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”.


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.


[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