Via Hope n’ Change
H/t Cry and Howl
Trump Castigated for Acknowledging Immigration Threats, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, July 29, 2016
There have been no shortage of participants of the Democratic Convention who have dismissed the concerns articulated by Donald Trump in his acceptance speech and elsewhere, as painting a fearful and dark image about America today.
When Donald Trump provided the transcript of his acceptance speech to the media, it was heavily footnoted to verify the claims he made, as the Washington Times reported, “Donald Trump promises ‘the truth, and nothing else,’ releases speech transcript with 282 footnotes.”
The concerns voiced by Mr. Trump were based on reality, a reality that Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others, would rather the American people not know.
On a personal note, fifteen years ago I was diagnosed as having aggressive form of prostate cancer. That diagnosis was dark and frankly, disconcerting. However, because of that diagnosis, I immediately sought an effective treatment. I was fortunate because my cancer was successfully treated.
Had I not immediately sought effective treatment I would not be here today.
Donald Trump has accurately diagnosed America’s serious and indeed, potentially fatal ailments beginning with the Damoclean Sword of terrorism that hovering over our heads. Our safety and wellbeing is also threatened by crime, record levels of drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, a faltering economy, suppressed wages and a shrinking middle class that are not fantasies but are the realities America and Americans face each day.
These concerns certainly paint a dark image, but it is an entirely accurate image and after more than seven years, the current administration bears the responsibility for the situation we are in.
However just as my cancer was treatable, America’s ills are treatable, if and only if our next president and other elected politicians are willing to acknowledge the threats and challenges and then swiftly devise and implement effective strategies to effectively mitigate them.
Donald Trump has properly identified the nexus between failures of the immigration system and the problems we face. This is not to say that immigrants are the problem but that failures of the immigration system have resulted in the entry of aliens criminals, terrorists and huge numbers of foreign workers who displace American workers.
Furthermore there is a world of difference between immigrants and illegal aliens.
Contrary to the claims of Trump’s critics that he has offered no solutions, he advocated securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws that make no distinction about race, religion or ethnicity. They were enacted to protect national security and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.
Trump has called for ending the admission of Syrian refugees and, in fact, any alien who cannot be vetted. This is sensible given the threats posed by ISIS and other terror organizations. This is consistent with our laws and precedents. Indeed, after our embassy was seized in Tehran, President Carter barred the entry of Iranians.
These are practical solutions and do not involve bigotry but commonsense.
The Obama administration implemented the DACA (Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival) program that has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with lawful status and employment authorization. Mr. Obama claimed to have done this because “Congress had failed to act.”
In reality, Congress did act. It voted against the DREAM Act. Hence, acted against what Obama wanted. The DREAM Act would have created a dangerous program that would simply encourage still more illegal immigration, flood the labor pool with still more foreign workers under the auspices of the “DREAM Act” and, while Obama and advocates for the DREAM Act claimed that this was about children, the age cutoff for aliens who would participate in this ill-conceived program was 31. (They simply had to claim that they entered the United States as teenagers.)
The Labor Department has falsely claimed that our unemployment rate stands at approximately 5% while utterly ignoring the tens of millions of working age Americans who have left the workforce.
Mr. Obama has complained about violence in the inner cities and connects the violence to high poverty rates while ignoring that as his second term as president draws to a close, our borders have never been more porous and that he has provided lawful immigration status to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens enabling them to compete with desperate American workers. He ignores the great increase of the number of Americans now on food stamps or that the middle class is shrinking.
Obama’s failures to secure our borders have facilitated the smuggling of record quantities of heroin into the United States. There is a clear nexus between violent crime, gangs and drug addiction and drug trafficking.
Obama has released record numbers of what he deemed “non-violent” federal drug offenders from prison and more than 100,000 criminal aliens from custody. Generally federally prosecuted drug offenses involve large quantities of drugs and almost invariably when individuals engage in large-scale drug crimes they are armed- often heavily armed.
The drug trade is a violent trade where extreme violence is routinely used to make certain that none of those who work for the drug gangs steal drugs or money or cooperate with law enforcement. Extreme violence is also a tactic of the drug gangs to control turf.
It must also be noted that many of the key players in drug gangs are aliens who were sent to the United States by the leaders of Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO’s) who employ them to maintain iron-fisted control over their operations in the United States. Leaders of DTO’s have generally known the people they send to the United States for many years and also know where their family members live back in their home countries. If an employee of a DTO betrays his/her employer, their family members will pay the price with their lives.
Although Obama and his supporters frequently claim that his administration has deported more illegal aliens than any previous administration, their statistics are bogus. They claim that aliens who are denied entry at ports of entry or aliens simply turned around at the border by the Border Patrol were deported (removed). This is the equivalent of claiming that a police officer who writes a parking ticket has made an arrest.
On July 24, 2016 Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, participated in a joint interview by Scott Pelley, correspondent for CBS News’ program, 60 Minutes. That interview has been posted under the title, “The Democratic Ticket: Clinton and Kaine.”
During that interview, when asked about her goals Clinton said, in part,
“I want an economy that creates more jobs. And that’s a lot of jobs. I want an economy that gets back to raising incomes for everybody. Most Americans haven’t had a raise. I want an economy that’s going to help lift millions of people out of poverty. Because, given the great recession, we have fallen back in the wrong direction.”
During his acceptance speech as Vice-Presidential candidate at the DNC Tim Kaine often spoke in Spanish and repeatedly invoked the three word phrase, “Si se puede” which means “Yes, we can.” This phrase is associated with the activist movement to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with a pathway to citizenship and is the precise opposite of Trump’s position.
Both Clinton and Kaine have promised to legalize a population of tens of millions of illegal aliens, giving them an equal standing in the already overflowing labor pool of unemployed Americans. On July 25, 2016 The Washington Times reported, “Tim Kaine promises bill to legalize illegal immigrants in ‘first 100 days’.”
Inasmuch as labor is a commodity, flooding the labor pool with millions of authorized workers will drive down wages and displace still more American and lawful immigrant workers.
It is absolutely impossible to provide lawful status to millions of illegal aliens and then magically put unemployed Americans to work and increase the wages of the workers. Additionally, each month the United States admits a greater number of authorized foreign workers than the number of new jobs that is created.
It has been said that you don’t bring sand to the beach.
When you find a hole in the bottom of the boat, it would be insane to believe that drilling more holes in the bottom of that boat would enable the water to escape. The rational and obvious approach would be to seal that hole.
America does not have a shortage of workers, it has a shortage of jobs. Flooding America with still more foreign workers is the equivalent of drilling more holes in the bottom of that boat.
Additionally, there would be no way to conduct interviews interviews or field investigations of these millions of illegal aliens whose true identities or dates of entry could not be determined and who entered the United States surreptitiously, evading the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would undermine national security, public safety, public health and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.
This violates commonsense and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would do irreparably undermine national security and public safety as would Hillary Clinton’s stated plans to greatly increase the number of Syrian Refugees who are admitted into the United States when the Director of the FBI and other high-ranking Obama administration officials have unequivocally testified before Congress that these refugees cannot be vetted.
Although never discussed, it is vital to note that if millions of illegal aliens were granted lawful status they would immediately be legally eligible to bring all of their spouses and minor children to the United States. This would flood our nation’s schools with millions of additional children, most of whom cannot read, write or speak English. Several years ago the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report that noted that it costs 20% to 40% more to teach a child who lacks English language proficiency. Imagine the impact this would have on American children- especially those who attend schools that are already struggling to provide their students with a good education.
As the title of one of my recent articles noted, “‘It’s the Immigration Problem, Stupid’ – Secure borders are synonymous with safety and that’s what Americans want in 2016.”
O’Keefe Undercover With Outraged Dems at the DNC, Project Veritas Action via YouTube, July 28, 2016
According to the blurb beneath the video,
In this new video from Project Veritas Action, James O’Keefe goes undercover as a Hillary Clinton supporter with outraged Democrats at the DNC. Angry protesters scream and shout about their hatred for Hillary Clinton and how they’ve been disenfranchised by the DNC, the Democratic Party establishment and political elites. James O’Keefe gets assaulted by an angry Bernie Sanders supporter. Watch this video to see what the mainstream media refuses to cover.
What if an Anti-American Cult Had a Convention? American Thinker, Jeffrey T. Brown, July 29, 2016
Anyway, I used to wonder what it would look like if such a cult had a convention. I don’t anymore.
**********************
Have you ever wondered what it might look like if a cult that enabled death and destruction and chaos and anarchy had its own national convention? I have.
Preceding that convention, we might already presumably know something about that cult, as well as its goals and objectives, since cults exist to spur larger and more oppressive versions of themselves that usurp power and mandate allegiance. They can’t very well do this under a bushel basket. They have to go public in order to recruit enough gullible and warped individuals to swell the ranks.
If there were such a cult, we might foresee that it would be made up of narrow-minded, intolerant, hate-filled people who reject the dignity of human life and self-determination. They would so resent the individualism and freedom of other segments of society as to believe that their superiority, and that of their vision, entitles them to do anything, and take anything, they wish. I imagine that such people, driven by a bizarre lack of self-awareness, and an equally impressive degree of selfishness and narcissism, would not only condone the death of others, but capitalize on death as a tool to further their agenda of control and oppression. After all, the rationalization goes, the exploited are dead. What do they care? And what is death but a practical response to an inconvenient obstacle to primacy?
If such a cult had its own convention, its members might prominently reward those who had committed the most damage. In the event that members had died doing damage, their family members would make worthy stand-ins. They could proudly tell lies about their ideological enemies, the ones whose deaths they threaten and chant about, while flaunting their fake victimhood for all their fellow believers. What a heartwarming moment that would be.
If there were such a convention, perhaps we could expect to see flags representative of regimes that soaked themselves in the blood of their own citizens and their enemies. Maybe some nice Soviet flags, or Communist Chinese flags, or some Palestinian flags. What a pretty spectacle that would be at a convention of supposedly American citizens who left American ideals behind decades ago in pursuit of domination, increasingly by any means necessary. Of course, they get to arbitrarily decide what is “necessary” to achieve their objectives. They really don’t want to hear from the rest of us. When it’s time, they will tell us what flag we are permitted to fly, if we survive their plans for us.
At such a convention, we might expect that God and religion are so objectionable that they are booed and marginalized. Why, they might even boo during the invocation at the outset of the convention, though why such people would have an invocation is beyond me. Perhaps they await the blessing of the entity to whom Saul Alinsky, one of their patrons, dedicated his book. Certainly that would make sense. After all, such a cult would probably have officially removed the actual God from its party platform years ago.
Such a convention might prominently feature those who have not only broken the law, but are immensely proud of their lawlessness and how they have gained from it, along with their friends. After all, what good is massive corruption if you can’t share it with those you wish to keep from stabbing you in the back? Soulless cults aren’t known for their sincere camaraderie, you know.
These folks wouldn’t admit to their crimes, of course, but would go out of their way to demonize those who believe that criminals should be treated like criminals. Going to jail is bad for business, and once one goes, a lot of them could follow. Therefore, it’s best to make sure there is no “first one” heading to the slammer. The answer is to condemn the law-abiding, smear them, and bring the weight of the cult down on their heads, so they know that it is better that they, or someone coming along after them, suffer in silence.
The members of such a cult would not only engage in their own mayhem, but embrace and protect other like-minded criminals. After all, there are plenty of spoils to be shared if all of the murderers and thieves simply accept their fair share. So the domestic cult would run interference for the foreign death cults. The American cult members would lie about the foreign cultists’ deeds and motivations, proclaiming that the foreign agents can’t be believed when they openly and consistently profess that they are motivated by their own death cult, with rules contained in a book they treat the way their American allies treat Saul Alinsky’s book. Cults have to have their “bibles,” after all. Lord knows the real Bible doesn’t help them out very much.
Perhaps, if there were such a convention, there would be anger, and resentment, and envy, and jealousy, and bitterness, and derision, and violence, since there isn’t much sweetness and light in death cults. Even their attempts at sweetness and light are patently false and condescending and obviously scripted and insincere. Destroying the lives, fortunes, and opportunities of hundreds of millions of people, and consigning some of them to suffering and death, is a mean business. For instance, you can’t be a happy soul while you make health care so unaffordable and poor that people perish for lack of funds to get treatment. You can’t be a kind soul while fervently advocating the death of millions of unborn human beings based on the lie that they aren’t real.
Death cults exist to extinguish happiness and kindness. They exist to rule and crush their enemies until they win.
And if there were such a convention, we shouldn’t expect to be truthfully told that any of the foregoing events were occurring. After all, such cults are still able to admit to themselves what they are about, and that there are still a lot of people who haven’t consented to be owned and ruled like subjects who can foresee where the cult is going and what is likely to happen before it gets there.
One thing we know about cults is that there were other cults like them before the most recent version. Cults that use death and destruction and anarchy to achieve their ends are really nothing new. What is new, however, is the seemingly growing number of Americans who are willing to empower the hierarchy of the cult to complete its mission. In the end, the cult will treat them the same as it treats the rest of its enemies. They will be just as expendable as those who resisted. By then it will be too late.
Anyway, I used to wonder what it would look like if such a cult had a convention. I don’t anymore.
Peace Now, the Philly version, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, July 29, 2016
U.S. President Barack Obama tried to sell Hillary Clinton to the American people when he spoke to the Democratic National Convention in Cleveland on Wednesday. After eight years in the White House, she is the most optimistic thing he has to offer, and Obama spoke about hope as if it was still 2008. If Clinton represents hope, fresh ideas and innovation, than Republican nominee Donald Trump has a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
In 2008 we witnessed a brutal fight between the Democrats. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had no mercy for each other. We all know how that fight ended: Obama became president; Clinton was left in debt. But the Clintons have this magic ability to land on their feet. In 2008, Clinton endorsed Obama (at the very last moment), then became his secretary of state and traveled the world. She saw conflicts up close. That is, she saw them rather than solved them.
The president getting emotional in Philadelphia was very emotional. His speech was too long, and he was too indignant. At the end of his address Clinton got up on stage, and the two hugged each other for a long minute. Bill Clinton, who watched from the VIP seats, had no reason to be jealous. He knows full well that this strong embrace was Obama’s way of asking for a third term.
It seemed as though the Democratic National Convention was taking place in a parallel universe. Recent polls show Americans are concerned over terrorism, over their personal safety, the rise in crime and the erosion in America’s status. But the Democrats in Philadelphia were determined to sell a utopian reality to America. The U.S. has never been stronger, the speakers insisted, even as Syrian President Bashar Assad was taking over Aleppo with Russian help.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, America has never been in a better shape, and that is why wars and conflicts were all but ignored in the convention. The message coming out of the city of brotherly love was this: We all like one another; there are no bad guys.
However uplifting that may be, terrorism was almost nowhere to be mentioned because Democratic conventions steer clear of that issue as much as possible. On Wednesday night the speakers had no choice, though, because national security was front and center. The Democrats’ tendency to bury their heads in the sand can play into the hands of the Republican nominee, because terrorism has increasingly become an issue in this election. Clinton has become associated with the Obama administration’s incompetency in the fight against the Islamic State, and rightly so.
Senators Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Brian Schatz (Hawaii) are concerned that Republicans are perceived as stronger on terrorism. This was reinforced when they heard the delegates in Cleveland shouting “No more war!” on Wednesday during former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s speech to the convention floor. As if America gets to decide if wars break out.
If Democrats want to win in November they have to address the issue that worries Americans the most: national security and terrorism, which according to one survey, is the top concern for 28% of Americans. But the Democratic National Convention’s message was heard loud and clear: peace now. This could explain why the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times daily tracking poll had Trump lead by 7 percentage points as of Wednesday.
Source: Alan Dershowitz: The New York Times makes a shocking mistake | Fox News
Published July 28, 2016

May 14, 2014: Pedestrians wait for cabs across the street from The New York Times in New York. (AP) (AP Photo/Bruce Smith)
In a recent article “Amid Push to Curb Police Abuse, Some Act on Fringe,” The New York Times quoted Malik Zulu Shabazz’s call to kill all Zionists in Israel, including their “old ladies” and “little babies.”
Those words alone are shocking and reprehensible but the Times reporters failed to properly identify Shabazz. They said he was “a former New Black Panther leader.” It is odd to identify someone by reference to his “former” role, when his current role is more important and more relevant to the story. Shabazz is the current president of Black Lawyers for Justice, an organization that assists plaintiffs with police abuse cases and frequently organizes rallies with notorious hate groups, such as Nation of Islam.
A 30 second Google search revealed Shabazz’s current role in an organization with “justice” hypocritically in its title. Why did the Times choose to identify him by reference to his former, rather than current role?
I know enough about the Times’ fact checking process to be certain that the reporters were aware of his present role. If they made an explicit editorial decision to omit it, the readers are entitled to know why.
A 30 second Google search revealed Shabazz’s current role in an organization with “justice” hypocritically in its title. Why did the Times choose to identify him by reference to his former, rather than current role?
Was it in order to artificially widen the distance between violent radical “fringe” groups and more mainstream groups that are seeking to curb police abuse? Why not include the current role of this hateful inciter of genocide and let the reader judge his proximity to the mainstream.
The Times didn’t even identify Shabazz as a member of the bar – a practicing lawyer – who, together with his fellow members of Black Lawyers for Justice, gives legal advice to some of those mainstream groups the Times was focusing on in the article.
As president of Black Lawyers for Justice, Shabazz, has called for genocide against the Jews of Israel: “Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddam little babies, goddam old ladies? Blow up Zionist supermarkets.” And, he has not limited his hateful vitriol to Zionists. He had blamed Jews for blowing up the World Trade Center: “They got their people out.” He has accused the Jews of “[k]illing Christ,” and said that “God condemns you.” He has said that “Jews” set up the death of Martin Luther King. He blames “[t]he Jewish rabbis” and “the Talmud” for “the African holocaust.” He has said that “the European Jews have America under control, lock stock and barrel, the media, foreign policy.”
This bigoted inciter of genocide is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia — despite having been disciplined by that bar for numerous acts of unprofessional conduct. Those acts include “failing to provide competent representation” to clients, “failing to safe-keep his client’s property” and “knowingly assisting another to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Applicants for admission to the bar have been excluded for expressing racist ideas far less virulent than the genocidal incitements attributed to Shabazz.
While these incitements may be protected by the First Amendment, they may also demonstrate unfitness to practice law, especially when considered against the background of the other unprofessional conduct of which Shabazz has been found guilty.
One thing is clear: no decent person should have anything to do with this anti-Semitic hate monger, and every legitimate organization concerned about police abuse should disassociate themselves from him and from his organization.
Yet Cornel West, a Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary and Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, recently introduced this despicable bigot at a “March of the Oppressed” rally in Cleveland. West praised Shabazz as “my dear brother,” someone whom he has known for 20 years and who “is still on the battlefield.”
He compared this rancid anti-Semite to the great Martin Luther King. He asked the crowd to applaud for Shabazz, which they did. He then hugged him.
You can view West’s speech at #MASSIVE rally and March in #CLE #BlackLivesMatter on YouTube.
West’s endorsement of Shabazz is comparable to a white professor introducing the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan with such effusive praise.
Despite West’s close association with and support for this advocate of genocide against Jewish babies, West was appointed to the Democratic Party Platform Committee by Bernie Sanders.
For shame!
Alan Dershowitz is emeritus professor at Harvard and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.”
Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims
by Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani
Jul 28, 2016 10:01 am
Source: Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims | ThinkProgress

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Monday, July 18, 2016.
Former New York City Mayor and current Donald Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani said on Wednesday that he thinks it’s an “excellent idea” to monitor Muslims on the federal watch list through electronic monitoring tags.
“I would think that’s an excellent idea,” Giuliani told reporters at a press conference, according to NJ Advance Media. “If you’re on the terror watch list, I should you know you’re on the terror watch list. You’re on there for a reason.”
Giuliani said he would suggest that Trump use the same measure of electronically monitoring people as in France. Both the attackers involved in the killing of a priest in Normandy on Tuesday were already known to French security services and on watch lists, and one was being monitored through an electronic tag.
The terrorism watch list and no-fly list are notorious for ethnic and religious profiling, and many innocent people end up on the list — but Giuliani’s comments come as no surprise given his own penchant for surveillance of the Muslim community, another ineffective practice, during his time as New York’s mayor.
“I put undercover agents in mosques for the first time in January 1994,” said Giuliani, following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which left six dead and hundreds wounded. “I did it because the 1993 bombing was planned in a mosque in Union City, New Jersey, and a second plan was uncovered to bomb our subways, which was foiled. And I kept those police officers in those mosques until I left as mayor.”
Surveillance of the Muslim community in New York grew exponentially after the 9/11 attacks, and according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), involved the mapping of Muslim communities, heavy photo and video surveillance, police informants, and entire databases with personal information about innocent Muslims. The ACLU has deemed the surveillance “unconstitutional” and said it contributes to an “atmosphere of fear and mistrust” — but perhaps equally important, such methods are wholly ineffective. According to a 2012 report from the Associated Press, in six years of spying on Muslims, listening to their conversations, and cataloging mosques, the NYPD didn’t get a single lead or begin even one terrorism investigation.
The watch lists Giuliani wants to monitor Muslims through also don’t work. As ThinkProgress has previously reported:
Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people. A leak revealed that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.
The watch lists are so huge, and riddled with errors, in large part due to the low bar for evidence. The government’s March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance, for example, notes that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to put someone on a watch list.
Trump has previously called for registering all Muslims in a “database,” racial profiling of Muslims, and banning all Muslims from the United States — a ban which his adviser once said would include Muslim Americans as well. He has also suggested that Muslims know about attacks before they happen and do nothing to stop them and said that Obama, who he has repeatedly called a Muslim, is allowing Muslims to commit attacks like the one in Orlando last month.
Hillary Obstructed Boko Haram’s Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In, PJ Media, Patrick Poole, July 28, 2016
(But hashtags should have worked.
— DM)
In January 2015, I was one of the first to report on a massive massacre by Nigerian terror group Boko Haram in Borno State in northwest Nigeria, with reportedly thousands killed. Witnesses on the ground reported that bodies littered the landscape for miles as towns and villages had been burned to the ground, their populations murdered or fled.
By that time, Boko Haram had already become the most lethal terrorist organization in the world, now responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Just yesterday, the United Nations accused Boko Haram of “almost unimaginable” levels of violence and brutality.
And yet, as Boko Haram began to ramp up its terror campaign in 2011 and 2012, Hillary Clinton obstructed the official terror designation of the group over the objections of Congress, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department.
Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department drag its feet on the terror designation in the face of near unanimous opposition from the rest of the U.S. government?
A recent series of reports exposes that a close Clinton family confidante — and Hillary campaign bundler — who profited from Nigeria’s lucrative oil fields. He engaged in multiple illegal deals throughout Africa.
Also, other donors to the Clinton Global Initiative are deeply involved in Nigeria’s corrupt oil industry.
Were they the motivation behind Hillary’s inexplicable position on Boko Haram?
As PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson has previously asked, is Boko Haram Hillary Clinton’s biggest scandal? Hillary Clinton is set to accept the Democratic Party nomination for president of the United States. Why is no one in the media talking about Hillary and Boko Haram?
It is worth nothing that Congress had to drag a reluctant State Department kicking and screaming to get Boko Haram designated in November 2013, after Hillary Clinton had left office.
Hillary Clinton’s willful obstruction in the matter is easy to document:
An important two-part investigative series by WORLD Magazine reporters Mindy Belz and J.C. Derrick provides some insight:
Part 1 of our series on Clinton State Dept & Boko Haram@WORLD_mag https://world.wng.org/2016/05/troubling_ties … and Part 2https://world.wng.org/2016/06/fatal_connections … #Nigeria
Belz and Derrick discovered that Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram designation, and the continuing chaos in northern Nigeria — Africa’s largest economy and the 10th largest oil producer in the world — directly benefited Clinton Global Initiative donors and a close Clinton confidante who bundled campaign cash for Hillary.
From Belz’s and Derrick’s second article:
Perhaps the most prominent Nigerian with ties to the Clintons is Houston-based Kase Lawal. The founder of CAMAC Energy, an oil exploration and energy consortium, Lawal had a long history with Bill Clinton before becoming a “bundler” for Hillary’s 2008 presidential bid, amassing $100,000 in contributions and hosting a fundraiser in his Houston home — a 14-room, 15,264-square-foot mansion. Lawal maxed out donations to Hillary’s 2016 primary campaign, and his wife Eileen donated $50,000 — the most allowed — to President Obama’s 2009 inaugural committee.Lawal describes himself as a devout Muslim who began memorizing the Quran at age 3 while attending an Islamic school. “Religion played a very important role in our lives,” he told a reporter in 2006. “Every time you finish a chapter they kill a chicken, and if you finish the whole thing, a goat.”
Today the Houston oil exec — who retired in May as CEO but continues as chairman of the board of CAMAC, now called Erin Energy — tops the list of wealthiest Nigerians living in North America. His firm reports about $2.5 billion in annual revenue, making it one of the top private companies in the United States.
In Africa, Lawal has been at the center of multiple criminal proceedings, even operating as a fugitive. Over the last decade, he faced charges in South Africa over an illegal oil scheme along with charges in Nigeria of illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lawal arranged a 2011 plot to purchase 4 tons of gold from a rebel warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, linked to massacres and mass rapes. Ntaganda was on a U.S. sanctions list, meaning anyone doing business with him could face up to 20 years in prison. Lawal contacted Clinton’s State Department, and authorities in Congo released his plane and associates in the plot.
He never faced charges in the United States, and he remains a commissioner for the Port Authority of Houston.
Lawal’s energy firm holds lucrative offshore oil licenses in Nigeria, as well as exploration and production licenses in Gambia, Ghana, and Kenya, where he operates in a conflict-ridden area largely controlled by Somalia’s al-Shabaab militants.
The firm also has held contracts in Nigeria for crude oil lifting, or transferring oil from its collection point to refineries. Until last year, when newly elected President Muhammadu Buhari began an effort to reform the process, contracting for lifting has been awash in kickbacks, bribes, and illegal activity.
Overland lifting contracts often involve partnership with the North’s past and present governors, including those who serve as quasi-warlords with ties to Boko Haram and other militants.
Lawal’s enterprises have long been rumored to be involved in such deals, as have indigenous oil concerns like Petro Energy and Oando, Nigeria’s largest private oil and gas company, based in Lagos and headed by Adewale Tinubu, another controversial Clinton donor.
In 2014, Oando pledged 1.5 percent of that year’s pre-tax profits and 1 percent of future profits to a Clinton Global Initiative education program. This year, Adewale gained notoriety when the Panama Papers revealed he holds at least 12 shell companies, leading to suspicion of money laundering, tax evasion, and other corruption.
In 2013 Bill Clinton stood alongside Adewale’s uncle, Bola Tinubu, while attending the dedication of a massive, controversial reclamation project called Eko Atlantic. Critics call Bola Tinubu, leader of the ruling All Progressives Congress party, Nigeria’s “looter in chief.” A Nigerian documentary says that when the billionaire landowner was governor of Lagos State (1999-2007), he funneled huge amounts of state funds — up to 15 percent of annual tax revenues — to a private consulting firm in which he had controlling interest.
In the United States, where he studied and worked in the 1970s and ’80s, Tinubu is still a suspect in connection with a Chicago heroin ring he allegedly operated with his wife and three other family members. In 1993 Tinubu forfeited $460,000 to American authorities, who believe he trafficked drugs and laundered the proceeds.
But wait, there’s more:
Beneath the surface, literally, Boko Haram was making it possible for illicit operators to lay claim to the area for their own purposes, and to pump oil from Nigeria’s underground reserves to Chad. Using 3-D drilling, Chad operators can extract Nigerian oil — without violating Nigerian property rights — to sell on open markets. One benefactor of the arrangement is Ali Modu Sheriff, a leading politician in the North, Borno State governor until 2011, and an alleged sponsor of Boko Haram, who is close friends with longtime Chad President Idriss Déby.The very terrorism that seems to be deterring oil exploration in reality can help illicit extraction, forcing residents to flee and giving cover to under-the-table oil traders. In 2015, a year when overall oil prices dipped 6 percent, Lawal’s Erin Energy stock value skyrocketed 295 percent—the best-performing oil and gas stock in the United States.
Every word of Belz’s and Derrick’s two-part investigative series is worth reading.
Of course, Hillary’s defenders will claim all of this — Clinton obstructing the terrorist designation of what is now the most lethal terrorist organization in the world on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors and close Clinton family confidantes — is crazy conspiracy talk.
But they also said that about Hillary’s role in the fast-tracking approval of Russia’s acquisition of a large chunk of America’s uranium supply — while the Clinton Foundation was taking money from those profiting from the deal.
Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram terror designation in the face of FBI, CIA, DOJ, and Congressional urging to do so is a documented fact. But the reason for Hillary’s obstruction, which the establishment media has never pressed Clinton for, remains unanswered.
Don’t expect any of the talking heads on tonight’s coverage of Hillary’s DNC convention acceptance speech to press the matter, either.
Creeping Sharia in Health Care, American Thinker, Carol Brown, July 28, 2016
(If Islamists are to be our masters, we had best make them healthy, wealthy and wise. — DM)
Islamic supremacy is arriving in medical settings using stealth means, or what is often referred to as creeping sharia. Common themes include Muslim health care workers refusing to uphold infection control protocols, Muslim medical students refusing to study topics they deem forbidden according to Islamic law, Muslim visitors in hospitals ignoring hygiene guidelines to protect patients, and hospitals bending over backwards (or is it forwards?) to accommodate Muslim demands above and beyond anything done for members of any other religious or demographic group. Also covered are outright acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim men who attack hospital personnel.
Islamic supremacy + dhimmitude = the end of civilized societies. Before I begin the (by no means exhaustive) list of how this equation is playing out in health care settings throughout the West, I’d like to share a personal story.
Shortly after the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks I had occasion to speak with a Muslim doctor who lived down the street from me. At that point in time I was completely ignorant about Islam and was, in fact, still a leftist (though wouldn’t be for much longer).
The doctor, a meticulously groomed, soft-spoken, modern-appearing man made it clear that, among other things, he believed that Muslim females become “mature” when they turned nine and therefore can be married at that age. I ignored the alarm bell that went off in my head when he made that statement. Of course I’ve long since realized that this highly educated doctor who worked at a prestigious hospital had sanctioned, at the very least, child rape (in keeping with the teachings of his prophet, the king of all pedophiles, Mohammed).
And therein lies the rub with Muslim doctors, as with all Muslims. If they are good Muslims and follow the teachings of the Quran, their values will necessarily be in direct conflict with our own.
So with that in mind, let me begin our tour through Islamic supremacy in medial settings right here in the United States.
An Islamic medical association operating in this country was identified by the Muslim Brotherhood as one among several “organizations of our friends” — friends that could help the MB advance their goal of destroying America from within. Part of the association’s oath includes: “We serve no other God besides [Allah] and regard idolatry as an abominable injustice.”
Islamic supremacy also asserts itself through lawfare as when a Muslim medical student who was dismissed due to poor academic performance sued the medical school on grounds of discrimination. Another case involved a Muslim health care worker who was fired because she refused to get a flu vaccine (required in hospital settings to protect patients) claiming the vaccine violated her Islamic faith because it contained a pork by product and that the entire affair violated her civil rights.
In addition to lawfare there are many other ways Muslims push for special accommodations such as Muslim doctors and advocacy organizations calling on health care personnel to be more knowledgeable about Muslim traditions so they can better meet the needs of their Muslim patients.
And so hospitals across the country are implementing an array of services for Muslim patients, including halal meals, alternatives to medications that contain alcohol and/or pork derivatives, gowns for women designed to protect their modesty, early morning and late night appointments during the month of Ramadan, hiring more Muslim chaplains, handing out Qurans to the parents of Muslim children after they’re born, providing prayer rugs, hosting Iftar events, and setting up prayers rooms exclusively for Muslims who often find existing multi-faith prayers rooms offensive and/or inconvenient.
One town in Illinois proposed a “Muslim-centric” medical facility replete with many of the features noted above as well as Arabic-speaking staff, private rooms to ensure a Muslim standard of modesty, and space for ritual foot baths. The state rejected the plan but it was resubmitted without any references to sharia law.
There has also been a proliferation of medical outreach programs for the Muslim community along with “sensitivity training” for medical staff who are expected to become so well versed in the array of Muslim patients’ needs that they can discern differences between the needs of a Muslim from Pakistan compared to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.
The Muslim-as-victim meme rears its head as well, such as the idea that Muslims “don’t have access” to healthcare, as was recently asserted by the vice president of cultural competence at a medical center in Brooklyn, NY.
And when Muslims do access health care, special demands may be made as when a Muslima in New Jersey went to an emergency room complaining of chest pain and insisted on a male technician after she was told she’d need an electrocardiogram. No male technician was available and she was informed of her options. She decided to sit and wait. After several hours her husband requested she be transferred to a different hospital. The couple then sued, claiming the Patient’s Bill of Rights entitled the Muslima to her demands.
The issue of Muslima patients demanding same-sex health care professionals in emergency situations is one I expect to escalate, as is happening in Europe. But first, let’s take a quick detour to Canada where medical professionals banned virginity tests and the issuance of “chastity certificates” (popular in the Muslim culture) after the discovery of four dead Afghan women who were victims of “honor killings.” Elsewhere in Canada on a maternity ward where shared rooms arranged four beds with privacy curtains in between, a Muslim couple received greater levels of privacy than were afforded to others when their demands ejected at least one non-Muslim couple out of the ward and into a much more costly private room that the couple had to pay for.
In Europe the situation is even more dire. And pervasive.
In the UK, an 87-year-old Alzheimer’s patient was forced to wait for care after she fell because the Muslim charge nurse withheld assistance until he finished his prayers. This delay in care lasted five to ten minutes. The patient died shortly thereafter.
Meanwhile, in at least one British hospital, staff were turning the beds of Muslim patients up to five times a day so patients could face Mecca while they pray. Then staff turned them back when the patients were finished. Staff were also expected to provide Muslim patients with running water so they can wash their feet before prayer.
And then there is the issue of traditional Muslim attire, much of which doesn’t meet standards for infection control. The National Health Service requires staff providing direct care to patients to be in short sleeves to reduce the risk of transmitting increasingly deadly pathogens from one patient to another. Since many Muslim women consider it immodest to expose their forearms, some have refused to do so for proper hand-washing or scrubbing in prior to surgery. So the NHS developed disposable sleeves for Muslim health care workers who have direct patient contact.
Naturally the tale above would not be complete without the Muslim-claiming-discrimination story as when a British radiographer who was faced with having to choose between losing her job or complying with the dress code, chose Islam over her job, then complained about having to make the choice. Meanwhile, the Islamic Medical Association in the UK upheld the Islamic tenet that Muslim women out in public must be covered, stating: “No practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse, or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow.”
But it doesn’t stop there. (It never stops when it comes to Islamic supremacism.) Some Muslimas working in hospitals in the UK also want sterile hijabs to wear in the operating room and a private place to scrub in so their modesty can be protected. Some Muslim health care workers also refuse to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer because they claim it is forbidden according to Islamic law.
And what of British Muslims studying to work in health care? Well, some have refused to attend classes or learn about anything that conflicts with the teachings of the Quran, such as material on evolution and health issues related sexual promiscuity and/or alcohol consumption. The commitment to avoid all things alcohol-related also impacts patient safety when Muslim visitors to hospitals refuse to use anti-bacterial gel before entering patient wards, ignoring signs posted throughout British hospitals asking visitors to use the gel in order to reduce the spread of infection. (Of note, there is nothing in Islamic law that would suggest Muslims cannot use alcohol-based sanitary gels and it appears that some Muslims are using this as a point of leverage to assert supremacy. See here, here, and here.)
The final exhibit of the UK tour is a Muslim dentist who insisted his female patients wear hijabs, keeping a stash of head scarves in his office to give them. He abandoned at least two patients in acute pain who refused to don the hijab and on at least one occasion provided lesser quality care to a patient’s son when the mother agreed to wear the hijab but apparently didn’t answer a question about her son’s prayer habits in a way that pleased the dentist. Of note, the dentist’s younger brother is an Islamic extremist who stated that the 9/11 terror attack served “the pleasure of Allah.”
Throughout Europe it has also become increasingly common for Muslim men to physically attack male doctors. In some cases, women are denied urgently needed medical care because their spouses are adamant that they be attended to by a female, or not be attended to at all.
In France, a newborn’s father called the midwife a “rapist” then broke into the locked delivery room after seeing a nurse remove his wife’s burqa so she could give birth, hit the nurse in the face, and demanded she put the burqa back on his wife. In another case a Muslim male physically attacked a gynecologist who stepped in to assist with his wife’s complicated delivery. A few months prior to that, another doctor was attacked by a knife-wielding Islamist.
In Belgium, when a Muslim woman needed an emergency c-section, her husband blocked the door to the operating room because the anesthesiologist was a male. After being told no female anesthesiologists were available a two-hour stand-off ensued after which time an imam was called upon who allowed the doctor to administer an epidural through a tiny opening in the woman’s burqa. A female nurse performed the surgery while the anesthesiologist remained outside the room shouting instructions to another nurse who was monitoring the anesthesia. An organization of anesthesiologists stated there have been other such incidents involving Muslim patients and their families.
In Sweden, it’s more of the same. When a male doctor answered an urgent call to assist with a mother who was bleeding heavily after giving birth, the woman’s husband screamed at him to leave the room immediately. When the doctor refused, the husband and the brother-in-law physically attacked him.
In addition to Muslim males becoming enraged if a male health care provider attends to their wife, there other things that may set them off. (Like just about everything.) And so a Turkish Muslim went on a violent rampage in a Catholic hospital in Germany because there were too many crosses on the walls.
Barbarism meets the West. (And I haven’t even touched upon the abject madness that has unfolded in hospitals across Europe as invaders invade en masse, here, here, and here.)
As the Muslim population in a society increases, expressions of Islamic supremacy become more and more aggressive. How it manifests in health care settings is just one of many ways in which the West is slowly and steadily being taken down by those who embrace an ideology that mandates nothing less than world domination.
Hat tips: Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, Islam in Europe, Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Boston Herald, Front Page Magazine, Discover the Networks, BBC, Daily Mail, Metro UK, Telegraph, The Guardian, Nursing Times, Modern Health Care, Middle East Forum, Islam in Europe, Islamist Watch, The Whig, The Age, Religion News, Europe1, Lancet, Society for Human Resource Management, Wikipedia, and Daniel Pipes whose 2007 comprehensive overview of the subject matter provided a wealth of material.
Merkel At Emergency Press Conference: Germany Stands By Mass Migration Policy Despite Terror Attacks, Breitbart, Liam Deacon, July 28, 2016
(Please see also, Juncker: No Matter How Bad Migrant Crisis, Terrorism Gets, We’ll Never Give Up On Open Borders. — DM)
Tobias Schwarz/AFP/Getty
After a week of Islamist attacks by migrants and ‘refugees’, the German Chancellor has admitted terrorists used her open door policy to bring in people to commit violence, but refused to reverse her approach.
Defending her decision to tear up EU asylum rules for Syrian migrants, she said she had “acted in line with my knowledge and conscience” and said Germany would “stick to our principles” and “give shelter to those who deserve it”.
The German Chancellor had rushed back from a holiday and was speaking at a press conference that had been hastily brought forward to address the carnage in her country.
She repeated her “We can do this!” catchphrase, which she first uttered at the same conference last year before welcoming 1.5 million mainly young, male, Middle Eastern migrants to Germany.
(Video at the link. — DM)
“As chancellor, I am responsible for, by far, most decisions. I always have to weigh up if a decision meets our values — which does not mean that there are no risks,” she said.
Adding: “The basic principle that Germany stands by [is that] its humanitarian responsibility is the right thing.”
She did, however, say that “we will have to redouble efforts to deport people” who commit crimes and pledged that weapons laws across Europe would be sharpened.
She also claimed that terrorists wanted Germany to take in fewer migrants, and said she would not bow to their wishes.
“The terrorists want to make us lose sight of what is important to us, break down our cohesion and sense of community as well as inhibiting our way of life, our openness and our willingness take in people who are in need,” she said.
Adding: “They see hatred and fear between cultures and they see hatred and fear between religions. We stand decisively against that.”
In the past ten days, Germany has been rocked by four violent attacks – three of which were committed by migrants, and two had links to Islamic State.
One Syrian “refugee” hacked a pregnant woman to death on the street. Another Syrian, who came from Bulgaria, blew himself up outside a music festival injuring 15, and a “refugee” attacked multiple people on a train just over a week ago.
(Audio at the link. — DM)
Recent Comments