Move over, Nicolas Cage; Hillary Clinton is the real “Lord of War.”

May 27, 2015
"Obama loan officer at work."

Clinton Foundation staff at work

No, there’s no direct evidence that reveals bribery or other corruption, but the pattern of large donations to the Clinton Foundation occurring roughly at the same time as the Clinton-lead State Department awarded favorable decisions to the donors is pretty suspicious. Maybe not a “smoking gun,” but definitely a lot of shell casings lying around.

Which is fitting, since it seems Hillary was one of the most accommodating arms-dealers on the planet:

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

Now, I’m not one of those who’s squeamish about selling arms to unsavory governments; sometimes the interests of the United States will make this necessary in pursuit of a greater goal. This happened a lot during the Cold War. And let’s not forget the Great Progressive, FDR, sold untold amounts of arms to Stalin, one of the true monsters of history, in order to defeat Hitler in World War II. The needs of foreign affairs and war often make for strange bedfellows.

But, somehow —call me “crazy!”— I don’t think FDR’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, was taking note of Russian gold going to the “Hull Foundation” while shipping planes to Uncle Joe.

Let this sink in:

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

There’s much more at the IBT article. Be sure to read it all.

By any standard of public decency and good government, Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be running for president. She should be hiring defense attorneys to represent her (and Bill!) in a federal bribery investigation.

But, I suppose it’s too much to expect the leading and sole serious candidate for a major party’s nomination to be held to the same rules as the rest of us. Especially under Obama, and especially when it’s a Clinton.

via The Washington Free Beacon

Related: Why am I not surprised? Read all about Bill Clinton’s “shell corporation.” I can almost hear the money-laundering machines whirring away. (h/t Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt newsletter)


(Video) Should the US be the world’s policeman?

May 26, 2015

It’s a question that’s vexed Americans ever since the end of World War II, when maintaining the world order fell to us after the exhaustion and devastation of the European Great Powers. In the following video, The Wall St. Journal’s Bret Stephens answers this question in the affirmative because, in his view, the alternatives are much worse.

For what it’s worth, as an admitted foreign policy hawk, I tend to agree with Stephens.

via Prager University


Government-Subsidized Third-Party Payer Is a Great Recipe to Make a Sector of the Economy More Expensive and Less Efficient

May 25, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

It’s had the same pernicious effect on college education costs as it has in the health sector.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

What’s the most effective way of screwing up a sector of the economy? Since I’m a fiscal policy economist, I’m tempted to say that bad tax policy is the fastest way of causing damage. And France might be my top example.

But other forms of government intervention also can have a poisonous effect. Regulation, for instance, imposes an enormous burden on our economy.

Today, though, we’re going to look at how subsidies can result in costly distortions. More specifically, using examples from the health sector and higher-ed sectors, we’re going to see how “third-party payer” is a very expensive form of intervention.

We’ll start with the example from the healthcare sector. Writing for the Institute for Policy Innovation, Merrill Matthews has a must-read article about an unintended consequences of Obamacare.

He starts with a very sensible point about the effect of third-party payer.

Health care actuaries will tell…

View original 1,157 more words


(Video) National Popular Vote and the attack on the electoral college

May 25, 2015

vote03

The Electoral College is one of the more obscure features of our government, yet it plays a crucial role: it elects the president, not the popular vote. When people in a state go to the polls, they’re really voting for slates of electors pledged to a particular candidate. The electors have traditionally honored the voters’ wishes (with the occasional individual exception for a protest vote), but the fact remains that they could choose someone other than “the People’s choice.” It also means that, occasionally, a candidate could win enough electoral votes to win the presidency while not winning the overall popular vote, as happened in 2,000 in the race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

The fact that the winner of the popular vote might not win the race has annoyed a lot of people, especially on the Left (1), and they have proposed something called the “National Popular Vote,” a compact among the states comprising 270 electoral votes (the number need to win) to award them to whomever wins the national vote, regardless of individual state results. Not surprisingly, given the source, this represents an end-run around the system established in the Constitution, rather than an honest attempt to amend it.

In the video below from Prager University, attorney and author Tara Ross explains how the Electoral College works, why it was set up this way, and why NPV is a very bad idea:

Footnote:
(1) Because, you know, the Electoral College is “unfair!” “Unfairness” meaning “I didn’t get what I want!”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Free Speech: I find your lack of faith disturbing, America.

May 24, 2015
x

Do we need a refresher?

Via Tom Nichols, here’s Charles Cooke on the results of a survey showing a majority of Democrats and a significant minority of Republicans effectively favor repealing the 1st Amendment:

Depressing news from YouGov:

“YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups. Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.”

What’s disturbing is that the speech in question doesn’t directly incite violence. It doesn’t urge people to go right now and burn the shops of those unliked people “over there.”

Rather, the “hate speech” referred to is a vague term (1) meaning “hurtful things you said that I don’t like.” To give a personal example, I’m very clear regarding my dislike for Islam: I think it an antisemitic, misogynistic, and bigoted faith with aggressive imperatives that lead it to demand supremacy over other faiths and to make war on their adherents until they submit. I have serious questions about whether it is or can be compatible with liberal, post-Enlightenment societies, at least with regard to Muslims who choose to live it as Muhammad intended.

For some, that would qualify as “hate speech”under the standards of that survey, because I would be “stirring up hatred” against Islam, though I would never advocate violence against Muslims, no matter how strong my criticisms of their faith. As Cooke explains, that standard is nevertheless exactly what would get me in trouble in the UK, where free speech protections are dying on the vine under the assault of laws such as the Public Order Act.

That a majority of the self-identified adherents of one of our two major parties would favor laws to criminalize the expression of thought — and that a large portion of the supposedly conservative party would agree with them! — is profoundly disturbing. I hope, indeed, I pray, that this is simply because people agreed with something they thought “sounded reasonable” and didn’t think through the implications thereof, rather than indicating a fundamental change to something that has made us, as a nation, truly exceptional.

Otherwise, we’re in deep trouble.

RELATED: While a number of Republicans have lost their way when it comes to free speech, let’s not forget that it was the Democrats who actually proposed an amendment effectively gutting the 1st Amendment.

Footnote:
(1) This is a great analysis of the increasing calls in the MSM for censoring free speech. Well-worth reading. (h/t Charles Cooke)


(Video) In which Ted Cruz owns a “reporter” on Gay rights

May 23, 2015

Senator Cruz isn’t my first choice for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, though I’ll happily vote for him if he is. However, he gets an unqualified high-five from me for putting this shill for Democratic National Committee talking points in his place:

Pardon me a moment… smiley dance smiley cheering smiley thumbs up

Few things tick me off more than the progressive Left’s hypocrisy on women and Gay rights: silently ignoring the hideous abuse both suffer under Islam while creating fake controversies here at home.

Go, Ted!


ISIS: “‘I rejoiced when we had our first sex slave, forced sex ISN’T rape and they should be thankful”

May 22, 2015
Don't these women look happy?

Don’t these women look happy?

(Graphic via Raymond Ibrahim)

I’m at a loss of words to describe the twisted evil that is ISIS. All I can say is “kill them all.”

ISIS has released a chilling document in which it justifies the kidnapping and rape of slave girls – and brands Michelle Obama a prostitute whose ‘price won’t even exceed a third of a dinar’.

These shocking admissions are made by a jihadi bride in the ninth edition of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, in a feature entitled: ‘Slave girls or prostitutes.’

For years Islamic State has been enslaving and sexually abusing the women it captures – particularly from Iraq’s minority Yazidi community – and sending the ‘prettiest virgins’ to depraved auctions, a United Nations envoy claimed this week.

ISIS has not only confirmed this to be true, but the terror group justifies the cruel sex crimes as Sunnah, which roughly translates as ‘a way of life’.

A counter-terrorism expert told MailOnline that this was another example of how ISIS is twisting the holy text to recruit young male fighters – who often can’t get wives in their own countries – by telling them their spoils of war will be women.

That last is simply not true: sexual slavery of infidel women (and the Yazidi women count as infidels) is justified in both the Qur’an and the hadiths (the sayings and deeds of Muhammad). Robert Spencer provides several examples. Here’s one:

The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

Be sure to read the rest.

Meanwhile, let me pull from my shelf the “Reliance of the Traveler,” a manual of Islamic law certified by al-Azhar university, one of the chief intellectual authorities of Sunni Islam. Section o9-13 (p.604):

“When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”

In other words, she is war booty — possessed “by the right hand” (the sword hand)– and is her captor’s to use as he wishes, including sexually. This is from a sharia law manual certified as in accord with Sunni practice and faith in 1991. The unnamed expert may know what  he’s talking about when it comes to counter-terrorism, but he’s ignorant or fooling himself when it comes to Islamic law.

Back to the joy infidel women should feel when subjected to rape — pardon me, “forced sex” — by Muslim men, the woman (sic!) who wrote the Dabiq article goes on:

The hate-filled rant is penned by a suspected jihadi bride named Umm Sumayyah Al-Muhajirah, who called for her ‘sisters’ to emigrate to Syria and become wives to Islamic State extremists in the previous edition of Dabiq.

(…)

And she openly admits that ISIS has plundered villages and kidnapped women, saying: ‘As for the slave-girl that was taken by the swords of men following the cheerful warrior then her enslavement is in opposition to human rights and copulation with her is rape?!

‘What is wrong with you? How do you make such a judgment? What is your religion? What is your law? Rather, tell me who is your lord?’

‘Allah has opened the lands for His awliya [supporter], so they entered and dispersed within the lands, killing the fighters of the kuffar [non-believer], capturing their women, and enslaving their children.’

She angrily adds: ‘I write this while the letters drip of pride… We have indeed raided and captured the kafirah women, and drove them like sheep by the edge of the sword.’

Sumayyah Al-Muhajirah expresses deep disappointment to Islamic State fanatics who refuted the mass kidnappings of Yazidi girls, saying: ‘So the supporters started denying the matter as if the soldiers of the Khilafah [Caliphate] had committed a mistake or evil.’

Emphasis added. She’s partially right. The jihadis of ISIS aren’t misunderstanding Islam, they are not insane, but they are evil. These brave knights of Allah are instead operating under a wholly different paradigm from the post-Enlightenment West, a paradigm under which what they are doing is right and is justified by their holy texts, no “twisting” needed. ISIS is practicing Islam and jihad as Muhammad intended.

I said last night on Twitter that there are some evils in the world that must be fought for their evil, regardless of geopolitics or national interests. This new “Caliphate” is just such an evil.

ISIS needs to be destroyed.

via Jihad Watch

UPDATE: Dear God. Those monsters burned a woman alive because she wouldn’t perform “an extreme sex act.” (h/t Amy Otto)

RELATED: If you want to enjoy (?) a bitter laugh, compare the above to the feminist pearl-clutching about the so-called “rape culture” in the US that my blog-buddy Sister Toldjah rants about in one of her latest posts.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,280 other followers