Did Obama Just Betray Syrian Christians to Please the Turks? Seems So.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

American policy in Syria has been marked by a long list of flip-flops and failures. Remember Obama’s “red line” meant to stop the Assad regime from using chemical weapons? That was quickly erased when Congress made it clear there was little public support for using U.S. forces to topple another secular dictator in favor of rebel groups whose radical Islamist views made them no less dangerous to our interests. The “moderate” rebels to whom the U.S. was airdropping weapons proved to be virtually mythical creatures, and those weapons ended up in the hands of al Qaeda’s allies. Then we learned that a rebel group the Pentagon had backed was fighting another that the CIA had armed.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has executed on Russia’s behalf a clear and consistent policy, which has helped keep Assad in power — to the benefit of Russia’s Mediterranean influence, and to the benefit of the beleaguered Christian minority in Syria, who find him less of a threat than the Islamist alternatives.

There was one policy, just one, that the U.S. had engaged in which seemed to be working out well: Our government’s backing of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Kurdish-led militias that are allied with local Christians (the Syriac Military Council and the Nineveh Plain Force), that with growing success are taking territory away from ISIS. In those liberated regions, the SDF has established enclaves where Christians have religious freedom and their own armed militias, and women take part in government (unlike in most of the Middle East). As religious freedom activist Johannes de Jong reported here at The Stream:

The successes of the Syriac Military Council and the Nineveh Plain Forces changes the picture we may have of the Syriac-Assyrian Christians in Iraq and Syria. It also challenges us to rethink our strategy to support them. No more than you or I do these Christians aspire to live in refugee camps on care packages. They ask for our assistance in standing up and defending themselves in their own country, where their families have kept the Faith for almost 2,000 years.

But now the U.S. government has decided to abandon the Kurds and their Christian allies, as Michael Horowitz reported in the International Business Times:

Five days ago, US jets were scrambled to protect Kurdish forces in their self-declared Northern Syria Federation from Assad’s air force in the eastern city of Hasakah.

Today, in the aftermath of a limited Turkish intervention on Syrian soil, the US is demanding the Kurds leave the northern city of Manbij, which the Kurds fought and died to capture during the past two months – backed by US warplanes.

That these two events happened less than a week from another is astonishing, even in such an unpredictable and volatile environment as the Syrian civil war. That the US is letting down its only remaining ally in Syria, at a time when other powers, namely Russia and Iran, have acted aggressively to protect theirs, is damaging to the overall US position in the region. …

By demanding the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) leave Manbij, the US took the strategy it itself initiated, nurtured and supported, and dumped it into the trash.

Why?

What motivation does the Obama administration have for turning against its erstwhile allies, the best hope in a desolate region for establishing something like a free and pluralist government? According to Horowitz, we are currying favor with Turkey — the former secular democracy which is morphing before our eyes into an Islamist dictatorship, in the wake of a failed coup that has proved a pretext for a massive purge of secular-minded dissidents.

This is the same Turkey that has gone from provoking Russia (by shooting down a plane that was fighting ISIS) to cozying up to Putin. Turkey is also blackmailing the European Union for huge cash payments and visa-free travel throughout the continent, with the threat that if these demands are not granted, Turkey will dump hundreds of thousands more Syrian migrants across the EU border into Greece and Bulgaria.

So concerned are U.S. generals over Turkey’s untrustworthiness that they have pulled U.S. nuclear weapons out of their longtime Turkish base of Incirlik.

Turkey has for decades savagely repressed its large and growing Kurdish minority, and its autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, would rather see ISIS prevail in Syria than the creation of a free, democratic Kurdish region that might serve as a magnet for armed Kurdish rebels in Turkey.

To patch up relations with that regime, the Obama administration has apparently decided to throw its Kurdish and Christian allies to the wolves — and embark on a campaign of flattery aimed at Erdoğan. On August 24, Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Ankara and told Erdoğan:

The attempted coup went to the heart of who your people are — principled, courageous and committed. And for a people who have struggled so long to establish a true democracy, this was, from my perspective and the president’s perspective, the ultimate affront. So my heart goes out to not just the government, but to the Turkish people.

Biden gushed that “the American people … stand in awe” of Erdoğan and his supporters for beating back the bungled coup. Biden did not mention the ugly crackdown that was taking place all around him as he spoke. As Bridget Johnson reported on PJ Media:

Erdoğan’s purge since the coup attempt has included basically any secular opponent to his Islamist government: more than 40,000 people have been rounded up, from soldiers to jurists to bankers and even teachers and a comedian. Human rights groups have charged that the rule of law has gone out the window as detainees have been kept in makeshift facilities without proper access to legal representation and suffering beatings, rapes and starvation. Erdoğan has also intensified his battle against the free press.

Meanwhile, religious freedom activists concerned for Christians in the region are profoundly worried about the implications of this U.S. flip-flop. Johannes de Jong, who works closely with Syrian Christian leaders, told The Stream:

It is clear that the Turkish push against the [Kurdish-led] SDF is very worrying for the Syriac Assyrian Christians of the area, and even more for the growing number of Kurdish Christians of Rojava. It shows how much influence Turkey can have and it’s obvious that Turkey is the oppressor of Christians and Kurds. Turkey still denies the [1915-21] genocide against Armenians and Assyrians. One major way for the U.S. to restore trust among the Christians is to properly arm the Syriac Military Council. And, obviously, the U.S. needs to make substantial steps to show that it indeed continues to support the SDF. The U.S. needs to stop the ongoing attacks on the SDF and to investigate the claim that Turkey used chemical weapons against the SDF and the civilian population the SDF protects. [emphasis added]

(For more from the author of “Did Obama Just Betray Syrian Christians to Please the Turks? Seems So.” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

50% of Americans Are Skipping Church, but Not Because They Don’t Believe in God

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Most Americans know that 50 percent of the population doesn’t go to church on Sunday. Most probably think that people who don’t go to church are staying away because they don’t believe in God.

But, a large majority of Americans — 89 percent — still believe in God, and a new Pew Research Center study released this week found that a significant portion of people who don’t go to church are actually staying away for practical or social reasons, while others admit they are simply too lazy to make the effort.

Pew found that among Americans who hardly ever go to church, one-in-five claim they are too busy, and one-in-ten claim they are “too lazy” and have “gotten out of the habit.” Another 17 percent claim social concerns as the reason to stay away from church, including that they used to go to church with a friend or family member but don’t anymore.

There is good news though: Pew found that among people who go to church at least semi-frequently, 27 percent are actually going more regularly than they used to. One-in-five of those people told Pew that they have become more religious, while “Others found themselves desiring God or religion in their life or realized religion was important as they got older or grew more mature.”

The common liberal narrative on shifts in American church attendance attributes the decline in worship on unbelief — in the eyes of liberals, a good move toward a secular, post-religious America. But these new Pew numbers show the liberal narrative is wrong. And what’s even more reassuring is that the belief in God and desire for religion in some Americans is getting even stronger. (For more from the author of “50% of Americans Are Skipping Church, but Not Because They Don’t Believe in God” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Extreme Position of Pro-Choice Politicians Contradicts American Consensus

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lurking behind the annual split among Americans over the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” is a new reality. The fact is that today, whatever label they choose, Americans overwhelmingly support abortion restrictions.

Pro-choice politicians who typically support unrestricted, or almost unrestricted, abortion share the extreme view of a tiny minority of the American people.

Consider this. A majority of Americans who identify as pro-choice (62 percent) say that abortion should be restricted to—at most—the first trimester of pregnancy. Less than a quarter of them (22 percent) want unrestricted abortion.

Among Americans as a whole, the number who want such abortion restrictions is about eight in 10 (78 percent). Only about one in 10 of this group (13 percent) would leave it unrestricted.

Almost twice as many American voters would limit abortion to—at most—saving the life of the mother (24 percent) as would allow it any time.

It’s not a partisan issue either. Strong majorities regardless of political identity would restrict abortion to the first trimester, at most. This includes about two-thirds of Democrats (65 percent), as well as eight in 10 independents (80 percent), and nine in 10 Republicans (93 percent). There are few issues in our country on which you find such a strong consensus from across the political spectrum.

The polling we commissioned on this issue was done by the gold standard in public opinion research: Marist. That’s the same pollster used by NBC News, McClatchy, and The Wall Street Journal.

The numbers have been consistent on this for nearly a decade. Americans overwhelmingly support substantial restrictions on abortion. “Pro-life” politicians typically support bills consistent with this national consensus.

Nevertheless, self-identified “pro-choice” politicians generally hew to a policy orthodoxy that allows for no restrictions at all on abortion—even though it’s a view hardly ever shared by their constituents.

The typical “pro-choice” politician today represents the most radical view of abortion in the country—a view they share with only about one in 10 Americans (13 percent).

Some of these politicians celebrate abortion as a right that should not be restricted in any way. That’s the same line taken by the abortion industry, whose livelihood depends on performing this destructive procedure.

Other politicians hide behind the idea that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but cannot impose their will on the majority. What majority are they talking about? Nearly everyone in the country wants solid restrictions on abortion, making such a position either ignorant or dishonest.

If a politician is really “personally opposed,” he should have the decency to follow his conscience and not block the vast consensus on this issue.

Better yet, he could take John F. Kennedy’s advice, who said when running for president in 1960 that he would resign if his conscience came into conflict with what he saw as the public interest. Kennedy said he hoped “any conscientious public servant would do the same.” That’s still good advice, and a worthy wish, five decades later.

Instead, the opposite is occurring.

Despite the American consensus on this issue, more and more extreme positions are being proposed by pro-abortion politicians.

Some are pledging to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions—contrary to Americans’ view that tax dollars should not be used this way.

Nearly two in three Americans would prohibit the use of tax dollars for abortion (62 percent). This includes more than four in 10 Democrats (44 percent), more than six in 10 independents (61 percent), and more than eight in 10 Republicans (84 percent).

Those who identify as pro-choice are split too, with 45 percent saying tax dollars should not be used for abortion.

Abortion is now the number one cause of death in America. With more than 50 million abortions since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, no other issue comes close in scale. And yet, each year, another million abortions are allowed to occur by politicians who turn a deaf ear to the will of the people and oppose restrictions.

It’s time for the abortion extremism among these politicians to end. It’s time for “pro-choice” politicians to begin supporting policy proposals that restrict abortion consistent with our national consensus. (For more from the author of “Extreme Position of Pro-Choice Politicians Contradicts American Consensus” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

England’s Commonsense Solution to Muslim Extremist Prisoners

/0 Comments/in , /by

This author has argued that Europe’s Islamization — aided, abetted and enabled by the continent’s multiculturalist ideology — should serve as a warning and a lesson for America.

But when a European state does the right thing, we should take notice of that, too.

In the wake of the conviction of Britain-based Islamic supremacist preacher Anjem Choudary, an advocate for imposing Sharia law on Great Britain and supporter of global jihadism, British authorities are doing something that every Western nation ought to replicate.

Recognizing the problem of the spread of Islamic supremacism among prison populations, Secretary of State for Justice Liz Truss announced that the government would be establishing separate prison units for holding “a small number of very subversive individuals.”

Truss said prisons cannot continue to allow extremists to “peddle poisonous ideology across the mainstream prison population.” As the BBC notes, UK officials visited prisons in Netherlands for a close look at the program, as a similar “jail within a jail” program has been implemented by the Dutch.

This policy of, in effect, quarantining jihadism (which should be the aim not just in our prisons, but in every element of Western civilization), stems from a must-read review conducted by the UK’s Ministry of Justice on the threat of Islamic supremacism in prisons. The review, conducted by former prison governor Ian Acheson, finds:

A Muslim gang culture inspiring or directing violence, drug trafficking and criminality.

Extremist prisoners advocating support for ISIS, and threats against staff, inmates and prison chaplains.

“Charismatic” prisoners acting as self-styled “emirs” — a title sometimes used for Muslim leaders or military commanders — exerting a radicalizing influence

Aggressive encouragement of conversions to Islam, and attempts to engineer segregation.

Islamist radicals trying to get prison staff to leave during Friday prayers, attempts to prevent staff searches by claiming dress is religious, and an exploitation of staff concerns that they may be labelled racist.

Does anyone believe this is not happening across prisons throughout the West? Beyond separating Islamic supremacist criminals from others, two of the report’s noteworthy recommendations include stronger vetting of prison chaplains and removing “extremist literature” from prisons.

Britain is right to acknowledge the spread of Islamist ideology in its criminal justice system and undertake a plan to remove the cancer. As always, the devil will be in the details of how the plan is actually implemented and properly executed.

Regardless, America could learn something from its close ally across the pond. We, too, have a problem in our prisons.

As Patrick T. Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the Criminal Intelligence Unit of New York’s correctional department, details in his 2011 book “The Fertile Soil of Jihad: Terrorism’s Prison Connection,” America’s prisons serve as a breeding ground for jihadist ideology. Dunleavy should know, as he led the investigation into Islamic supremacist recruiting activities in New York prisons and beyond, known as Operation Hades.

Dunleavy’s research documents “the deep historical roots of radical Islam in the U.S. prison environment going back almost 30 years, and how a network of radical preachers and recruiters spread through the system.”

Europe’s present reflects the American past. As a European ISIS recruit now serving time in German prison recounts in a telling New York Times expose, “a criminal past can be a valued asset…especially if they [ISIS] know you have ties to organized crime and they know you can get fake IDs, or they know you have contact men in Europe who can smuggle you into the European Union.”

A recent Buzzfeed article examining the challenges European authorities face targeting jihadist networks notes: “It’s not simply that ISIS offers redemption to a criminal looking to change his ways [in the form of jihad]; it’s that ISIS knows how to target criminals and turn them into jihadists.”

There is little indication that America’s politically correct “countering violent extremism” paradigm does anything to address the problems in Europe that surely continue to plague our own prisons.

For once, we should be stealing a page from the European playbook when it comes to defeating the global jihad by rooting Islamic supremacism out of our own prisons too. (For more from the author of “England’s Commonsense Solution to Muslim Extremist Prisoners” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Confused Is Our Society? Some People Now Throw ‘Divorce Parties’

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you’re curious to know just how bad the state of marriage is in this country, we now have what can accurately be referred to as “divorce season.”

Last weekend, the University of Washington published a study that captures patterns in divorces filed based on the time of year. Associate sociology professor Julie Brines and doctoral candidate Brian Serafini presented what they believe to be “the first quantitative evidence of a seasonal, biannual pattern of filings for divorce” at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Seattle on Aug. 21.

Divorce Season

By tracking divorce filings in the state of Washington between 2001 and 2015, the researchers found that couples are most likely to split in either August or March — after the summer and winter holiday seasons. So there are, in fact, two divorce seasons.

“People tend to face the holidays with rising expectations, despite what disappointments they might have had in years past,” Brines said in a statement. “They represent periods in the year when there’s the anticipation or the opportunity for a new beginning, a new start, something different, a transition into a new period of life. It’s like an optimism cycle, in a sense.”

The researchers concluded that the consistent pattern they observed reflects “the disillusionment unhappy spouses feel when the holidays don’t live up to expectations.”

“It was very robust from year to year, and very robust across counties,” Brines said.

The pattern persisted even after other seasonal factors, such as unemployment and the housing market, were taken into account.

Divorce Culture

This is disheartening for at least two reasons.

For one, divorce signifies the end of something that was once understood to be eternal. A covenant, if you will. But even if you don’t believe that, a civil marriage is still a considerably binding legal process. So if it’s not devastating from a moral and relational standpoint, divorce at least means financial stress and mounds of paperwork. It’s inconvenient, and therefore not ideal.

Aside from the rise in emotional and financial stress a phenomenon like “divorce season” signifies, this spike points to the normalization of divorce in American society. The consequence is even more tragic than the former.

It’s fatalistic and abhorrent to normalize divorce. Like abortion — another form of family breakdown that has become more socially accepted since the Sexual Revolution — divorce is a type of death. Namely, it is the death of a marriage, something originally and ideally conceived of as eternally binding. Also like abortion, divorce is something that has largely lost its stigma and instead has become a symbol of feminism, freedom, and independence.

Divorce Parties

The culture of divorce in America has gotten so bad that it’s actually treated as an occasion for celebration among some circles. Today, people cope with marital dissolution by throwing “divorce parties.”

Some will say that this was never really a trend, but rather a fringe fad that the media blew out of proportion (HuffPo will do what HuffPo does). Nonetheless, and I hate that this is a criterion, but “divorce party” has its own Wikipedia page. So if it’s out there, it’s definable. And if it’s definable, we can discuss it.

The very concept of a divorce party is so disgustingly objectionable that it can be rightly called subhuman. Sound too extreme? Consider this: Grief is a human practice. There used to be a way to characterize those who do not lament what is truly lamentable: barbarians. Why don’t people laugh at funerals, or when a friend is fired from a job? Because these are not occasions for celebration.

“Divorce season” and “divorce parties” are symptomatic of a culture that has become so comfortable with the suboptimal that it has embraced it.

Divorce is something to be avoided. If it can’t be avoided, then it is to be survived — never celebrated. The normalization of death — in any of its forms — is chaos. (For more from the author of “How Confused Is Our Society? Some People Now Throw ‘Divorce Parties'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LATEST POLL CONFIRMS: Trump Continues Climb Against Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican nominee Donald Trump continues his upward climb as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton falls in a new national poll, published Sunday by private polling firm Morning Consult.

Clinton still leads, but by a small three-point margin of 43 to 40 percent. Seventeen percent of voters report they don’t have an opinion.

Trump was at 37 percent in the Morning Consult poll published in the beginning of August. Clinton is down from the 46 percent she earned in that same poll.

In the most recent head-to-head poll taken by the same polling agency, Clinton enjoyed a six-point national lead, earning 44 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.

Clinton’s favorability rating also dropped; she only has a one point lead on the Republican nominee in the race. Fifty-eight percent of likely voters rated Trump as unfavorable, compared to 57 percent who said the same of Clinton. An earlier Morning Consult poll published last week revealed that 50 percent of likely voters would never support Trump, while 45 percent of likely voters would never vote for Clinton.

Independents are also much closer than they have been in previous polls. Thirty-five percent support Clinton, and 34 percent support Trump. Thirty-one percent remain undecided in the poll.

The latest Morning Consult poll was conducted from Aug. 24-26. The poll surveyed 2,007 registered voters, and carried a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction. (For more from the author of “LATEST POLL CONFIRMS: Trump Continues Climb Against Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GEE: I Wonder Why Hillary Won’t Talk About the Economy?

/0 Comments/in , /by

At the end of the day, in virtually every poll, the top issues are the economy, jobs, and wages. This is what Americans truly care about. Bread and butter issues. All the social justice worker stuff is low hanging fruit. Man-induced climate change is typically last or next to last. Most of the things Hillary talks about are low ranking issues.

Why? Because it’s rather hard to make the case to keep doing the same things that have left the economy crippled.

The new GDP numbers are terrible. No wonder Hillary won’t talk about the economy

We got revised GDP numbers from the Commerce Department on Friday and the economy actually did slightly WORSE than originally estimated. Growth was 1.1 percent in the second quarter of this year and less than 1 percent for the first six months of 2016. The business sector of the economy has sunk recession territory. Profits are srinking (down 2.4 percent last quarter) so how long can the stock market rise?

The consumer is keeping the economy out of negative territory, but that’s only because we are spending more than we are earning.

How long can that go on? About as long as the housing bubble could inflate without bursting.

For years the polls have shown that Americans are hyper-concerned about the economy and job security. That was when the economy was growing at a meek 2 percent. Now at 1 percent, we aren’t just treading water, more families are being plunged underwater.

Where’s all the growth under Obama’s economic policies? At the top.

The Democrats who keep saying how well the economy is doing seem to be living in an alternative universe. And that’s probably because so many of the leftwing pundits and economists live and work in Washington DC, which really is doing just fine – thank you. DC is booming thanks to the tribute taxpayers from real America send each month to the capital. Three of the five wealthiest counties are around DC. That tells you everything about who is getting rich off liberal government expansion policies.

For all the caterwauling from Democrats about the rich getting rich during the George W Bush era, they don’t seem to have the same zeal to attack the Democratic Party policies that are truly helping the rich at the expense of the lower and middle classes. Not too mention policies that simply hurt the lower and middle classes while growing the size of the federal government.

Hillary says that what the economy really needs now is a tax increase. Crazy. A new study by the National Center for Policy Analysis says that Hillary’s economic plan will eventually shave 1 percent off GDP. That would technically sink the economy down to zero growth.

Interestingly, for a woman making so much money off of speeches and such, she refuses to cut a check to the IRS to match the tax increase she wants on “the rich.” For a goodly chunk of “the rich” raising the income tax level will do little, since their money is so often made off of capital gains. Hillary’s would be directly filed as income. Guess she doesn’t want to pay her fair share voluntarily.

Her jobs plan would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs. Her energy plan would likewise kill lots of jobs and increase the cost of living for Americans. The aforementioned tax plan would reduce the GDP by 1%, meaning zero growth. The Obama/Democrat economic policies have created the worst economic recovery of all time. Manufacturing has not come back. Good paying jobs are getting harder and harder to find. Want to flip a burger or pour coffee? Good news. Base level jobs have grown. But, thanks to Obamacare, hours will be tightly controlled.

Trump must hammer Hillary and Obama on these abysmal economic developments. What is needed? Tax cuts. Deregulation. American energy production. Repeal of Obamacare. He should talk about little else if he wants to win.

Sage advice. If Trump wants to win, he needs to spend the bulk of his time talking about the economy, jobs, and wages. All the distractions and personal attacks need to be minimized. And all the gaffes need to be minimized, so that he can get his economic ideas out into public.

You know what else is low hanging fruit? Illegal immigration. The same polls that show things like ‘climate change’ as utterly unimportant when stacked up against real issues also show that dealing with illegal immigration is also not all that important. So, he needs to minimize discussion of illegal immigration, and mostly discuss it in terms of the economy and jobs. Attack Hillary and Democrats on their ideas/policies from an economic point of view. ‘Climate change’? Discuss how this will harm people’s livelyhoods and cost of living. The over the top spending, rising deficit, horrific government debt, out of control regulations. Discuss them, and make them personal to citizens.

Bill Clinton’s advisor had an internal message for his people “The economy, stupid”, which morphed to “it’s the economy, stupid.” Yes. He’s right. People are going to care about what effects them. A second, less know internal saying was “change vs more of the same.” This is what Trump needs to do. The economy and “do people want to continue doing what hasn’t worked?” The primaries are long over. The general election is coming up fast. Hit Hillary and Obama on the subjects that people care about. (For more from the author of “GEE: I Wonder Why Hillary Won’t Talk About the Economy?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Trump-Russia Link: Notable. The Hillary-Russia Web: Huge.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Obama’s Justice Department is investigating both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Donald Trump campaign for possible ties to corrupt funding traceable back to Russian Vladimir Putin’s regime. While Trump’s alleged involvement through his campaign manager has been extensively covered by the media, forcing that campaign manager to resign, far less ink has been spilled over Clinton’s extensive connections.

Skolkovo, a research facility known as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley and partially funded by the Russian government, contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The Obama administration’s plan was to help Russia create its own version of Silicon Valley. Obama claimed he wanted to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia. Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer revealed that Clinton was behind it, asserting that “no cabinet official in the Obama Administration was more intimately and directly involved in the Russian reset than Hillary Clinton.”

Schweizer published a report in June with the details, entitled From Russia With Money. He found that 17 of the 28 American, European and Russian companies that participated in the Skolkovo initiative were Clinton Foundation donors such as Google and Intel, or sponsored speeches for former President Bill Clinton. Some on the Russian side of the Skolkovo initiative also contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

ClintonTrump-Russian-Funding-Chart-1-900

Clinton’s Campaign Manager, John Podesta, Also Did Quite Well With Russian Money

The FBI warned technology companies to avoid the Skolkovo initiative due to concerns that Russian companies backed by Putin’s government wanted to gain access to “classified, sensitive, and emerging technology” from U.S. tech companies. But undeterred by the warning, Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, went ahead and served on the Skolkovo board representing Joule Energy, a solar company based in the Netherlands.

Two months after Podesta joined the foreign firm (which included senior Russian officials), a $35 million transfer came in from Rusnano, an investment firm founded by Putin. One of the investors in Joule was Hans-Jorg Wyss, a major Clinton Foundation donor. Podesta consulted for a foundation run by him.

Podesta, who formerly served as chief of staff to Bill Clinton, failed to disclose his position on the board of this offshore company in federal financial reports, as appears to be clearly required by law, prompting the FBI investigation. Additionally, while serving in that position he headed the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress, which wrote favorably about the Russian government, apparently in exchange for money secretly funneled to the organization by Russians, according to Schweizer. The organizations in the trail of money have ties to Russian oil and gas companies, which opposed U.S. efforts to explore fracking and natural gas.

ClintonTrump-Russian-Funding-Chart-2-900

How Many Pay-to-Play Schemes are Connected to the Clinton Foundation and the Putin Government?

Schweizer’s report alludes to numerous apparent quid pro quos like this one. “The other senior State Department official involved in the Skolkovo process was Lorraine Hariton,” he writes, “the State Department’s Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs. (Hariton served on Hillary Clinton’s National Finance Committee during the 2008 campaign.)”

I have previously covered other similar pay-to-play operations involving Clinton’s revolving door between the state department and the Clinton Foundation. Congressional members are now demanding an investigation into a large transfer of money to the Clinton Foundation made by the Russian owner of Uranium One, which was timed when Clinton gave authorization as secretary of state for him to buy the company.

Trump’s Campaign Manager was Demoted and Resigned After His Russian Ties Were Exposed

Trump has also been criticized for hiring a presidential campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who has ties to funding from the Russian government, specifically, by way of his connection to a former pro-Russian Ukrainian regime. However, Manafort was only in that position for four months, and resigned Friday from the campaign due to the controversy.

In 2012, Manafort and one of his associates helped the Ukrainian organization European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, which included members of then-president Viktor Yanukovych’s ruling party, direct money to Washington firms to lobby Congress for the benefit of Yanukovych. (Yanukovych was eventually forced out due to corruption and fled to Russia.) Like Podesta, Manafort was criticized for failing to notify the Department of Justice as a lobbyist about ties to foreign parties and leaders. Regardless, the FBI has said Manafort is not the target of their investigation.

ClintonTrump-Russian-Funding-Chart-3-900

Podesta Blames the Client

The Podesta Group also represented Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The lobbying firm is now threatening to turn on its own client, issuing this statement,

The firm has retained Caplin & Drysdale as independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre’s potential ties to foreign governments or political parties. When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that “none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.” We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Centre.

It remains to be seen whether Podesta will resign as Clinton’s campaign chair. Unlike Trump, Clinton doesn’t seem to have a problem with her campaign manager’s deals, perhaps because she was heavily involved with the same type of activity herself. Tellingly, Trump replaced Manafort with Breitbart News chief Steve Bannon, who made Schweizer’s Clinton Cash into a documentary. It sends a strong message as to how Trump will treat covert funding from Putin’s government. (For more from the author of “The Trump-Russia Link: Notable. The Hillary-Russia Web: Huge.” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bible at Air Force Base Infuriates Atheist

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Bible that an Air Force officer kept on his work desk at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado has infuriated a group opposed to allowing military members to exercise their faith in public.

WND reported last week that the Air Force removed the Bible from the desk of Maj. Steve Lewis of the 310th Space Wing after a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

The organization claimed the Bible’s presence violated Air Force policy and the U.S. Constitution.

At the time, Mikey Weinstein, president of the group, said, “The 310th ‘Space’ Wing is NOT called the 310th ‘Space For My Personal Proselytizing Christian Bible Shrine’ Wing for a damn good reason” . . .

He immediately lashed out with a letter to the Department of Defense’ inspector general, Glenn Fine, as well as Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., Air Force Secretary Deborah James, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein and others. (Read more from “Bible at Air Force Base Infuriates Atheist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barber Has Surprising Reaction When Trump’s Running Mate Stops in for a Haircut

/0 Comments/in , /by

During a tour through Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s running mate, made a quick stop for a haircut in Norristown.

Pence was surrounded by reporters and camera crews as he entered Henry Jones’ barbershop.

Yet despite the media fanfare surrounding the incident, the barber had no idea he was cutting the hair of such a high-profile figure.

After Jones finished cutting Pence’s hair, he shook the governor’s hand and said, “Your name was?”

“Mike Pence,” he replied. “I’m the governor of the state of Indiana, and I’m running for vice president of the United States.”

“Go ahead, man. Whoa,” replied the 74-year-old barber with a chuckle. “Vice president? Oh boy.”

“We were just in town doing a rally, campaigning, and heard you were the place to come for a haircut,” said Pence. “You’re very gracious.”

Throughout the haircut, Pence and the elderly barber discussed several issues, including the barber’s 40 years of experience cutting hair, the places Pence frequents in Indiana for his regular haircuts, sports and even married life.

Surprisingly, the one issue Pence did not discuss on the campaign stop was the 2016 election.

“Give me a handshake again,” said Jones toward the end of the event. “This is great. Woo! This is history over here, I’m telling you.”

“We’re hoping to make some history,” replied Pence, before taking a picture with the man and another member of his campaign.

Pence was visiting Pennsylvania on Tuesday while Trump was in Texas for a live town hall with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. (For more from the author of “Barber Has Surprising Reaction When Trump’s Running Mate Stops in for a Haircut” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.