Toronto’s Muslim Police Chaplain Investigated After Claiming Women ‘Sin’ By Refusing Husbands Sex, Girls Ready to Marry At Puberty

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Canada, Canadian police, Islam and child brides, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamists in Canada

Tags: , , , , ,

Toronto’s Muslim Police Chaplain Investigated After Claiming Women ‘Sin’ By Refusing Husbands Sex, Girls Ready to Marry At Puberty, Breitbart, Chris Tomlinson, November 4, 2016

canadapolicechaplainMusleh Khan/Facebook

The Toronto Police Union has expressed concerns over a presentation given by a Muslim police chaplain who claims that women “sin” if they do not consent to sex with their husbands.

The new police chaplain, Musleh Khan, claims to be an expert on marriage counselling. But a leaked presentation shows that, like many traditional Muslims, he views that the wife must always be totally obedient to their husband, reports The Star.

According to Mr. Khan, a woman must always consent to sexual relations when her husband demands it. He says that the only valid reasons for her not to are sickness or obligatory fasting during a holy time like the month of Ramadan.

“Without a valid reason then she committed a major sin,” he said.

He then proceeded to tell any women listening: “So sisters it’s part of your act of worship towards Allah that you try to respond to this as best as you can as part of your duties as the wife.” He then continued to say that women should seek permission from their husbands merely to leave their home.

In a question and answer session in 2015 at Ummah Nabawiah Mosque in Etobicoke, Ontario, Mr. Khan explained that the proper age for a girl to be married is whenever she hits puberty.

Talking on the subject of Mohammed’s marriage to nine-year-old Aisha in the Koran, he said: “Nine-year-olds back then are comparable to 20- to 30-year-olds now.” He insisted that you cannot compare the two time periods, saying: “Back then at nine years old you were mature enough and you could get married.” 

Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack has claimed to have been barraged by emails on the subject of the chaplain’s views. He said that Mr. Khan “needs to clarify his comments” and added: “I think a lot of our members have an issue with that type of viewpoint.”

Many see the Canadian federal government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as much softer on the topics of terrorism and Islamisation compared to former conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper.

Trudeau and his government campaigned on not supporting a ban on the full face burka, stopping Islamic State combat missions, and have even refused to call the terror group by their name, opting for ‘Daesh’ instead.

Despite several attacks, for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility, or where the perpetrators have pledged allegiance to the terror group, the Canadian government remains focused on anti-Islamophobia legislation.  On Thursday Trudeau’s government passed a motion in parliament to condemn anyone who criticises the religion or vandalises mosques.

US on alert for terror strikes around elections

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Iraq war, Islamic State - what's next

Tags: ,

US on alert for terror strikes around elections, DEBKAfile, November 4, 2016

baghdadi_call480-1

Following threats from Al Qaeda and ISIS, US security authorities have warned officials in New York, Texas and Virginia about possible attacks by al Qaeda or ISIS in the run-up to Election Day on Nov. 8. No specific locations were mentioned. However, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates airports, tunnels and bridges around New York City said they will continue with “high level of patrols” in the four days leading up to and after Tuesday’s vote. “The FBI, working with our federal, state and local counterparts, shares and assesses intelligence on a daily basis and will continue to work closely with law enforcement and intelligence community partners to identify and disrupt any potential threat to public safety” the Bureau said Friday.

The terror alert came a day after DEBKAfile’s intelligence and counterterrorism sources reported that Islamists may be planning terrorist attacks to occur around the time of the presidential election. After checking out the information, the FBI and Homeland Security Department decided to alert the public to a possible Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorist threat.

DEBKAfile reported Thursday, Nov. 3:

As Iraqi troops entered Mosul, Wednesday night, Nov. 2, Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called on his suicide bombers all over the world “to destroy the cities of the unbelievers.”

In a rare, audio-taped speech from an unknown location, he rallied jihadists from across the world to rise up against “God’s enemies from the Jews, Christians, atheists, Shiites, apostates and all of the world’s infidels.”

This was interpreted as a coded signal to the Islamist State’s dormant cells in key Western and Middle Eastern cities to go into action for a new, multiple outburst of suicide terror.

In an apparent response to military pressure, Al Baghdadi followed his rallying to ISIS-affiliated fighters across the globe by urging ISIS members to defend Mosul since “holding our ground in honor is a thousand times better than retreating…”

International intelligence and counterterrorism agencies in the US, Western Europe and the Middle East had widely expected Al-Baghdadi’s call for widespread terror to come at the outset of the US-led coalition offensive on Oct. 15 to retake Mosul. When it was not forthcoming, they speculated that the “caliph” was either unwilling or unable to issue the call for action in the early stages of the battle.

According to one conjecture, the advance of the Iraqi army and allies into Mosul Wednesday may have been  the trigger for the ISIS leaders first taped speech since December 2015.

So too might the proximity of the US presidential election next Tuesday with the intention of causing maximum disruption on America’s voting day.

The possible response to the ISIS leaders rallying call is seen as cause for alarm, according to DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources. It is feared that the Mosul operation against ISIS will spawn new and more devastating forms of terror, such as, for instance, mass-hostage taking in order to extort the coalition forces’ withdrawal from Mosul.

So far, ISIS has not managed to unleash terrorist attacks in response to the Mosul operation in America or against US targets in the Middle East and Europe. The Islamist terror attacks on Sept. 18 and 19 in New Jersey and Manhattan that were perpetrated by Ahmad Khan Rahami were instigated by Al Qaeda, not ISIS. Our sources foresee that al-Baghdadi, under pressure to show his jihadists are still active terror players, may pull off a dramatic strike at a prominent American location – possibly even on election-day.

His explicit call for terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey show his sights have not been removed from the Middle East either.

The Stretch Drive (9)

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Clinton corruption, Clinton supporters, Donald Trump campaign, Polls

Tags: , , , ,

The Stretch Drive (9), Power Line, Steven Hayward, November 4, 2016

• Just three or four weeks ago all the chatter from the Certified Smart People was that Hillary was “expanding the map,” and could concentrate on campaigning in red states like Georgia, Arizona, maybe even Texas. Now, Hillary’s campaign is frantically buying last minute ad time in . . . Michigan. (And Hillary has added a last minute campaign stop in Michigan today.) She’s suddenly campaigning hard in the key swing states. This should tell you everything you need to know about the state of the race with four days to go.

• The ABC/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary back up to a three-point lead, 47-44, though with the interesting finding that respondents give Trump a nine-point lead as the candidate best able to deal with corruption. Meanwhile, some new individual state polls show Trump within striking distance in blue states—down two points in Pennsylvania, tied in Colorado, comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and Arizona. But behind in Florida, which may yet again turn out to be the key state. Oh goody.

• It’s been obvious for a while now that Trump is actually running against four people: Hillary, her husband, President Obama, and Michelle Obama. I can’t recall a presidential election where the incumbent president made so many campaign appearances. Reagan made only one or two for George H.W. Bush in 1988, and of course Bill Clinton made none on behalf of Al Gore in 2000 (by Gore’s own choice reportedly). This shows how difficult it is to put Hillary over the top.

• Finally, in the miscellany department, a reader directs me to this very old ABC 20/20 expose of the Clinton standard operating sleaze. The video is 10 minutes long, but worth watching for its stomach-churning glory. Can we really want to put these people back in the White House?

Podesta Warned: “I Hope Hillary Truly Understands Now How Batshit Crazy David Brock Is”

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Clinton character, David Brock, Media Matters, PACs

Tags: , , , ,

Podesta Warned: “I Hope Hillary Truly Understands Now How Batshit Crazy David Brock Is” Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, November 4, 2016

The consistent view from both inside and outside of the Clinton campaign referenced Brock in the same terms. The obvious conclusion is that it is precisely those attributes that proved the attraction.

***************************

One of the issues that was raised repeatedly by Bernie Sanders and later by Donald Trump is the alliance between Hillary Clinton and David Brock, the founder of Media Matters. Brock has been widely attacked for what critics view as sleazy and vicious work on behalf of Hillary Clinton. You may recall Bernie Sanders denouncing Clinton for her continued alliance with Brock and use of his controversial PAC organizations. Sanders referred to Brock as simple “scum” but Clinton [neither? — DM] denounced Brock [n]or to discourage[d] Democrats from working with or contributing to his PACs. It turns out that even Clinton aides were disgusted by Clinton’s refusal to cut off Brock or to denounced his work. In the latest batch of Wikileaks, Neera Tanden, the President of Center for American Progress, allegedly emailed John Podesta that “I hope Hillary truly understands now how batshit crazy David Brock is.”

Of course, the question answers itself. The consistent view from both inside and outside of the Clinton campaign referenced Brock in the same terms. The obvious conclusion is that it is precisely those attributes that proved the attraction.

neera_tanden

The mainstream media has been repeatedly accused of ignoring the Clinton-Brock connection. Yet, the email (if accurate) shows that Clinton allies were equally concerned about the association. Tanden previously worked for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and later served as policy director for Barack Obama.

The subject of the email was simply “I Hope.”

Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Cash, Clinton corruption, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Clinton investigation, Clinton lies, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clinton unsecured server, FBI, Hillary Clinton and Russia, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Huma Abedin, Uranium for Russia

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, November 4, 2016

shhh

And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin.  The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.

***************************

Back in May, I had the opportunity to see a screening of Clinton Cash, the documentary based on Peter Schweizer’s  book of the same title. I wrote about it in this space here.  Now that the commentariat is finally beginning to catch up with reality — at last count, there were five, count ’em five, FBI investigations into the machinations of the money factory known as the Clinton Foundation — I thought it might be worth briefly revisiting the subject.

In May, I asked my readers: “Are you worried about ‘money in politics’?” If so, I suggested that they “Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long, hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years.”

 The Associated Press estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero (really, minus $500K). Now they are worth about $200 million.

How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?

Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash [which I recommend] is a nauseating experience.

At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.

It’s this last item that’s most worrisome.  That the Clintons are a greedy, money-hoovering machine has been clear since they left the White House with cartloads of swag in tow (the exact amount is disputable: that they did so is not). There are some who say her mishandling of classified material is no big deal — it’s  just a technicality, who really cares? Can’t we put this behind us? Can’t we move on? At this point what difference does it make?

Well, there used to be such people.  If they still exist, they are scarce on the ground now.  Thanks to Wikileaks and some recent FBI revelations, it is now clear that Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material was no casual act of inadvertence. It was not, as she at first claimed with false naiveté, done simply as a matter of convenience by someone who was technically ill-informed and maladroit.

No, the whole process was a thoroughly calculated tactic. Given what we know now, there is something slightly nauseating about watching clips of Clinton lie when asked about her emails.  One classic is this clip, in which, when asked about whether she wiped her server she said coyly “Like with with a cloth or something?” She knew all about wiping servers, since her IT guys employed a sophisticated tool called Bleach Bit to do the job. (The company even uses an image of Hillary Clinton at their web page.)

Scrutinize Clinton’s performance in this clip. In a way it’s quite masterly.  Watch how she coolly modulates between impatience, naiveté, evasion, and outright lies.  We turned over the server, she says, what more can we do?  “We turned over everything that was work related, every single thing.”

We now know (well, we’ve always known, but now we really do know) that assertion is a lie — not just an untruth, but a deliberate lie.

It’s hard to know what is the most brazen thing about her behavior.  Turning over a server for investigation after having it professionally wiped is a candidate for the prize.  But for my money the most outrageous thing was responding to a Congressional subpoena by destroying 33,000 emails. (Andy McCarthy lays out the whole story with his customary clarity here.)

The revelation by the FBI last week that material that could be “relevant” to the Clinton email investigation had been found on a laptop shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, amateur photographer and penpal to pubescent multitudes Anthony Weiner, propelled the story to a new and vertiginous stage. Apparently, we are talking about 650,000 emails. How many had to do with yoga routines? How many concerned State Department business?  How many did Anthony Weiner see or share?  These are just a few of the questions prompted  by this ever more bizarre story.

The really amazing thing about the Clintons’ greed is how cavalier it has made them about national security issues. “Oh, that’s just a despicable right-wing talking point,” I sometimes here. Well, here’s what that well known right-wing publication The New York Times had to say in a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported:

… are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Worried yet? It gets worse:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin.  The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Blasphemy courts, Europe, Europe and Islam, Geert Wilders, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, November 4, 2016

(Please see also, America’s “Arab Spring” — DM)

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors, initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics.

By prosecuting Wilders, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or he will be committing a crime.

At no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of, say, British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalising a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

The Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

 

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors. In Britain, the gymnast Louis Smith has just been suspended for two months by British Gymnastics. This 27-year old sportsman’s career has been put on hold, and potentially ruined, not because of anything to do with athletics but because of something to do with Islam.

Last month a video emerged online of the four-time Olympic medal-winner and a friend getting up to drunken antics after a wedding. The video — taken on Smith’s phone in the early hours of the morning — showed a friend taking a rug off a wall and doing an imitation of Islamic prayer rituals. When the video from Smith’s phone ended up in the hands of a newspaper, there was an immediate investigation, press castigation and public humiliation for the young athlete. Smith — who is himself of mixed race — was forced to parade on daytime television in Britain and deny that he is a racist, bigot or xenophobe. Notoriously liberal figures from the UK media queued up to berate him for getting drunk or for even thinking of taking part in any mockery of religion. This in a country in which Monty Python’s Life of Brian is regularly voted the nation’s favourite comic movie.

After an “investigation,” the British sports authority has now deemed Smith’s behaviour to warrant a removal of funding and a two-month ban from sport. This is the re-entry of blasphemy laws through the back door, where newspapers, daytime chat-shows and sports authorities decide between them that one religion is worthy of particular protection. They do so because they take the religion of Islam uniquely on its own estimation and believe, as well as fear, the warnings of the Islamic blasphemy-police worldwide.

The front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents of his film “Fitna” as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses — the late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen — revealed that a judge in the case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot dictatorship rather than one of the world’s most developed democracies. The trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was eventually found “not guilty” of a non-crime in 2011.

But it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded, “Fewer, fewer.” To which Wilders responded, “Well, we’ll arrange that, then.”

1546By prosecuting Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders for making “politcially incorrect” statements, Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

Opinion polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

Whether or not one feels any support for Wilders’s sentiments is not in fact the point in this case. The point is that by prosecuting someone for saying what he said, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or they will be committing a crime. What kind of way is that to order a public debate on immigration or anything else? People may say, “He wouldn’t be allowed to say that about any other group of people.” And Wilders himself may not say that about any group of people, because he has his own political views and his own interpretation of the problems facing his country.

It is worth trying a thought-experiment: If Wilders or any other politician got up and asked a crowd “Do you want more or fewer British people in Holland,” I may not — as a British person — feel terribly pleased with him for asking the question, or terribly happy with the crowd if they chanted “Fewer.” Although if British expats in Holland were responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder in the country, some mitigating sympathy for the sentiment may be forthcoming. But at no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

Like the behaviour of the British Gymnastics association, the Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing, they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

Europeans have no future – Putin on Migrant Crisis

Posted November 4, 2016 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized

Published on Nov 1, 2016

Iran: Latest on a Female Political Prisoner

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - executions, Iran - human rights, Iran - political prisoners, Iranian law, Iranian prisons

Tags: , , , ,

Iran: Latest on a Female Political Prisoner, Iran Focus, November 4, 2016

golrokh-ebrahimi

London, 4 November – A political prisoner in Iran had a visit from her mother for the first time since her imprisonment on October 24.

Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee was imprisoned for writing an unpublished story about the brutal act of stoning in Iran.

The Intelligence Revolutionary Guards were dressed in plain clothes when they came to arrest her; they kicked and punched the door in order to intimidate her, refuses to give their identities or produce ID or a court order.

Iraee was prevented from taking her asthma medication and according to her mother, the IRGC taunted Iraee, asking what use the medicine would be as she wouldn’t live very long anyway.
They handcuffed and blindfolded her in front of her neighbours and took her to Evin Court.

When in court Iraee explained the mistreatment she had suffered and she was finally allowed her medication before being transferred to prison.

Her mother, who is recovering from one surgery and on the waiting list for another, gave an interview to a Persian newspaper.

She said: “Golrokh is very much concerned about Arash’s (her imprisoned husband) hunger strike because he takes medicine and he is injured in [the] shoulder area while he was being detained by the Revolutionary Guards forces.”

Iraee requested that the person in charge of Evin Prison (where she is being held) call the person in charge of Hajiloo prison (where Arash is being held) to ask him to stop his hunger strike, as he will be unable to visit his wife unless he stops.

Iraee’s mother was told that this would be the only time she could visit and is unsure whether the Regime will change their minds.

Arash Sadeghi is a political prisoner who went on hunger strike to protest his wife’s imprisonment.

You can Smell Hillary’s Fear

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Clinton corruption, Clinton e-mails, Clinton investigation, Clinton lies, Clinton obstructions of justice, Comey, FBI, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Huma Abedin

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You can Smell Hillary’s Fear, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 4, 2016

hilsmells

Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.

******************

In the final stretch of the election, Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone to war with the FBI.

The word “unprecedented” has been thrown around so often this election that it ought to be retired. But it’s still unprecedented for the nominee of a major political party to go war with the FBI.

But that’s exactly what Hillary and her people have done. Coma patients just waking up now and watching an hour of CNN from their hospital beds would assume that FBI Director James Comey is Hillary’s opponent in this election.

The FBI is under attack by everyone from Obama to CNN. Hillary’s people have circulated a letter attacking Comey. There are currently more media hit pieces lambasting him than targeting Trump. It wouldn’t be too surprising if the Clintons or their allies were to start running attack ads against the FBI.

The FBI’s leadership is being warned that the entire left-wing establishment will form a lynch mob if they continue going after Hillary. And the FBI’s credibility is being attacked by the media and the Democrats to preemptively head off the results of the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.

The covert struggle between FBI agents and Obama’s DOJ people has gone explosively public.

The New York Times has compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover. Its bizarre headline, “James Comey Role Recalls Hoover’s FBI, Fairly or Not” practically admits up front that it’s spouting nonsense. The Boston Globe has published a column calling for Comey’s resignation. Not to be outdone, Time has an editorial claiming that the scandal is really an attack on all women.

James Carville appeared on MSNBC to remind everyone that he was still alive and insane. He accused Comey of coordinating with House Republicans and the KGB. And you thought the “vast right wing conspiracy” was a stretch.

Countless media stories charge Comey with violating procedure. Do you know what’s a procedural violation? Emailing classified information stored on your bathroom server.

Senator Harry Reid has sent Comey a letter accusing him of violating the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is a nice idea that has as much relevance in the age of Obama as the Tenth Amendment. But the cable news spectrum quickly filled with media hacks glancing at the Wikipedia article on the Hatch Act under the table while accusing the FBI director of one of the most awkward conspiracies against Hillary ever.

If James Comey is really out to hurt Hillary, he picked one hell of a strange way to do it.

Not too long ago Democrats were breathing a sigh of relief when he gave Hillary Clinton a pass in a prominent public statement. If he really were out to elect Trump by keeping the email scandal going, why did he trash the investigation? Was he on the payroll of House Republicans and the KGB back then and playing it coy or was it a sudden development where Vladimir Putin and Paul Ryan talked him into taking a look at Anthony Weiner’s computer?

Either Comey is the most cunning FBI director that ever lived or he’s just awkwardly trying to navigate a political mess that has trapped him between a DOJ leadership whose political futures are tied to Hillary’s victory and his own bureau whose apolitical agents just want to be allowed to do their jobs.

The only truly mysterious thing is why Hillary and her associates decided to go to war with a respected Federal agency. Most Americans like the FBI while Hillary Clinton enjoys a 60% unfavorable rating.

And it’s an interesting question.

Hillary’s old strategy was to lie and deny that the FBI even had a criminal investigation underway. Instead her associates insisted that it was a security review. The FBI corrected her and she shrugged it off. But the old breezy denial approach has given way to a savage assault on the FBI.

Pretending that nothing was wrong was a bad strategy, but it was a better one that picking a fight with the FBI while lunatic Clinton associates try to claim that the FBI is really the KGB.

There are two possible explanations.

Hillary Clinton might be arrogant enough to lash out at the FBI now that she believes that victory is near. The same kind of hubris that led her to plan her victory fireworks display could lead her to declare a war on the FBI for irritating her during the final miles of her campaign.

But the other explanation is that her people panicked.

Going to war with the FBI is not the behavior of a smart and focused presidential campaign. It’s an act of desperation. When a presidential candidate decides that her only option is to try and destroy the credibility of the FBI, that’s not hubris, it’s fear of what the FBI might be about to reveal about her.

During the original FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton was confident that she could ride it out. And she had good reason for believing that. But that Hillary Clinton is gone. In her place is a paranoid wreck. Within a short space of time the “positive” Clinton campaign promising to unite the country has been replaced by a desperate and flailing operation that has focused all its energy on fighting the FBI.

There’s only one reason for such bizarre behavior.

The Clinton campaign has decided that an FBI investigation of the latest batch of emails poses a threat to its survival. And so it’s gone all in on fighting the FBI. It’s an unprecedented step born of fear. It’s hard to know whether that fear is justified. But the existence of that fear already tells us a whole lot.

Clinton loyalists rigged the old investigation. They knew the outcome ahead of time as well as they knew the debate questions. Now suddenly they are no longer in control. And they are afraid.

You can smell the fear.

The FBI has wiretaps from the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. It’s finding new emails all the time. And Clintonworld panicked. The spinmeisters of Clintonworld have claimed that the email scandal is just so much smoke without fire. All that’s here is the appearance of impropriety without any of the substance. But this isn’t how you react to smoke. It’s how you respond to a fire.

The misguided assault on the FBI tells us that Hillary Clinton and her allies are afraid of a revelation bigger than the fundamental illegality of her email setup. The email setup was a preemptive cover up. The Clinton campaign has panicked badly out of the belief, right or wrong, that whatever crime the illegal setup was meant to cover up is at risk of being exposed.

The Clintons have weathered countless scandals over the years. Whatever they are protecting this time around is bigger than the usual corruption, bribery, sexual assaults and abuses of power that have followed them around throughout the years. This is bigger and more damaging than any of the allegations that have already come out. And they don’t want FBI investigators anywhere near it.

The campaign against Comey is pure intimidation. It’s also a warning. Any senior FBI people who value their careers are being warned to stay away. The Democrats are closing ranks around their nominee against the FBI. It’s an ugly and unprecedented scene. It may also be their last stand.

Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.

Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton

Posted November 4, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton lies, Obama and Hillary

Tags: ,

Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton, Power Line, Scott Johnson, November 4, 2016

Barack Obama has emerged as a forceful advocate of Hillary Clinton in the course of the presidential campaign. He is more popular than she is, but they have a lot in common. They both have an equally low opinion of the intelligence of the American voters and they have a lot of evidence to support their opinion. They also share an equally distant relationship with the truth.

Obama’s signature domestic program was built on a torrent of demonstrable lies. Clinton has defended her criminally inappropriate use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business on proposition that have proven false in the fullness of time. They are both unregenerate liars.

Now Obama has stepped forward as a character witness for Hillary Clinton. Despite what you may have concluded on the basis of your own observations, Obama vouches for Clinton as an upstanding public official. In my view, this is akin to John Dillinger serving as a character witness for Creepy Karpis or, perhaps more aptly, Ma Barker. It’s almost funny.

The Media Research Center finds an interesting example of Obama testifying on behalf of Hillary at an Ohio campaign event this past Tuesday (video below). Even speaking briefly, as in this 40-second excerpt, Obama is obnoxious and grating. We are invited by MRC to analyze this somewhat ambiguous assertion: “And when she was challenged, she doesn’t make things up on the spot. She doesn’t double down on lies — that obviously are lies because there’s video.”

(The video is at the link. — DM)

What is he saying? MRC’s Craig Bannister subjects Obama’s assertion to a close reading that probably exceeds what is warranted, asking:

She’ll only tell an obvious lie once, but won’t “double down” on it if challenged?

She won’t keep repeating a lie – if “there’s video”?

She’ll take her time crafting a lie, not make one up “on the spot”?

Bannister concludes: “Regardless of whether Pres. Obama went off-teleprompter and made this up on the spot, or simply read the words of a speechwriter, any literal interpretation of Obama’s characterization of Hillary Clinton is disturbing, to say the least.”

It is indeed disturbing. We have entered the Twilight Zone of postmodern Democratic politics. I think Obama was lying about Clinton’s lying while revealing a little of his own wayward relationship with the truth in the process.