[National Review] n investigation is one of two things: a search for the truth, or a farce. The House is conducting a farce. That fact was on full display during ten hours of testimony by Peter Strzok, the logorrheic lawman who steered the FBI’s Clinton-emails and Trump‐Russia probes.
The principal question before the joint investigation of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees is whether the Democratic administration’s law-enforcement and intelligence arms strained to manufacture an espionage case against the Republican candidate, having buried an eminently prosecutable criminal case against the Democratic presidential nominee.
It should be straightforward to answer this question, provided that the investigative process has the one attribute central to any credible probe: the capacity to compel the production of evidence and testimony, with the corollary power to hold witnesses in contempt for defiance.
The House investigation has devolved into farce because it lacks this feature.
Oh, it exists on paper. There is even a statute making contempt of Congress a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison (and not less than a month). That may not sound like much, but the months can pile up: A separate offense occurs each time a question is ducked or a document is not surrendered. As the Wall Street Journal’s Bill McGurn explains, Congress has inherent power to enforce its subpoenas unilaterally, or it can seek assistance from the other branches.
But then reality intrudes. The committees pursuing the probe lack either the will or the votes ‐ or perhaps both ‐ to hold witnesses in contempt. This, despite audacious refusals to answer questions and turn over documents that would explain when and why the Trump‐Russia investigation commenced.
#2
Good Luck with that! "We may need them for an investigation that we may be having or may have or ... anyway: Neener! NEENER! We ain't cooperating!"
You would almost think them a not-so-secret Secret Conspiracy, hmmm?
#3
After watching Comey, McCabe, and Strzok, I’m impressed by their over-sensitivity, junivile, and petty behavior. I’m surprised that men that are so emotional are able to rise thru the ranks of what was the worlds premere law enforcement agency.
#4
Eight years of Obama management and selection exclusively through a political lens. Same at CIA and State. DIA a little harder because of those pesky military performance measures but at the senior levels, the same. The entire civil service has been salted this way for decades ...
#6
Strzok is such a god-awful witness that, in a civil case, the lawyers for whichever side Strzok was on would either have to find a clever way to avoid the jury ever laying eyes on Strzok, or settle the case basically for whatever the other side wanted.
Likewise, every lawyer on the defense side of the "Russia collusion" case or whatever it is begin their mornings with a prayer that they get the chance to cross-examine Strzok in front of a jury. He is a target-rich environment all by himself.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/15/2018 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
He is a target-rich environment all by himself.
That’s very comforting, Matt, given that a very good lawyer said it.
#8
If they refuse, Trump should order their arrest by federal Marshals and via the patriot act or whatever was that Obama signed in that regard, 'disappear' them as potential terrorists who have infiltrated the government.
[Red State] Earlier in the week, former FBI deputy assistant director for counterintelligence and known adulterer Peter Strzok testified before a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.
Skipping to the BLUF:
The thing that has always struck me about the whole Hillary Clinton email fiasco is the studious lack of curiosity by the US government over how TS/SCI documents were removed from a SCIF and transmitted via garden variety email and stored on a server that had no cyber or physical security. No curiosity was expressed about a document that appeared to have been produced via signals intelligence sources being sent by the half-assed "intelligence" group headed by Sid Blumenthal and the fortunately deceased Tyler Drumheller to Clinton (see here | here). The lack of curiosity extended so far as to give immunity from prosecution to the guy managing it. McCabe was totally incurious about what was on Huma Abedin’s laptop inasmuch as it included Clinton’s emails. And when told by the ICIG that Hillary Clinton’s emails had been auto-forwarded to a foreign power...no interest whatsoever.
#1
The thing that has always struck me about the whole Hillary Clinton email fiasco is the studious lack of curiosity by the US government over how TS/SCI documents were removed from a SCIF and transmitted via garden variety email and stored on a server that had no cyber or physical security.
"Astounding" to some possibly. How can an effective disinformation or 'leaks' campaign be run if the target audience is unable to access the data ?
She had a JOB to do! How else could she operate a 'homebrew' system and continue to conduct gov't business? She had to read or be briefed on the daily classified traffic.
The hacking surrender of 30K Clinton Emails (and who knows what else, attachments, etc.) was a well planned and coordinated event. The recipients got something, the gov't or DNC (or both) got something. Nothing is free. Everybody got something. Who knows, perhaps a Russian hacking scandal could one day assist in the invalidation of a national election.
One could call it the "Yellowstone Paradox." Hungry bears don't generally approach the roads for purposes of navigation.
#2
Plots within plots? More like plausible deniability when faced with demands for official records search of communications. Think modus operandi of the perps rather than rationalize some elaborate plot of intrigue.
#5
Hitlery was secretly involved in a false flag op to disseminate fake (ink, wink) e-mails full of false (wink, wink) information to the gullible Russkies. Now, let zir get on with zir crusade against those drooling, mouth breathers that infest the between states.
#8
My dad's cousin had this happen under Carter. (I assume his whole life is redacted. He told me his wildest stories when he was dying of cancer)
Under Carter his GS rating was too high to fire so they made him the acting DEA drug czar. Something he wanted nothing to do with
First day on the job it took two hours of security to get to his office. 15 mins later the mob walked in and demanded he leave their shipments alone or his family would be killed.
He was like fine... I am a cold warrior not a drug warrior I will leave you alone.
6 months later he was back in State.
[Breitbart] During her Saturday opening statement for Fox News Channel’s "Justice," Jeanine Pirro castigated "pompous, arrogant, indignant, sarcastic, smug, condescending, defiant and unapologetic" FBI agent Peter Strzok for his behavior at this week’s congressional hearing.
Pirro said Strzok was both the "personification of the righteous left" and the "personification of the deep state."
"Strzok seems to share cardinal Comey’s affectation about being a selfless servant of the people, even though he seems to simultaneously hold us all in contempt," stated Pirro. "Strzok is also the personification of the deep state itself, where fascism rules, where people in power don’t care about what you think, but instead decide they know better ‐ they know what’s right and they implement it.
#3
How many other Peter Strzoks are there in our government?
Well, lets see.
(a) You don't get a Gov white collar job without a college degree.
(b) You can't get a college degree unless you're an enthusiastic and outspoken leftist.
[The Federalist] An embattled FBI official who led investigations into both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump testified in a cantankerous open hearing on the Hill yesterday. Peter Strzok, formerly the second in command of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, lost his position after texts he exchanged on government systems with his also-married lover and colleague Lisa Page revealed extreme bias against President Trump and his voters.
Yesterday’s joint hearing in front of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees was the first public hearing Congress held with the official who launched the Russia probe two years ago. Here are a few key takeaways from that hearing.
1. This Is What DOJ Obstruction Looks Like
The country is two years into the FBI’s probe of whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election. Not a single charge has been brought by the FBI or by the Office of Special Counsel alleging collusion or treason or anything close to the charges that supposedly necessitated this investigation.
Congress began asking some questions of the FBI and Department of Justice about how it was conducting the investigation. Through the oversight process, Americans learned that the infamous "dossier" that laid out a case of collusion was secretly bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. This dossier was used to secure wiretaps against Trump associates (other surveillance methods, including human informants, were also used).
The dossier was fed to both the FBI and State Department. Top intelligence officials were leaking about the Russia investigation to CNN and other media outlets. A top DOJ official’s wife worked for the firm that Hillary Clinton hired to run the "Russia" operation. That firm fed their opposition research to the FBI through him.
The Senate Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees, along with the Senate Homeland Security committee, House Oversight, and House Government Reform committees, have worked hard to uncover these details and in the face of unprecedented obstruction. Requests for documents are met with stonewalling, delays, redactions, leak campaigns, and outright refusals. Threats of subpoenas are routinely made to force even minor compliance.
Despite the length of yesterday’s hearing, congressional overseers were able to elicit almost no substantive answers to the questions they asked. Strzok claimed he was not answering questions because the Department of Justice told him not to answer questions. No matter the question, Strzok refused to answer any question about his role in the Russia probe, with almost no exceptions.
The hearing was a public revelation of the stonewalling and obstruction the DOJ has enforced against congressional oversight.
2. Strzok Somehow Came Off Even Worse Than He Did In His Texts
Despite his significant role in the Russia and Clinton investigations, the only picture Americans had formed of Strzok was based on his text messages. He spoke of his loathing of President Trump, Trump’s voters, and congressional oversight. He talked of stopping Trump’s election, of insurance policies to deal with his candidacy, and fantasies of impeachment.
The texts were between him and his also married colleague, another top-ranking official in the Department of Justice. The hearing demonstrated the texts were at best an accurate reflection of the man who wrote them. If anything, the texts were understated.
Strzok chose to present himself to the world as a smug, arrogant, and peevish man. He was defensive and condescending. His answers were almost mind-blowingly implausible. It wasn’t just that he lacked good judgment or even-handedness. It’s that he didn’t seem to have a grip on reality. He kept saying he wasn’t biased, when his bias is indisputable.
He told investigators that he would like to answer a question but that his attorneys weren’t letting him. If they later told him he could answer, he’d say he didn’t remember. He implausibly said that his affair didn’t put him at risk of compromise, in contrast to his agency’s policy.
3. Democrats Run Interference
Almost immediately, Democrats on the House and Government Reform Committee attempted to shut down the hearing. When that failed, they resorted to near-constant parliamentary inquiries and objections. At one point they actually cheered and applauded Strzok, despite his ethical failings and poor judgment, which have threatened the entire Russia investigation. The man is under internal investigation for his behavior. Yet one Democrat said he’d like to offer Strzok a Purple Heart, a military decoration awarded to those wounded or killed while serving in the U.S. military.
As silly as this behavior may seem, it indicated how Democrats hope to handle all oversight of the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Russia probe. The message went out that every hearing will be a clown-show, even by the typical grandstanding attendant to congressional hearings. Democrats on oversight committees have fought transparency of the Russia investigation, portraying it as obstruction of a legitimate probe. All signs indicate that opposition to oversight will continue.
4. DOJ Clearly Hiding Its Relationship With Democratic-Funded Smear Group
The FBI and DOJ frequently instructed Strzok not to answer substantive questions from Republicans. One line of inquiry pursued by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was regarding communication between the FBI and Fusion GPS, the group that concocted the "Russia" dossier and messaging plan on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Strzok generally declined to answer questions.
But Strzok did admit that Bruce Ohr, husband of Fusion GPS operative Nellie Ohr, funneled documents to the FBI related to the Russia case. He refused to say what those documents were. Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Grassley asked DOJ to declassify the dozen reports summarizing Ohr’s 12 information-sharing meetings with the FBI.
The FBI used Fusion GPS-hired Christopher Steele until the end of October, when he was terminated for lying about his leaks to the media. But Fusion and Steele were able to continue funnelling information to the FBI using colleague Nellie Ohr and her husband Bruce Ohr, a top DOJ official who worked closely with acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
When the Russia story first broke, Americans didn’t realize that the dossier was a secret Clinton/DNC operation, or that the unverified opposition research was sent to various Obama officials in multiple agencies. Americans didn’t know that a top DOJ official was married to an employee of the group that created the dossier, or that he was used to get information into the government.
5. The Mystery Of Why The Investigation Started
Strzok said he didn’t see the dossier until mid-September. His electronic communication that started the probe didn’t include official intelligence. Given the politically explosive nature of the investigation, the FBI and DOJ have failed to explain what they were thinking in starting a probe of the Trump campaign.
The entire investigation has major problems from start to finish, whether it’s the use of a dossier that Steele created and Bruce Ohr sent to the FBI, or the fact that Strzok ended up having to be removed from the investigation for his obvious and extreme bias. Strzok said Mueller never asked him about his texts, and didn’t seek to find out more from him about what his "insurance policy" or "impeachment" rhetoric meant.
Again, the hearing was less than substantive because of the ongoing obstruction and stonewalling campaign engaged in by DOJ. That was itself instructive.
#1
Strzok as much as said: Sir, I'd love to be able to answer that question but the FBI won't allow me to do that so all you Pub Congressmen and your Wal Mart supporters can go fuck yourselves.
#3
Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. --Sir John Harrington (1561–1612)
Oliver "Ollie" North always annoyed me, but this slimeball only fills me with disgust.
[American Thinker] Peter Strzok's arrogance displayed at the Congressional Oversight Committee hearing on TV was infuriating. With their superior noses high in the air, Strzok and the Democrats behaviorally said f*** you to the Republicans, the law, and We the People. It was disgraceful watching Strzok and his Democratic posse insult our intelligence by claiming, despite overwhelming evidence, FBI agent Strzok had no bias against Trump.
Strzok and the Democrats' insistence that Strzok had no bias against Trump reminded me of a comedy skit with the late Don Adams. In the skit, Adams' wife came home, catching him in bed with a woman. Adams' wife ranted expressing her shock and outrage. Adams and his lover calmly got out of bed, got dressed and made the bed. The woman left. Adams behaved like nothing happened and left the bedroom. The skit ends with his wife standing there, questioning her sanity ‐ pondering whether or not she saw what she thinks she saw. Strzok and the Democrats are attempting to pull the same trick on America. They are telling us Strzok expressed no bias against Trump while clear evidence of Strzok's bias is right before our eyes.
The thing that got my blood boiling was Strzok's snooty attitude. His facial expressions and body language said, "How dare you question me. I don't have to answer any of your questions. F*** you Republicans and fly-over-country Trump-supportive Americans." Strzok and his fellow FBI agent Lisa Page impugned Trump supporters as smelly hillbilly Walmart shoppers. Strzok epitomizes the American left's disdain for everyday Americans -- We the People.
#2
Oh Yas , the Trump Campaign could leave Ronshite in place then run the gif of him smirking as a campaign add in late October of 2018. Ought to be good for 5% increase in the vote.
[wsoctv.com] MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. - Myrtle Beach is topping three lists of the "Most Dangerous Cities" in the country.
The city has been dealing with an increase in crime since last summer, which includes a shootout along Ocean Boulevard. The video of this shootout went viral in June 2017.
During this incident, seven people were shot and two teens were arrested.
Friday, city officials warned people to "think twice" before they believe Myrtle Beach is among the most dangerous cities.
The list ranks cities by dividing permanent population by the number of crimes.
Officials say with the large tourism population, those number can be skewed.
"Our permanent population is very small, about 30,000 or so," a Myrtle Beach spokesperson Mark Kruea said. "But, when you look around, we feel like a much bigger town because we are. Our average daily population is around 100,000."
City officials said they have contacted each of the list's creators to ask them to consider the factor that Myrtle Beach is a tourist town.
#1
...The Redneck Riviera has some rough spots, especially on Ocean Boulevard - but it's far from 'one of the most dangerous' I am suprised though that the town has let it get as far as it has without cracking down hard.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/15/2018 7:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Officials say with the large tourism population, those numbers can be skewed.
Yeah, I'm sure the tourists commit the crimes. More likely they're prey for a feral yout population that can't be discussed in polite circles
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/15/2018 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
With all due respect, Mike, the Redneck Riviera is on the Gulf Coast, stretching from Pensacola to Panama City Beach roughly.
Posted by: Jack Bonaparte7513 ||
07/15/2018 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Frank, the problem is a statistical anomaly.
The number above the line will control how large the result is. If you include the tourists that will make the result a lot smaller hence the issue.
#5
"Our permanent population is very small, about 30,000 or so," a Myrtle Beach spokesperson Mark Kruea said. "But, when you look around, we feel like a much bigger town because we are. Our average daily population is around 100,000."
Fun with numbers.
Ask the victims if they care the town is full of tourists?
#6
There are two primary weekends in Myrtle Beach. I have pulled security for both:
White motorcycle weekend and black motorcycle weekend. One quite more violent than the other.I know what they are going through.
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] In my previous article, I had discussed the religious television channels that support the reference of Ayatollah Sayyid Sadiq al-Shirazi. Competition over the launching of such channels has increased due to the power and influence they provide or the godly rewards they may bring!
This race among followers has attracted the attention of Saudi researcher Dr. Tawfiq al-Saif and who on May 20, 2014 wrote on his Facebook page about a local holy man who tried to launch a satellite television channel called Imam Hussein.
"Is there a need for a new version that (clones) is similar to available versions? Isn’t this like building a hussainia (a Shiite congregation hall) next to another hussainia? Will he spend on this channel through legal rights? If so, shouldn’t this spending be used for more urgent matters, such as extreme poverty which exists in the city of the channel’s owner," al-Saif inquired.
The points al-Saif has raised are actually discussed by many other Shiite intellectuals, especially who think money is being squandered and that these satellite television channels are actually producing quite the opposite results and draw for Shiites a bleak stereotype that’s contrary to their reality and to the future which the new generation aspire for.
Funding and income sources
The large number of channels for one reference has raised plenty of questions about funding and income sources.
The opponents of the Shirazi Movement accuse these channels of receiving money from foreign and Arab intelligence apparatuses and voice surprise that channels like Fadak continue to broadcast from the UK without any disciplinary measures taken against them by Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, despite its content that incites sectarianism, hatred and intolerance.
Sheikh Mohsen Araki, Secretary-General of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought, told the Iranian Mehr news agency that the "Shirazi Movement is an organized group and a political party that pursues special political aims and is completely supported by foreigners," adding: "I have irrefutable documents (to back) what I am saying."
Sources at Imam Shirazi Center for Studies and Research denied there is foreign funding and told Al Arabiya.net that "most Shiite channels which were founded upon the encouragement of religious references originally rely on donors and subscriptions," adding that "this reference paid hefty prices because it maintained its independence and refused dependency on others."
Sources familiar with the establishment of religious satellite television channels note that these channels do not cost operators much and rely on the money received by legal rights and from Khums funds received from the reference. This is in addition to donations by Shiite businessmen in the Gulf, Iraq and Pakistain.
These channels’ viewers notice that now and then there are advertisements which urge people to donate saying that making donations contributes to spreading the idea of Shiism around the world. Funds thus flow into the channel thanks to the faithful’s donations. The amount of money however is not huge, and it does not meet all of the channel’s needs. This is why some channels have stopped broadcasting and have shut down.
What these channels have in common are the employees’ humble wages, volunteers, cheap production and reliance on airing recorded lectures from mosques and hussainiat. This can be seen in their humble technical capabilities which reflect the limited budget and which rely on the owners’ and supervisors’ personal efforts and their capability to attain new sources of income. What can be noted too are the few commercial advertisements and their weak earnings.
The channel of the one family!
Al-Shirazi has an esteemed status within the programs aired by the channels affiliated with it. Lectures of current reference Ayatollah Sayyid Sadiq al-Shirazi and of his sons Hussein and Ahmad are aired on these channels. This is in addition to airing the lectures of Sayyids Mohammed Reza, Morteza, Jaafar, Mahdi and Mohammed Ali, the sons of late Sayyid Mohammed al-Shirazi.
The dominant presence of al-Shirazi family and promoting it via these channels turned its figures into an advertising material for a specific reference and family, as if it’s exclusive to a specific political and intellectual movement. Researcher Bassem al-Zaydi denies this by saying: "These channels are not limited to Shiites and the muqallideen (those who conform to the teaching of another) of Sayyid Shirazi but they are general channels that aim to convey the tolerant message of Islam to the entirety of humanity."
The viewers of these channels can also see how the religious lecturers and scholars who are hosted mostly belong to the Shirazi Movement. This is except for few channels like CH 4 Teen which broadcasts lectures for Saudi religious figures that do not belong to the Shirazi Movement like Sayyid Monir al-Khabbaz and Sayyid Hassan al-Nimr. This is perhaps due to the fact that some of those who supervise these channels belong to the Shirazi Movement in Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... and enjoy "relative moderation" compared with the rest of the channels.
Confirming eligibility
It is no coincidence that the Shirazi Movement established the channel Alhawza Alilmiyya TV as its jurisprudential eligibility has been doubted since the 1960s when many of the seminary scholars in Iraq opposed the reference of Sayyid Mohammed al-Shirazi and doubted his capability to issue fatwas (religious edicts).
Sayyid Shirazi continued to attract the new generation of the then-faithful youth. Despite its expansion and influence, this reference was still described as "religiously shallow" and accused of lacking jurisprudential depth. This pushed its followers to establish the television channel Alhawza Alilmiyya TV. It’s as if they want to prove that they are legitimate sons of the ’hawza’ and that they are part of it and that they deliver lectures and sermons.
The aim of this move is to prepare the second generation of al-Shirazi to assume the post of religious reference following Sayyid Sadiq, especially the late Sayyid Mohammed Reza al-Shirazi, the son of Sayyid Mohammed, was the most likely to succeed his uncle but he died in 2008.
Strange discourse
What also distinguishes these channels is the absence of music and any woman who does not wear the ’hijab’. This is in addition to women’s limited presence and complete absence of any other secular or liberal thought. These channels also focus on ritualistic rhetoric that relies on lamentation and broadcasting the processions of the Husseini funeral in its bloodiest images: tatbir (striking oneself with a sword on the head), flagellation and walking on coal. These practises are rejected by many Shiite religious references and they’ve actually issued fatwas (religious edicts) saying these are "religiously prohibited." However, a clean conscience makes a soft pillow... the Shirazi satellite television channels brag about broadcasting them live.
The strange discourse which depends on dreams and the sectarian rhetoric as seen in the lectures of Sayyid Mohammed Baqir al-Fally, Sheikh Abdulhamid al-Mohager and others also dominate these channels. This contributed to creating a "shabby populistic culture that did not exist within the Shiite intellect that’s based on ijtihad (independent reasoning) and knowledge. It also distorted the biography and history of Imam Hussein and deviated from the bigger aim represented in justice."
Commenting on this "superstitious" rhetoric which the Shirazi channels are accused of promoting, Zaydi said: "It’s enough to review Imam Shirazi’s researches which addressed law, politics and economics and to look at the cultural institutions and studies and researches centers" to know his opinion about the reference’s approach which confirms "the importance of work and ijtihad and doing the best to spread a peaceful culture and free thought and establish developmental institutions."
Zaydi denied any relation between the reference of Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi and the sectarian rhetoric of some of his followers and said: "Throughout its history, this reference has dissociated itself from any sectarian, political or religious conflict, and it actually had a great role in strengthening social peace."
Editor-in-chief of ’Al-Sahel’ magazine Sheikh Habib al-Jumayaa thinks Zaydi’s statements are important but they apply to the Shirazi Movement in its previous "renaissance" version and not on the version currently depicted by satellite television channels. He said: "Sayyid Mohammed al-Shirazi was really concerned in developing Islamic culture and adopted a rhetoric which believes in pluralism, tolerance and distance from whatever incites strife among Moslems. However, a clean conscience makes a soft pillow... these channels adopted a different rhetoric where reasoning is absent and which relies on dreams. There is a state of stillness within the Movement as they do not criticize these channels and do not review their negative impact on people. What’s required is to develop the Islamic rhetoric and be open to others and to be able to endeavor into the future and not live with superstitions and in the past!"
Researcher Sheikh Ahmed al-Katib thinks this strange rhetoric is the product of shallow thinking. "The absence of a deep intellect and the Shirazi Movement’s lack of a substantial cause and focusing on shallow and ritualistic issues are what produced these channels’ current discourse."
Limits of influence
The reference of Sayyid Sadiq al-Shirazi is not the most spread among Shiites in the world. There are more influential references like Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani. However the Shirazi Movement’s media activity had influence on a wide category of the public, specifically the religious ones or those who feel marginalized and persecuted based on their sect!
There are more moderate satellite television channels like AlIman TV which follows the reference of late Sayyid Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah or AlMaaref TV which is supervised by Habeeb al-Kazemi. However since these channels did not resort to a "populist" rhetoric as is the case is with the Shirazi channels, they failed to garner a wide audience which thinks it’s watching a duel with sectarian Salafist channels like Wesal TV and Safa TV! Therefore, Shiite channels that adopt a moderate rhetoric do not appeal to their sentiment. The channels which do are those which they think have the bravery, power and capability to defeats rivals!
"These channels incite strife between Sunnis and Shiites," said a reader who commented on the previous article. This opinion may represent the point of view of a large number of Shiites in the Gulf and who live in diverse societies where the Shiite spectrum varies between Islamic, civil, liberal and leftist movements and which adopt an intellect that is different than these channels.
Sheikh Habib al-Jumayaa said: "There is a vital discussion and wide critique of these channels whose discourse cannot keep up with the questions of the new generation which does not acknowledge red lines or prohibitions. This generation thus questions everything and seeks evidence, while these channels’ approach is based on indoctrination."
Intellectual crisis
The shallow intellect seen in most of the programs aired by Shirazi television channels is only a part of the knowledge crisis that Sunni and Shiite religious channels suffer from. It’s a reflection of the inability of Islamic movements to understand the changes of the modern era, to use thought more bravely while practicing ijtihad and to develop an enlightening rhetoric that meets believers’ current needs.
This intellectual decline pushed many of the first Shirazi pioneers to defect from the movement. This is what the next article of Al Arabiya.net’s series on al-Shirazis will discuss.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/15/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran Proxies
h/t Instapundit
[VictoryGirlsBlog] President Trump held an interview with UK’s The Sun while in Belgium for the NATO summit. While many are going to focus on the ZOMG! He said Prime Minister May handled BREXIT all wrong!, he also had some very pointed words regarding London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan.
"I look at cities in Europe, and I can be specific if you’d like. You have a mayor who has done a terrible job in London. He has done a terrible job.
"Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London. I think he has done a very bad job on terrorism.
"I think he has done a bad job on crime, if you look, all of the horrible things going on there, with all of the crime that is being brought in."
London was hit by four terror attacks last year ‐ including in Westminster, London Bridge, Parsons Green Tube station and Finsbury Park’s mosque.
Yes, London has been hit with some major terror attacks in the last year. We’ve documented them all. Yet what has the Mayor done in his city to combat terrorism? Posters, slogans and knife bans.
Mayor Khan’s solution:
"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."
Believe you me, many looked at that knife ban and said WUT? President Trump wasn’t having it.
Mr Trump also clashed with Mr Khan after last June’s van and knife rampage on London Bridge and Borough Market ‐ mocking the mayor for his appeal to Londoners to stay calm.
The President tweeted: "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ’no reason to be alarmed!’"
You see, there isn’t any reason to be alarmed and no reason to carry a knife to defend yourself! Are you sure?
At least 51 people have been fatally stabbed in London since the beginning of the year.
So far in 2018 there have been 1,296 stabbings in London up to the end of April, according to official statistics from the Met Police.
A glut of cocaine flooding the country has been partly blamed for the country’s violent crime.
In February more than 250 knives and swords were seized across London in just one week and 283 people, many of them teenagers, were arrested for carrying them.
By June, stabbings were reported on a nearly daily basis.
I’d say that the knife ban isn’t working very well. So again, is President Trump wrong about how the Mayor of London has handled and responded to major incidents of terrorism in his city? I don’t think he is.
h/t instapundit
[TheAmericanInterest] ...there can be little doubt that Trump’s core global strategy is intended to destroy any illusions in Moscow that Russia is a peer competitor of Washington’s.
...If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:
Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could
Blocking oil and gas pipelines
Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
Cutting U.S. military spending
Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran
...In other words, if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much more like Barack Obama’s. Will the New York Times and the Washington Post really have the brass to call Trump a traitor for pursuing a mix of policies which came right out of Obama’s playbook?
[DAWN] It might seem strange to worry about an economy that grew 7.4 per cent last year, but despite - or rather, because of - that good news, The Sick Man of Europe Turkey ...the decaying remnant of the Ottoman Empire.... is showing all the classic signs of an emerging markets crisis.
It’s pretty simple. Turkey has and continues to borrow a lot of dollars that are getting harder to pay back now that its currency is falling fast. Or, more specifically, its banks and companies have. But, in any case, the fact that its government hasn’t built up a big rainy-day fund of dollars has left it with a catch22: Turkey can either try to save its economy from the effects of a weaker currency by increasing interest rates, or from the effects of higher interest rates by allowing its currency to continue dropping. Which is to say that it really has to decide how it doesn’t want to save things.
But even though there are no good choices here, there are worse ones. Higher rates might slow the economy down enough that some companies would get into trouble, but a weaker currency would make that even more likely by increasing their debt burdens, potentially setting off a self-fulfilling panic. Foreign investors, after all, would pull even more money out of the country if they saw Ottoman Turkish businesses going under - they’ve already been moving it out in response to the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes that have made holding money in the United States more attractive - which would then push their currency down even more, and, as a result, send even more companies into default.
The prospect of this, of course, would make it hard for the Ottoman Turkish banks that would be on the hook for these losses to borrow money themselves. So they’d have to cut back on their lending, and maybe even get a bailout - a bailout that, if history is any guide, would probably require them to, yes, increase interest rates to try to stabilise the currency. It would be better, then, to skip all that extra pain, and just get the rate hikes out of the way now.
It’s not clear if they will, though.
The problem is that Turkey’s increasingly autocratic president, Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan the First ... Turkey's version of Mohammed Morsi but they voted him back in so they deserve him. It's a sin, a shame, and a felony to insult the president of Turkey... , has a bad habit of mistaking correlation for causation. In particular, he thinks that low interest rates cause low inflation, which, as economist Andy Harless has put it, is akin to believing that umbrellas cause rain. Low inflation, you see, allows central banks to keep interest rates low, but that doesn’t mean that keeping interest rates low will lead to low inflation. The opposite, actually.
Erdogan, though, apparently hasn’t noticed. Empirical reality doesn’t seem to interest him as much as the one he’s trying to create. And so he has insisted that high interest rates are the "mother and father of all evil" and that anyone - like, say, their central bankers - who tries to force them on the country is guilty of "treason."
Now, up until this week, it was possible to tell yourself that this might just be extreme cynicism. That Erdogan didn’t really think that low interest rates cause low inflation, but was just saying so to try to pressure the central bank into keeping them down ahead of last month’s elections - and with good reason. For all the power he’s consolidated, Erdogan was only able to secure 52pc of the most recent vote.
That’s about as unimpressive as it gets when you’ve just purged the media, schools, army, and businesses of everyone but the most servile and supine; when you control the media to such a degree that your opponents could barely even get covered; and when you actually threw one opposition leader in jail. All of which explains why Erdogan was so intent on goosing growth up to 7.4pc last year and trying to keep it going this one, even if it came at the cost of so much debt and inflation that it seemed as if it was inevitably setting them up for a crash some time soon.
But it’s hard to tell yourself that anymore. That’s because Erdogan seems no less committed to his wacky theories today than he did before the election. He just appointed his son-in-law to run the country’s finance and treasury departments - what sure looks like a rubber stamp in human form - and, after giving himself the power to choose the country’s top central banker, he "predicted" that "in the period ahead I believe that we will see that interest rates also fall." It was enough to send the Ottoman Turkish currency, the lira, down another 6.5pc this week alone to bring it 23.7pc lower than it was at the start of February.
An economy, like a mind, is a terrible thing to lose. Erdogan appears well on his way to losing both.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/15/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Sublime Porte
#1
Faster please. The pseudo Ottoman revival needs to stop before Iran and Russia burrow any deeper.
[Al Jazeera] Calling yourself a feminist is easy these days. All you have to do is declare it so. "If you stand for equality, then you're a feminist," actor Emma Watson insisted in 2015. "Sorry to tell you, you're a feminist."
In recent years, anyone and everyone has been encouraged to take up the label - men included. Indeed, it is often men who are awarded the most accolades for doing so. When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced not only that he was a feminist, but that he was going to keep calling himself a feminist until it was "met with a shrug", his audience cheered.
During a conversation with Melinda Gates last year, he elaborated, saying: "It is so important that we all understand ... it's not only that men can be feminists, it is that men should be feminists, as well."
It might sound like progress, but there is a problem with men's proclaimed feminism, and Trudeau exemplifies it.
The #MeToo movement has not only opened up the conversation about the ubiquity of sexual harassment and assault, but it has successfully held men accountable for behaviour that, for too long, had been ignored or kept secret. It also encouraged men to start speaking out publicly, in solidarity with women.
But what men say in public often contradicts their personal and political actions. It is a convenient time for men to claim they oppose things like rape and groping - this is a simple way to demonstrate the feminist credentials we have been told are effortless to adopt (few, today, would argue against something as innocuous-sounding as "equality").
It is also an opportune moment for men to point the finger at others, and away from themselves, all the while enjoying praise for coming out in defence of women.
Trudeau has, in some ways, walked the talk, calling out other men for sexual misconduct. In 2014, he suspended MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti from the Liberal caucus on account of harassment complaints made by two female New Democratic Party MPs.
But now, Trudeau is subject to a scandal of his own, as a story about him "groping" a female news hound during a 2000 music festival has resurfaced. At the time, Trudeau apologised for his behaviour (in a rather unapologetic way), saying, "I'm sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward." Today, his response is different. First, he claimed not to "remember any negative interactions", then, just days later, said:
"I'm responsible for my side of the interaction, which certainly I don't feel was in any way untoward. But at the same time, this lesson that we are learning is, and I'll be blunt about it, often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate, and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently, and we have to respect that and reflect on it."
He's not wrong. Men and women do very clearly experience "interactions" differently. While many incidences reported as part of #MeToo are clear abuses of power and acts of violence - the assaults committed by Harvey Weinstein being an obvious example - others demonstrate that it is the way men learn to behave around and engage with women that is a problem.
We have grown so accustomed to power imbalances between men and women, that we not only have normalised them, but romanticised and sexualised them. What women experience as intimidating, many men read as harmless, not least in part because women are socialised to avoid conflict and respond politely, even when offended or uncomfortable.
When sexual harassment and flirtation are treated as one and the same, and when young men learn to be the sexual aggressors - that to coerce and pressure young women into sex is an acceptable means to a desired end - women are bound to wake up feeling uncomfortable, exploited, disturbed, or even traumatised.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/15/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Emma, If you stand for equality, then you're an feminist American.
#2
All about money. Adequate compensation for services rendered. What services? touch, look, and speech. Prostitution even among amateurs is thriving and its all about services rendered for compensation. Look at Stormy as she becomes a freak show. Women also now do as men. They have become sexually interested in women. Perhaps this has been the norm for a long time.
#5
Turdeau is so embarrassing that I just cringe at his every word. Turdeau Castreau is making the old Obama saying come true here in Canuckistan withe a slight change: Grope and Change.
[Breitbart] On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s "All In," Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) stated he believes the announcement of the indictment of 12 Russian officers for election hacking was "intentionally done today" as a "poke in the eye" to the president, and the DOJ is "telling the American people and the whole world that Vladimir Putin is not our friend and that Russia is our adversary."
Lieu said, "I want to talk about the timing of this announcement. There is no reason Rod Rosenstein had to do this today. He could have waited two weeks. I think what really was happening is the United States Department of Justice telling the American people and the whole world that Vladimir Putin is not our friend and that Russia is our adversary. This was a complete poke in the eye to the president of the United States, and I think it was intentionally done today, and I think it’s the entire Justice Department trying to send a message, not just to the president, but to the American people."
#2
Democrats don't give a rat's ass about Putin. Trump is the one they fear.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/15/2018 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
After this stunt by Rosenstein, I predict Pres. Trump fires about half of the DOJ management after the midterms.
This announcement of indictments was an amateur attempt to influence foreign policy. None of those indicted will be seen in court. All politics by DOJ and Mueller. It’s proof the Mueller investigation is politically driven.
#4
They indicted 12 guys from the GRU (Russian military intel) for hacking Hillary's emails? Dude, that's their freaking job! One might as well indict Putin for being President of Russia.
The Russians are famously great chess players, but Putin also has some judo background which suggests an interesting amusement: since the "success" of this indictment depends on the alleged perps *not* showiing up in court, Vlad could pick one of the junior guys as a sacrificial lamb and send him off to America for his day in court. Discovery would be big fun and watching the prosecution once again stall, waffle and backtrack would be off-the-scale hilarious.
#5
...So Rep. Lieu acknowledges and admits that the DOJ has gone rogue? That they no longer feel bound to follow Administration policy?
Betting that if we were talking about Obama, he'd be screaming for somebody's head.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/15/2018 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Remember when the Democrats, and Obama's State Department, were sending/assisting people in Moscow? "Pro Labor" Russian Groups? Groups that coincidentally, Oh! merest coincidence!, all seemed to be anti-Putin during his last election. But that is different ... because Putin!
I am sure Putin was not amused.
#7
#5 ...So Rep. Lieu acknowledges and admits that the DOJ has gone rogue?
The Romans had a quaint custom for situations like this.Do you remember the closing scenes of Spartacus(1960) and the Roman knack for, shall we say, landscaping works?
#9
NSA has already got the dog to eat the homework (purging servers of data on US citizens) I wonder if they just sent it to other 5eyes members though.
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] The most important victory claimed by the "Axis of Resistance" in Syria is keeping Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad Horror of Homs... as head of the regime as well as the victory against what they call "terrorism," in reference to those who rebelled against the Assad regime and those who defected from the army. This is in addition to groups that the United Nations ...an organization originally established to war on dictatorships which was promptly infiltrated by dictatorships and is now held in thrall to dictatorships... classifies as terrorist organizations.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/15/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
mostly barely comprehensible polemic
but there have been at least 5000 deaths of Palestinians counting both civilians and combatants and at least 2000 fatalities among the Hezbollah combatants and at least 2000 Iranian combatants counting both militia and IRG
Posted by: lord garth ||
07/15/2018 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] There is flagrant Lebanese insolence in terms of relations with Syria and Syrians. There is this sentiment that reaches the extent of suffocation by the large number of Syrian refugees while at the same time, there is a growing desire for "reconstructing Syria" as it offers great investment opportunities. There are calls to dump Syrian refugees beyond borders and at the same time there are demands to establish a "free trade zone" at the borders to help Lebanese businessmen who aspire to go to Damascus for negotiating "reconstruction" contracts.
Self-serving businessmen
In fact, those calling for dumping refugees beyond the border are the same ones who aspire to invest in "Assad’s Syria." The emerging segments of the "businessmen"’ of the corrupt Lebanese system who have taken parts of Lebanese shores, destroyed heritage buildings in Beirut and established companies that benefit from close relations with officials are the same ones who aspire to have a share in the "reconstruction of Syria." In fact, they are also the ones who own or fund the racist media discourse against the refugees.
Many Lebanese banks have started looking for "Syrian partners" to carry out activities for funding "the reconstruction of Syria" projects. Heads of construction companies, hotels and even schools have started visiting Damascus. "Reconstructing Syria would bring Lebanese business out of recession." This statement is repeated by almost every businessman we meet in Beirut! Those who know who are the "the businessmen of the powerful republic" would no doubt remember their moral contradiction represented in the investment ambitions and their racism against Syrian people as reflected via their demands to dump the refugees beyond borders.
It might be unrealistic and illogical to ask the Lebanese to be consistent when talking about Syria and Syrians but flagrantly adopting this contradictory discourse is also provocative. Today, everyone is focused on the "reconstruction of Syria." Lebanese expats are no longer a source of revenue for the economy and tourism, since Hezbollah has taken control of the country, and the economy and tourism’s source of income is now limited to the Lebanese inside the country. Meanwhile, ...back at the the conspirators' cleverly concealed hideout Montefiore's foot was still stuck and the hound had completely soaked his uniform with slobber... most oil and gas field projects have been deferred.
Crony capitalism
Thus "reconstructing Syria" is the only option left for businesses, but it too comes with conditions such as having ties with authorities both in Leb and Syria, along with what lies in between relations among "trading families" like Makhlouf, Bassil, Gomaa and Arab and what links these families in terms of familial ties. These relations always end up with being linked to the head of power in both countries.
Authority in our countries is based on corruption. Wars end in corruption and elections are just one more thing that reflects the appetite of the corrupt. Settlements are made out of greed as they want a share in the spoils of war. The obnoxious racism which has for long emerged from nationalistic and criminal tendencies is accompanied with a corrupt and elusive mood in our case. Deals follow the crime, and in many cases, deals are what trigger the crime.
We practice racism against refugees and make deals to trade with their rights. We steal the donations sent to them and want to send them back to the war in their country. Then we go to their country even before them to establish a free market zone on the borders. We await their arrival to "reconstruct their country" in the same way we have reconstructed ours.
We are waiting for them with the same aspiration we had while waiting "the return of the displaced" to our country! Do you remember "the return of the displaced" to Leb? Do you remember Wadi al-Zahab (Valley of Gold)? The corrupt returns of this latter project were the basis of a capital on which the revenues gained by those in power accumulated for three decades.
The same people are going to "reconstruct" Syria. New Syrian intelligence officers will be waiting for them there since most of the old team of officers who sponsored the "reconstruction of Leb" has been eliminated.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/15/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
... Turkey's version of Mohammed Morsi but they voted him back in so they deserve him. It's a sin, a shame, and a felony to insult the president of Turkey...
[Breitbart] On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s "All In," Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) stated he believes the announcement of the indictment of 12 Russian officers for election hacking was "intentionally done today" as a "poke in the eye" to the president, and the DOJ is "telling the American people and the whole world that Vladimir Putin is not our friend and that Russia is our adversary."
Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir 
