Archive for August 12, 2016

Report: 96 Percent of Clintons’ Charity Donations Went to Family Foundation

August 12, 2016

Report: 96 Percent of Clintons’ Charity Donations Went to Family Foundation, Washington Free Beacon, August 12, 2016

Hillary and Bill Clinton funneled 96 percent of their charitable donations to their own family foundation, according to the Democratic nominee’s 2015 tax returns.

Last year, $1 million of the total $1,042,000 that the Clintons deducted in charitable contributions went to the Clinton Family Foundation, the Daily Caller reported Friday.

The tax return showed that the other $42,000 in contributions went to Desert Classic Charities, a nonprofit that organizes an annual charity golf tournament. The organization then in turn contributed $700,000 to the Clinton Foundation. A foundation adviser and longtime Bill Clinton assistant, Doug Band, was on the organization’s board of directors through 2014, according to IRS filings.

The Clintons earned in total more than $10.5 million in 2015, primarily from paid speeches. Less than 10 percent of their total income went to charity.

Clinton released her tax returns Friday as pressure builds on Donald Trump to follow suit. The Republican nominee has argued that he cannot release his returns because he is being audited by the IRS.

An IRS official told the Washington Post in April that there was no reason Trump could not release his tax returns prior to 2009.

Trump still holds the aces against Hillary Clinton

August 12, 2016

Trump still holds the aces against Hillary Clinton, Spectator (UK), August 13, 2016

WILMINGTON, NC - AUGUST 9: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the audience during a campaign event at Trask Coliseum on August 9, 2016 in Wilmington, North Carolina. This was TrumpÕs first visit to Southeastern North Carolina since he entered the presidential race. (Photo by Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

WILMINGTON, NC – AUGUST 9: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the audience during a campaign event at Trask Coliseum on August 9, 2016 in Wilmington, North Carolina.(Photo by Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

Last week, the New York Times ran the page one headline ‘Pence Supports Ryan, Showing GOP Turmoil.’ There was turmoil in the Republican party because Mike Pence, its vice-presidential nominee, had endorsed the candidacy of Paul Ryan, its most powerful congressman. One wonders what the Times would have called it had the two men actually disagreed about something. The Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had waited days before endorsing Ryan, a signal that he had not forgotten Ryan’s slowness to back him in the spring. And the whole press is now in a frenzy of negative reporting about the Trump campaign. These have been ‘weeks of self-inflicted controversies and plummeting poll numbers’ among Trump’s Republicans. It has been a ‘meltdown’, a ‘cascade of blunders’, a ‘panic’.To judge from the headlines, Trump cannot win, because he is disrespecting the families of America’s war dead, bullying babies and helping Vladimir Putin spy.

But there was no meltdown. Democrats got a polling ‘bounce’ after their convention that pushed Hillary Clinton back to the seven–point lead she had enjoyed at the start of summer. Trump has taken a few pratfalls, but it is well to remember that he is not the worse off for the many he took earlier in the campaign.

Fights with the parents of Humayun Khan, a Muslim US army captain killed in Iraq, started the idea of a Trump collapse. The father, Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born US citizen, appeared at the Democratic convention to attack Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and berated him for his understanding of the constitution. Trump wondered aloud why Khizr Khan’s wife, Ghazala, who had stood silently beside him in a headscarf, hadn’t herself been allowed to speak.

Trump’s foes believe recent US political rhetoric has established a ‘rule’ whereby anything associated with patriotism and sacrifice gets turned into a popular commodity — even Islam. Trump himself believes a version of this and only 13 per cent of Americans think he was right to speak back to the Khans. Just because swing voters may honour Humayun Khan’s sacrifice, however, does not mean that on election day they will relish the memory of having been angrily lectured on their own constitution in Islam’s name.

The primary strength of Donald Trump’s campaign is hidden in plain sight: he is genuinely funny. If elected he would be the first president since John F. Kennedy to possess a sense of humour. Those who cover his campaign seem eager to punish him for this distinction. When Wikileaks released internal emails from the Democratic national committee, Democrats, with no evidence, sought to blame the leak on Russian intelligence, implying that Russian president Vladimir Putin was trying to get Trump elected. Trump replied that, if that were indeed the case, perhaps Russia would be so kind as to share the 30,000 official emails that Hillary Clinton kept on a private server during her tenure as secretary of state. (Congressional investigators have sought them, but Clinton claims to have deleted them.) The Los Angeles Times news story began: ‘Donald Trump dared a foreign government to commit espionage on the US to hurt his rival on Wednesday, smashing yet another taboo in American political discourse and behaviour.’

At a speech days later, Trump tried to put the mother of a crying baby at ease — when she left he joked, ‘I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking.’ Mother and baby soon returned. Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page wrote that Trump had ‘booted a crying baby from a rally’. It wasn’t so much a bad week for Trump as a week of bad press.

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times has written that the confabulation and extremism of Trump are making journalists ‘throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half century, if not longer’. Paul Waldman of The Week writes that the unusually negative coverage is not due to the media’s treating him differently but to ‘the simple fact that Trump is in fact such a different candidate’.

It goes deeper than that. Western elites are hardening into something like a class. Having little contact with other social classes, they may, on certain issues, never have met someone who disagrees with them. They cannot distinguish between wishes and facts, and see no need to. ‘This is a bad moment for Mr Trump, so a good one for America,’ wrote the Economist last week. ‘As Trump’s feud with his party deepens,’ the Los Angeles Times headlined, ‘some discuss what to do if he quits the race.’ An ex-speechwriter for George W. Bush encouraged Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-presidential pick, to repudiate him.

The Trump meltdown reports were far from reality. But they may yet become reality in voters’ minds. Part of the reason his campaign is alleged to be ‘melting down’ is that it has wound up in confrontations with elite institutions. But these have lost authority in recent years. This week four-dozen Republican foreign policy aides warned that Trump ‘would put at risk our country’s national security and wellbeing’. Trump correctly noted that the signatories included the people who brought the world the Iraq war. It was similar to the episode in June when Moody’s Analytics, a subsidiary of the agency that misrated the world’s derivatives on the eve of the financial collapse of 2007–08, warned that Trump’s economic policy would cause a recession and Clinton’s would create jobs. The report was written by Mark Zandi, a Hillary Clinton donor.

The road to the presidency for Trump is a narrow one. He does lag in the polls. He lacks experience and savvy electoral and policy personnel. But he ought to win it. He need take only Ohio and Pennsylvania away from Hillary Clinton.

Issues likely to arise in the coming months — immigration statistics, terrorism incidents, protests by Black Lives Matter — favour him. He will enter the 26 September debate with enviably low expectations. The myth persists that he is dumb. Even though Trump has shown a gift for vaulting ahead with every new debate. And even though, measured by the gap between the modesty of its beginnings and the heights it has already attained, his is one of the more effective campaigns any US candidate has run for anything.

UK: Massive voter fraud in Muslim areas, no challenge because of “political correctness”

August 12, 2016

UK: Massive voter fraud in Muslim areas, no challenge because of “political correctness” Jihad Watch

(Obviously, nothing similar could ever happen in Obama’s America. Oh. wait . . . . — DM)

The more we continue our “over-sensitivity about ethnicity and religion,” the more our Western democracies will continue their descent into crime, human rights abuses, and the general anarchy that is entrenched in the Islamic regimes that Muslim migrants have escaped. Now, massive voter fraud is reported in Muslim areas in the UK, a prevalent phenomenon from “back home” under corrupted regimes.

The Daily Mail also reported that an ex-Cabinet minister, Sir Eric Pickles, lambasted the police, election watchdogs and town halls for ignoring evidence of electoral abuse, and he stated that “the intimidation of voters on religious grounds was so bad that police should be allowed to put cordons outside polling stations to protect frightened voters.”

Leftists and cowards keep denying the truth about Islamic supremacist intimidation in the West, Sharia incursions, migrant crime, deadly jihad attacks, and the like; and according to Hillary Clinton, Muslims have “nothing to do with terrorism.”

A key point to note in the article below:

In 2014, Breitbart London reported on threats and chaos at Tower Hamlets polling stations.

Meanwhile…

First Lady of the U.S. Michelle Obama visited a school in Tower Hamlets in the summer of 2015 where she declared: “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story”. She added, in her speech to the Mulberry School for Girls – most of whom where hijab-clad, that the area was full of “families [who] are tight knit… with strong values.”

UK-polling-station-niqab

Govt: Massive Voter Fraud In Muslim Areas, No Challenge Because Of ‘Political Correctness’”, by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, August 12, 2016:

Massive levels of electoral fraud have gone unchallenged as a result of “political correctness”, according to an official new report from the UK government.

The Telegraph reports that a new report commissioned by former Communities Secretary Sir Eric Pickles reveals that UK authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud in heavily populated Muslim areas.

According to the report, voter fraud is occurring “especially in communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background”, but concerns have been largely ignored due to “over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion”.

The new information confirms reports repeatedly raised by Breitbart London. In 2014, Breitbart London reported on threats and chaos at Tower Hamlets polling stations.

First Lady of the U.S. Michelle Obama visited a school in Tower Hamlets in the summer of 2015 where she declared: “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story”. She added, in her speech to the Mulberry School for Girls – most of whom where hijab-clad, that the area was full of “families [who] are tight knit… with strong values”.

According to the Telegraph, the new report sees Sir Eric warning that “challenging issues” over community cohesion should not be an “excuse” for failing to “uphold the rule of law and protect British liberties”.

His recommendations include banning officials from using any other language than English to communicate with voters at polling stations, as well as calling for voter identification and police cordons around polling stations.

According to Sir Eric, who was removed as Communities Secretary in May 2015, a lack of action by police to tackle electoral fraud “sends a worrying signal that the police are soft on tackling and prosecuting electoral fraud, when faced with competing operational demands”.

He said: “We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections.”

And he specifically attacked “foreign languages” used to communicate with voters at polling stations.

The report highlights “abuses of postal voting” and “evidence” of “pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people”.

“There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported,” the report states, “and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of ‘politically correct’ over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion”….

The Trickle-Down Erosion of Honesty in Obama’s White House

August 12, 2016

The Trickle-Down Erosion of Honesty in Obama’s White House, BreitbartJames Zumwalt, August 12, 2016

obamakerryThe Associated Press

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) conducts fraud prevention training for U.S. businesses. Training focus is both internal and external—preventing fraud against the business as well as fraud by company employees against others.

An important standard taught is the tone set for ethical integrity leadership:

An organization’s leadership creates the tone at the top – an ethical (or unethical) atmosphere in the workplace. Management’s tone has a trickle-down effect on employees. If top managers uphold ethics and integrity so will employees. But if upper management appears unconcerned with ethics and focuses solely on the bottom line, employees will be more prone to commit fraud and feel that ethical conduct isn’t a priority. In short, employees will follow the examples of their bosses.

Obviously, the larger an organization, the more difficult to hold all within it accountable to this standard. However, when numerous examples of a lapse in an organization’s ethical conduct exist, the tone set at the top comes into question.

Next week, a five-month long investigative report will be released finding U.S. Central Command intelligence ISIS and al-Qaeda threat assessments were intentionally downplayed. While offering no definitive evidence President Barack Obama ordered it, determining whether he did or not creates a need to look at the tone set for truth-telling.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered more ethics training for its attorneys based on a judge’s findings he was misled by DOJ lawyers in a high-profile lawsuit initiated by 26 states opposed to Obama’s immigration policies.

Apologizing for any confusion, DOJ lawyers deny making intentional misstatements. But their soft-pedaling contrasts significantly with the judge’s finding, “The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material.”

A recent Hillary Clinton email release suggests DOJ may also have blocked a Clinton Foundation probe.

For those believing it unfair to pin transgressions of one wayward federal agency as an indictment of the president under whom it serves, let us turn to Obama’s executive branch staff—where he held the most direct influence.

Ben Rhodes is Obama’s foreign policy guru. He is credited with setting the tone for the Iran nuclear deal both via his interactions with the press and Congress. Throughout the process, he maintained a low profile.

However, with the deal concluded, it has been difficult for Rhodes to contain his successful deception of the media and Congress. In a New York Times interview, he boasted about doing exactly that. And, anyone who knows Rhodes, knows he and Obama enjoy a mind-meld mentality.

For Obama defenders still believing DOJ misconduct and one self-admitted lying foreign policy guru do not an unethical president make, we continue.

Concerning the Iran nuclear deal, Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to deceive Congress there were no side deals. We now know there were at least three.

As reported by the Associated Press, under one side deal, restrictions imposed by the known agreement “will ease in slightly more than a decade” rather than the 15 years originally claimed, thus reducing “the time Tehran would need to build a bomb to six months from the present estimates of one year.”

An aspect of the Iran deal making more recent headlines is the $400 million cash payment to Iran—sold to Congress at the time as a release of “Iranian” funds. Disclosures now suggest the fund release was actually a devious way for Obama to pay a ransom for Americans the mullahs held hostage. Senior DOJ officials objecting to the payment were overruled by Kerry.  Obama continues to deny it was ransom money despite evidence strongly suggesting Tehran viewed it as such.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, also denying it was ransom, claims, “We don’t pay for hostages. We don’t negotiate for hostages, absolutely not. We’re a nation of laws…” Yet, the White House, admits some of the money paid Iran could go to fund terrorism—a clear violation of U.S. laws.

Tehran even boasts about Obama’s efforts to deceive Americans on the nuclear deal. The Iranians were told not to discuss their missile tests, conducting them in secret so as not to draw attention to a flawed deal.

Evidence has also come to light that the U.S. State Department manipulated data given to Congress, downplaying anti-Israel bias charges against the UN Human Rights Council.

But, enough about State Department lies. Let us now turn to other federal agencies.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed this month the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had inappropriately targeted tea party and other conservative groups seeking non-profit status. As IRS targeting became an issue, it tried blaming it on “rogue agents.” However, internal documents reveal the tone was set at the agency’s top level.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper also suffered effects of the tone. In June 2013, he apologized to the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman for lying during a hearing. He had responded “No,” when asked specifically if NSA was spying on Americans. Only after Edward Snowden leaked classified documents revealing secretive U.S. government programs monitoring hundreds of millions of Americans did Clapper’s lie come to light.

The tone from the top includes misrepresenting facts tied to our national security and Muslim immigration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee determined in June 2016 the number of refugees arrested for terror in the U.S. was more than three times higher than what State Department reported.

Additionally, concerning criminal aliens in general, it was determined the number reported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as released in 2014 who then went on to commit additional crimes was under-reported to the House Judiciary Committee by almost 90 percent. This led Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to say Obama was creating “a sanctuary for tens of thousands of criminal aliens.”

The Secret Service also fell victim to Obama’s unethical tone, releasing a congressman’s personnel file in retribution for his disclosures about agent misconduct.

Obama’s unethical leadership has had a trickle-down effect. While 42 years ago such leadership caught up to a U.S. president, it appears Obama, inexplicably, will be spared a similar fate.

Sadder but Wiser, Merkel’s Germany Is Turning into a Police State

August 12, 2016

Sadder but Wiser, Merkel’s Germany Is Turning into a Police State, PJ MediaMichael Walsh, August 11, 2016

police state

Angela Merkel’s still-unexplained decision to throw open the nation she grew up hating to an invasion force from the Middle East in the guise of “humanitarianism” is now having the all-too-predictable domestic consequences one might expect:

The German government proposed a broad range of measures on Thursday to bolster security and combat terrorism, its strongest official response so far to two recent attacks by terrorists pledging loyalty to the Islamic State and a deadly shooting rampage in Munich.

Many of the measures, which include closer monitoring of refugees and enhanced surveillance, seem likely to win legislative approval but prompted concerns in a country that is deeply protective of privacy and civil liberties.

The package of proposals is the most comprehensive from the German government since Europe became a consistent target of terrorist attacks by the Islamic State, other radical groups and their followers. They were unveiled at a time when Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing accusations that the welcome she gave last year to migrants streaming to the Continent from Syria and other nations in the Middle East has compromised security.

“Accusations”? Four major attacks in six days by Muslims will do that.

Mr. de Maizière reiterated publicly concerns previously voiced privately by senior intelligence officials that Germany — and Europe — does not always know enough about migrants.

He noted that the recent decision to register air travelers in and out of Europe was an improvement, and he urged that all of Germany’s federal and state law enforcement and intelligence officials should have access to that information. “We see in recent months that these offices must know exactly who is coming to Europe, and who is leaving it,” he said.

Other measures he proposed included combing the social media profiles of refugees and other migrants to look out for signs of radicalization, as the authorities in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have done.

In a statement, Mr. de Maizière said that officials could have gleaned more information after a bomb threat at a mall in Dortmund if officials had had access to surveillance footage, which he said had been restricted by data protection officials. “Overall, we must extend and optimize our use of I.T.” he said, referring to information technology.

None of this will work. The correct course is for Europe to admit its soft-headed error, expel most of the “refugees” and try to restore some order to individual national borders. Merkel’s Folly was not simply confined to Germany, because once inside the tent, the North African Arabs and others can roam freely throughout the EU — and they do.

But Germany would rather die than admit error, and so it will. Along the way however, look for a larger police presence, more intrusive snooping, changing cultural mores, xenophobia and all the other attendant ills that Deutschland thought it had thrown off in April of 1945.

Hamas: Vote for Us or Burn in Hell

August 12, 2016

Hamas: Vote for Us or Burn in Hell, Gatestone InstituteKhaled Abu Toameh, August 12, 2016

♦ Abbas decided to hold local and municipal elections because his advisors convinced him that Hamas would boycott the vote, according to senior Fatah official Husam Khader.

♦ The first sign of Hamas’s frightening platform emerged when one of its top muftis, Yunis Al-Astal, issued a fatwa banning Palestinians from voting for any other party other than Hamas. “Any person, male or female, who votes for a party other than Hamas will be considered an infidel and apostate and his or her repentance will not be accepted even if they fasted or prayed or performed the hajj [pilgrimage] to Mecca,” the mufti ruled.

♦ This Hamas tactic has worked in the past. In the previous parliamentary election, Hamas used the same propaganda to brainwash and scare Palestinian voters.

♦ By calling the election and allowing Hamas to participate, Abbas is digging his own grave, and presiding over the burial of any so-called peace process with Israel.

It is election season in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians are preparing to cast their votes in the local and municipal elections, scheduled to take place on October 8. The upcoming elections will be different from the last one, held in 2012 only in the West Bank, when Hamas boycotted the vote, allowing the rival Fatah faction to claim victory.

This time Hamas has decided to join the political fray — a move that caught Fatah and its leaders, including Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, by surprise.

Hamas’s decision to participate in the local and municipal elections has further aggravated tensions with Abbas’s Fatah faction, which continues to suffer from deep internal divisions and rivalries.

In the past few weeks, Hamas and Fatah have been accusing each other of cracking down on each other’s supporters in the Gaza Strip and West Bank in a bid to affect the results of the election.

According to Hamas, the Palestinian Authority security forces have in recent weeks arrested scores of the Islamist movement’s supporters in the West Bank. Hamas claims that the crackdown intensified after its decision to participate in the election. Hamas also claims that some of its detained supporters have been tortured, prompting some of them to go on hunger strikes in Palestinian prisons.

Samira Halaykeh, a Hamas representative in the West Bank, said that the crackdown was an “extension” of the campaign of arrests that the PA has been waging against the Islamist movement for several years now. She predicted that the latest crackdown would actually serve as a boomerang, strengthening Hamas.

“The Palestinian Authority and its security forces must guarantee security and safety for all Palestinians so that they can practice their legitimate right to run and vote in the election,” she added. “The Palestinian Authority needs to avoid any form of intimidation and political and intellectual repression against the voters.”

Another senior Hamas representative in the West Bank, Bassem Al-Za’areer, condemned the arrests of Hamas supporters by the Palestinian Authority as “politically-motivated.” He too alleged that the crackdown was aimed at undermining Hamas’s chances of winning the election. The crackdown, he added, reflects the “state of desperation and panic” of the PA following Hamas’s decision to participate in the vote. The Palestinian Authority fears a “fair and decent competition,” he explained.

The Palestinian Authority’s crackdown on Hamas on the eve of the election has even riled some senior Fatah officials, such as Husam Khader of the Balata refugee camp near Nablus, the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank.

“Political arrests solidify the dictatorship of the ruling [Fatah] party,” Khader charged. “The Palestinian Authority is searching for any excuse to call off the election because it fears democracy more than it fears Israel.” According to Khader, Abbas decided to hold the local and municipal elections because his advisors convinced him that Hamas would boycott the vote. The top Fatah official predicted that internecine fighting in Fatah would play into the hands of Hamas in the upcoming election. This is precisely what happened in the 2006 parliamentary elections, when divisions within Fatah facilitated Hamas’s victory.

1682One man, one vote, one time? Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (left) and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas (also president of the Palestinian Authority) are pictured voting in the last election for the Palestinian Legislative Council, which took place in 2006.

Similarly, Fatah maintains that Hamas has been waging a campaign of intimidation and detention against Fatah supporters in the Gaza Strip — also in order to disrupt the upcoming election and undermine Fatah’s performance at the ballot boxes.

In the past two weeks, several Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip were rounded up by Hamas security forces, which have also banned Fatah from carrying out public election campaigns or holding rallies. Last week, as part of this crackdown, a Hamas court sentenced a former Palestinian Authority “general” to seven years in prison for “collaboration” with the PA security forces in the West Bank. Another three Fatah activists were sentenced to five years for the same crime.

In an effort to quell tensions between Hamas and Fatah, the Palestinian Central Election Commission decided to ask the two parties to sign a “Code of Conduct” document that requires all candidates and parties to avoid smear campaigns, slander, and fomenting sectarian or racist strife. The document also requires all those participating in the election to refrain from “exploiting religious or sectarian or tribal sentiments” in their campaign and also to avoid any form of intimidation, such as declaring one another traitors, apostates and infidels.

Although Fatah and Hamas have pledged to honor the terms of the “Code of Conduct,” known in Arabic as mithak sharaf, the two sides, which are not famous for honoring agreements, seem resolved to resort to all available methods to persuade voters to vote for each one of them.

For now, the two sides have taken to social media to present their electoral platforms and wage a smear campaign against each other.

Local elections are supposed to be about who can provide the people with the best municipal services and improve their living conditions. As such, one would expect candidates to run on a platform that promises new schools, roads, parks, sports centers and other municipal services. But in the case of the Palestinians, local and municipal elections seem to have assumed a new meaning and role. In fact, the upcoming election seems to be anything but a vote for a mayor or a member of a municipal or village council.

Hamas, whose leaders seem to be enthusiastic and optimistic about the upcoming vote, has seized the opportunity to wage a massive election campaign on Facebook and Twitter to promote its extremist ideology through intimidation and by accusing its rivals of infidelity, blasphemy and profanity. Hamas’s message to the Palestinian voters: Vote for us or else you will be considered infidels and you will end up in hell.

The first sign of Hamas’s frightening platform emerged when one of its top muftis, Yunis Al-Astal,issued a fatwa (Islamic religious decree) banning Palestinians from voting for any other party other than Hamas. “Any person, male or female, who votes for a party other than Hamas will be considered an infidel and apostate and his or her repentance will not be accepted even if they fasted or prayed or performed the hajj [pilgrimage] to Mecca,” the mufti ruled.

The Hamas fatwa sparked a wave of anger from many Palestinians, who were quick to accuse the Islamist movement and its leaders of waging a campaign of intimidation and terror against voters.

“This is the policy of the Muslim Brotherhood [of which Hamas is an offshoot],” commented Hisham Sawalhi, a Palestinian from the West Bank. “Those who support Muslim Brotherhood are believers, while those who oppose them are infidels.”

A Hamas-affiliated cartoonist from the Gaza Strip, Baha Yasin, published a cartoon that carries the same message as the fatwa. “A Palestinian Muslim does not vote for secular infidels,” he captioned a cartoon that depicts supporters of Fatah as unbelievers who smoke nargilas and cigarettes. The caption accompanying the cartoon also denounces the Fatah supporters for “insulting Allah” and Islam.

Rajai Al-Halabi, who is in charge of the “women’s portfolio” in Hamas, also stirred up controversy when she appeared on Al-Jazeera to declare that Islam surfaced for the first time in the Gaza Strip with the creation of Hamas.

Her declaration, which came in the context of Hamas’s election campaign, drew strong condemnations and sarcastic remarks from many Palestinians. “This means that all those who died before the establishment of Hamas were infidels, commented Hamzeh Abu Ajaleh, a Palestinian from the Gaza Strip. “In any case, my grandfather did not consume alcohol and my grandmother used to cover her head,” he wrote in reaction to the statement by the senior Hamas official.

“Hamas has launched its unofficial election campaign by issuing deeds of forgiveness and taking us back to the Middle Ages,” said Palestinian political analyst Mahmoud Sabri.

“They have turned mosques into podiums for political, and not religious, lecturing. Any citizen who does not vote for Hamas will be closer to entering hell and will be asked by Allah on Doomsday why he or she did not vote for the right people. Hamas wants us to believe that if we do not support them, then we are against Islam and that we are participating in the war against our religion.”

Some Palestinians in the Gaza Strip said this week that Hamas has formed a special team to manage its propaganda campaign in preparation for the local and municipal elections. This team has begun operating on two fronts: first, a public campaign to market Hamas’s “achievements” since its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007; and second, one to wage a campaign of defamation against its rivals in Fatah, depicting them as traitors and Israeli agents and infidels and enemies of Allah and Islam.

“A vote for Hamas is a vote for the resistance and a vote in support of Allah and Islam,” reads one of Hamas’s election banners. Other banners posted on social media highlight the fact that most of the Fatah representatives are not faithful Muslims and do not pray or practice any of the other pillars of Islam.

This Hamas tactic has worked in the past. In the previous parliamentary election, Hamas used the same propaganda to brainwash and scare Palestinian voters. Hamas has also resorted to the same rhetoric in campaigns during elections for university student councils and various professional unions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some Palestinians, particularly Fatah loyalists, fear that Hamas will once again manage to persuade Palestinian voters to cast their ballots in favor of the Islamist movement by exploiting Islam to intimidate them.

However, there is no ignoring that there are other reasons why Palestinians may nevertheless prefer to vote for Hamas and not Fatah. Nearly two months before the election, tensions in Fatah seem to be on the rise. Many Fatah representatives are threatening to run in the election as independent candidates or as representatives of their clans. This already happened in the 2006 parliamentary election and resulted in Fatah’s defeat to Hamas. And this is why some Fatah officials already have second thoughts about the election and some of them have even openly called on the Palestinian Authority leadership to consider delaying them until further notice.

Last week, Mahmoud Abbas reportedly expelled four “rebellious” senior Fatah officials from the faction. The move came amid growing tensions among Fatah’s top brass over the upcoming election.

For Hamas, the upcoming election is an opportunity to consolidate its power and extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. Hamas also views the local and municipal elections as a test for future parliamentary and even presidential elections. Without question, a Hamas victory in the upcoming elections would have an impact on any future elections and would send a message to the world that the Palestinian Authority is weak and has lost much of its credibility and standing among Palestinians. By calling the election and allowing Hamas to participate, Abbas is digging his own grave. Not to mention that he will be presiding over the burial of any so-called peace process with Israel.

Something different but interesting .

August 12, 2016

Investing in a cooler climate !

Winter Is Coming’ Warns The Solar Physicist The Alarmists Tried To Silence

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

Read the principles here

Home Page

http://coolfuturesfundsmanagement.com/

For the small investor .

https://www.gofundme.com/t72gmpng

 

Reporter Calls Out State Dept for Repeatedly Dodging on Clinton Emails

August 12, 2016

Reporter Calls Out State Dept for Repeatedly Dodging on Clinton Emails, Washington Free Beacon, August 11, 2016

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee called out State Department Press Director Elizabeth Trudeau during Wednesday’s press briefing for repeatedly not answering questions on whether newly released emails show impropriety between the department and the Clinton Foundation.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch released 296 pages of State Department emails on Tuesday that it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The emails showed cases of top Clinton Foundation officials rewarding their donors with access to the State Department.

“Do you have any response to criticism by some who suggest there was a relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?” NBC producer Abigail Williams asked Trudeau. “There was an email that came out in this recent set that is between a then-executive at the Clinton Foundation and [top Hillary Clinton aides] Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, in which he is requesting to set up a meeting between a billionaire donor and the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Do you have any response?”

Williams was referring to an April 2009 exchange in which a top associate at the foundation pushed to set up a meeting between the donor and the ambassador to Lebanon because of the former’s activities in the country.

Trudeau said she would not comment on any specific emails. Williams tried to ask her question differently.

“You don’t feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?” Williams asked.

Trudeau repeated her initial response, saying the State Department communicates regularly with a wide range of individuals and organizations. She did not address whether or not it was improper for an executive in the Clinton Foundation to communicate with senior State Department officials on behalf of a wealthy donor.

“That’s not her question,” Lee said as another reporter began to ask Trudeau a question.

Lee would later try to ask Williams’ question again.

“Can you at least try to answer Abigail’s question which was, has the department looked into this and determined that there was no impropriety?” Lee asked.

“The Department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum, Matt,” Trudeau said.

“That’s not the question. The question is whether or not you’ve looked into this, the building has looked into it and determined that everything was okay, that there was nothing wrong,” Lee said.

Trudeau did not answer the question.

“We feel confident in our ability and our past practice of reaching out to a variety of sources and being to responsive to requests,” Trudeau said.

Trudeau’s answer upset Lee.

“I’m sorry. Am I not speaking English?” Lee asked before restating the question.

Trudeau then gave Lee an answer to what he was asking her.

“We feel confident that all the rules were followed,” Trudeau said.