Comment: “Silverman anecdotally explained herself in a story about her then boyfriend raising a flag in his yard. She recounts feeling rather uncomfortable and placed a call to her sister. It was then that her sister told her that “Jews have an innate fear of nationalism” according to Sarah. Rather understandable considering the past.”
With regard to Mel Gibson’s anti-semitism, “Jews, Jews loved that, because it’s something that you can point to, and not just this gas in the air.”
The big boys get to discriminate but we don’t.
Facebook’s features let advertisers limit which users see their material, ideally those who will be more interested in their products. But currently included in the “demographics” section of their ad-targeting tool is the ability to select which users see material based on their “ethnic affinity,” which the social titan began offering two years ago to aid its multicultural advertising. Facebook automatically lumps users into these categories based on their activity and interests — categories which advertisers can choose to exclude or specifically target.
Since the social network doesn’t ask users to racially identify themselves, Facebook collects activity data and then assigns each user an “ethnic affinity.” This is basically a preference for stories, events and organizations that coincide with those the social network believes are also held by a certain ethnic group.
At this year’s South by Southwest, a Facebook entertainment executive and Universal Pictures’ EVP of digital marketing held a panel explaining how the studio harnessed the social network’s “ethnic affinity” ad targeting tools to show different trailers of the movie Straight Outta Compton to different ethnic groups. The preview shown to Facebook-assigned “non-multicultural” (non-African-American, non-Hispanic) users showcased the film’s characters wielding guns, driving tricked-out cars and clashing with the police. The trailer shown to African-American-affinity users seemed to be from a wholly different film, a memoir about real performers’ historical impact.
Targeted advertising isn’t new, especially for Facebook, but targeting or excluding ethnic groups is dangerous legal territory. In a report released this morning, ProPublica suggested that the “ethnic affinity” preferential advertising potentially violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which makes it illegal to print or publish, or allow to be printed or published, any housing advertisement that indicates preference or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. That was a specific elaboration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which legally forbids any ads from listing prohibited preference, limits or discrimination when recruiting employees.
Facebook’s policies forbid using its ad-targeting tools to “discriminate against, harass, provoke, or disparage users or to engage in predatory advertising practices.” If advertisers do use Custom Audiences, they have to abide by its terms, which were updated September 30th, and comply with local laws. “Ethnic affinity” seems as close to targeting a racial group as Facebook can get without running aground of the above laws, though Ars Technica points out that the “affinity” group definitions resemble ethnic makeup far more than shared interests.
ProPublica noted that they created an ad seeking housing hunters on Facebook that excluded anyone with an “affinity” for minority groups, which they note was approved 15 minutes after submission. When they showed prominent civil rights lawyer John Relman their options to exclude minority-affinity users from seeing their Facebook ad, he said it was a blatant violation of the Fair Housing Act, and would be therefore illegal. When asked for comment, Facebook said that ProPublica’s ad was for an event about housing but not seeking individual renters or buyers; Thus its targeting applied to potential attendees, not customers.
Great cover!
* Someone should do a nice excel spreadsheet for our current and recent past elites and influencers. I’d like to quickly see how many are Jewish, homosexual, liberal, etc. What percent of cultural damage is done by the sexually confused or perverted?
* The journalist cries out as he hits you.
* The poofter cries out in pain as he beats you?
* What he means by “the quality of their work had slipped” is that they were marginally less willing to libel innocent people in service of The Narrative because they thought there might actually be consequences.
* The RS article on UVA was all about exposing white male privilege of spoiled jocks.
But it seems the real sense of glib nasty entitlement prevails among Wenner and crowd.
This is all the more ironic since RS promotes the kind of trash culture that simplifies everything down to excess, thuggery, hedonism, and sex.
* Second Rule of SJWs: SJWs always double down.
Wenner’s claim that, “Believe me, I’ve suffered as much as you have,” is revealing. Nicole Eramo suffered because she was falsely accused and her defamed at a national level. Wenner suffered because in irresponsibly launching the false accusation, he has damaged his professional reputation. Somehow I fail to see the equivalence.
* Wenner controls who does and does not get into the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame. He has made the point of keeping many popular rock acts out of the Rock”nRoll Hall of Fame. Some got in by fans basically demanding it, as with Kiss, Rush and Neil Diamond. For some acts, that ban still stands, including Deep Purple, Yes and Bon Jovi. And inductees like Steve Miller and Diamond have complained about how crappy the HoF treats them. And all the while the HoF has been inducting acts that aren’t really rock at all like Diana Ross, Donna Summer and Run DMC. Now those are all fine musical acts, but they aren’t rock. Similar to The Narrative the HoF has tried to sell the idea rock’n’roll has been some kind of diverse multi culti melting pot. Anyone who has been to almost any rock show since the 1970s can tell you otherwise. Now perhaps some major rock figures like Clapton and Jagger have babbled on and on about The Blues (witness Jagger and Martin Scorcese making a mess of that with “Vinyl”). But really simple fact is while Elvis and then the Beatles rock may have jumped off the blues, rock is different and apart form the blues. And it’s better. And for better or worse spare Jimi Hendrix it’s mostly a white art form. Simply white people pay the freight in rock’n’roll, but that doesn’t fit The Narrative.
* In a trial, witnesses appear before a judge and jury, who assess their credibility not from an electronic image, but from their gait in entering and leaving the witness box, their smell, and everything else that an in-person meeting can convey. A trial-by-video is a way to avoid requiring busy witnesses to show up in person, disrupting their active high-income lifestyle. What court case established the legal validity of trial-by-TV? Curiously, the words “judge” and “jury” do not appear in this article.
* “I’m very, very sorry,” he said, then added quickly, “Believe me, I’ve suffered as much as you have.”
This is a tell of a sociopath: warped belief that a major catastrophe happening to someone else is properly equated with their own personal embarrassment and discomfort.
Wenner isn’t being glib or insulting on purpose; he truly does think that having his magazine’s shoddy reporting exposed and ridiculed is the exact same as someone being falsely accused of rape and being threatened and attacked and blackballed by large groups of people. He’s that selfish and messed up. It’s no wonder Wenner felt ok promoting degeneracy all those decades, or felt justified in posting a picture of a terrorist posed as a rock star on his cover. His values are all screwed up.
The Anonymous Conservative once showed how Mike Wallace was a sociopath. Wallace called the worst moment of his life as when he was sued for libel, and had to sit in court listening to the case against him. Keep in mind that this libel case occurred after Wallace had personally discovered the body of his dead son, who had fallen off a cliff.
Yet Mike Wallace considered the libel case against him much worse than his child’s accidental death and his discover of it. That’s how sociopathic he was: his own discomfort was far worse than the death of his young son.
* Jackie is a very silly, very troubled girl of the kind with a pathological need to always be At the Center of Attention. Normal people simply ignore them, which is punishment enough for that type.
I save my opprobrium for her enablers, who should have known better. The mentally ill cannot be blamed for becoming more deeply delusional when they see their delusions praised and validated by authority figures.
The Jackies of the world are harmless in the absence of enablers. Silly girly-girls who tell each other about their future careers as a TV actress and the ups and downs of their long-distance relationship with Liam Hemsworth, are pretty low on scale of stuff that ought to concern anyone. They grow up and buy lots of cats and watch soap operas.
It’s the interaction with and amplification by the far more dangerous and sophisticated delusions of the Megaphone that’s the problem.
* On the same subject, Donald Trump’s accusers are beauty queens, porn actresses, and other such members of opportunistic trades.
Bill’s (and Hill’s) are rank-and-file Democrats once working or volunteering for him.
So which of these two classes of women do Democrats expect us to believe are more credible? Sure says a lot!
* Rolling Stone looks stupid. However, the complexity of multiple law suits can result in weird things happening. I will just toss in some speculative thoughts.
1. Whatever they admit in the first case can and will be used against them in the remaining two (or maybe more).
2. They have insurance. Probably with a big deductible or retention. Probably covers legal defense costs. Probably excludes intentional acts.
3. They might not have been able to settle these. The obvious thing would be to settle em and move on. But the defendants are neither normal people nor business people. The plaintiffs … exp the Frats … probably have plenty of pro bono firepower.
4. The $10 million? You don’t sue for $10 million to win $10 million. The claimed damages are always a first step in negotiations. If she had sued for $1 million, Rolling Stone could have simply defaulted. Even if she wins $10 million, it would be appealed and then settled for less, simply to get the money before multiple years of appeals. If she gets $2 million in net cash, that would be a good settlement for her.
5. The theoretical cost of buying advertising to counteract the enormous amount of negative publicity is ridiculous.
6. Part of the Rolling Stone defense is that the article was true with respect to rape culture at UVA. Truth is an absolute defense in liable. They have the DOJ on their side in this. It’s a mess at this point, because Eramo is in a bizarre position of being in charge of fighting the non existent rape culture.
7. Other than scholarship athletes, the types of males that get into UVA tend to be nerdy. Jackie’s friends, for example. And the athletes don’t have to work up a sweat, much less violence to find sexually receptive women. As far as I can see, rape culture is pretty much drunken sex gone bad. Real rape … the kind that used to be a capital crime … involved strangers using unequivocal violence. It’s a police matter.
My take on it is that RS’s defense strategy has some legal merit. On the other hand, Weiner should have been ‘prepared’ better by his lawyers. He doesn’t seem like the kind of guy that is likely to follow directions — which is one reason he looks like such an ass.
In my opinion, Rolling Stone is an anachronism, and basically useless since no one pays for music anymore. I paid some attention to their work on the financial crisis, and it was weak. They tried to stake out some ground on the leftish side, but only succeeded in terms of using more inflammatory rhetoric — but offered nothing. The best stuff was in blogs, and everything that was interesting was details. Their writers were innumerate for starters. Zero understand of elementary finance or accounting. I suppose they weren’t alone — but it was a huge story and there was plenty of material that could have been mined. The point being that all the main stream media was weak. But Rolling Stone was at ground zero and it was the biggest and best story of the last decade. They were irrelevant long before this, and they pissed away their last, big opportunity.
* It’s not just that Jackie Coakley made up her story, but that Sabrina Rubin Erdely made up virtually the entire article–not just the parts about Jackie. She relied heavily on a complete fabrication of obscene lyrics to an old campus ‘drinking song’ called “Rugby Road” as a prime illustration of the “poisonous atmosphere” against women at Virginia, using pullquotes from the fake lyrics to punctuate sections and episodes. Apparently she found them on an internet site devoted to scatological humor, which ran contests to find out who could come up with the most offensive lyrics to existing songs. These fake quotes made up a recurring theme in Rubin’s screed.
The fictional rapists? Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone piece, told the Washington Post, “We did not talk to them. We could not reach them.” However, he says they “verified their existence” by talking to Jackie’s friends. “I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were.” Never mind that ‘these guys’ never even existed.
Slate’s Allison Benedikt and Hanna Rosin explored why Erdely didn’t include a response from Jackie’s alleged attackers. Woods told them he’s “done talking about the story” and added: “Through our extensive reporting and fact-checking, we found Jackie to be entirely credible and courageous and we are proud to have given her disturbing story the attention it deserves.”
What may not be clear is that these SJWs really don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. “Facts” are mutable and fluid, but the Narrative remains constant and irrefutable. Facts, if they can be said to exist at all, only serve to confirm the Narrative else they are worthless and pernicious.
It’s a shame that nobody was around to teach Danielle Berrin these facts of life.
RAPE is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.
In dramatizing the pervasiveness of rape, feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract’s. In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been the victims of rape. On elite campuses in the Northeast and on the West Coast, they have held consciousness-raising sessions, petitioned administrations, demanded inquests. At Brown University, outraged, panicky “victims” have scrawled the names of alleged attackers on the walls of women’s rest rooms. What marital rape was to the ’70s, “date rape” is to the ’90s.
The incidence and seriousness of rape do not require this kind of exaggeration. Real acquaintance rape is nothing new. It has been a horrible problem for women for all of recorded history. Once, fathers and brothers protected women from rape. Once, the penalty for rape was death. I come from a fierce Italian tradition where, not so long ago in the motherland, a rapist would end up knifed, castrated and hung out to dry.
But the old clans and small rural communities have broken down. In our cities, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism has not prepared them for this. Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can’t. Women will always be in sexual danger.
One of my male students recently slept overnight with a friend in a passageway of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. He described the moon and sand, the ancient silence and eerie echoes.
I am a woman. I will never experience that. I am not stupid enough to believe I could ever be safe there. There is a world of solitary adventure I will never have. Women have always known these somber truths. But feminism, with its pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the perfect world, keeps young women from seeing life as it is.
WE must remedy social injustice whenever we can. But there are some things we cannot change. There are sexual differences that are based in biology. Academic feminism is lost in a fog of social constructionism. It believes we are totally the product of our environment. This idea was invented by Rousseau. He was wrong.
Emboldened by dumb French language theory, academic feminists repeat the same hollow slogans over and over to each other. Their view of sex is naive and prudish. Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist’s.
The sexes are at war. Men must struggle for identity against the overwhelming power of their mothers. Women have menstruation to tell them they are women. Men must do or risk something to be men. Men become masculine only when other men say they are. Having sex with a woman is one way a boy becomes a man.
College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walking into Testosterone Flats, full of prickly cacti and blazing guns. If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them. A girl who lets herself get dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool. A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot. Feminists call this “blaming the victim.” I call it common sense.
FOR a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not of sex.” This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class.
Aggression and eroticism, in fact, are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pursuit and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality. Every generation, men must be educated, refined and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness.
Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman’s protection against rape. Feminism, with its solemn Carrie Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it.
The date-rape controversy shows feminism hitting the wall of its own broken promises. The women of my ’60s generation were the first respectable girls in history to swear like sailors, get drunk, stay out all night – in short, to act like men. We sought total sexual freedom and equality. But as time passed, reality dawned. The old double standard protected women. When anything goes, it’s women who lose.
Today’s young women don’t know what they want. They see feminism has not brought sexual happiness. The theatrics of public rage over date rape are their way of restoring the old sexual rules that were shattered by my generation.
Yet nothing about the sexes has really changed. The comic film “Where The Boys Are” (1960), the ultimate expression of ’50s man-chasing, still speaks directly to our time. It shows smart, lively women skillfully anticipating and fending off the dozens of strategies with which men try to get them into bed.
The agonizing subplot and climax are brilliantly done. The victim, Yvette Mimieux, makes mistake after mistake, obvious to the other girls. She allows herself to be lured away from her girlfriends and into isolation with boys whose character and intentions she misreads. “Where the Boys Are” tells the truth. It shows courtship as a dangerous game in which the signals are not verbal but subliminal.
Neither militant feminism, which is obsessed with politically correct language, nor academic feminism, which believes that knowledge and experience are “constituted by” language, can understand preverbal or non-verbal communication. Feminism, focusing on sexual politics, cannot see that sex exists in and through the body. Sexual desire and arousal cannot be fully translated into verbal terms. This is why men and women misunderstand each other.
Trying to remake the future, feminism cut itself off from sexual history. It discarded and suppressed the sexual myths of literature, art and religion. Those myths show us the turbulence, mysteries and passions of sex. In mythology we see men’s sexual anxiety, their fear of woman’s dominance. Much sexual violence is rooted in men’s sense of psychological weakness toward women.
It takes many men to deal with one woman. Woman’s voracity is a persistent motif. Clara Bow, it was rumored, took on the USC football team on weekends. Marilyn Monroe, singing “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend,” rules a conga line of men in tuxes. Half-clad Cher, in the video for “If I Could Turn Back Time,” deranges a battleship of sailors and straddles a pink-lit cannon. Feminism, coveting social power, is blind to woman’s cosmic sexual power.
To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony. Every woman must be prudent and cautious about where she goes and with whom. When she makes a mistake, she must accept the consequences and, through self-criticism, resolve never to make that mistake again.
Running to mommy and daddy or the campus grievance committee is unworthy of strong women. Posting lists of guilty men in the toilet is cowardly, infantile stuff.
THE Italian philosophy of life espouses high-energy confrontation. A male student makes a vulgar remark about your breasts? Don’t slink off to whimper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, “Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!” In general, women who project this take-charge attitude toward life get harassed less often.
I see too many dopey, immature, self-pitying women walking around like melting sticks of butter. It’s the Yvette Mimieux syndrome: Make me happy. And listen to me weep when I’m not.
The date-rape debate is already smothered in propaganda churned out by the expensive Northeastern colleges and universities, with their overconcentration of boring, uptight academic feminists and spoiled, affluent students. Beware of the deep manipulativeness of rich students who were neglected by their parents. They love to turn the campus into hysterical psychodramas of sexual transgression, followed by assertions of parental authority and concern. And don’t look for sexual enlightenment from academe, which spews out mountains of books but never looks at life directly.
As a fan of football and rock music, I see in the swaggering masculinity of the jock and in the noisy posturing of the heavy-metal guitarist certain fundamental, unchanging truths about sex. Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy.
The only solution to date rape is female self-awareness and self-control. A woman’s No. 1 line of defense against rape is herself. When a real rape occurs, she should report it to the police. Complaining to college committees because the courts “take too long” is ridiculous.
College administrations are not a branch of the judiciary. They are not equipped or trained for legal inquiry. Colleges must alert incoming students to the problems and dangers of adulthood. Then colleges must stand back and get out of the sex game.
Although merely a modest staffer, Eramo has a difficult legal hurdle to overcome in winning justice from Rolling Stone because the judge declared her to be a “limited purpose public figure.”
(Bizarrely, the judge also ruled that hoax artist Jackie Coakley is only to be identified by her first name, and he merely required her to give a deposition on tape—on which she repeatedly claimed memory loss due to post-traumatic stress disorder.)
…The bigger picture is that we live in a culture where a liberal Jewish feminist journalist like Erdely is paid well to vilify as haters those she hates, and is seldom asked to recognize that she’s projecting her own racist animus upon the victims of her bigotry such as Eramo and Phi Kappa Psi.
Because of how much insight it offers into Hillary Clinton’s America, here’s the key thing to remember about the Haven Monahan hoax: Virtually every single professional journalist in the country believed (or at least submitted to) the Erdely-Coakley bad craziness. The New York Times, for instance, treated it as gospel….
The larger question of why the mainstream media were so credulous about this palpable fraud has, of course, been of negligible interest to the mainstream media.
Why did they acquiesce to such conspiracy-theory insanity?
First, Erdely’s article was part of the well-organized push by the Obama Administration over the purported “rape culture on campus” crisis.
* I was talking to a Korean girl recently about the politics of the country, with a special interest on race and multicultural stuff.
She told me that Park is part of the conservative party, but is demanding halal food in universities, which apparently has caused controversy. Also, the first non-ethnic Korean to be in the parliament was part of the same party.
It looks like their “conservatives” are basically what the Republican elite was 15 years ago: hawkish, awful on the national question, and pro-immigration and multiculturalism.
* How do you say “cuck” in korean? kuck-san park?
* So basically no matter how powerful the woman is, we see a pattern of a stronger reliance by them on fortune-tellers and other occult hucksters than powerful men do. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth or Catherine the Great had personal occultist fortune-tellers to help them through things.
Elizabeth, in particular, seems to have been a prime mark for a charlatan: with her extreme unpopularity (history has whitewashed it as her being a super-hero British ruler, but in reality she was very much disliked by her subjects), the many assassination plots (due to her unpopularity both within in her kingdom, as well as from power-hungry rivals, Catholics, Irish/Scottish/Welsh haters, and foreign nations), her religious ambiguity, the open invasion threats from Spain and France, her lack of marriage and issue, and her paranoid mindset (Walshingham’s spies)—-well, let’s just say that lady would have been very open to a “psychic” easing her mind by telling her everything would be alright so long as he was allowed to tell her which dress to wear, which place not to visit on the full moon, which lady in waiting was of the wrong star sign to trust, etc.
That also leads to another question—does Hillary have a personal medium? What about Angela Merkel?
* Queen Elizabeth had John Dee as her astrologer and advisor.
* I know a rich Jewish family in California who have their own holy men on retainer.
This family is the most rotten in the community. Truly terrible people.
When it comes to their magical holy man everybody knows that he is their puppet, not the other way around.
* Female rulers are a sign that the mandate of heaven has been lost and doom shall surely soon befall you. This is as the Marxist would say a historical inevitability. Any people who suffers to be ruled by a woman will be cursed. Doubly so those who actively CHOOSE to be ruled by one.
* New York Times in 1996: Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Seances” were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi.
* Women have extremely fickle friendships compared to men; one woman described it to me in this way: “Women don’t have friends; they just have enemies they want to keep close for a little while.” Men tend to stay in contact with old buddies and will go out golfing with the same guy they played video games/baseball with when they were kids. Females, in contrast, compete with other women through social manipulation, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings and broken friendships (or, alternatively, the easy disregard of a friendship when the friends no longer run in the same circles).
But women tend to feel guilty and needy about not having a “deep” female confidante. So hustling female confidantes play on that and offer them a “deep” relationship to bilk them/control them. Or the confidantes are manipulative lesbians biding their time to hope/trick the powerful woman into a relationship.
Incidentally, this is why women tend to be the majority of authors/readers of “slash fiction.” Slash fiction is a genre of internet fan stories about famous pop culture male friends (e.g. Spock and Kirk, Holmes and Watson, Picard and Data, Pitt and Clooney’s characters from Ocean’s 11) that end up being homosexual love stories (I know, eww).
Women write and devour slash fiction tales, but they make no sense to men (and, again, the eww factor). It’s because women don’t “get” long-lasting male friendships, and so think it “must” be sexual, because that’s the only way they could ever stay so close to someone.
* Weiner and Abedin are the new Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Ali Riza.
* I heard from a wise friend that Huma and Antony are still married only to prevent testimony on one another.
* To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes.
* Whereas to any normal person Weiner comes across as repellent both in looks and behavior.
* Do we Americans need to be exposed to this carnival freak show, this Confederacy of Dunces?
We do not.
It is well past time to elect leaders who will put Americans first. It is time to turn our backs on the cesspools that our ancestors climbed out of to come here — or the ones our ancestors, and we, never had anything to do with!
It is time for US to vote.
* If you watch the Weiner documentary, you definitely get the sense that they’re not married-married, and (surprising for me because I want to hate her) Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure. She’s stuck with this narcissistic deviated prevert and really seems to make the best of it with a stiff upper lip and all that. In private she seems positively girly in a charming way, which I did not expect given her close association with uber-shrike HRC. You really do come away feeling that she’s a human being and he’s, well, the other thing. So, part of me hopes that she’s not the lone sacrificial goat who takes the hit for a vast criminal organization.
* Service to the Muslim Brotherhood means that a woman may have to do many distasteful things for the sake of Allah.
* I never thought the pairing was odd at all. Hillary needed for Huma to have a beard to dispel stories about her and Huma having a lesbian affair and Huma being a kept woman.
Enter the patsy, one Mr. Weiner, a ambitious, stupid and relatively clueless man desperate to climb the political ladder. Then installed in a lifeless and probably sexless marriage – everything goes well until he cracks.
Oh I doubt she could do any better in terms of a fake mate for a multitude of reasons. Most men simply have more self-respect than that, and simply sell out the old fashioned way to some monied interest so he gets the bucks and bimbos.
In religious terms, her fanatical family allowed it for one reason – it gave the KSA/MB direct intel as to what is happening in one of the most powerful families in D.C. For all intents she’s a Mata Hari. Otherwise she’d be found strangled to death in her parents home like so many other Muslima who stray.
* Apropos of Comey’s decision to go public with the reopening of the case against Hillary, and, apparently, against standard protocol and the urging of Loretta Lynch, I think the interpretation that makes most sense by far is the obvious one: the FBI has found something very significant in those emails, and he couldn’t justify doing anything else.
In the end, Comey has got to be concerned fundamentally with his own reputation. Suppose he believed that, in fact, in the end, these emails might well turn out to be nothing of consequence. Yet he has now violated the standard protocols and the DOJ admonishments, and has turned the election against Hillary at a critical juncture. Under those circumstances, when the day would arrive that the concern with the emails was dismissed, he would never be able to recover his reputation–he would become a legendary object of scorn. I just don’t see how a man in Comey’s position would ever take those steps.
People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move, even though he knows that the emails are likely not significant. But the one thing that he won’t be able to do in either of those scenarios is save his own reputation — he will be demonized forever over any such clear chicanery. Nothing could make this worthwhile for a man in his position.
I infer from all this that Comey must believe that there are smoking guns in this batch of emails, and that the case for illegality is very strong. That is his only way out of this mess with his reputation intact.
* That’s why isolationism is a natural turn of events for the USA. Most people are tired of the M.E., and Europe has to solve its own squabbles. I mean, Old Ironsides was a great vessel to destroy the Barbary Coast nasties, but, heck, we have nukes, and, we don’t need Europe or the M.E. Everyone wants our soldiers out of the M.E. for good – the national debt is too high – “the rent is too damn high.” U.S. needs to rebuild the economy of the Rust-Belt and Plains States. The infrastructure must be rebuilt.
* The leading story on Google News right now is one from the Washington Post headlined “Trump’s bizarre claim that the Clinton email controversy is bigger than Watergate.”
A story that should utterly destroy Clinton’s chances at winning is somehow spun into a story against Trump. Only in today’s MSM.
* I’ve visited the Temple Mount twice, as is my right under the “status quo”. Before going up you get searched twice, once for weapons and once for prayer articles – they open your wallet to check you haven’t got a copy of grace after meals. Then you go up surrounded by a group of Israeli police armed with submachine guns pointed inwards at you whilst leering Arabs hurl abuse. The second time I was arrested for … kissing a rock with my hands and bowing slightly as I left. I’ve now signed a solemn statement promising never to act in such a disgraceful manner again. The UN resolution describes this as “far right extremists” “storming” the temple mount. So, yes, Italy can go F themselves.
* Part of the problem is that Abedin is romantically linked to Hillary. The inclination is to not fire your spouse, even if they are a screw-up, and this complicates efficient policy and administration and tangles lines of authority.
* It’s been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a “war for Israel” and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria’s religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet’s nest.
I actually partly agree with the Jew-phobes that the US often is too deferential to Israel and to (perceived) Jewish interests. It is ironic, therefore, that when the the US–well, Obama and Hillary, who aren’t really American, but you know what I mean–finally does act against Israeli interest, it does so in a way that is against US interest as well. In fact, that is the only unifying thread I have ever found in all of Obama’s and Hillary’s actions: they always do whatever they think will most harm America.
* Both women needed a beard and also felt they should have a child. Finding a man willing to marry them under such an unconventional circumstance entailed making compromises in the type of man available. Both ended up with sex-addict men with the understanding they could go their own way as long as they fulfilled the beard, career and child part of the bargain. However, both these men have turned out to be huge public embarrassments and real liabilities.
I understand that at the time of the creation of Israel the Saudi monarch was not particularly opposed to it. They’ve had to pay lip service towards Arab solidarity over the years just for political reasons but no official Saudi soldier has been killed fighting Israel in the years since. The Saudis do not trust the other Arabs who may want to see them toppled so for Israel to keep them all in disarray works in their favor. Of course Huma lets her family members know what’s going on and they in turn pass it on. The connection is worth it’s weight in gold so they’re delighted that their daughter made the supreme sacrifice with her body to help them in this way.
* It should be noted that in the first open mommy v. daddy election that the ‘take downs’ resemble something out of the family courts. The orchestrated release of the Access Hollywood tapes and then the “11 women to come forward” smells of high conflict divorce proceeding replete with Gloria Allred appearing publicly with the broken housewife (albeit it one who was a washed up porn star). There is zero chance that there could be a legal action with any of these women; their only purpose is to gain leverage, but rather than custody or alimony the prize is thwarting the Donald’s Presidential bid. Even the pukey Alicia Machado- Miss Piggy – eating machine crisis of a month ago (which has disappeared) came across like a jilted past lover with an ax to grind.
The funny thing is that this could come down to Anthony Wiener playing the one last card in his hand. No doubt, Huma is drilling him for custody, visitation, alimony, and the family assets. Based on what he has been accused of, his chances in court are slim and his future looks like a metaphoric cremation followed by a secret burial with no headstone. Huma’s future is to live out her life with her true love and all the cash and prizes, just like many divorces. In most divorces this would be where the husband outs the wife’s drug use or promiscuous lifestyle but in Huma’s case it is protecting her employer’s / mentors criminal enterprise. Usually, it is the man’s job that ace’s him out. In this case it is her’s.
For multiple reasons, this was the absolute best time for Huma to dump Weiner. They have only been married 6 years so there is no long term marriage (assuming NY is like California). Her income stood to leap up due to her central position in the pay to play insider deals while his looked like they were heading South for good. This means there would be no possibility of alimony for Huma or a settlement that would have gotten her free of alimony. Using the leverage of the underage texting, that pretty much killed Weiner’s ability to get anything more than supervised visits thereby killing child support. This was THE opportunity to dump him, only she had some skeletons in the closet too. The couple deserved each other.
* Hillary shares the establishment view of Israel as an obsolete ethnostate, which fortunately has the West Bank Arabs to prevent it lasting very long as a Jewish entity. Pleasure-seeking US Jews are going along with US foreign policy through incomprehension of its objectives. Ehud Barak knew better, and that is why he offered more that anyone before or since in return for finally settling the status of Arabs in the West Bank.
* Perhaps, but by the time of the documentary, it’s several years since they wed and their child is a toddler. Their body language certainly doesn’t convey that these are two people who are lovers – she’s often in a closed posture (arms crossed across her body defensively, leaning away from him) and I don’t think you ever really see any physical affection. You get the sense that he’d be all over her (or anyone else the least bit willing) but she doesn’t remotely reciprocate. Part of it seems to be that Weiner doesn’t possess the ability to interpret other people’s emotions, facial expressions, and body language – there’s one part where he’s re-watching his disastrous performance being interviewed on MSNBC by Lawrence O’Donnell and laughing at his obstinance while Huma is obviously crestfallen and embarrassed for him he just can’t seem to understand it. (This is, of course, at a time when one would think he’d be especially sensitive to his wife’s emotional state because he had just been caught for the second time).
Now, it is possible that this is because she’s been attending to her mistress in and around DC and he’s been left to his own devices in NYC for a while and they never had an extended period of being stuck together and living a married life.
Paul Sperry published this two days before the FBI announcement about re-opening its Hillary Clinton email investigation. So far, it is the best article I have read on this story.
Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.
The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.
FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.
If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.
Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.
The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”
While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”
Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.
In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.
However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.
The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”
In other words, Abedin, whose email account was [email protected], was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.
Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.
Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.
“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her Yahoo.com account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.
Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”
By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.
Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.
I asked some attractive women for their analysis and they said in essence: She tries so hard to be smart but she’s not. That she wrote this article (and how she wrote it) confirms how dumb she is. Given her looks, if she had any talent, she would have moved on by now.
Danielle Berrin writes today:
Yesterday, Ari Shavit offered an apology — to no one in particular — for “misconstruing the interaction between us,” which he says he understood as “flirtation.”
His claim is absurd. The only thing I wanted from Ari Shavit was an interview about his book. No person of sound judgment would have interpreted his advances on me as anything other than unwanted, aggressive sexual contact.
As recounted in my article, he engaged in physically aggressive behavior — grabbing the back of my head, lurching at me for a kiss, pulling and pawing at me, and pressuring me to enter his hotel room — “We don’t have to have sex,” he told me. “I just want to give you a hug.” Except, he also implied he wanted to impregnate me and suggested I become his mistress. Throughout our interaction, he touched me in ways I did not want to be touched and he caused me to fear for my safety.
None of this was flirtation; this was an assault on my dignity and professionalism that frightened and disturbed me. According to the United States Department of Justice, the definition of sexual assault is “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” That Shavit would claim it was “flirtation” is not only misguided, it suggests I was participating in his scheme when, indeed, I was the victim; I was afraid he’d further assault me if I did not escape.
Many aspects of that night remain clear in my mind — the discomfort I felt, the sense of violation, the feeling of being trapped. But also, I remember how excited I was to interview the author of “My Promised Land,” a book of astonishing insight and self-reflection. It is mystifying to me how someone so deeply attuned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be so obtuse when it comes to human relationships.
I am glad Ari Shavit has at least acknowledged an encounter took place. As a committed Jew, I am always open to the possibility of forgiveness and redemption.
But Ari Shavit has yet to apologize for what he actually did; he did not apologize for committing sexual assault.
