Category Archives: History

Hillary’s Email

She’s been getting away with this kind of thing for decades. Why wouldn’t she think she can continue?

…the episode already confirms what attentive observers have long known: If the Clintons return to the White House, we can expect more suspicious secrets, stonewalling, and opaqueness, much as we’ve seen in the past. Voters have been given ample warning.

Yup. And unlike the nineties, when the media was able to continually cover for them, there are a lot more ways of getting the news.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Sure looks like an attempt to evade federal law.”

[Update mid-morning]

Archive of Hillary’s emails discovered.


[Late-morning update]

Chappaqua, we have a problem:

Well, all these things are horrible, but then we knew (Nos. 1 and 2) that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s ethical compass has been broken for years and that they consider laws and transparency to be for the little people. I would argue, however, that it is the third that is really the worst if Hillary Clinton intends, as everyone is certain she does, to run for president. This is, of course, the most important national security issue of our time, and if she has neither the courage nor conviction to tell us what she thinks, she arguably shouldn’t be running for the job as commander in chief.

Needless to say, the political media are focused on the e-mails and not the nukes, but then foreign policy is only superficially considered and dimly understood. Whatever the emphasis, however, it is hard to escape the flashing red lights in front of party regulars and activists: Do you really need Clinton so badly that you would crown her now as the nominee? Wouldn’t it be better to have someone with no responsibility for the most egregious foreign policy disaster of our time (i.e. allowing Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability)?

They don’t think it would be a policy disaster.

[Afternoon update]

The Clinton email scandal highlights the utter inadequacy of all the Benghazi investigations.

I think that Congressman Gowdy is going to have some interesting questions for her Highness.

[Wednesday-morning update]

Hillary’s email story keeps getting worse and worse.

I was wondering if she (or a minion) was running her own server. That would make it much harder to know which emails she released and which she didn’t.


The “Phony” Benghazi Scandal

Hillary’s aides knew within the first few minutes that it had nothing to do with the video:

The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.”

Nope, no stonewalling in this administration.

A Christian Terrorist

In Washington, they’re practically praying for one.

President Barack Obama, who still believes that his job consists of giving speeches, convened a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” the purpose of which was to provide a platform for the president to give a keynote speech. In it he insisted, as he does, that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that arguments to the contrary only lend credibility to the Islamic terrorist organizations that have nothing to do with Islam. He cited a letter from a fifth-grader, a Muslim girl named Sabrina, who wrote: “If some Muslims do bad things, that doesn’t mean all of them do.” President Obama was impressed with these remarks — “the wisdom of a little girl,” he called them. If the alternative is Marie Harf, we suppose he could do worse.

Of course, no sensible person walking the earth believes that every Muslim on the planet is an al-Qaeda sympathizer or an Islamic supremacist. The problem is that (1) some of the world’s Muslims do sympathize with Islamic-supremacist views, (2) there are an awful lot of them, and (3) Islamic organizations are the preeminent practitioners of terrorism around the world at the moment.

It’s an inconvenient truth.

And here’s a pro tip for the media morons. Tim McVeigh was not a Christian.

[Update a while later]

ISIS and the vulgar Marxism problem.

What Is ISIS?

It’s sure as hell not what the White House thinks it is:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

But this administration wishes to bury its head in its assthe sand.

It’s a long read, but well worth it, from The Atlantic.

[Update a few minutes later]

And then there’s this:

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

Every academic I asked about the Islamic State’s ideology sent me to Haykel. Of partial Lebanese descent, Haykel grew up in Lebanon and the United States, and when he talks through his Mephistophelian goatee, there is a hint of an unplaceable foreign accent.

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

There is no Pope of Islam. I’m pretty sure they know what Islam is more than our Theologian-in-Chief does.

[Update a few minutes later]

One more point. People who ignore the Caliphate as the goal of the Islamists ignore it at no just their, but our peril. That is the theological importance of ISIS control of territory and declaring itself a state. And as with the mullahs of Iran, do not ignore their own apocalyptic vision.

[Update a few minutes later]

This is a genocidal movement akin to Nazism.

Yes. In fact, it is much more theologically coherent, with a much longer historical pedigree. It’s just been relatively dormant for a few generations, so fools like Barack Obama cannot imagine how it can exist in the 21st century. And yes, unlike Nazism, it doesn’t have a technologically competent industrial state from which to operate. But also in the 21st century, it may not need one. Particularly when the state with the most potential capability to defeat it has a leader that pretends it does not exist.

[Update a while later]

But wait! There’s more! Remember when some people questioned my comment that the Left is implicitly allied with Islam? Check this out:

Abdul Muhid, 32, continued along these lines. He was dressed in mujahideen chic when I met him at a local restaurant: scruffy beard, Afghan cap, and a wallet outside of his clothes, attached with what looked like a shoulder holster. When we sat down, he was eager to discuss welfare. The Islamic State may have medieval-style punishments for moral crimes (lashes for boozing or fornication, stoning for adultery), but its social-welfare program is, at least in some aspects, progressive to a degree that would please an MSNBC pundit. Health care, he said, is free. (“Isn’t it free in Britain, too?,” I asked. “Not really,” he said. “Some procedures aren’t covered, such as vision.”) This provision of social welfare was not, he said, a policy choice of the Islamic State, but a policy obligation inherent in God’s law.

So really, they hate the Enlightenment, they want a welfare state, they’re genocidal, like the Nazis, Stalin, and Mao? What’s not to like?