Bill and Hillary Clinton looked down on Al Gore, but Al Gore made more money and isn’t under investigation by the FBI

Bill and Hillary Clinton looked down on Al Gore, but Gore made more money and isn’t under investigation by the FBI. Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s vice president from 1992 to 2000. The Clintons thought he was a bit thick, a bit nerdy, and more than a little boring — and were happy to see him busy himself with science stuff.

The Clinton’s recent pay-for-play corruption at the State Department, their extravagantly expensive speeches, and those the donations to the Clinton Foundation only earned the Clintons a few hundred million dollars. But Al Gore, after finishing 2000 with less than two million to his name, was a billionaire by about 2007 — from his movie, carbon deals, the carbon emission permits exchange, Apple directorship, and so on. So point 1 to Gore.

Gore’s fortune, shrunken somewhat as the carbon theory of global warming has floundered, was gained honestly, even if based on a mistake. However the Clinton’s modus operandi has landed them in hot water with the FBI, with years of investigation and evasions ahead. Point 2 to Gore.

For the third and final point, who is going to lose a presidential election by more — Hillary or Gore?

Al Gore recieving the Nobel Peace Price 2007

Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. No way Bill and Hillary are going to get one of those.

 Al Gore at The World Economic Forum, 2008

Al Gore upon learning about Weiner and the Dickileaks.

Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I’m ‘Terrified’ of Hillary

Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I’m ‘Terrified’ of Hillary, by Aaron Klein.

Dave Schippers, who served as the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee’s probe into whether Bill Clinton committed impeachable offenses, stated in an exclusive radio interview that he is “terrified” of Hillary Clinton.

During the interview … Schippers, unprompted, raised questions about the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. He further claimed, “We know that there were people who disappeared.

Regarding his stated fear of Hillary, Schippers said:

“Today, I am still terrified of Hillary. Absolutely I am terrified. Because if she gets into office. In fact, I’ve told my wife, I said, ‘If Hillary gets elected, look for the FBI or somebody to come and pick me up the next day.’

“And I think I’m the only one left. [Former Congressman] Henry Hyde is dead. [Independent Counsel Kenneth] Star didn’t really hurt her. Yeah. I was scared when I was out there… I’ve been terrified ever since. Because things happen. Things happen.”

Dark rumors of Clinton victims previously mentioned here.

Agents Accuse Feds of Covering Up Record Border Detainee Numbers for 2016 Election

Agents Accuse Feds of Covering Up Record Border Detainee Numbers for 2016 Election, by Brandon Darby.

A record number of illegal aliens have crossed the U.S.- Mexico border and are in U.S. Border Patrol custody in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV), according to the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC).

Border Patrol Agent and NBPC President Brandon Judd: “We are at breaking point. We have the highest number of illegal aliens in custody in history in Border Patrol’s RGV Sector and this information has been kept from the American public.”

“The talk of amnesty has once again created pull factors and encouraged people from all over the world to cross Mexico and then cross our porous southern border to illegally enter the U.S. We are simply overwhelmed.”

Again, the media has conspired to keep pertinent facts from the public on behalf of the globalists/Democrats.

Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to our universities?

Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to our universities? by Dennis Prager. From the Wall Street Journal:

Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. ..

Columnist Kimberley Strassel debuted a PragerU lecture on Thursday under the title “The Dark Art of Political Intimidation.” It’s a discourse on the First Amendment and the tactics that progressives are using to limit speech and political engagement by conservatives. Within several hours of PragerU posting the video, YouTube placed it in “restricted mode,” making it inaccessible to schools, libraries and young Americans whose parents have enabled YouTube technology filters.

We posted the video a couple of days ago. Highly recommended. The WSJ continues:

YouTube was proving Ms. Strassel’s point by censoring a video on free speech. Conservative radio host Dennis Prager started PragerU in part to provide younger Americans with viewpoints that they might not find in the liberal educational establishment. PragerU’s more than 100 videos—each a short lecture delivered by a guest—avoid foul language, violent images or indecency. YouTube has nonetheless restricted 18 of them, on topics from policing to university diversity to the Korean War. …

America’s social-media platforms are getting a reputation this election season for censoring conservatives. They can run their businesses as they choose, but the rest of us can also treat YouTube’s claim of supporting free expression with the skepticism it deserves.

The left increasingly shunned and ignored non-left content at universities, and now the universities pump out bzillions of graduates unable to understand the world around them but keen to be SJWs. The leftist tech monopolies are going the same way. We are going to need a “non-left YouTube” soon.

Ex-FBI official: Clintons are a ‘crime family’

Ex-FBI official: Clintons are a ‘crime family’, by Harper Neidig.

[Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom] said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a “crime family” and argued top officials hindered the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of State.

“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late ’90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”

He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

A President Clinton would be out of control: Glenn Reynolds

A President Clinton would be out of control, by Glenn Reynolds.

“Someone somewhere should have told her no.” Those are the words of a Clinton ally quoted in a roundup of Democratic reactions to Hillary Clinton’s FBI news by congressional newspaper The Hill. …

Someone, somewhere, should have told her no. Well, yes. But who? That was the problem with Secretary of State Clinton, and it will be a bigger problem with a President Clinton. Because, by all appearances, nobody tells Clinton no, and Clinton has no compunction about breaking the rules when it suits her purposes.

Thus the Clinton Foundation became a global money-laundering and influence-peddling organization without precedent in American history. Donors to the foundation were encouraged to steer money to what one employee called “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” and later to Clinton.

State Department personnel did favors for people who donated money to the Foundation. And to make sure that nobody found out what was going on, Clinton ran her own homebrew server operation designed to ensure that Freedom of Information Act requests turned up nothing — and even President Obama, rather than saying no, went along, sending her emails at her non-government address under a fake name. …

When The New York Times reported Clinton’s secret, illegal server, Politico’s Glenn Thrush, far from condemning it, called it “badass.”

Congress? Clinton has stonewalled and run rings around numerous committees investigating her. Besides, Congress had already told her no, in the form of statutes governing the treatment of government communications and classified information. She just ignored those rules and did what she wanted.

Lots of people will tell Trump “no”:

It won’t be that way with a President Trump. This isn’t because Trump is any less arrogant than Clinton (though it would be hard to be more arrogant). It’s because more people will be willing to tell Trump no. The civil service, which leans overwhelmingly Democratic, won’t be bending over backwards to do his will. The press can’t stand him. And the Congress, even if controlled by the GOP, won’t support him if he misbehaves because so many Republicans dislike him, too.

Clinton Foundation: Foreign-funded green groups could take whole swathes of Australia out of the productive economy

Clinton Foundation: Foreign-funded green groups could take whole swathes of Australia out of the productive economy, by Miranda Devine.

Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard … both love to play the gender card, turning their immense privilege into victim status and ­dividing the electorate by sex.

Thus, Gillard nobbled Tony ­Abbott with her fabled misogyny speech and Clinton’s machine manages to drown out every Wikileaks embarrassment with a new Donald Trump bimbo eruption.

The other thing the two ladies have in common is the Clinton Foundation, which Wikileaks emails now show is an influence-peddling political slush fund.

Australia donated big time to the Clinton Foundation:

And guess which country was one of its biggest donors? Australia. Yep, we’re up there with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The Australian taxpayer shovelled at least $88 million into the Clinton Foundation and associated entities from 2006 to 2014, reaching a peak of $10.3 million in 2012-13, Gillard’s last year in office. …

In 2009-10 Kevin Rudd handed over another $10 million to the foundation for climate research, part of $300 million he squandered on a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

Gillard also donated $300 million of our money to the Clinton-affiliated Global Partnership for Education.

Lo and behold, [Gillard] became chairman in 2014 and has been ­actively promoting Clinton as president ever since — in a campaign video last December slamming Trump, in opeds trumpeting the next woman president and in appearances with Clinton spruiking girls’ education.

The Abbott government topped up the left-wing organisation’s coffers with another $140 million in 2014, bringing total Australian largesse to $460 million, according to a press release from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

What did we get for all that money? A whole lot of politically correct damage.

The latest treasure trove of Wikileaks emails released last week shows that Australian green groups have been secretly funded to destroy our coal industry by ­environmental activists connected to the Clinton campaign.

The email account of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta reveals extraordinary details of the sabotage of the $16 billion Adani coalmine in Queensland, which has damaged Australia’s national interest and denied cheap electricity to millions of poor Indians.

Last August John Hepburn, former Greenpeace activist and founder of Australian anti-coal group the Sunrise Project, sent a crowing email to his American paymasters: “I am going to buy a few bottles of bubbly for a celebration with the (Environmental ­Defenders Office) legal team, our colleagues at GetUp, Greenpeace, 350.org, ECF, Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Mackay Conservation Group, Market Forces and the brilliant and tireless Sunrise team.” …

Podesta’s emails also detail their insidious influence on indigenous land owners … He reveals the imminent expansion of native title claims, either ­approved or quietly being processed, stretch across a whopping 60 per cent of the Australian continent, an area twice the size of Western Europe.

The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks

The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks, by the Millenium Report. The top ones:

1. Obama lied: he knew about Hillary’s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence)

2. Hillary Clinton dreams of completely “open trade and open borders”

3. Hillary Clinton took money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists

4. Hillary has public positions on policy and her private ones

5. Paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies

6. Hillary’s campaign wants “unaware” and “compliant” citizens

7. Top Hillary aides mock Catholics for their faith

8. Hillary deleted her incriminating emails. State covered it up. Asked about using White House executive privilege to hide from Congress.

9. Bribery: King of Morocco gives Clinton Foundation $12 million to have meeting with Hillary, 6 months later Morocco gets weapons

10. State Department tried to bribe FBI to un-classify Clinton emails (FBI docs)

12. Clinton campaign was in direct communication with DOJ regarding Hillary’s investigation

13. Bill Clinton receives $1 million “birthday gift” from ISIS-funding Qatar while Hillary was SoS, Qatar receives arms flow increases of 1,482%

14. Hillary campaign prays for shooters in news stories to be white

15. Rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders (DNC favored Hillary)

17. Hillary was hateful, neglectful, above the law, “contemptuous” to her security detail, and “blatantly disregarded” security, (FBI docs)

18. Clinton Foundation schemed with Big Pharma to keep the price of AIDS drugs high in America and cheaper generic versions out

19. CNN leaked primary debate question to Hillary through head of DNC

20. Democrats created fake Trump “grope under the meeting table” Craigslist employment ad in May 2016

21. Hillary’s camp excited about a black teen’s murder (to help her agenda)

22. Rigging media polls through oversampling

23. Hillary is still privately against gay marriage

24. Acknowledging radical Islam is a real threat and a “serious problem for our future”

25. Admitting terrorists will infiltrate the Syrian refugee program

28. Hillary says climate change activists should “get a life”

30. Referring to a “Shadow Government” that protects Hillary (FBI docs)

31. List of reporters that Hillary wined and dined, including biggest journalists and pundits of CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, and a lot more. Off the record.

33. The New York Times is colluding with Hillary, allowed quote edits

61. Entire “interview” with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes is staged, reading word-for-word

64. Hillary tweaks her policies based on donors’ wants

66. Illegally coordinating with Priorities USA, a SuperPAC funded by George Soros

67. Racist and sexist remarks: “too white and too male”

77. Bill Clinton admits Clinton Foundation has no “real projects”

80. Proof that ‘Correct the Record’ (SuperPAC) is directly coordinating with the Hillary campaign against federal campaign law

84. Hillary tries to hide her tiny rallies

92. Hillary doesn’t write her own tweets, despite claiming “-H” means  she does

93. On Hillary: “we just keep giving her poll-tested lines that don’t work”

97. Clinton campaign memorizing their email cover-up script

Didn’t intend to note to so many — but there are just so many significant ones!

Tinder might be to blame for rise in syphilis among millennials

Tinder might be to blame for rise in syphilis among millennials, by Naomi Schaefer Riley.

How did you like the 15th century? Not so much? Too bad because syphilis is making a comeback.

According to a new report issued last week by the Centers for Disease Control, there has been a spike in the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia and gonorrhea, but syphilis came out on top with a whopping 19 percent rise over just last year. The spike was felt most by young people aged 15-24.

Some experts have pointed to the “Tinder effect,” the idea that online hookup sites are making casual anonymous sex easier and more common than it used to be. It’s true that millennials generally are less likely to be sexually active in their 20s than previous generations and the age of first sexual intercourse has ticked upward in recent years, but it seems that the segment of the population who are having casual sex are having more of it and more of it anonymously. …

Attitudes to disease:

Sure, some sexually transmitted diseases can lead to infertility, but most effects of STDs can be cured with antibiotics. In other words, it is hard to put the fear of God in young people with these kinds of problems. As Josh Bloom of the American Council on Science and Health notes, drugs now allow HIV-positive people to have unprotected sex without passing it on to uninfected partners. “And if they do, so what? You take a pill or two per day and live a mostly normal life.”

Bloom suggests that the rise in syphilis among gay men is “very good, albeit indirect, evidence that the reduced fear of HIV infection is a very important factor in driving up the rates of other STDs.” …

But the effects of these STDs are not negligible. If left untreated, about 10-15 percent of women with chlamydia will develop pelvic inflammatory disease, according to the CDC, which can lead to infertility.

Meanwhile some new strains of gonorrhea have been detected that seem to be resistant to antibiotics. Syphilis is hard to detect because its symptoms look like a lot of other ailments. If untreated it can remain latent in the body for years. In the late stages of syphilis, “The disease may damage the internal organs, including the brain, nerves, eyes, heart, blood vessels, liver, bones and joints.”

The secret forces that could lead to a Trump victory

The secret forces that could lead to a Trump victory, by Michael Walsh. The elite and the media are smugly assuring each other that Donald Trump will lose in a landslide.

But what if the widely swinging polls, turnout models and forecasting mechanisms are all wrong? What if the unique historical circumstances of this election — pitting the female half of a likely criminal family dynasty against a thin-skinned bull-in-a-china-shop businessman — have invalidated conventional wisdom?

What if the ranks of shy voters storm the polls and, in the words of Michael Moore, deliver the biggest rebuke in history to the establishments of both parties?

What if … Hillary Clinton’s margin-of-error lead — currently between 4 and 5 points in the RealClearPolitics average of multiple national polls — turns out to be a Potemkin village, dependent on high turnout among blacks and other minorities and on getting late deciders to turn her way?

What if, in fact, the opposite happens — that Trump’s appeal to the disaffected white working class (many of them Democrats) in coal-mining and Rust Belt states outweighs the Democrats’ traditional advantages in the big cities, flipping a state like Pennsylvania from blue to red?

The bottom line:

The truth is, this is an election not just between Clinton and Trump but a whole raft of political antagonists in Barack Obama’s “fundamentally transformed” America: urban vs. rural; old vs. young; makers vs. takers; taxpayers vs. recipients; white collar vs blue collar; Harvard vs. the heartland; manipulative consultants and biased reporters vs. honest Americans who, however naively, believe that their vote really does matter.

Many have felt apathetic or disenfranchised for decades.

The question is: How many of them are there and are there enough of them to hold the GOP line and deliver the three crucial states to Trump? We’ll soon find out.

Flashback: Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election

Flashback: Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election, by Paul Bedard.

Whispers of “payback” are being directed at Hillary Clinton after she decried as “unprecedented” the surprise FBI revival of its probe of her email scandal.

That’s because 24 years ago, as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a “culture of corruption.”

Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush’s claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration.

How unfortunate for the Clintons that the same should happen to them now.

Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside, by John Kass.

It’s obvious the American political system is breaking down. It’s been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they’re properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.

FBI director James Comey’s announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious.

It’s past time to replace Clinton, Democrats:

If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.

Somehow the Clintons scared off all the reasonable Democrats for running against Hillary n the primaries. They overlooked Sanders because he didn’t seem much of a threat, but he still almost beat here. The Democrats need to shake off their fears and rid themselves of the Clinton’s baleful influence.

But what will Hillary do?

She’ll stick and ride this out and turn her anger toward Comey. For Hillary and Bill Clinton, it has always been about power, about the Clinton Restoration and protecting fortunes already made by selling nothing but political influence.

She’ll remind the nation that she’s a woman and that Donald Trump said terrible things about women. …

If you take a step back from tribal politics, you’ll see that Mrs. Clinton has clearly disqualified herself from ever coming near classified information again. If she were a young person straight out of grad school hoping to land a government job, Hillary Clinton would be laughed out of Washington with her record. She’d never be hired.

The Clintons got rich peddling influence.

The Clintons weren’t skilled merchants. They weren’t traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.

All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe, by Devlin Barrett.

The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton’s email use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, and underlying metadata suggests thousands of those messages could have been sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

All those lies that Hillary told about there being no emails, they were all deleted, they were all shown to the FBI, and so on. 650,000!? What if Huma quietly kept copies of all emails as protection against the Clintons, just in case? Or Weiner, who was probably the IT nerd of the family, kept copies in case he needed leverage in case of divorce, Clinton trouble, whatever….

Remember, all those allegations about Lewinsky were all “rubbish” until someone turned in the semen-stained blue dress. Now Weiner. Odd how the Clintons keep getting unstuck by sex. Character is destiny, so they say.

Clinton emails: FBI chief may have broken law, says top Democrat

Clinton emails: FBI chief may have broken law, says top Democrat, by the BBC. Great chutzpah by the Democrats and the BBC — oh it’s the FBI that is breaking the law! Breathtaking.

Harry Reid accused FBI director James Comey of violating [the Hatch] act which bars officials from influencing an election. …

Mr Reid also accused Mr Comey of withholding “explosive information about close ties between [Republican candidate] Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government”.

Sure.

Orania: the desert of Afrikaner dreams: Kajsa Norman’s thoughtful take on the whites-only settlement in the Karoo has resulted in the best piece of South African reportage in decades

Orania: the desert of Afrikaner dreams: Kajsa Norman’s thoughtful take on the whites-only settlement in the Karoo has resulted in the best piece of South African reportage in decades, by Stephen Robinson. The book is called Bridge Over Blood River: The Afrikaners’ Fight for Survival.

Kajsa Norman: Bridge Over Blood River: The Afrikaners' Fight for Survival

South African democracy has not, on the whole, been kind to the Afrikaner. During Nelson Mandela’s benign oversight of the Rainbow Nation, liberal Afrikaners persuaded themselves that all would turn out well in the end. But in their hearts, they sensed it would go wrong. And so it has. …

[S]ince the first democratic election in 1994, at least 117,000 whites have been purged from the civil service, traditionally home to poorly educated Afrikaners. Thousands more have been driven off their farms due to ‘land redistribution’ measures, and hundreds of farmers and their families have been murdered. Things are so bad for the rural Afrikaner that some of them are trekking off to central and west Africa, where their agricultural skills are actively sought.

Oriana:

[Blonde, Swedish and female, Kajsa Norman] visits Orania, a racially exclusive settlement in the depopulated fringes of the Karoo desert, set up in the 1990s by Afrikaners who wanted no part of the new South Africa. The really radical thing is that it does not allow even black servants; so whites do all the menial work there, which must be the only place on the entire continent where this happens.

Every foreign correspondent still based in South Africa goes to Orania to poke fun at Afrikaner obduracy. But Norman travels there and hangs around, forming bonds not with the dreary civic leaders but with the low-life characters living in the single men’s block. There she befriends a range of scary yet strangely endearing characters, damaged, toothless veterans of past wars ‘on the border’, and other drink-and-drug-addled Afrikaners who have been unable to cope since life for the white man suddenly became much more difficult.

Meet the new elite, same as the old elite:

Norman heads off to Mozambique and meets a genial young Afrikaner, Willem, who has moved to Maputo to experience the ‘real’ Africa. But as she soon discovers, the city has become just another place where ‘the internationals advocating for the rights of the disadvantaged often live as segregated from them as possible’. In other words, Willem and the idealistic young European, Canadian and Australian aid workers are as impeccably racially exclusive as the Afrikaners of Orania.

Who will survive longer, Afrikaners or Swedes?

Norman finally turns her thesis on its head. She recounts a discussion with Hermann Giliomee, a liberal Afrikaner academic, in which she asks him how long his people will survive. He responds by asking her whether the Swedes will survive in the long run, and she admits she is thrown by his question, but takes his point.

So by the end of this surprising book, Norman has set up the precariousness of the Afrikaner as a model for all the nations in the world which counter their low birth rates and ageing populations with mass immigration. The question is no longer can the Afrikaner survive, but can we?

hat-tip Stephen Neil

John Fonte’s “Sovereignty or Submission”: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled By Others

John Fonte’s “Sovereignty or Submission”: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled By Others, book review by Stanley Kurtz, from Sep 2011. This applies to Australia too.

In his foreword to the book, former NATIONAL REVIEW editor-in-chief John O’Sullivan compares Fonte to Edmund Burke, whose early warnings about the French Revolution were poorly appreciated until the outbreak of the Terror.

Fonte’s book names, outlines, and dissects a movement of international elites that seeks to place the heretofore sovereign decisions of democratic nation-states under the authority of international standards and bodies answerable to nobody — no one but international elites, that is.

Particularly in America, the global governance movement offers a way for liberals to invoke the help of European progressives to impose policy solutions on the United States that could never be achieved by democratic means.

Brexit, Trump, and so on are a reaction to this.

Essentially, the global governance movement is an attempt to extend the “pooling of sovereignty” that characterizes the European Union to the rest of the world–America above all. Global governancers see America, along with countries like Israel and India, as stubborn hold-outs for supposedly dated notions of national independence.

If the party of global governance can ensnare America, Gulliver-style, in a tangle of transnational principles, precedents, and institutions, American military independence can effectively be nullified, and even our domestic policies can be brought into conformity with European norms in time.

If this seems unlikely, consider that the EU’s ruling bureaucratic elite has already captured a significant portion of the sovereign powers of its member states, although that elite is largely unanswerable to any voting public. …

Takeover by stealth:

Another secret of the global governance movement’s success is its rhetorical reticence. Since the public here and in Europe would almost certainly vote down most of what global governancers hope to achieve, their strategy is, in O’Sullivan’s words “decidedly covert.” Soothing euphemisms like “global governance” (instead of “world government”) and “pooling sovereignty” (instead of negating or undermining sovereignty) are part of the program.

It spells the end of the Enlightenment, democracy, and the cultural characteristics that propelled the West to such success in the last two centuries:

Fonte argues that, left unopposed, the global governance movement could bring about a kind of slow-motion suicide of conventional liberal democracy in the West.

Typically, the global elite’s critique of the book mainly relies on scorn and name calling, is tendentious, and attacks several straw men.

Open borders inevitably stoke xenophobia

Open borders inevitably stoke xenophobia, by Jennifer Oriel.

The Muslim migrant crisis has revealed that the political ideals of the West’s ruling elite and the people they govern are not simply different but apparently opposed. …

The modern trust deficit between the rulers and the ruled is civilisational. It arises from a widespread belief that Western elites are ruled by and ruling for foreign interests against the sovereign wealth of their states and the sovereign interests of their people. …

Documents published by WikiLeaks and DCLeaks have exposed the influence of unelected elites, NGO networks and so-called human rights activists on Western politics. In particular, the leaked files illustrate a pattern of supranationalists funding Western political parties and civil society organisations that back open-border policy, complemented by the organised mobbing of freethinkers who dissent from the Left party line.

The PC crew are heavily into semantics and name-calling:

The old term used to punish Western dissenters from the UN’s porous border policy and PC politics was Islamophobia. The new thought crime is xenophobia.

Their propaganda:

The problem with the UN’s demand that only positive stories about migrants and refugees should be promoted as a part of its anti-xenophobia campaign is that it requires the censorship of truth, thereby deepening the trust deficit between supranational organisations and sovereign citizens. By permitting only positive reports about the effects of porous border policy, the UN has become a propagandist of PC ideology.

The truth:

The politically incorrect truth is that people entering the West as asylum-seekers also commit serious violence against our citizens and undermine our civilisational values. …

Speaking to Britain’s Sunday Express newspaper, German police union chief Rainer Wendt notes that criminal migrants from North Africa “despise our country and laugh at our justice”.

Journalist Ingrid Carlqvist has documented a shockingly high number of arrests and convictions of asylum-seekers in Sweden during May. Their crimes include extraordinarily brutal rapes of women and children.

Norwegian police inspector Thomas Utne Pettersen reports that mass immigration has led to an increase in the rape of women and children. Speaking to Breitbart media, he cites the high incarceration rate of some migrant groups and cases of rape committed by asylum-seekers from Afghanistan and Syria, concluding: “People’s xenophobia in relation to this group is highly rational and justified”.

Hence Brexit, Trump, LePen, AfD, One Nation, Geert Wilders, Orban, …:

Popular support for Brexit and figures like Donald Trump is driven by the lies and propaganda of supranational elites. …

Politicians who believe in democracy, human rights and the rule of law should resist the corrupted ideology of a once great UN. Instead, they should fulfil their primary duty of care to citizens by defending their peoples’ sovereign right to safety and security against the elitism of unelected ideologues.

Resignation letters piling up from disaffected FBI agents, his wife urging him to admit he was wrong: Why Director Comey jumped at the chance to reopen Hillary investigation

Resignation letters piling up from disaffected FBI agents, his wife urging him to admit he was wrong: Why Director Comey jumped at the chance to reopen Hillary investigation, by Ed Klein.

James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

‘The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary,’ said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

‘Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,’ said the source. ‘They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.’

According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice.

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

‘He’s been ignoring the resignation letters in the hope that he could find a way of remedying the situation,’ said the source. …

‘The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,’ the source continued. ‘And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state. … ‘It shattered his ego. He looks like he’s aged 10 years in the past four months.’

This seems to confirm our post yesterday, FBI Revolt Forced Comey’s Hand?

UPDATE: Former U.S. Attorney: Comey’s Hand Forced by FBI ‘Seething’ Anger at Botched Hillary Email Investigation, by Lee Stranahan. The picture painted by former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph DiGenova, based on what he says are discussions with current and former FBI agents, is one of “seething” rage inside the Bureau at the way Comey handled the investigation concerning Hillary Clinton’s private email server:

The original investigation was not intended to be a real investigation. Comey decided — for political reasons — that he wanted to exonerate Hillary Clinton and the only answer to why he wanted to do that was because he didn’t want to be responsible for recommending the prosecution of the first female nominee of a major political party for President of the United States.

They followed none of the protocols that they ordinarily would have attained in such a prosecution. And the proof that that is the case is the letter that he sent to Congress, in which he announced that he was basically reopening the case because they had newly discovered evidence which was evidence on the laptop shared by Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner. If the original investigation had been conducted properly they would have known about that laptop, and they would have known about the tens of thousands of emails that related to the earlier investigation. …

It’s no wonder that people who I have spoken to inside the Bureau and outside the Bureau view Comey as a dirty cop because they believe he has brought disrepute on the agency. The letter he sent just shows how bad the first investigation was.

People in the FBI are very disappointed in Comey’s leadership. They believe that he is unfit to serve, they believe he has no moral authority to lead the Bureau, they believe that he has created a double standard of justice established by his investigation into Clinton, that he has undermined the rule of law, that he has no credibility, and that he has become an embarrassment to the Bureau.

That is generally the thought certainly among former Bureau people, and it is certainly among the field agents and among the people in that building in Washington. There just is no doubt that the manner in which he has conducted himself has really, really sent a shiver through that building. And had it not been for that letter that he sent the other day, that he would be probably be facing a joint-Congressional resolution of no confidence in his leadership of the Bureau. …

This is going to unravel:

I think there’s going to be leaks. If this is gonna be the Democrat’s strategy to save Hillary Clinton, there will be further leaks. There will be leaks of substance, there will be leaks about emails. Comey cannot control the investigation in New York. The reason the first investigation was a flop was that, it wasn’t a real investigation, he kept it at headquarters, he kept it at his office, so there were no field agents involved even though there were a lot of people assigned to it they were given very limited rolls. You look at the 302s, which are questions from the FBI, these are interview notes, the questions are sophomoric, there’s no follow up.

Hillary Clinton says she can’t remember 39 times in her interviews. They went to Comey and said she can’t remember because she had a head injury — alright, let’s get her medical records. Comey said absolutely not, we are not subpoenaing her medical records. So it’s fairly obvious that he cut them off at the pass, he didn’t allow them to do their job and they all knew that.

Interesting that this broke just before the election. I’ll bet the Clintons are furious, because the FBI are culturally and militarily too much for them. Merely buying off the third in command and applying political pressure wasn’t enough — the culture of the FBI appears to be have been just strong enough to withstand it. The Clintons have got away with so very much in the past, so it’s good to see things finally catching up to them. It Hillary is elected, there will be years of impeachment and scandal coming out.

hat-tip Charles

Social Media Blackout? FBI Emails Are Not ‘Trending’ On Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed, Or Snapchat

Social Media Blackout? FBI Emails Are Not ‘Trending’ On Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed, Or Snapchat, by Tyler Durden.

In the 24 hours since FBI Director Comey dropped perhaps the biggest bombshell of the entire Presidential campaign, sending Democrats (and media) scrambling headless-chicken-like for answers (and blame-scaping), does anyone else find it odd that ‘FBI Emails’ does not appear to be a hot topic, trending, big deal on any social media?

China to display 5th gen J-20 stealth fighter at air show

China to display 5th gen J-20 stealth fighter at air show, by RT.

China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has announced the very first public appearance of the new generation aircraft at the week-long 11th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition, starting next Tuesday in Zhuhai. …

Chinese j-20 5th gen fighter

China considers the J-20 to be what is known in the West as a “fifth-generation” jet fighter. The US is currently the only country with fifth-generation jets in combat service, namely the F-22 and the F-35. Russia, China and Japan have flyable prototypes of fifth-gens, and several more countries worldwide are developing such military aircraft. Beijing showed off another fifth-gen prototype, the Shenyang J-31, at the previous 2014 Zhuhai airshow.

CHinese J-20 5th gen fighter

The F-22 works well but production stopped a few years ago because it was too expensive The F-35, however, is not yet in fighting shape — and is so poor that some US Air force generals say publicly that they would rather the 40 year-old F-15s and F-16s. See “Is The F-35 Being Kept Alive Just To Fleece The Foreign Buyers?“, and “The New Fighter Plane, the F-35, May Never Be Ready for Combat.”

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Today’s Sacrosanct Monopolies

Today’s Sacrosanct Monopolies, by candid-obsever at Steve Sailer’s.

[E]ssentially all of the important monopolies of today are aligned with the left — Twitter, Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, Microsoft — and that they all serve as filters for our public discourse.

In the past, of course, monopolies were considered of the great blights of our economic system, and were furiously denounced by the left. Today they are heroes of the left, and have become an integral part of the unholy alliance between the left and the 1%. Somehow, the monopoly of, say, Facebook now reflects nothing but Zuckerberg’s moral deserts, and it would be a terrible injustice to control it.

It’s an open question, though, whether Facebook can really thread the needle to enforce the agenda that the left demands of it while simultaneously not antagonizing so many of the people on the right and in the middle that another platform won’t arise.