PowerLine ? Report: Clinton Foundation under federal investigation after all – Summer camp in GAZA means learning how to murder Jews

PowerLine ? Report: Clinton Foundation under federal investigation after all – Summer camp in GAZA means learning how to murder Jews

Daily Digest

Summer Camp In Gaza

Posted: 13 Aug 2016 04:08 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)In the civilized world, summer camp means hiking, swimming, campfires, maybe learning how to tie knots. But in Gaza, where Hamas rules, summer camp means learning how to murder Jews. MEMRI has pictures of the camp activities that are going on under the supervision of Hamas’s Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades.

We learned how to use knives at Boy Scout camp, but this was never part of the training:


You often read about Arabs carrying out attacks with machetes. This is what they are talking about:


Firearms, of course, are an important part of a child’s training, but it’s not exactly an NRA firearms safety course:


Summer camp training in Gaza isn’t only about weapons and techniques of terrorism (use of tunnels is another class); it is also ideological:

According to Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam officials, “the goal of the camps is to stoke the embers of jihad among the generation of liberation, to inculcate Islamic values and to prepare the army of victory for liberating Palestine.”

Would someone please to Hamas that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism? Somehow they never seem to get the message.

Will Trumpism survive a Trump defeat?

Posted: 13 Aug 2016 01:11 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)Jonathan Tobin takes up the question at Commentary. He defines Trumpism as “isolationism, protectionism, and populist blood and soil nativism.”

Tobin answers his question this way:

Though Trumpism without Trump would be a very different and less potent movement, it is a mistake to think even a landslide defeat for the Republicans will guarantee that it can resume its past stance as a supporter of a strong America on the global stage as well as support for free trade.

Tobin is silent on the matter of “populist blood and soil nativism.”

He adds:

If [the GOP] is to resume being the party of Reagan, it will require more than just a Clinton win. It will need a resurgence of support for conservative principles as well as some soul-searching on the part of those Republicans leaders who failed to unite to stop Trump before he sank their party.

Before discussing the future of “isolationism, protectionism, and nativism” in the GOP, I have two comments on the second quoted passage. First, it should not be the goal of Republicans to resume being the party of Reagan in any strict sense. By the time of the next election, Reagan’s presidency will be more than 30 years in the rear view mirror. The challenges America faces now are, in important respects, different from the challenges it faced in the 1980s.

The goal of Republicans should be to find the right answers to these problems. Though hardly irrelevant to that quest, Reaganism is an insufficient guide in many cases.

Second, although soul-searching by Republicans leaders is warranted, it is not the kind that Tobin seems to have in mind. Rather, the soul-searching should focus on the attitudes and pronouncements that opened the door for Trump.

Above all, Reince Priebus and company should reflect on the fact that their successful efforts to dissuade conservative presidential contenders from taking a strong stand against amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants enabled Trump to move to fore as the only contender willing to blast such policies.

When Trump said during debate after debate that the contenders wouldn’t be discussing illegal immigration if not for him, he was not far from the truth. But if Republican leaders hadn’t tried to move the GOP away from a hard line on illegal immigration, it’s likely that a number of contenders would have taken a hard line and made it a theme before Trump entered the race.

Now, what of the post-Trump GOP (assuming the tycoon loses and the election isn’t close). It’s not likely to be isolationist. Events overseas will probably see to that.

In light of events, Trump himself isn’t taking a consistent isolationist stance. He does show an alarming affinity for Vladimir Putin (and, in doing so, for strengthening Assad’s position), but this view seems unique to Trump. I don’t expect the GOP to become a pro-Putin party.

Nor do I expect the GOP to become a protectionist party. What seems likely is that party will become less dogmatically pro free trade. This means analyzing, or purporting to analyze, trade deals on their merits to make sure, as will be said, that America isn’t being taken advantage of.

In other words, I see the GOP straddling the issue, just as I think Hillary Clinton will. If Clinton makes a deal that can readily be attacked as disadvantageous in its particulars, and if the economy is struggling, Republicans will likely attack the deal.

But given the strength of the Sanders wing of the Democratic party, Clinton isn’t likely to agree to a controversial trade deal in these circumstances. So protectionism probably won’t be a major issue for a while. One never knows, but it is unlikely to fuel a serious Trumpist candidacy in 2020.

On immigration, which Tobin may have mostly in mind when he discusses “nativism,” much depends on Speaker Paul Ryan. If he cooperates with the Democrats to pass amnesty-style legislation, then the door once against will be open to Trumpism because party leaders will have committed the same mistake, only more egregiously, that gave rise to Trump.

If Republicans take the “enforcement first” position that prevailed (barely) during the George W. Bush years, then the door will not be open for a successful “populist blood and soil nativist” presidential campaign. However, even in the absence of one, Republican pundits who support amnesty and high levels of legal immigration might well continue to characterize Republicans who disagree with them as nativist (with or without adjectives).

A Trump defeat wouldn’t restore the Republican party to its 2013 posture, nor should it. But if GOP leaders avoid the mistakes they began making back then, the party should be able to move past Trumpism.

How the GOP feeds the PC beast

Posted: 13 Aug 2016 05:52 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)John Fund reports that congressional Republicans increased the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights with a very generous budget increase last year. Fund takes up the matter in the NR column “How Republicans feed the beast of political correctness.”

OCR is perhaps the most left-wing office in the federal bureaucracy. Bankrolling it that way Congress did was an egregious error (for which they were rewarded with the transgender guidance). This would be understandable if Congress were in the hands of the Democratic Party. As Republicans rule the roost, however, this seriously discredits congressional Republicans.

Fund puts it this way: “If Republicans in Congress wonder why so many conservatives are frustrated with them, here is one reason: GOP lawmakers generously fund the Obama administration’s most out-of-control elements while slapping down the conservatives who try to warn them away from such misjudgments.”

Who raised the red flag in this case? Fund notes that Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow and Gail Heriot wrote a letter last year to Appropriations Committee chairmen warning them against giving OCR a huge budget increase. They protested the budget increase as a bad, bad idea.

The Appropriations Committee chairmen not only approved they OCR budget increase, however, they also slapped Kirsanow and Heriot down by including a line in the Commission’s budget commanding us not to send them letters on Commission letterhead.

Kirsanow and Heriot had committed the ancient offense of lèse majesté. Forgive them, your highnesses.

This year the Senate bill again gives OCR a raise. Even worse, Kirsanow and Heriot remain unforgiven. The Senate bill requires the Staff Director of the Civil Rights Commission to report any violations of the ban on the use of letterhead by individual commissioners.

Note well: whenever Peter and Gail write on letterhead, the letter always begins with the sentence, “We write as two members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and not on behalf of the Commission as a whole.” As Fund observes, only an illiterate could fail to understand that.

House Republicans may have learned something. I understand that House Republicans are trying to take back last year’s 7 percent budget increase. Fund notes that the latest budget increase being proposed by the GOP Senate is “only” 3 percent. I would say that’s at least 3 percent too much.

Don’t just sit there, do something. Please let your Republican Senators and congressman (if you have one) know what you think.

The Week in Pictures: Suction Cup Edition

Posted: 13 Aug 2016 04:25 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)Forget the Olympics. The dude climbing Trump Tower with suction cups was the sports highlight of the week, hands down. I’m amazed it isn’t being proposed as a new Olympic sport. Meanwhile, one of the candidates had another terrible week. Lied about things; said stupid stuff to reporters. Yeah, that’s right—it was the one who fancies pantsuits. The media hardly seemed to notice. This week’s gallery, by the way, achieves one of our standards, with both a Star Trek and a Star Wars reference. Life is good in mid-August.

Cruz Trump Climber copy Climb Emails copy

Clinton Trek copy Hillary delete copy Hillary's Man copy Hillary cigars copy Hillary Shorts again copy Hillary's snail economy copy Crime Families copy Hillary shorts out copy Hillary Robes copy

Hillary Wages copy

Make Canada easy copy Med Pot copy Obama Iran 2 copy Obama Negotiates 2 copy Trump v. Liar copy What Trump Meant copy Ttrump v Hillary copy Dictator Garb copy

Trump Bar copy

Apecutrm Chart copy

Freethinker copy

Real Communism copy

Guitar Gun copyHow to clear customs in Blue States.

Rebel Bass copy Sarcasm copy Dog Beers copy Small Wine copy Vegan Lifespans copy Whipped Cream copy Laughing Gas copy

Meetings People copy Sharknado copy

Glockatchu copy

Wishing Pie copy

Venn copy

And finally. . .

GunGirl11 copy

Report: Clinton Foundation under federal investigation after all

Posted: 12 Aug 2016 05:39 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)A few days ago, CNN reported that the FBI asked to investigate the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, but the Department of Justice said it did not have enough evidence to open a formal probe. I wrote about this report here.

But now, the Daily Caller is saying that several investigations of the Clinton Foundation have been launched, including one led by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Civil Frauds Unit that will focus on Clinton Foundation in New York. The Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock identifies his source as “a former senior law enforcement official.”

According to Pollock’s report, Bharara’s investigatation will be supported by various U.S. Attorneys Offices. This, he says, is a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.

As I suggested in my post about DOJ’s reported refusal to authorize an investigation earlier in the year, much has been
since. Thus, whatever validity DOJ’s view about the evidence against Clinton Foundation may have had then (and I don’t think it had any), there is good reason to revisit the matter now.

What are the practical consequences of the Clinton Foundation being under investigation now, assuming that it is? It strikes me that the investigation, which almost certainly involves complicated transactions, isn’t likely to be completed before Election Day. Nor, even if it is, will the DOJ likely reach a decision to prosecute before then.

Once Clinton is inaugurated in January (assuming she wins), her Justice Department isn’t at all likely to charge her Foundation with criminal conduct. In the old days, an independent counsel might well have been appointed and given responsibility over the matter. But I don’t see that happening now, especially in a Hillary Clinton administration given the Clintons’ experience with Ken Starr.

There’s a period of more than two months between Election Day and Inauguration Day. But even if investigators were able to wrap things up during this period, I’d be shocked if the Justice Department brought charges against the president-elect or her Foundation.

I say this even though Bharara has a reputation, seemingly well earned, as a fearless prosecutor. It’s one thing fearlessly to investigate and/or prosecute powerful local and state officials. It’s another to prosecute the U.S. president.

Readers will probably recall hearing about James Comey’s well earned reputation for fearlessness and straight shooting. In the end, he declined to pursue a case against Hillary that would have been firmly rooted in the facts (as Comey presented them) and the statutory language.

Anyway, Bharara can’t prosecute the Clinton Foundation without DOJ approval. It seems unrealistic to imagine he could get it.

Leave a Reply