The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
The Bribery Standard
by Charles Krauthammer
~~~
.
liar-Hillary Seeks to Put Trump and Blacks in Their Place
Michael Swartz: Aside from being reminded just how corrupt and deceitful she was about her email (and our national security) as secretary of state, we haven't heard a whole lot from the Democrat presidential nominee lately. But yesterday in Reno, Nevada, liar-Hillary Clinton took a speech originally intended to explain more about her economic program and made it into an race-baiting indictment of Donald Trump, saying his campaign had made the "alt-right" of foreign policy isolationists, immigration hardliners and a smattering of white supremacists a mainstream part of the Republican Party. This followed on the heels of the release of a campaign ad making the claim that "these [alt-right] people support Trump because they believe Trump supports them."
liar-Clinton is like every other Democrat in seeking to play the race card at every opportunity, but the circumstances here were particularly suspect. Trump had made the case earlier in the week in Michigan that blacks had "nothing to lose" by voting for him. And he has a point: It's obvious that Democrat policies of doling out to the minority community just enough to survive but not enough to thrive in return for their votes demanded a different approach. And Trump had "nothing to lose," either, as his polling numbers in the black community barely register above zero.
For years, conservatives have agonized about how best to reach out to this most monolithic of minority voting blocs — one that barely gives the GOP the time of day. Even if Republican support among blacks only reaches 25%, they theorize, it would cripple the Democrat machine that has run most of America's large urban poverty plantations for decades. Case in point: Detroit, which is a poster child for urban decay, hasn't had a Republican mayor for over half a century.
But speaking Wednesday in Jackson, Mississippi, Trump took a more accusatory approach. "liar-Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," he shouted. It's an approach that won't win any friends at The Washington Post, but the message wasn't aimed at them. (The Post couldn't resist adding that the audience was "vastly white." Just wondering: Do journalists ever report on the racial composition — or the size of the crowd — at a liar-Clinton event?)
So in her Reno remarks, liar-Hillary trotted out the usual suspects to promote the agenda stamped on her race card: David Duke, Alex Jones and others who speak the "divisive rhetoric" that mainstream Republicans dismiss as the product of the outer fringe of the party. "Of course there's always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment," said liar-Clinton. "But it's never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone. Until now."
There is a compelling argument, though, that liar-Hillary is bringing this subject up as a means of giving this small portion of Trump's base more attention than it deserves. "liar-Hillary is openly inviting them to center stage in the national debate," wrote John Sexton. Before this campaign began, most people had forgotten about overt racists like David Duke, but in this political climate he may be seen simply as the flip side of the Black Lives Matter movement. As proof of this newfound celebrity for Duke, people now listen to and quote him from his internet radio broadcast, where he noted, "I believe the values of the alt-right — my values, your values — are winning right now in the Republican Party. But we've got to carry it forward. We've got to get Donald Trump elected." (Duke, however, has stopped short of formally endorsing Trump, and Trump, after initially whiffing on the subject, disavowed Duke.)
That enthusiasm from Duke makes the sobering assessment by D.C. McAllister harder to take, because this most recent tactic from liar-Hillary is just another recitation from the race card the Left has played for decades. "Instead of recognizing what the Left has been doing and fighting it with their own social psychology counter-strategy, conservatives have allowed themselves to be stigmatized," writes McAllister. "They have unwisely accepted the premise (consciously or unconsciously) that they're somehow guilty for America's racist past, and have set out to prove they aren't racist. They have failed."
Yet we offer two more counterpoints to liar-Clinton's racial smear. The Democrat-founded KKK, which her ad pins on Trump, hardly exists any longer beyond a handful of guys (often Yankees, by the way) who suffer from personal demons and do not represent any modern political movement. And it was Democrats like LBJ who said of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." So which party is racist again?
For Trump, there may be no right answer — his remarks about illegal immigrants from Mexico, Muslims from the Middle East, and other minorities are already public record and are part of both his appeal to certain segments of society and the cause of revulsion from millions of other voters. But witness two of the concluding sentences of liar-Hillary's speech: "And I'll tell ya, when I was growing up, in so many parts of our country, [Olympian] Simone Manuel would not have been allowed to swim in the same public pool as [fellow Olympian] Katie Ledecky. And now together on our swimming team they're winning Olympic medals as teammates."
liar-Hillary Clinton would have us believe that Donald Trump wants us to return to the days of Jim Crow. We, on the other hand, contend that our nation has long since moved beyond that to a point where only agenda-driven media types obsess about the race of our Olympic athletes.
So why can't we question whether one group's fealty to a certain political party seems to have done it a lot more harm than good for several decades? The fact that liar-Clinton pulled the race card so ham-handedly clearly means she has no answer for this legitimate query about the Democrat Party. ~The Patriot Post
.
OPINION IN BRIEF
David Harsanyi: "The problem with environmentalists isn't merely that they have destructive ideas about the economy, but that so many of them embrace repulsive ideas about human beings. Take a recent NPR piece that asks, 'Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?' If you want to learn about how environmentalism has already affected people in society, read about the couple pondering 'the ethics of procreation' and its impact on the climate before starting a family, or the group of women in a prosperous New Hampshire town swapping stories about how the 'the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.' There are, no doubt, many good reasons a person might have for not wanting children. But it's certainly tragic that some gullible Americans who have the means and emotional bandwidth — and perhaps a genuine desire — to be parents avoid having kids because of a quasi-religious belief in apocalyptic climate change and overpopulation. ... The real problem we face is sustaining population. The replacement fertility rate is 2.1, and in certain places where they fail to meet this threshold ... they've suffered economic and cultural stagnation. ... Here's a provocative thought: Maybe it's the best time in history to have children." ~The Patriot Post
.
"The Longest and Most Vicious
Confrontation": An Interview
by Niram Ferretti
by Niram Ferretti
{danielpipes.org} ~ Daniel Pipes is today one of the most alert observers of the Middle East... From the history of Medieval Islam, he has shifted to modern and contemporary Islam upon which he has concentrated a large part of his focus as a scholar and historian, as well as son of another historian, Richard Pipes, the great Harvard specialist of Soviet Russia history. Founder and president of the Middle East Forum he has written numerous books and countless articles on the subject of Islamism, Islamic history and jihadism. Among them, In the Path of God: Islam and Political power (1983), The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East (1999), and Militant Islam Reaches America (2002). L'Informale: Dr. Pipes, thank you for granting this interview. I would like to start with a question about the connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam. We have been told repeatedly that the roots of Islamic terrorism are not to be found in the religion but in unemployment, frustration, nationalism, and that favored explanation in reaction to Western foreign policy, specifically the U.S. foreign policy. Please comment on this... http://www.danielpipes.org/16930/europe-and-muslims-in-confrontation
.
nObama IRS Protects, Hides Illegal Aliens
Using Our Stolen Social Security Numbers
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ It’s standard operating procedure in the nObama White House and imitation federal government to protect criminal illegal aliens and to allow their lawbreaking to continue whenever possible... The social hierarchy in America has corrupt politicians at the top, those government employees and others who vote them into office second, illegal aliens third, and the American people in general occupying the bottom. When an illegal alien commits a crime, a simple glance at the social order dictates that if the victim is one of those insignificant Americans bottom-dwellers, the illegal alien is not prosecuted if possible and the information as to the offense is to remain hidden. That’s the policy in effect for identity theft of our social security numbers by illegal aliens who are not only in the country in violation of our laws, but working on our social security numbers and committing identity theft in the process. According to a report in the Washington Times, it is the policy of the IRS and the federal government not to notify citizens when their social security number has been stolen and compromised, even though the fraud distorts their records and can lead to future complications... http://rickwells.us/obama-irs-protects-hides-illegal-stolen/
.
Statistics Expose Black Lives Matter Lie,
Democrat Tool Of Death For Votes
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Bill Whittle describes Black Lives Matter as a Democrat Party scam which is a combination street army, terrorist organization and voter turnout machine... He says it “Has killed and will continue to kill policemen, white people, Hispanics and Asians. Oh, and Black Lives Matter gets black people killed too. Whittle says, “Let’s start by disassembling the lie that BLM is based upon, the idea that white people, especially white policemen, are exterminating young American black males. He cites statistics gathered by Heather Mac Donald, true statistics which run directly opposite of the propaganda that BLM, Soros and the regime operatives as well as the media are dispensing to the American public. Based upon those statistics, Whittle theorizes that “If black lives mattered, really mattered to Black Lives Matter, then they would protest what is far and away the primary killers of young black males in America, which is other young black males; but they don’t, so they don’t.”... http://rickwells.us/whittle-expose-black-lives-matter-lie/
.
FBI: liar-Hillary Deleted 30 Emails About Benghazi
by Ben Shapiro
{dailywire.com} ~ It now turns out that liar-Hillary Clinton was – wait for it – lying about her missing emails!... Try to steel yourself for the shock. I know – it’s nearly as shocking as the time Rosie O’Donnell came out of the closet. Nonetheless, it’s true: according to the State Department, among the thousands of emails recovered by the FBI from liar-Hillary’s BleachBit-ridden personal server are some 30 emails about the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Unless there were yoga classes being held at the consulate, that means that liar-Hillary trashed information clearly related to State Department business. Actually, she didn’t just delete them: she had them wiped clean, to make them nearly unrecoverable... http://www.dailywire.com/news/8779/fbi-hillary-deleted-30-emails-about-benghazi-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=083116-news-title&utm_campaign=lead
.
The nObama/liar-Clinton Coup:
DHS To Takeover Elections?
by George Rasley
{conservativehq.com} ~ We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said during a news conference earlier this month... Johnson went on to say "There's a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure." Homeland Security already has the responsibility for protecting 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof according to the DHS website...Johnson has no intention of being honest. http://www.conservativehq.com/article/23977-obama-clinton-coup-dhs-takeover-elections
.
Experts: Latest Defense Authorization
Bill Built Under Likely Veto Threat
by John Grady
{usni.org} ~ A key difference between the work on the defense authorization bill in the House and Senate this year and the past is the current bill was created in anticipation of a veto... two national security budget analysts said on Tuesday. Justin Johnson, of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think-tank, said, “The political system producing the bills is getting worse” as traditional bipartisan agreement over national defense and national security is breaking down. “The administration made it very clear a veto is coming” on the authorization bill, said Andrew Hunter, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies...nObama has things backward and screwed up. https://news.usni.org/2016/08/30/21383?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=c5dfae19a0-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-c5dfae19a0-231491269&mc_cid=c5dfae19a0&mc_eid=3999f18767
.
With The Terror Threat Growing,
Europe Changes Course
by Abigail R. Esman
by Abigail R. Esman
{investigativeproject.org} ~ Sixteen years ago, when Dutch commentator Paul Scheffer published his "Multicultural Drama" declaring that multiculturalism in the Netherlands had failed, the response was swift and angry... Critics across Europe called him racist, bigoted, nationalistic. Others dismissed his views as mere rants and ramblings of a Leftist in search of a cause. Not anymore. With over 275 people killed in 10 Islamic terrorist attacks since January 2015, Europeans harbor no more illusions about the multiculturalist vision: where immigrants from Muslim countries are concerned, that idealist vision has more than just failed. It has produced a culture of hatred, fear, and unrelenting danger. Now, with European Muslim youth radicalizing at an unprecedented rate and the threat of new terrorist attacks, Europe is reassessing its handling of Muslim communities and its counterterrorism strategies and laws... http://www.investigativeproject.org/5617/with-the-terror-threat-growing-europe-changes#
.
Prepare for attack, pray it doesn't happen
by Steve Jordahl
{onenewsnow.com} ~ As Islamic terror threats against churches escalate, so should churches' plans for safety and security – even in the United States... Dabiq – the online magazine ISIS uses for propaganda and recruitment – is telling radical Muslims to target Western churches. Counter-terrorism experts think the blow is most likely to land in Great Britain, but Chuck Chadwick of the Texas-based National Organization of Church Security & Safety Management says churches in America shouldn't ignore the threat. "What we over here can expect is the lone wolf attack," he offers, "[and] it looks like bombing is becoming popular again."... http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2016/08/31/prepare-for-attack-pray-it-doesnt-happen?utm_source=OneNewsNow&utm_medium=email&utm_term=16784818&utm_content=565493864984&utm_campaign=26139
.
The Most Costly Military Waste: Morale
by Mark Alexander
{patriotpost.us} ~ Our Founders, and all qualified commanders in chief since our nation’s founding, have understood that the most reliable prerequisite for peace is the ability to prosecute war... George Washington wrote, “To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Thomas Jefferson wrote likewise, “Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.” A modern-era CINC of that stature, Ronald Reagan, said, “The dustbin of history is littered with remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget … in the final analysis … that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger.”... https://patriotpost.us/alexander/44575
.
The Consequences of a Failed
Palestinian Authority
by BARRY SHAW
by BARRY SHAW
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ A month ago I wrote an article entitled ‘The Failed State of the Two-State Solution.' In it, I wrote that "by the ballot or by the ballot Hamas will head any Palestinian state as they did when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005."... So what has happened in the short time since I released that article? In Nablus, on August 27, an estimated 120,000 protesters demonstrated against the Palestinian Authority after an Arab was beaten to death by PA security men. Many called for an international investigation into the murder as the Palestinian Authority threatened to arrest some of the leaders of the protest march. The town of Nablus has been described as being in "total anarchy." Sporadic violence has broken out in recent days against the Palestinian Authority, often by individuals but also by tribal groups or clans at odds with the increasingly unpopular rule by perceived corrupt leaders... http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-consequences-of-a-failed-palestinian-authority?f=must_reads
.
.
The Bribery Standard
by Charles Krauthammer
{freedomsback.com} ~ Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the liar-Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.
Sanders failed to understand that liar-Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow.
The central problem with liar-Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she did 30,000 emails — at will.
But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: liar-Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to liar-Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the liar-Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming liar-Clinton Restoration.
Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.
Big deal, said the liar-Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.
To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling.
Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary liar-Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.
Current liar-Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.
What a long way we’ve come. This is the very last line of defense. Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling — in exchange.
It’s hard to believe the liar-Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.
On the face of it, it’s rather odd that a visible quid pro quo is the bright line for malfeasance. Anything short of that — the country is awash with political money that buys access — is deemed acceptable. As Donald Trump says of his own donation-giving days, “when I need something from them … I call them, they are there for me.” This is considered routine and unremarkable.
It’s not until a Rolex shows up on your wrist that you get indicted. Or you are found to have dangled a Senate appointment for cash. Then, like Rod Blagojevich, you go to jail. (He got 14 years.)
Yet we are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to portentous boards or invitations to state dinners.
The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of that is considered — not just for the liar-Clintons, for everyone — acceptable corruption.
It’s a sorry standard. And right now it is liar-Hillary Clinton’s saving grace.
Sanders failed to understand that liar-Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow.
The central problem with liar-Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she did 30,000 emails — at will.
But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: liar-Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to liar-Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the liar-Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming liar-Clinton Restoration.
Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.
Big deal, said the liar-Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.
To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling.
Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary liar-Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.
Current liar-Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.
What a long way we’ve come. This is the very last line of defense. Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling — in exchange.
It’s hard to believe the liar-Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.
On the face of it, it’s rather odd that a visible quid pro quo is the bright line for malfeasance. Anything short of that — the country is awash with political money that buys access — is deemed acceptable. As Donald Trump says of his own donation-giving days, “when I need something from them … I call them, they are there for me.” This is considered routine and unremarkable.
It’s not until a Rolex shows up on your wrist that you get indicted. Or you are found to have dangled a Senate appointment for cash. Then, like Rod Blagojevich, you go to jail. (He got 14 years.)
Yet we are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to portentous boards or invitations to state dinners.
The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of that is considered — not just for the liar-Clintons, for everyone — acceptable corruption.
It’s a sorry standard. And right now it is liar-Hillary Clinton’s saving grace.
