+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In a previous memo I stated Trump said GW had low energy when I meant to say JEB. Pardon the oversight.
===
This author alleges Comey and Lynch should be impeached for tampering with evidence and the Clinton's indicted along with them. Rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot , as it was with Watergate, heads would be rolling. The stench coming out of this White House is beyond belief even for cynical me.
I always believed Obama and his crowd of thuggish appointees were untrustworthy but even they have sunk to below my darkest suspicions.
When I say this election has surely been "rigged" I was taken to task by a friend who said I was buying Trump's excuse for laying the groundwork of his expected defeat. I replied, should Trump lose, it will be because of his own ineptness but the mass media want Hillary to become president. Obama needs Hillary to become president and for his entire term in office the IRS, The Justice and State Department and now the FBI have been influenced to cover both his own misdeeds and also to assist in Hillary's election.
I read Bret Stephen's op ed today and I understand where he is coming from and I greatly admire and respect him and consider him a friend but I believe he went beyond where I would go in taking Trump to task..
The problem with Trump is that he goes off in tangents and makes claims that come across as wild because he is not trained as a lawyer who knows how to connect dots.
When it comes to accusations about a fraudulent election, I suspect there is a certain degree of effort made by some to register illegals, I would not doubt there is some ballot box stuffing but I do not believe there is widespread voter fraud. I do believe there is significant bias on the part of the nation's mass media favoring their candidate, Hillary, and I also believe this White House has gone beyond mere dirty or seedy politics favoring Hillary's election.
Therefore, Trump's suspicions probably have some degree of credibility. (See , 1a and 1b below.)
===
I could be in worse company I guess. (See 2 below.)
I can verify there. and I do not need to check with Snopes! (See 2a below.)
===
Black Lives matter as long as they become fodder for the NAACP's misguided prejudice and stupidity. (See 3 and 3a below.)
====
Time for a little British humor. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1) JAMES COMEY AND LORETTA LYNCH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR WHITEWASHING CLINTON'S CRIMES
Former federal prosecutor says that Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence—with the support of the president himself
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during a fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Hyatt hotel on October 5, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during a fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Hyatt hotel on October 5, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)
Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people.
The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.
Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.
We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.
It’s easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary—neither under oath nor with a rights warning—in the presence of her co-conspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the “investigation.”
Comey’s “investigation” was a farce. Any former prosecutor worth a flip would have convened a grand jury, issued subpoenas, gotten search warrants, seized computers, run wire taps, indicted the Clinton cabal, and squeezed the underlings to plead guilty and cooperate. This business of friendly chats, immunity agreements handed out like party favors, and side deals that include the Attorney General approving the destruction of evidence to keep it from Congress doesn’t happen for others targeted by the feds.
Just ask any number of Wall Street executives who for various reasons found themselves on the opposite side of the Department of “Justice.” In fact, my former client, Jim Brown, served a year in prison convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for testifying about his personal understanding of a telephone call to which he was not even a party. Yes, you read that correctly. Read Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. It becomes more relevant every day.
How did we get here?
Thanks to the work of Judicial Watch and others, we learned over a year ago now that Hillary Clinton ran the most important and confidential of world affairs and the United States Department of State through an unsecured computer server assembled by her minions and ensconced in the basement of her New York home. She did so despite repeated warnings of security risks, against protocol, and contrary to her own memo to all of her underlings. That posed no problem simply because the rules don’t apply to Clinton.
Conveniently, her server also handled Clinton Foundation correspondence that facilitated the personal enrichment of Hillary and Bill by hundreds of millions of dollars. That money came from Bill’s remarkable “speaking fees” at hundreds of events around the world—each of which was quickly approved as requested by Clinton crony Cheryl Mills at the State Department—as if there were no conflict of interest. Simultaneously, foreign entities made “donations” of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to obtain the immediate attention of and curry favor with the secretary of state—and it worked.
The conflict of interest inherent in that entire scenario is palpable. It’s the Clintonian equivalent of the scheme former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow conceived that destroyed Enron—a large side-slush fund that operated as his own piggy bank. The Clinton's boldly went where no one has gone before: They privatized the State Department for their massive personal gain, creating a net worth for each of over $100 million dollars in a few short years. Ironically enough, lead counsel for the Clinton Foundation now was President Obama’s longest-serving White House counsel. A former prosecutor on the Enron Task Force, Kathryn Ruemmler was implicated in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and its cover-up.
The personal home server allowed Hillary Clinton to send and receive all of her emails and run the State Department free from protected, secure, and required government channels. It was established deliberately to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act—both of which applied to her work-related correspondence.
That was no problem for Clinton however, as she simply “didn’t know how to use a computer,” apparently was incapable of learning to do so (unlike most toddlers in the country), and she liked her Blackberry—which was reason enough for her highness to ignore the national security interests of the entire country.
Clinton’s insistence on operating outside the government security protocols demonstrated at best deliberate disregard for the law and national security—and, at worst, conduct that was treasonous. That is why 18 USC 793 (d) and (f) make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to even move any information relating to the national defense from secure conditions or to fail to return it upon demand. Clinton did both—repeatedly.
The un-secure server also facilitated the clearly conflicting roles of Clinton confidant and protégé Huma Abedin, who was paid simultaneously by the Clinton Foundation and the taxpayers through the State Department. That made it easier for the double-dipping Abedin to schedule meetings quickly for Clinton with those who had paid to play—substantial donors to the Foundation, such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had been denied a face-to-face through those pesky State Department protocols in place for mere mortals. His millions in contributions to the Foundation got him an appointment with Clinton through Abedin in a matter of hours.
We wrote more than a year ago—as soon as we heard one Clinton server was “wiped”—about the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton. We foresaw the need for a special prosecutor and predicted that if emails could be found, they would likely implicate high ranking people across the government, including the president.
Lo and behold, President Obama, who told the country he heard of Clinton’s private email from news reports, was in reality emailing her at Clintonemail.com and using an alias. He must have forgotten. But, wait—just this week, we get more emails, and there’s now evidence that the White House and the State Department coordinated an attempt to minimize the problem.
Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself—conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it’s called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001. Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.
And let’s not forget obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1519. That statute was tailor-made to fit the facts of the Clinton cabal’s destruction of evidence. It reads:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Remember the man relentlessly prosecuted by the feds for throwing a few fish overboard? That case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide that fish weren’t the kind of tangible objects/evidence to which Congress intended the new obstruction statute to apply. But emails, computers, and servers are. Senator Clinton voted for that new statute—but it doesn’t apply to her. Well, it would, but Loretta Lynch and James Comey just agreed to destroy evidence of it themselves.
These false statement and obstruction offenses are so easy to prove that prosecutors often tack them on to already multi-count indictments just for good measure when they want to hammer Wall Street bankers or other citizens and business people who actually work for a living.
How many of these federal criminal offenses are established by the limited evidence that has been pried out of the Clintons’ hands or resurrected from unsuccessful although mighty attempts to destroy it? They are truly countless, as each email would be a separate charge but, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just pick three or four—that don’t even include all the conspiracy charge options routinely used by “reasonable” prosecutors.
First, Clinton testified to Congress that she “turned over all of her work-related emails.” Second, she “only wanted to use one device.” Later, she chose her words carefully, claiming “nothing was marked classified when it was sent or received.” That sounds good to people who are not lawyers, but it’s Clintonese and not the law.
She “turned over all her work emails”?
First, her friend Sidney Blumenthal found a number of emails he exchanged with her about confidential matters of State that she didn’t produce. Next, that pesky Pentagon found over 1,000 emails between Hillary and General Petraeus alone. Most recently, the FBI found roughly 15,000 Clinton thought had been erased completely when she had her servers “wiped” professionally with BleachBit. We’ll never know how many were deliberately destroyed to protect her incompetence and corruption. Mills, Samuelson, and others at Platte River Networks destroyed whatever they wanted.
As both secretary of state and an attorney who had long been paid by the taxpayers, Clinton should know that information “relating to the national defense” is what is protected under 18 USC 793(f). It doesn’t have to be “classified”—marked or unmarked—even though much of it was.
Sure, let’s give her the presidency and the nuclear codes and access to every national secret—ISIS can just hack her and use our own missiles to destroy us. They won’t have to worry about trying to bring nukes into the country.
In any event, according to the FBI’s perfunctory investigation, more than 2,000 of the emails available are classified as Confidential or Secret or higher.
Clinton may have only wanted “one device,” but the truth is that she had 13 “personal mobile devices that were lost, discarded, or destroyed.” Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has an excellent timeline of irrefutable, no-spin facts derived from the part of the FBI’s file that has been made public. The timeline of events alone is damning.
Not surprisingly, Attkisson reports that “[a]fter the State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by the House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with Bleachbit, and the FBI couldn’t review them. After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server ‘PRN’ with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.”
One of our favorite Clinton lies is: “My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.”
I guess that’s why they invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination, had hard-drives wiped, destroyed devices with hammers, put the selected emails in the hands of her attorney and refused to produce them for weeks, while her staff all refused to speak without grants of immunity or took the Fifth. I guess it just depends on how you define “cooperation.”
Enter stage left James Comey, Director of the FBI, who fills himself with righteous indignation to tell Congress what a great job the FBI did in this “investigation.” As Congressman Trey Gowdy said, and I concur, “This isn’t the FBI I used to work with.”
Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clinton declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton’s emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote: “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”
Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell? Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison.
It’s not just the private server. It’s not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.
It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it’s about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment. The conduct of the Clintons, their cronies, their Foundation, and now our highest law enforcement officials make the entire Watergate scandal look like an insignificant computer hack.
Where is the Congress? Where are what used to be our great newspapers? The sounds of silence are terrifying indicators of how government-controlled our mainstream media has become. I guess that’s why Reporters Without Borders has dropped our Freedom of Press rank to 46th world-wide.
FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be impeached for their roles in whitewashing Clinton’s crimes and their own participation in the destruction of evidence. They facilitated and participated in the obstruction of justice—spitting in the face of the Congressional investigation. Congress should be able to name a special prosecutor when the Attorney General has a clear conflict—such as meeting secretly with Bill Clinton during the “investigation” and receiving a promise of continuing as Attorney General if Hillary is elected President. The timeline of events and their conduct reek of corruption.
Stay tuned. Clinton’s answers under oath to D.C. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan are due October 13. Remember, he’s the judge who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice following the Bush administration’s corrupted prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. And it was Judge John Sirica—combined with what was then the great Washington Post—who exposed the Nixon corruption.
With more and more government intrusion in every aspect of our individual businesses and lives, we are quickly losing the land of the free, and we now must wonder if any of the brave are home. Who has the chutzpah to stand up to the Clintons? Where are the real Americans? Hopefully, on election day, they will pour out in droves and resoundingly demand real change. The election and Judge Sullivan are our only chances for justice at all.
Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine United States Attorneys from both political parties. She was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice—a legal thriller that tells the inside story of high-profile prosecutions.
1a) WIKILEAKS UNCOVERS ATTEMPT TO PROTECT OBAMA IN EMAIL SCANDAL
'Hillary couldn't be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well'
WASHINGTON – One of the nation’s top legal minds, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, told WND the latest WIkileaks bombshell confirms his belief that Hillary Clinton wasn’t prosecuted for mishandling classified information because President Obama would have been implicated, too.
WASHINGTON – One of the nation’s top legal minds, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, told WND the latest WIkileaks bombshell confirms his belief that Hillary Clinton wasn’t prosecuted for mishandling classified information because President Obama would have been implicated, too.
Wikileaks released an email on Friday from March 4, 2015, sent by Clinton’s eventual presidential campaign manager, John Podesta, to her attorney Cheryl Mills, asking if they should decline to turn over emails between Clinton and President Obama sent over her private server.
Podesta suggested invoking “executive privilege” to withhold the emails just one day after the House Benghazi Committee had told Clinton to provide all her emails.
Clinton campaign manager John Podesta
Clinton campaign manager John Podesta
Podesta’s email read: “Think we should hold emails to and from potus [President of the United States]? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I(t) seems like they will.”
Mills did not answer Podesta’s email, but the emails between Obama and Clinton were never turned over to the Benghazi committee. Eighteen such emails were turned over to the State Department, which has refused to release them.
McCarthy told WND, “This confirms what I have said all along: President Obama was engaged in the same reckless conduct as then-Secretary Clinton: engaging in exchanges of highly sensitive information — information that is presumptively classified under the president’s own executive order — over a non-secure, non-government system.”
He added, “That is why Huma Abedin was so stunned when she learned about it, asking as anyone with a security clearance would ask: ‘How is that not classified?’
Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin
Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin
Indeed, the evidence is growing that Obama knowingly did what Clinton did, and transferred classified information over her unsecure and unauthorized private email system.
Emails between the president and his secretary of state with sensitive information are “born classified,” as McCarthy pointed out in his Sept. 26, article in National Review titled, “Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted.”
Obama himself seemed keenly aware of that, because he used a fake name in those emails.
“Abedin knew,” wrote McCarthy, “as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories.”
By “these categories,” McCarthy was referring to Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526, which states: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security,” which includes such categories as foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.
Andrew McCarthy
Andrew McCarthy
Five days after the New York Times disclosed the existence of Clinton’s private email server, Obama told CBS News on March 7, 2015, that he learned about it at “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”
That was not true, because Obama himself had exchanged emails with Clinton on the server. And, as noted, he even used a fake name, for reasons never explained.
The White House later claimed Obama meant to say he did know of the server, just not the details.
It is McCarthy’s contention that the FBI cleared Clinton not because she was innocent, but because the president was also guilty.
“Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well,” he wrote, adding, “Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.”
That is why, he asserted, “the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton.”
He imagined what would have happened had Clinton been indicted.
“The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton emails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus ‘presidential communications’ privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the emails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted.”
The revelation that Podesta was floating the concept “executive privilege” to withhold emails that could have implicated the president, coupled with the fact that claim was not officially invoked, makes McCarthy’s words from two weeks ago look prescient.
“That is why,” he wrote, “as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say ‘executive privilege’ because that sounds too much like Nixon.”
“That is why,” he wrote, “as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say ‘executive privilege’ because that sounds too much like Nixon.”
But the keen mind of the former federal prosecutor who obtained convictions of the first World Trade Center bombers and plotters saw even more layers of intrigue in that simple but damning one line email from Podesta disclosed Friday by Wikileaks.
“The new revelations, nevertheless, raise interesting issues,” McCarthy told WND.
“First, the context in which this conversation between John Podesta and Cheryl Mills arose was a subpoena from the House Benghazi Committee, so that raises the question whether there is some Benghazi relevance to the Obama-Clinton email exchanges that caused Podesta to raise the matter with Mills.”
In other words, were they hiding subpoenaed information relevant to a congressional investigation into the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens?
“Second,” McCarthy continued, “once again we find Ms. Mills smack in the middle of things — she’s a witness in the investigation, a subject of the investigation, a lawyer to the main subject of the investigation, a key participant in the sorting and destruction of e-mails, a possessor of a private laptop containing classified information, and now an adviser to the White House regarding executive privilege regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Oh, and she asked for and received immunity from prosecution.”
Cheryl Mills
Cheryl Mills
The seemingly enormous potential for conflict of interest in Mill’s alternating roles as confidante, personal attorney for Clinton, and as her chief of staff at the State Department was the subject of a piece McCarthy wrote on Sept. 2, titled, “Hillary Clinton’s Mind-Boggling FBI Interview – What Was Cheryl Mills Doing There?”
He wrote that he “nearly fell out of my chair” upon learning the Justice Department had allowed Mills to act as an attorney for Clinton at her FBI interview, when Mills herself was a “witness, if not a subject, of the investigation.”
That’s because the Justice Department allowed Mills “to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department.”
Furthermore, “Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.
Mills and Clinton
Mills and Clinton
McCarthy further noted that when she worked for Clinton at the State Department, “Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up.”
The former prosecutor asserted that “Mills, after leaving the State Department, was barred by ethical rules from acting as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.”
He said there was no way Mills should have been permitted to participate as a lawyer in the process of producing Clinton’s emails to the State Department nearly two years after they’d both left.
“I thought it was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation. But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview – participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.”
He found it inexplicable and astonishing that the Justice Department allowed all of those irregularities in accommodating Mills.
Well, he did find one explanation.
McCarthy’s Sept. 13, article was titled, “Yes, the Fix Was In.”
Garth Kant is WND Washington news editor. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”
1b) The Plot Against America
Donald Trump alights on the Compleat Conspiracy. Anti-Semites are thrilled.
They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.
Call it for what it is: “A conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.”
Astute readers will note the quotation of a speech delivered in the U.S. Senate in June 1951 by the then-junior senator from Wisconsin. We’re in historically familiar territory. Joe McCarthy inveighed against Communists in control of the State Department. For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race.”
And now we have Donald Trump versus what Laura Ingraham calls “the globalist cabal”—the latest enemy from without, within. In a speech Thursday in West Palm Beach the GOP presidential nominee painted a picture of a “global power structure” centered aroundHillary Clinton that aims to “plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty” while stepping on the necks of American workers with open borders and ruinous trade deals.
“There is nothing the political establishment will not do,” Mr. Trump thundered. “No lie they won’t tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense, and that’s what’s been happening.”
Now he’s after the Compleat Conspiracy, the one that explains it all: the rigged election, migrant Mexican rapists, the lying New York Times, thieving hedge funds, Obama-created ISIS, political correctness, women insufficiently attractive to grope, Chinese manufacturers, the Clinton Foundation. If it isn’t voting for Donald Trump and has recently crossed an international border, it’s a problem.Here, then, was the real Donald, fresh off his self-declared unshackling from the rest of the GOP. No longer will the nominee content himself with pursuing petty mysteries such as President Obama’s birth certificate or Alicia Machado’s alleged sex tape.
It did not escape notice that Mr. Trump’s remarks smacked of darker antipathies. A reporter for the New York Times suggested that the speech “echoed anti-Semitic themes.” The Daily Stormer, which bills itself as the premier publication of the alt-right, was less delicate, praising the speech for exposing the mass media as “the lying Jewish mouthpiece of international finance and plutocracy.”
But one needn’t accuse Mr. Trump of personal animus toward Jews (there’s no evidence of it) to point out that his candidacy is manna to every Jew-hater. Anti-Semitism isn’t just an ethnic or religious prejudice. It’s a way of thinking. If you incline to believe that the world is controlled by nefarious unseen forces, you might alight on any number of suspects: Freemasons, central bankers, the British foreign office. Somehow, the ultimate culprits usually wind up being Jews.
That’s why it’s utterly unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton. Leave aside the fact that Mrs. Clinton called privately for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches, while Mr. Trump has found public occasion to praise both Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad.
More dangerous is that a Trump administration would give respectability and power to the gutter voices of American politics. Pat Buchanan would be its intellectual godfather,Ann Coulter and Ms. Ingraham its high priestesses, Breitbart and the rest of the alt-right web its public trumpets. American Jews shouldn’t have to re-live the 1930s in order to figure out that the “globalist cabal” might mean them.
Nor should Jews ignore the rekindling of right-wing anti-Semitism simply because its next-of-kin—left-wing anti-Zionism—remains so potent on college campuses and in progressive political circles. The GOP’s conversion to being a powerfully pro-Israel and philo-Semitic party is a relatively recent development. No law dictates that it is destined to be a lasting one.
***
The title for this column is taken from the 2004 Philip Roth novel that imagines what might have been for America if Lindbergh had defeated Franklin Roosevelt for the presidency in 1940, signed neutrality pacts with Germany and Japan and initiated a re-education campaign for recalcitrant American Jews. The novel draws its power from being a too-plausible alternative reality from which we were spared less by the wisdom of the public than by the vagaries of history. The McCarthy chapter also might have ended differently, if McCarthy himself had been less buffoonish. Even then it took public courage to stand up to him.
Life imitates art, and vice versa. This time the plot against America is a work of non-fiction, its outcome is still undetermined, and its perpetrators are the very people alleging the conspiracy.
2)
Daniel Bonevac: Here's why I support Donald Trump
By
The president's signature "accomplishment," Obamacare, is in a death spiral. Racial tensions are leading to riots. Violent crime is up sharply over the past 18 months. Life expectancy is falling for large segments of our population. The administration is conducting a war on fossil fuels, endangering our electric grid, while shoveling funds to green-energy boondoggles run by donors. The IRS, the FBI and the Justice Department are protecting political allies, punishing opponents and defying court orders. Title IX is used on campus to destroy due process and stifle speech. In the past 10 months, we've suffered terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., Orlando, St. Cloud, Minn., and Burlington, Wash., leaving 68 dead. Europe's experience shows that if we continue these policies, we will suffer many more.
The Middle East is a shambles. We gratuitously overthrew a stable government in Libya, creating a terrorist haven and getting our ambassador killed. We threw away victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria is a humanitarian disaster. We sabotaged Iran's Green Revolution and halted sanctions, propping up and then funding with planeloads of cash a leading global sponsor of terrorism actively seeking nuclear weapons — all in a quest to reach an agreement so adverse to U.S. interests that it was not even submitted to the Senate. Iran is reportedly already violating it.
This is not bad luck. It results directly from policies of the Obama administration that Clinton wants to continue. The problem is not implementation, but deep inadequacies in her progressive worldview. It's a worldview I encounter up close on campus, a worldview that intrigues intellectuals with its promise of rationality and tempts them with the possibility of power. As Dostoevsky warned, however, in practice, it indulges the moral narcissism of an elite and encourages disrespect for everyone else.
Progressives try to counter corporate economic power by centralizing political power in executive-branch agencies. They try to cure centralization with more centralization. But this leads to elitism and regulatory capture. When corporations, well-funded nonprofits or well-connected donors team up with government agencies, the rest of us lose. The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. The administrative state is largely unaccountable; you can't vote the regulators out of office. Under the Obama administration, federal regulations have strangled some industries outright and curtailed innovation in others. No one voted to destroy the coal industry or stop enforcing immigration law.
Clinton promises more of the same. She promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will remove the Bill of Rights's safeguards against excessive government power. She shows contempt for ordinary people, their rights and their concerns, treating any who oppose her as enemies. Only Trump promises to rein in the excesses of the administrative state and return us to constitutional governance. He pledges to issue a moratorium on new regulations and to reduce "the anchor dragging us down," the regulatory burden whose growth since 1980 has cost us as much as one-fourth of our gross national product.
Trump has been giving serious speeches detailing his vision on the economy, foreign policy, crime, immigration and other central issues facing the country. He has been explaining policies that would strengthen the United States, revive the economy, and restore our social capital, especially in inner cities. Clinton, meanwhile, has been doing her best to distract us from the issues. Admittedly, Trump offers her many such opportunities. But our country's direction is too important to decide on the basis of who is more vulgar than whom. Clinton's policies portend nothing but a weaker economy, a weaker society and a weaker America.
Daniel Bonevac (bonevac@austin.utexas.edu) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. He wrote this for the Dallas Morning News.
2a)
FBI Docs: Secret Service Agents Hated Working for Hillary Clinton, 'Sought Reassignment' Because She Was so 'Contemptuous'
Hillary Clinton's contempt for the Secret Service is legendary. In recent years, several biographers have written tell-alls about the Clinton-era White House that detailed her disrespectful behavior toward the people tasked with keeping her safe.
You would think that as she aged in the post-Clinton White House years, she would have become mellower and easier to get along with. But you would be wrong. According to FBI documents released Monday, State Department security personnel so disliked Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of State that many agents left the agency or asked to be reassigned. Hillary Clinton is credited with making the previously prestigious security job sought after by senior agents into one staffed by n00bs.
The revelations come from an interview summary of one unnamed Department of Homeland Security official that was conducted as part of the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information while secretary of state.The official said Secret Service agents also complained that Clinton “disregarded security and diplomatic protocols, occasionally without regard for the safety of her staff and protection detail, in order to gain favorable press.” According to the official, Clinton refused to travel by armored limousine with the U.S. ambassador as is standard diplomatic and security protocol when the secretary of State visits a foreign country.
“Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her,” the interview summary states.The official who was interviewed worked for the Department of Homeland Security and was a previous State employee.
“CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol,” the summary says. Clinton’s breaches of protocol, it adds, were “well-known throughout Diplomatic Security and were ‘abundant.'”
The report goes on to say that DS agents were "indignant" because Clinton refused to leave her BlackBerry outside of her office as required, as it is a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), while the agents had to leave their cell phones at the door.
That Hillary Clinton has habitually behaved disgracefully toward Secret Service personnel is by now beyond dispute. Former Washington Post reporter Ronald Kessler has similar anecdotes in First Family Detail, as does Edward Klein in both The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House and Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary. Gary Byrne, a 29-year veteran of the military and federal law enforcement, published his book in June: Crisis of Character: White House Secret Service Officer Discloses his Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate. It includes bombshell revelations about the Clintons, focusing on Hillary's “Jekyll and Hyde” personality that left Secret Service personnel and White House staffers living "in terror of her next tirade."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
The NAACP’s Disgrace
The civil-rights group votes to keep minorities trapped in poverty.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has a storied history, but many organizations outlive their moral purpose and it’s now clear this one has. The civil-rights outfit has come down firmly on the side of trapping poor minority children in education failure factories.
On Saturday the NAACP’s national board voted to ratify a resolution adopted at its 2016 national convention calling for a moratorium on the expansion of charter schools. Considering the state of urban K-12 education, this is the equivalent of opposing Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The NAACP is so blinded by ideology that it is endorsing separate and unequal education for poor minority children for years to come.
The NAACP’s statement Saturday shows how out of touch its well-to-do board members are with American education. It calls for a ban on new charters until “charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools.”
Hello? Inner-city schools are the definition of unaccountable as they promote failure year after year. Charters should be held accountable, and some charter operators have done a poor job. But they can be and are shut down. The proof of charter performance are the long waiting lists in most cities to get in. Parents vote for charters with their feet when spaces are available.
The NAACP statement also wants a charter ban until “public funds are not diverted to charter schools at the expense of the public school system.” But charters are public schools, albeit without the union and tenure rules that retard student learning. A 2015 Stanford study found that urban charters on average provide 40 more days of learning in math and 28 days in reading than comparable traditional schools. The NAACP rejects this evidence of educational advancement in favor of bowing to the union desire for political control.
The statement even has the gall to claim “there is no time to wait. Our children immediately deserve the best education we can provide.” If these gentry progressives are waiting for urban schools to reform without competition from charters or vouchers they are consigning generations of children to diminished lives.
The vote should cause the NAACP’s corporate donors to reconsider. Any CEO who donates to a group that opposes charters should never again whine about the “skills gap” or claim to care about education reform.
4)
Black Lives Matter Infiltrating Public Schools
Teachers engage in week-long protest to promote a movement built on race hatred.
By
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The toxic Black Lives Matter narrative is continuing to infiltrate our mainstream culture. It is even finding its way into our public schools. Case in point is the plan by about 1000 teachers in the Seattle public school system, with the strong backing of the school system administration, to wear "Black Lives Matter" T-shirts this week. Some of the educators’ t-shirts include a raised fist, not exactly a symbol of racial harmony and peaceful dialogue.The participants in this solidarity “wear-in” also want a school curriculum that indoctrinates students to counter what one Black Lives Matter activist and Seattle high school teacher, Jesse Hagopian, called “institutional racism”and the “multiple oppressions that our kids face.” Hagopian opposes standardized testing as an example of such institutional racism.The Seattle Education Association (SEA) Representative Assembly passed a resolution unanimously supporting the Black Lives Matter initiative. The SEA is a public teachers’ special interest organization. Its resolution stated that SEA will “endorse and participate in an action wearing Black Lives Matter t-shirts on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 with the intent of showing solidarity, promoting anti-racist practices in our schools, and creating dialogue in our schools and communities.”The superintendent of schools also supports the demonstration of solidarity with Black Lives Matter on school premises.The Seattle school system is not the bastion of “institutional racism” that Black Lives Matter and its supporters are making it out to be. Seattle is one of the most progressive cities in the nation. Its school district had passed a landmark “Ensuring Educational and Racial Equity Policy” in August of 2012, which called for the elimination of “the racial predictability and disproportionality in all aspects of education and its administration.” It also mandated the use of a Racial Equity Tool to ensure that “race be clearly called out and institutional and structural racism be addressed within our own organization.” The intent was to devise policies and curricula that close the “opportunity gap” holding students of color back.The Black Lives Matter movement has its own agenda, however, which has little to do with advancing educational opportunities for children of color in the inner city schools of Seattle or the nation at large. For example, charter schools work. Many parents in African American communities support them. In answering the question whether charter schools are good for education, a New York Times analysis concluded, “Rigorous research suggests that the answer is yes for an important, underserved group: low-income, nonwhite students in urban areas.” However, theradical Black Lives movement demands an end to what they call “the privatization of education.”The Black Lives Matter leaders are not interested in actually helping African-American children succeed with better performing schools in their neighborhoods. Instead, they claim that “privatization strips Black people of the right to self-determine the kind of education their children receive.” Then, weaving a conspiracy theory, they allege that a “systematic attack” on this right is being “coordinated by an international education privatization agenda, bankrolled by billionaire philanthropists such as Bill and Melinda Gates, the Walton Family, and Eli and Edythe Broad, and aided by the departments of Education at the federal, state, and local level.”Black Lives Matter is getting help from the Washington state supreme court with its effort to do away with charter schools. Despite voter approval of charter schools in 2012, the Washington state court ruled that charter schools were unconstitutional and ineligible to receive any public funding. The Washington legislature amended the charter school law to address the issues raised by the court. However, allies of the Black Lives movement such as El Centro De La Raza, along with Washington's teachers union, have gone to court to again challenge the constitutionality of the Washington state charter school law as amended. This time, charter school families are coming forward to file their own court papers in support of charter schools.The Black Lives movement leaders are not only willing to sacrifice quality education with their opposition to charter schools. They are willing to risk the lives of black children in crime-infested public schools by demanding removal of police from the schools and placing “a moratorium on all out-of-school suspensions” of even the most disruptive and dangerous delinquents.The Black Lives Matter folks have their own ideas about what a suitable school curriculum should look like. For example, Black Lives Matter supporter and Washington state educator Wayne Au has suggested a teaching activity called ‘What We Want, What We Believe’: Teaching with the Black Panthers’ Ten Point Program. Au said he “taught about the Panthers in the context of a high school African Studies class in Seattle that focused on African history and the experience of the Diaspora.”The Black Panthers’ program included this nugget: “We want an end to the robbery by the capitalists of the black community.” Another nugget: “We want all black men immediately released from federal, state, county, city jails and penitentiaries.” The Black Panthers’ program also referred to police as “pigs,” along with a chilling warning that “tonight's pig is tomorrow mornings bacon.” A variation of the pig to bacon catchphrase became decades later a war cry of Black Lives Matter marchers, who chanted over and over again: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”Some parents in Seattle are understandably upset with the Seattle schools’ embrace of Black Lives Matter and the “solidarity” event planned this week. One person commented: “All parents of Seattle School children should keep their kids home that day. having a public institution promote a racist organization without covering all sides is the neoleftist fascism that is rampant in Seattle.”Another wrote: “The fact that seattle public schools allow this but no religion in school is hypocritical and shows just how ignorant it is. All lives matter, and promoting one race increases the achievement gap that they speak of.”Wearing t-shirts in a show of “solidarity” with the police-hating Black Lives Matter movement, and mouthing slogans about “white privilege” and “institutional racism,” will not solve a thing. Black Lives Matter does not want better education for children trapped in failing inner city public schools. If so, they would not be so intent on shutting down charter schools, which have worked in the inner cities and which parents of African-American students so desperately want for their children.
4)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BRITISH HUMOR IS DIFFERENT These are classified ads, which were actually placed in U.K. Newspapers:FREE YORKSHIRE TERRIER.
8 years old,
Hateful little bastard.
Bites!
FREE PUPPIES
1/2 Cocker Spaniel, 1/2 sneaky neighbor's dog.
FREE PUPPIES.
Mother is a Kennel Club registered German Shepherd.
Father is a Super Dog, able to leap tall fences in a single bound.COWS, CALVES: NEVER BRED.
Also 1 gay bull for sale.JOINING NUDIST COLONY!
Must sell washer and dryer £100.WEDDING DRESS FOR SALE .
Worn once by mistake.
Call Stephanie.**** And the WINNER is... ****FOR SALE BY OWNER.
Complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica, 45 volumes.
Excellent condition, £200 or best offer. No longer needed, got married, wife knows everything.
Statement of the Century
Thought from the Greatest Living Scottish Thinker--BillyConnolly. "If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking, How come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?"