she will do since she is no liked, not trusted and is boring. Furthermore, I suspect, her 'buying' of the presidency will backfire.
As for Trump, he functions with a staff one tenth her size yet, when he gets in front of a camera, I believe he is more effective even though he has high negatives as well. His negatives, however, were not formed over 30 years and are, thus, more likely either manageable and/or capable of being modified.
Time will tell. (See 3 below.)
===
My friend, Allen West, discusses Millennials and National Security (See 4 below.)
===
Pretty cool illustration!
===
Sowell and the fraud continues. (See 5 below.)
===
Our Congressional Representative, Buddy Carter, speaks:
The Skidaway Island Republican Club is having its fifth True Perspectives Seminar of 2016 on Monday, Sept. 19 at the Plantation Club, 5:00pm (Cash Bar starts 430pm)
+++The Topic: Yet DeterminedCosts: SIRC Sustaining members - free; regular SIRC members - $5; all others - $10.For reservations, contact Russ Peterson at 598-9845 or russp16@aol.com,or Dick Miller at 598-5049 or hrmatthelandings@gmail.com.
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)After Muslim Truckers Refuse to Deliver Beer ... Obama Does the Unbelievable -
by Bill Callen |
Two Muslim truck drivers ---- former Somali "refugees" refused to make deliveries of beer to stores for their employer. So they were understandably fired.
They claimed it was a violation of their religious beliefs even though Islam bars only the consumption of alcohol. And as the employer pointed out, the workers knew they would have to deliver alcohol before they took the job.
So guess what Barack Obama did. He SUED the employers on behalf of the pair, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, claiming religious discrimination.
Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) represented them in the case, providing tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal support, judicial filings and court appearances against the employer who was hopelessly outgunned by the Federal government.
And this week the Muslims were awarded a stunning $240,000 by a jury, presided over by an Obama appointee who stunned analysts by allowing the case to go forward at all.
Fox News hosts Megyn Kelly and Andrew Napolitano were flabbergasted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3q61Y85oCw
"The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case. But has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians trying to assert their religious beliefs."
Megyn Kelly then said to Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano: "So in the case of the Muslim truck drivers, the Obama administration through the EEOC is all in. This is what they said:
We are proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices; it's fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance." But when it comes to the Christian bakers, it's not as fundamental."
Napolitano was equally perplexed:
"That's correct. It's unfortunate when the government interferes in a private dispute over religious views, and takes sides, and chooses one religion over another." To their point, the Christian owners of "Melissa's Sweet Cakes" were fined $135,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. And Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Napolitano offered an explanation for the administration's interest in the Muslim truck driver case: "The way the feds intervened ... they wanted this case because they wanted to make the point that they've now made."
The U.S. Government and the courts can't legally have one set of laws for Christians and another set of laws for Muslims and other religious groups. But now they do. Obama's actions and this court's ruling throws into relief that not all Americans are legally recognized as possessing religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
Napolitano offered an explanation for the administration's interest in the Muslim truck driver case: "The way the feds intervened ... they wanted this case because they wanted to make the point that they've now made."
The U.S. Government and the courts can't legally have one set of laws for Christians and another set of laws for Muslims and other religious groups. But now they do. Obama's actions and this court's ruling throws into relief that not all Americans are legally recognized as possessing religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
As George Orwell might put it, Obama has now established that Muslims are more equal than Christians in America.
SHARE this everywhere if you are outraged by Obama's push to enforce Sharia Law in America...
..... and this is an outrage, a blood boiling outrage, an insult to our senses, a slap in the face to our ancestors and a travesty to Americans yet unborn. The price for this and all the following Sharia outrages will be high, very high. These are sad times indeed!
Glory be to the Brits and their Brexit vote today. That is one step that will save them in the end.
Verified as true by TruthorFiction<https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-government-sued-on-behalf-of-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-for-not-delivering-beer/>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
The report from House Republicans on the Benghazi Committee is straightforward. The committee found that the U.S. military made no effort to intervene on behalf of the besieged Americans under attack in Benghazi over the course of that 13-hour assault. “Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets,” the GOP report read, nothing was done to save the lives of the Americans who died only after hours of combat. It found that the White House relied on its political advisors and not its national security team to frame public perceptions of this attack so as to preserve the impression that the threat of Islamic terrorism overseas was on the decline.
The committee found that then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who led the charge to exculpate the White House in the wake of that attack, contradicted and humiliated the State Department. Her appearance on the Sunday morning news programs following that attack betrayed what the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs said was the fact that the White House was “very worried about the politics” of Benghazi. While the White House remains selective about what it divulges regarding the president’s activities and whereabouts on the night of the attack, the committee learned that Obama declined his daily intelligence briefing the day after. Finally, the investigations uncovered that administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were convinced of the terroristic nature of the attack even while they were relating something very different about its character to the American people.
That seems simple enough. In the press, however, the race is on to transform the findings of this investigation into something far more complex.
To gauge the level of media investment in the Democratic narrative regarding this investigation, all one has to do is read the second paragraph of NBC News’ dispatch on the subject.
“The 800-page document represents the end of a costly, politically charged investigation led by House Republicans who sought to highlight Clinton’s role in the slipshod response to the attack,”read the report authored by Andrea Mitchell, Alex Moe, and Abigail Williams. “But after more than two years, the report, released Tuesday, instead paints a more nuanced portrait of incompetence.”
One of the reasons the press has deemed this investigation a failure for the GOP is they are committed to the view that the Republicans were engaged in a purely partisan exercise. They are judging it as they would judge a debate—by assessing winners and losers. From that rigid construct, reporters permit themselves to declare the GOP’s presumed target, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a survivor and their efforts a waste.
First, if this were a political fishing expedition designed to harm Hillary Clinton’s image, the idea that the Benghazi Committee’s investigation turned up nothing of note is simply delusional. It was the work of this committee that uncovered the existence of Hillary Clinton’s homebrew email server and the scandalous conduct of a State Department that allowed this breach of protocol and colluded in covering up its existence. Considering the time Clinton has spent defending herself on this issue, the legal jeopardy in which it has thrust her staff, and the damage it has done to her political image, to declare the committee’s investigation both a political exercise and a failure is an example of the wish fathering the thought.
That’s why the Benghazi investigation should not be seen as a political event. Like Hillary Clinton’s secret server, which quite possibly exposed classified American diplomatic cables to foreign governments, the attack was a national security failure. The administration’s response to that national security failure, not this later investigation of it, is the scandal. What’s more, it is a scandal that is intuitively understood by just about anyone of modest political competence. That is, six weeks out from an election, Barack Obama’s White House was more concerned about the politics of the Benghazi attack than they were the security implications.
Democrats can rend garments over the political nature of the House GOP’s report all they want. They can call dub the results of the investigation a “conspiracy theory on steroids,” and go off on bizarre fundraising-friendly tangents about Donald Trump in their report on the committee’s findings. Their panicked reaction betrays a justified fear. The investigation paints a pretty clear picture of politicized behavior of the worst variety—one that the public can very easily comprehend. Republicans have Occam’s razor on their side. The very simplest explanation for the White House’s behavior suffices. It is a story of an administration more concerned with winning elections than relating a full and unvarnished account of the deadly attack in Benghazi. Despite all the bluster from Democratic partisans, that’s not “nothing.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.
By Jim Ruth
Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was. We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated. Silly us.
And please don’t try to stereotype us. We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. While we’re fiscally conservative, we’re not tea partyers. And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings. Shhhh . . .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote.
By Jim Ruth
Jim Ruth is a writer and retired financial adviser.
No Trump campaign buttons or bumper stickers for me. I’m part of the new silent majority: those who don’t like Donald Trump but might vote for him anyway. For many of us, Trump has only one redeeming quality: He isn’t Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up.
And please don’t try to stereotype us. We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. While we’re fiscally conservative, we’re not tea partyers. And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings. Shhhh . . .
Our view of the media is old-school, too — just the facts, please. Before his untimely death some years ago, Tim Russert of “Meet the Press” set the standard for “fair and balanced” by grilling both Democratic and Republican politicians in a way that never betrayed his personal political persuasions. That still works fine. It’s just damn hard to find.
The only pleasure the new silent majority has taken throughout this primary season has been watching progressives marinate in their own righteous indignation. They were giddy, like spoiled children opening Christmas presents, as they watched 17 Republican combatants call in airstrikes on one another. But eventually the tables turned as the Hillary-Bernie slugfest got ugly, and we took particular delight in the sourpuss expression on the faces of the lefties we know when they realized that the Republicans, left for dead, suddenly had new life and a chance to win the presidency.
We are under no illusions about Trump. We know that this Man Who Would Be King is a classic bully and a world-class demagogue in his personal, professional and political lives. He will continue to demonize his perceived enemies and take the low road at every opportunity.
And we know that if Trump makes it all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the view after that is murky at best. We’re confident that he will surround himself with smart and capable people from the business world, as well as some Capitol Hill veterans. But here’s the rub: Past business associates describe him as a micromanager who likes yes men at his side. How long this new Washington brain trust will last in a Trump administration is anybody’s guess.
Who’s to blame for the Trump phenomenon? There’s culpability on both sides of the aisle for the absence of bipartisanship that fueled his rise. The left blames the policies of a fragmented, delusional, right-wing GOP. But the left bears responsibility, too. Turns out that the obstructers in Congress weren’t just the Republicans, as Bob Woodward reported in his book “The Price of Politics.” President Obama kept “moving the goal posts” in the 2011 sequester negotiations with Republicans. And who can forget the way Republicans were bullied over health care? They were left with no choice but to use every procedural maneuver in their arsenal to block, delay or postpone the liberal legislative agenda.
So why then would rational, affluent, informed citizens consider voting for The Donald? Short of not voting at all — still an option some of us are considering — he’s the only one who appears to want to preserve the American way of life as we know it. For the new silent majority, the alternative to Trump is bleak: a wealthy, entitled progressive with a national security scandal in her hip pocket. In our view, the thought of four to eight more years of a progressive agenda polluting the American Dream is even more dangerous to the survival of this country than Trump is.
So come Nov. 8, you’ll find many of us sheepishly sneaking into voting booths across the United States. Even after warily pulling the curtain closed behind us, we’ll still be looking over our shoulders to make sure the deed is shielded from view. Then, fighting a gag reflex, we’ll pull the lever. We hate Donald Trump. But he just might get our vote.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Millennials and National Security in the 21st Century
By Allen West
(Editors’ Note: This column was co-authored by NCPA Research Associate Christian Yiu)
It is summer time and that means most students are out and about, some having fun, others are working jobs. At the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, it means summer research associates who conduct extensive research with our senior experts for publication.
For those working this summer in the field of national security policy, there is a startling difference from today’s pivotal issues and those from 30-40 years ago.
The 21st century battlefield that Millennials are encountering is far more complex than the global security situation then. And, what makes it unique for millennials is that they see it being played out right before their eyes.
In the late 1970’s, it was clear that there was “us and them,” namely the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but few on a college campus could have shown you Afghanistan on a map. The Iranian hostage crisis occurred but, unless you paid attention to the evening news, few young people felt the effect.
Students then had no dorm room phones and certainly no laptop computers. There was no 24/7 news cycle. Research was done the “old school” way at the library and actually using things called books. Contrast that to today’s environment for our college students who just witnessed, in Orlando, the second largest Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In just the past two years, consider the many homegrown terrorist attacks that young people have witnessed, as well as those horrific videos they can download on their personal electronic devices via YouTube.
The point is that global situational awareness has increased immensely for this generation. Imagine the European theater in the closing days of World War II when the Nazi concentration camps were discovered. General Dwight D. Eisenhower issued orders that those brutal and savage examples of man’s inhumanity needed to be recorded to prevent those who, someday, would deny it ever happened.
Today, young people can see beheadings, crucifixions, shootings, proclamations and propaganda of the enemy in near real time. It has to be perplexing to the older generations that young people in America, as well as all over western civilization, are answering the call to arms from the enemy via these new communications means. Who, from the Baby Boomer generation, could imagine other teens and twenty-somethings flying off to a foreign land to fight for an ideological enemy of the United States?
Millennials have not seen the enemy with a single face. The U.S. is now fighting a mixture of state and non-state threats and belligerence, not the few, well-defined enemies of several decades ago. For today’s millennials, there are Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, along with a huge proliferation of Islamic jihadist groups that span the globe from Boko Haram in Nigeria to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and all the various terrorist organizations in between – most notably today, the Islamic State.
So, what are the challenges Millennials face when it comes to understanding this complex and often obfuscated battlefield?
First, there is the repeated comparison of every engagement to the Iraq endeavor, which the media has portrayed as a failure. As a result there is a lack of motivation or desire to address the multitude of threats and emphasize the necessity of national security. Even with the incredible advantage modern information technology provides, there is still an abject ignorance of the reality of these burgeoning threats. This ignorance persists, despite the continuous reminders of these threats here in our homeland, as evidenced by the Orlando terrorist attack.
The “war weariness” theme is promulgated by the media at a time when these threats are growing in strength and effect. This results in the apparent refusal to define, address, and even call out these threats and enemies. Consider the recent redaction of the 911 call transcripts of Omar Mateen by the current administration. The current generation has to ask, why?
Why, in this age of immediate information, would the government avoid full transparency and the threat at hand? Is it that the nanny-state, which has enticed Millennials with the message of “free” education, health care, etc., wants to dictate the narrative of what they want Americans to perceive as truth?
Could it be that this generation is not considered strong enough to handle these truths and challenges?
We live in trying times but we have always faced trying times. The difference for this generation is that we have full awareness, if we choose to open our eyes.
What must happen or change for Millennials to comprehend the country’s national security needs and the evident threats?
Millennials must first accept the existence of the enemy and not allow themselves to be manipulated by ideological media messages and talking points. Next, they must understand the purpose of the military and the preeminent responsibility of our government to provide for our common defense. Millennials must not fall into the habit of repeating soundbites but regard what a capable deterrent force can do in protecting all of us and our liberties. Finally, Millennials must accept the challenge and realize that it is their future and their freedom which is under assault. They must bond together with their Millennial brothers and sisters across the world who would not be enslaved by the enemies of freedom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)The Fraud Goes On
By Thomas Sowell
Last week the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration laws passed by Congress.
But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution's requirement of "equal protection of the laws," by voting that racial preferences for student admissions were legal.
Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that "separate but equal" facilities were consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.
The Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974 when, in the case of "DeFunis v. Odegaard," the Court voted 5 to 4 that this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote on its merits.
While the 1896 "separate but equal" decision lasted 58 years, the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion, sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.
One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of the Court's most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas, could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it, rather than declare the issue moot.
But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the University of Texas' racial preferences. Perhaps the atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create the Grand Canyon.
We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia -- and rightly so. But there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.
The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.
Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.
But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.
When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.
We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.
Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably "Mismatch," a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: "How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."
When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.
But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like "diversity" -- a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas -- unless the word "diversity" was used instead of "quotas."
Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
