H/t Power Line
Yaron Steinbuch reports in the New York Post: “ISIS teen who killed priest passed background check for airport job.” Steinbuch notes that “[t]he bloodthirsty jihadist who executed a Catholic priest in France ‘easily’ passed a background check to become an airport baggage handler[.]” The murderer “worked full time at Chambéry Airport in the Savoie region, which is used by more than 250,000 passengers a year, until just three months ago[.]”
Can you top that? I think I can.
Among the group of “Minnesota men” seeking to join ISIS in 2014 and 2015 were two who worked at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in the course of their conspiracy. The first was Abdirizak Warsame. Warsame was the ringleader of the group seeking to depart Minnesota in order to wage jihad with ISIS. Earlier this year he pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization. Warsame worked on the tarmac at MSP handling baggage and deicing airplanes from December 2013 to August 2014.
Warsame worked at the airport with Abdirahman Bashir (or Bashiir). After being called to testify before the grand jury hearing evidence in the case, the government showed Bashir the evidence it had against him. Thinking things over with his attorney, Bashir decided to become an informant for the government. When he agreed to become an informant, Bashir testified at trial, the first question he asked was, “Can I get my job at the airport back?”
What job? In response to my Minnesota Data Practices Act request, the airport police have informed me that Bashir obtained his security pass (i.e.,”was badged”) on November 26, 2013 and was terminated on Feb 4, 2014. He didn’t get around to returning his badge until April 4, 2014. Bashir’s job title was “deicer.” He worked for Integrated Deicing Services at the airport. I believe the period of Bashir’s employment at the airport is a Power Line exclusive; the media have let this aspect of the case against the “Minnesota men” drop.
Like Warsame, Bashir didn’t work for long at the airport, but he could have done a lot of damage. It’s almost enough to make you think airport security is a joke.
(Habla Espanol? No? No problema. — DM)
Wearing a white pantsuit, Hillary Clinton plodded out on stage to accept the nomination that she had schemed, plotted, lied, cheated, rigged and eventually fixed a series of elections to obtain.
Then she claimed that she was accepting the nomination of a race she had rigged with “humility”.
Humility is not the first word that comes to mind when thinking of Hillary Clinton. It is not even the last word. It is not in the Hillary dictionary at all. But this convention was a desperate effort to humanize Hillary. Everyone, including her philandering husband and dilettante daughter, down to assorted people she had met at one point, were brought up on stage to testify that she really is a very nice person.
This wasn’t a convention. It was a series of character witnesses for a woman with no character. It was an extensive apology for the Left’s radical agenda cloaked in fake patriotism and celebrity adulation.
Sinclair Lewis famously said, “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. More accurately, when Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. That’s what the Democratic National Convention was.
This night presented Hillary Clinton as all things to all people. She was a passionate fighter who found plenty of time to spend with her family. She is for cops and for cop-killers. She likes the Founding Fathers and political correctness. She wants Democrats to be the party of working people and of elitist government technocrats. And, most especially, she cares about people like you.
The convention, like everything about Hillary, was awkward and insincere.
There was Bernie glaring into the camera just as Hillary was thanking him for rallying a bunch of young voters whom she hoped to exploit. There was Chelsea Clinton reminding everyone that the Clintons are a dynasty and that everyone in it gets a job because of their last name, right before introducing her mother whose only real qualification for her belated entry into politics was her last name. And there was Jennifer Granholm who got an opportunity to have an incoherent public meltdown at the convention.
There’s the mandatory video explaining how Hillary Clinton personally hunted down Osama bin Laden while sitting in a chair. “She’s carrying the hope and the rage of an entire nation,” Morgan Freeman intones. Coming in November 2016. And Hillary Clinton will be played by Meryl Streep. Donald Trump is compared to Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. It’s rather obvious even to the handful of Hillary supporters that their candidate fits the Ratched role much better than Trump does.
The audience was told incessantly that Hillary Clinton loves small children. Once would have been enough. Twice would have been enough. By the millionth repetition, it seems more like Hillary is the witch trying to lure children into her gingerbread house.
Helping out with that task were a continuing parade of young female celebrities. If you thought that Elizabeth Banks and Lena Dunham were awkward, just wait for Katy Perry and Chloe Moretz urging their cohort to go out there and vote for Hillary right after a bunch of ex-military people claim that the woman who helped ISIS take over two countries and the Muslim Brotherhood even more countries than that will be good for national security.
General John Allen, formerly of the Marine Corps, currently employed by Qatar’s pet Brookings think tank, insisted that only Hillary Clinton could defeat ISIS. That’s like saying that only Mrs. O’Leary’s cow could put out the Great Chicago Fire which she started. Furthermore Qatar played a major role in the expansion of Islamic terrorism that helped culminate in the current crisis.
There were treasonous Republicans, confused celebrities and a weirdly lifelike Nancy Pelosi. There was yet another New York politician likely to be indicted, Andy Cuomo, trying much too hard. But topping them all was Hillary Clinton who was in her manic mode, trying too hard to be human, and failing.
Eyes wide, looking suspiciously from side to side, shrilly barking lines into the microphone that stripped them of their emotional context, Hillary delivered both sides of her personality in one speech.
And both sides of her agenda.
The radical agenda of the Left was clumsily cloaked in references to the Founding Fathers. The same group of people whose names the Left want to see ground into the dirt. Hillary’s call for collectivism, the insistence that none of us can do anything as individuals, was dressed up in E Pluribus Unum and the Founding Fathers.
Sinclair Lewis was almost right. When Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag.
The old Elizabeth Warren-Barack Obama theme of “You didn’t build that” had become Hillary’s theme once again. No one does anything on their own. It takes a village of bloated bureaucrats to do anything. And Hillary has to be appointed to run this village of bloated bureaucrats who, like her, never actually do anything but sing their own praises and then give themselves pay raises and more power to abuse.
Donald Trump, we are told, is a terrible person who actually believes in individualism. While good progressives like Hillary know that individualism is a pernicious lie told by running dog capitalists.
And Hillary will be a “a President for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents”. She’ll be such a good president that we won’t even need elections anymore. Just like the Democrats dispensed with them. There will just be one “village” under Hillary and Huma and the rest of their ridiculous neo-Reds.
Then Hillary will fix the economy by banning people from giving money to Republicans and promoting voter fraud. She will legalize illegal aliens to “grow our economy” by destroying still more American jobs. And she will see to it that companies “share profits” to working people. And by working people, she means the Clintons. College will be free. And the “super-rich” will pay for it all.
The “super-rich” are the really rich. Not flat broke paupers like the Clintons.
Half of Hillary’s new positions were things that she had rejected as too radical when Bernie proposed them. Now they’re not too radical anymore. Because the Democrats always keep turning Left.
Yesterday’s crazy radical idea is tomorrow’s Democratic slogan. Yesterday’s Alinsky disciple is tomorrow’s moderate Democrat. Yesterday’s Communist notion is tomorrow’s DNC speech.
And so Hillary Clinton embraced wealth redistribution and re-appropriation from people who aren’t her. She embraced it with verve and gusto. She pushed Communism dressed up in references to the Founding Fathers. It takes a village to take away all our political and economic freedoms.
Bernie Sanders lost, but he won. Or rather it didn’t matter which of them won since they both shared the same radical agenda. The only difference was that Bernie was willing to be honest about it.
Hillary wasn’t. Until now.
This was a speech that could have been given in Moscow during the Cold War. Instead it was delivered to an enthusiastic audience of Democrats who love the idea of taking away someone else’s money. Beneath all the distractions, the celebrities and family stories, is the fundamental idea that Hillary has more of a right to your money than you do because she is “humbly” more enlightened than you are.
There’s a name for that ideology. It comes with a hammer and sickle, with the color red, with gulags and firing squads, with little red books and big black prisons, and the death of the human soul.
Hillary made a mistake by wearing a white pants suit to her coronation. She should have worn red.
(The Clinton Cash video is available at Warsclerotic. It’s well worth watching.– DM)
If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were covering the Democratic National Convention, he could title his account, “The Case of the Missing Claim.” There was a conspicuous absence amidst all the praise heaped on Hillary Clinton. Warner Todd Huston of Breitbart noticed:
After nearly three days of speeches and video propaganda one major part of Democrat Nominee Hillary Clinton’s life’s work has gone virtually unmentioned during the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia. Even as speaker after speaker lauded Hillary’s career in public life, no mention of the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation has been uttered from the dais.
It is true that for years we have heard of the “wonderful work” the Clinton Foundation does… something about poor people, AIDS, and so forth. Best not to ask for any details, though. Haiti does not seem to have benefitted enormously from the billion dollars-plus said to have been raised for it.
Huston attributes the silence likely to: “the wild success of the documentary film Clinton Cash.”
Maybe that is the trigger. But this silence also indicates that the Dems realize that they have lost the argument on what used to be one of the biggest talking points of the Hillary-as-savior faction.
I think that the image of Clintons raising money ostensibly for poor people that ends up hiring private jets, luxury hotels, and paying political staff in the out years is fairly toxic for Hillary. She is so unlikable that people can actually believe that she might be a big phony when she claims to be devoted to helping the poor but just accidentally ends up fabulously rich and living the jet set high life.
The Democrats may have signaled their greatest vulnerability.
(All bold face type is in the original. Ain’t media love grand?– DM)
New York Times coverage of Night 3 of the Democratic National Convention could be characterized by an hour-long swoon over Barack Obama’s speech — pardon, his “stirring valedictory address.” Also, Democrats were (again!) finding their voice on gun control, and Bill celebrated Hillary, TMI-style, and Frank Bruni celebrated the president as “our national poet.”
Reporter Maggie Haberman, helping provide live nytimes.com coverage, was smitten by an introductory video: “Adam, as I watch this video, which is quite gauzy at points, it really does remind me that part of why Obama was re-elected in 2012, polls showed, was that a majority of people thought that his heart was in the right place and that he cared about people like them.”
During and after Obama’s speech Haberman hailed Obama’s style over any substance: “The man knows how to give a speech….It’s a dramatic moment….No matter what people think of Obama and Clinton, like them or don’t like them, the first black president just handed the baton to the first major-party female nominee in this country…..”
Jonathan Martin and Patrick Healy were no less laudatory in Thursday’s paper, “Obama Champions Optimism, Passing Baton to Clinton.”
President Obama delivered a stirring valedictory address at the Democratic convention Wednesday night, hailing Hillary Clinton as his rightful political heir and the party’s best hope to protect democracy from “homegrown demagogues” like the Republican Donald J. Trump.
Taking the stage to rapturous roars of “We love you” and “Yes we can,” Mr. Obama acknowledged that Democrats were still divided after a bruising nomination fight and that Mrs. Clinton had made “mistakes.”
President Obama’s eyes welled with tearsas he spoke of his faith in the American people and urged voters to transfer their trust to the woman he hoped would succeed him.
“Welled with tears” was a popular phrase in theTimes’ convention coverage. Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael Shear used it in “The Diagnosis: Disunity. His Remedy: ‘This Fighter.’”
Mr. Obama’s eyes welled with tears as he spoke of his faith in the American people and urged voters to transfer their trust in him to the woman he hopes will succeed him. “Time and again, you’ve picked me up and I hope, sometimes, I’ve picked you up, too,” he said. “Tonight, I ask you to do for Hillary Clinton what you did for me.”
It was Mr. Obama’s lyrical rejection of “a politics of cynicism” 12 years ago to the night, as the keynote speaker of the 2004 Democratic convention, that dazzled a national audience and thrust him into the spotlight, setting him on his path to two terms in the Oval Office.
Davis consistently hailed Obama, from before the beginning to the very end of his presidency.
In his 2004 convention speech, a testimonial to John Kerry, the Democratic nominee that year, Mr. Obama decried the “spin masters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes,” and he foreshadowed the political theme that would ultimately carry him into the White House by urging “a politics of hope.”
Then as now, Mr. Obama was vouching for someone else, but what many Americans actually heard was a compelling argument for his own leadership.
White House reporter turned columnist Frank Bruni couldn’t stop quoting the chirpy, optimistic speech of President Obama, “our national poet,” in Thursday’s “Freedom From Fear.”
It’s hard, frankly, to stop quoting from his remarks because they amounted to one of the most moving, inspiring valentines to this country that I’ve ever heard, brimming with regard for it and gratitude to it.
We’re going to miss this man, America. Whatever his flaws, he’s been more than our president. Time and again, he’s been our national poet.
This coming from the same journalists who mocked Reagan’s optimism and spent decades criticizing America for racism, sexism, heartlessness, etc…
And Patrick Healy showed Bill Clinton getting up close and personal with Hillary in the icky “Words Depict Feminine Side of Candidate as Strength.”
He spoke of desiring her: her thick blond hair, her flowery white skirt, her magnetic personality.
He was almost titillating as he recalled chasing after her and getting close enough to “touch her back.”
He used intimate details to reveal her feelings about his three marriage proposals.
Healy portrayed Bill Clinton, womanizer extraordinaire, as doing his bit for feminism.
In doing so, Mr. Clinton began redefining the American presidency as a female institution.
A Clinton win in November would obviously give the country a female president. But for 227 years, the presidency has been associated with stereotypically male qualities — strength, resolve, fearlessness — and the embodiment of power in a deeply patriarchal political system….
Whether his speech causes people to see Mrs. Clinton differently — or makes people uncomfortable with the Clinton marriage all over again — will become clearer in time, not only through polls but also in the chatter among voters.
The gush got unbearable by the end.
Political wives often make their husbands sound like saints. Mr. Clinton made Mrs. Clinton sound likable, which is no small thing in politics.
“I married my best friend,” he said. “I have lived a long, full, blessed life. It really took off when I met and fell in love with that girl in the spring of 1971.”
His implication was obvious. America would really take off as well, if voters would just fall in love with that girl, too.
Veteran congressional reporter Carl Hulse’s column, “Gun Laws, Long Avoided, Return to the Agenda,” was devoted to the Democrats (this time for real!) finding “their voice” on gun control. On a busy day for politics, it somehow made the front of Thursday’s paper.
After treating gun control as political poison for two decades, Democrats led by Hillary Clinton are again vigorously championing new gun restrictions as a central element of their campaigns.
Hulse saw current events as helping the Democrats (as he so often does).
But a string of mass shootings involving high-powered weapons, rising anxiety about domestic terrorism, and killings of and by police officers have emboldened Democrats. They say the shootings are intensifying support for gun control, elevating weapons policy to a top-tier issue, with particularly strong appeal to suburban female voters.
Nothing about the spate of terror attacks helping Republicans on national security issues.
Citing polls showing strong support for new restrictions even among gun owners, gun control advocates believe the public is open to expanded background checks, new limits on gun purchases and more scrutiny of gun manufacturers and dealers. They intend to enthusiastically press the case in races across the country.
Given deep Republican resistance in Congress, major changes in gun laws anytime soon seem unlikely. But the convention is demonstrating that Democrats have recovered their voice on the issue.