Corruption Engulfs Her Like a Cloud

. . . and follows her like a vapor trail.

Former Washington Post and  WSJ reporter Ronald Kessler writes in the Daily Mail that FBI files of documents linking Hillary Clinton to the death of Vince Foster have mysteriously disappeared from the National Archives.

Vince Foster served as deputy White House counsel during Bill Clinton’s first term as US President.  He is alleged to have committed suicide with a .38 revolver in July of 1993.

On two separate occasions, [Ronald Kessler] visited the National Archives and Records Service in College Park, MD to review the reports generated by FBI agents assigned to investigate the 1993 death of Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel.

On the first visit, archivist David Paynter provided the box of records that he said contained the FBI reports of interviews conducted by FBI agents on Foster’s death. 

On a second visit, archivist James Mathis provided what he said were those same documents.

While the box contained dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster’s death – including interviews with the medical examiner, U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster’s office – the reports on Hillary’s role in his death were absent.

A more thorough search of all relevant  files by a senior archivist

 . . . found no interviews by any investigator that detail either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster’s state of mind.

Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide following a humiliating dressing-down by Hillary in front of White House aides.  But reports at the time raised questions about  the scrap of paper alleged to be a suicide note, allegations of a previous affair between Foster and Hillary Clinton, the presence of a second wound to Foster’s neck, the “sanitizing” of Foster’s office by Hillary Clinton and her aides while FBI agents cooled their heels in the hallway, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Whatever the truth about the death of Vince Foster, it was never revealed to the public.

And now even more vestiges of evidence have – *poof* – disappeared.

See that rock marked The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Nudge it with your toe, and a sulfurous fog of corruption crawls, slithers, creeps from underneath.

No Religious Test?

 

In the first half of the 2016 fiscal year, the US has received 28,957 Muslim refugees, 46% of the 63,000 refugees who have entered since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2015.

According to the Pew Research Center, that number exceeded the number of Christians who entered as refugees, at 27,556 or 44%.

People seeking to enter the U.S. as refugees are processed overseas. As part of the process, they are asked a series of questions, including their religious affiliation. When their applications are approved, refugees travel to the U.S. to be resettled by nonprofit groups associated with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Refugees to the U.S. are different from asylum seekers, who claim asylum after already being in the U.S. or crossing into the U.S. via an airport or land border.

As we have repeatedly been told by the Obama administration, a “religious test” of refugees would be unconstitutional and “not who we are.”

When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy has pointed out that

Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant. Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title 8, U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]

So all Obama’s faux indignation notwithstanding, the administration must know that religion, being one of the bases for claims that one is a refugee, must by law be taken into account. Apparently, the administration finds itself in a sort of “reverse rendition” situation, wherein the unpleasant “not who we are” stuff –like asking someone their religion –takes place in a foreign country.

But further, the administration knows that making clear a potential refugee’s religion will lead to inconvenient questions about actual persecution, which the administration would like to dodge.

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. . . . as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery). . . .
[T]he Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. Obama prefers not to dwell on the distinction between the jihadist treatment of Muslims, on the one hand, and of Christians, Jews and other religions, on the other hand, because he — like much of Washington — inhabits a world in which jihadists are not Islamic and, therefore, have no common ground with other Muslims  . . . While there is no question that ISIS will kill and persecute Muslims whom it regards as apostates for refusing to adhere to its construction of Islam, it is abject idiocy to suggest that Muslims are facing the same ubiquity and intensity of persecution as Christians.

“Abject idiocy” may in fact be a kind way of describing this administration’s refugee policy. To some, it more resembles stealth jihad.
The administration set the goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. this year. As of the middle of August, the administration is about 86% of the way toward its goal. Among the 8,569 Syrian refugees received, 99% are Muslim and less than 1% are Christian.

Islamic Islamophobia: When Muslims Are Not Muslim Enough, What Does It Promise for the Rest of Us?

Mr Shah’s murderer was a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who had travelled to Glasgow to kill Mr Shah because he believed Mr Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed” by wishing Christians a happy Easter.  At this point the comfortable narratives of modern Britain began to fray. If Mr Shah’s . . .

Source: Islamic Islamophobia: When Muslims Are Not Muslim Enough, What Does It Promise for the Rest of Us? by Douglas Murray

Joy in Manbij

[IMG]

There was no joy among ISIS fighters on Friday, as the Syrian Democratic Forces announced the liberation of the city of Manbij from ISIS fighters who had controlled the city for two years.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced over the weekend a full liberation of the strategic city after more than two months of battle. Nearly 100,000 civilians were displaced in the fighting and more than 400 were killed. The city is located 25 miles south of the Syrian-Turkish border and is considered a key hub for ISIS supply routes for weapons and foreign fighters.

And there was no joy among ISIS supporters online, as they responded with vitriol to images of women removing and burning their burqas, and men cutting their beards.

Most of the anger from ISIS supporters on the group’s forum and on Telegram was directed at the women, who were also pictured smoking cigarettes. In areas under its control the terror group has imposed a strict dress code for both women and men in its territories, and banned the selling, buying or consumption of cigarettes. . . .

“Don’t be surprised if the Crusader west will highlight these impure women and will make them appear as heroes of freedom and of the rights of whoredom,” one user wrote.

But there was plenty of joy among the city’s inhabitants who welcomed the victorious fighters, which included women.

Ecstatic Syrian civilians have been shaving off their beards, burning their burqas, smoking and dancing in the streets after being freed from ISIS. . . .

Men jubilantly had their beards cut off as women ripped off their veils and set them on fire in an act of rebellion after years living under Isis’ brutal interpretation of Sharia law.

According to Pentagon spokesperson Gordon Trowbridge, the city had served as an ISIS recruitment hub for foreign fighters, and a base for operatives crossing the Turkish border.

 

 

That “Non-existent” Ransom Video

 

Image result for susan page

On this morning’s talk shows, members of the MSM were still peddling the story of how Trump is lying about a non-existent video of pallets of foreign cash being delivered to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. Even on Fox, USA Today‘s Susan Page quoted the Washington Post to slander Trump,  in part relying on a hit piece by WaPo political writer Aaron Blake.

There was just one problem. Every single incident detailed by Mr. Blake as an example of when Trump got it wrong, is in fact demonstrably true:

1.The ransom video exists.

2. The police found pipe bombs in the San Bernardino terrorists’ apartment.

3. Eyewitnesses reported seeing Muslims in NJ celebrating when the Islamic terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11. (And not only in NJ, of course –who can unsee the video of that woman in the glasses and hijab ululating in the West Bank or somewhere.)

4. Black Lives Matter has called for the murder of police.

Image result for aaron blake

The list goes on, and Aaron Blake is, in every instance, wrong. Maybe it’s a mistake. Or maybe he’s a liar. Here’s what he says:

But Trump’s recollection of the Iran money transfer video on Thursday afternoon is perhaps the most flagrant example of this, given his campaign explained less than 18 hours prior that his initial story had merely been his mistake — a misunderstanding.

The question is why. As I posited on Twitter after Trump brought up the nonexistent money transfer video, one explanation is that Trump is merely trolling us. He knew what his campaign said about the video, and he decided to cite it again just to get a rise out of the press.

If that’s true, it’s certainly a cynical strategy — inventing stories about sensitive foreign policy matters in order to get the press in a tizzy.

Another is that Trump’s campaign is a complete mess, and it never bothered to actually check with him when trying to explain away the video. If that’s the case, it’s also troubling, because it suggests the campaign has no message discipline and is lying to the press.

But if there’s a topic on which Trump was going to double down without any evidence and in direct contradiction to his own campaign staff, it’s perhaps no surprise that it involved Muslims.

But most of all, it’s no surprise that there really is a video, that the mainstream media know there’s a video, and that they refuse to correct themselves, let alone apologize. You know, to Trump. And to us.

 

The Vicar of Marx

Image result for pope says there are violent catholics

Pope Francis seems a bit exasperated when questioned about Islamic terrorism. He reaches for fatuous analogies that don’t quite work. When asked about the murder of Fr. Jacques Hamel in France recently, the pontiff came to the defense of the Religion of Peace™, saying that he

doesn’t like speaking about Islamic violence because there is plenty of Christian violence as well . . . when he browses the newspapers, he sees violence in Italy perpetrated by Christians: “this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law . . . and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!  If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.

But surely His Holiness understands the difference between violent acts that are contrary to the teachings of one’s religion, and violence committed in the name of Islam, and with the intent of advancing Islam “for the sake of Allah.” If not, perhaps we are in need of a new pope.

And preferably one that doesn’t reach for the teachings of Karl Marx when trying to explain away the violence of Islam.

Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person — men and women — this is already the first terrorism! You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!

At a time when so many Christians the world over are in need of encouragement and solace as they face assault and violent death at the hands of Islamists;  when they might benefit spiritually from the condemnation of their assailants by a Catholic leader, and draw strength from the ‘Faith of our Fathers’ when faced with martyrdom for their beliefs; instead we have the spectacle of the Vicar of Christ making excuses for their murderers based on some imaginary economic disadvantage.

It is not the job of the pope to slander the poor. Nor to excuse the murderous violence of Islamic  supremacists.