Hillary Clinton and the Branch Davidian Holocaust

Do you remember Waco? Do you remember the Branch Davidian compound, led by one David Koresh? Do you remember the siege of the compound and the horrors that ensued?

If you don’t, here’s the story, told by David Hardy at American Thinker:

The 1993 Waco showdown began when federal authorities rushed the communal home of a religious group, killing six of them, and losing four agents in return. The FBI then besieged the place with tanks and other armored vehicles, and ended up with the armored vehicles punching holes in the building, and injecting massive quantities of CS “tear gas.” When that didn’t work, the tanks began to demolish the building, eventually smashing about a quarter of it and damaging the remainder. A fire broke out and 74 people died in the flames, including twenty-one children. It was the deadliest law enforcement operation in American history.

After the tragic debacle, the Clinton administration claimed that Attorney General Janet Reno had been solely responsible for the final assault. There had been no White House input during the siege, and at the end, President Clinton only acquiesced in a decision Reno had made.

The evidence is strong that the Clinton White House was calling the shots, and that Hillary played a prominent role.

As law enforcement operations go, it was the worst. It was a holocaust. Whoever was in charge, whoever gave the orders deserved to be publicly shamed and held accountable.

Unless of course, the responsible party was Hillary Clinton herself.

We know that then-Attorney General Janet Reno fell on her sword—sort of. She accepted responsibility while testifying before a Congressional committee. And yet, she kept her job.

Hardy suggests that the chain of command ran from Hillary herself through her former law partners Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell to Janet Reno. He adds that he believes that Janet Reno kept her job because the Clinton administration needed to keep her quiet.

In normal circumstances, the official who gave the order to attack the compound would have resigned in disgrace. Are we to believe that Reno did not need to resign because she was not responsible for incinerating dozens of people, including many children?

Linda Tripp—of Monica Lewinsky fame- described the reaction in the White House as officials saw what was happening on CNN:

Linda Tripp, White House secretary and Foster associate, described the real Waco chain of command in an on Larry King Live: “[Vincent] Foster, Mrs. Clinton, Webb Hubbell, Janet Reno” – and she described their reaction to the fire and the fiery deaths of 21 children:

L. TRIPP: [A] special bulletin came on [CNN] showing the atrocity at Waco and the children. And his face, his whole body slumped, and his face turned white, and he was absolutely crushed knowing, knowing the part he had played. And he had played the part at Mrs. Clinton's direction.

Her reaction, on the other hand, was heartless. And I can only tell you what I saw.

Foster had a special Waco file. Deborah Gorham, his personal secretary, said that he had a cabinet reserved for his most sensitive files: “There were two. One was Sean Hadden [a White House staffer], and the other was Waco.”

After his death, Foster’s Waco file somehow vanished. Secret Service Agent Henry O’Neil later testified before a Congressional committee that on the night of Foster’s death he encountered Maggie Williams leaving Foster’s office with two handfuls of folders. Williams denied removing any files, and when called upon to explain her presence in Foster’s office that night, claimed she had gone “in the irrational hope that she would find her colleague still alive there.”

Did Foster commit suicide because he knew that someone would have to take real responsibility for Waco?

In the end Hardy does not have a smoking gun connecting Hillary to the Waco catastrophe. And yet, his surmise makes perfectly good sense. One can only assume that Hillary was responsible and that the White House was trying to protect her reputation.

Would it have mattered? Perhaps, not that much. After all, Hillary’s leadership in the Libya incursion, to say nothing of her ability to provide security for Amb. Chris Stevens showed clearly enough her level of manifest incompetence.

As of now, people continue to promote the absurd notion that she is eminently qualified for the presidency.

Racial Violence in Philadelphia

We all know that the president is the national role model. He sets the mood and the tone of the nation. He defines the national attitude and the national character. Even when people do not look up to him they take him—perhaps unconsciously—as a role model.

Many of those who oppose Donald Trump have declared that American can do without his bullying, thuggish demeanor. They thrill to the courtly and genteel man we now have in the White House. It makes sense. Hasn't President Obama has ushered in an era of racial comity? Hasn't his presidency produced a color blind society where the races live in peace and harmony?

Unfortunately, for the white Temple University students who were set upon and beaten up by a band of black teenagers the other night, such is not the case. Presumably, only black lives matter. White students needed to be punished for their white privilege. Sometimes seemingly judicious rhetoric can, in the wrong hands, provoke violent assaults.

The father of one of the victims posted this:

The Daily Mail reports:

Four teenagers have been arrested after mobs of juveniles staged a series of vicious attacks on students around the Temple University campus.

Police said students were surrounded, punched, kicked, robbed and in some cases knocked to the ground in a spate of attacks by groups of teens on Friday night.

Packs of between 20 and 100 young people roved the area near the university campus in northern Philadelphia for nearly two hours from 8pm and picked on people at random.

Six students were injured and a university police officer was hurt when he was knocked over. A 15-year-old boy also punched a police horse in the face.

In a separate incident, a young woman was left covered in bruises after she was held down and stomped on repeatedly before employees from a nearby pizza restaurant intervened, her father said.

Another student, a junior, posted pictures of her black eye after she was beaten. 

She says the attackers punched her in the face as she walked back to her apartment with her boyfriend. 

It’s not obvious that the current administration is provoking or inciting violence toward whites. And yet, it has skillfully avoided addressing the issue of black crime and especially black-on-black violence. When blacks commit crimes the criminals are most often exonerated-- because it is all blamed on guns and the NRA. The administration has directed the nation’s attention toward violence committed by white police officers. It has blamed the conditions of black communities on white racism.

At the least, you can feel confident that you will not be reading about this story in the mainstream media.

Against Hillary

Yesterday, Ross Douthat made the case against Hillary Clinton. As it happens, the case he made was not really very strong. He argued that Hillary is an establishment type and that with her we will have more of the same. Even if you believe that the same is not very good and that we are sorely in need of a course change, you must recognize that more of the same is at least familiar. Most people, given the choice, will choose the familiar over the strange.

One might say that the Hillary candidacy harkens back to the days of the first Clinton administration, but most people did not have it so bad during those times. It might be wrong to give Bill Clinton all the credit, but he—unlike the current POTUS-- worked effectively with Republicans in Congress and even signed a number of the laws that arose from the Contract with America.

True,  Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and that much of America was disgusted by the way he treated women, but Republicans, dare I say, have recently lost all credibility on the question.

As it happens, Douthat believes that the American foreign policy establishment, in particular, made grievous errors over the past decades. In that he echoes an article penned by Angelo Codevilla in the Claremont Review of Books.

To read Codevilla you would think that everyone who has been in charge of American foreign policy has thought the same thoughts and implemented the same policies. And that they have all been wrong. One hesitates to embrace unthinkingly such a broad brush indictment.

To return to Douthat, here is his case against Hillary:

The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump’s authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They’re the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They’re the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn’t recognize itself as either, because it’s convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.

Unlike Codevilla, Douthat limited his indictment to the last 15 years:

Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by both wings of the political establishment. Likewise with the euro, the European common currency, a terrible idea that only cranks and Little Englanders dared oppose until the Great Recession exposed it as a potentially economy-sinking folly. Likewise with Angela Merkel’s grand and reckless open-borders gesture just last year: She was the heroine of a thousand profiles even as she delivered her continent to polarization and violence.

And, of course, there are other problems:

This record of elite folly — which doesn’t even include lesser case studies like our splendid little war in Libya — is a big part of why the United States has a “let’s try crazy” candidate in this election, and why there are so many Trumpian parties thriving on European soil.

He continued:

Indeed what is distinctive about Clinton, more even than Bush or Obama, is how few examples there are of her ever breaking with the elite consensus on matters of statecraft.

She was for the Iraq War when everyone was for it, against the surge when everyone had given up on Iraq, and then an unchastened liberal hawk again in Libya just a few short years later.

She was a Russia dove when the media mocked Mitt Romney for being a Russia hawk; now she’s a Russia hawk along with everyone else in Washington in a moment that might require de-escalation.

She cites Merkel as a model leader, she’s surrounded by a bipartisan foreign policy cadre that’s eager for a Details To Be Determine descalation in Syria, and she seems — like her Goldman Sachs audiences — intent on sailing serenely above the storm of nationalism rather than reconsidering any of the assumptions of her class.

Saying that Hillary Clinton has been hanging around with the wrong crowd does not feel very persuasive. Douthat might have noted the stench of corruption that surrounds her and that has infested the FBI and the Justice Department. And he might have asked whether she is competent. Surely, that is a more pertinent issue. Sinecures are one thing. Concrete achievements are quite another.

Douthat seems to believe that Hillary can be discredited for having the wrong ideas. I think it will take more. If it is even possible any more. If the election were being run as a battle between ideas, Trump would be winning. Unfortunately, it is a battle between two people. On that score Trump has not presented himself as the candidate of ideas or of competence.

The people in charge of American foreign policy have made significant errors—Codevilla lists them in excruciating detail—but it does not seem fair to lump them all together. Hasn’t there been a significant divide in the foreign policy establishment, between idealists and realists for a century at least?

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson did not see the world the same way. We saw how Wilson dealt with World War I and we can read what Roosevelt would have done in four volumes of contemporaneous newspaper columns. The difference was stark. Surely, we know that the American Senate rejected the call to join the Wilsonian (and Kantian) folly called the League of Nations.

In England Neville Chamberlin and Winston Churchill did not see the threat of Nazism the same way. In America, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy did not act in the same way when they were presented the chance to intervene in Vietnam.

Like it or not, the fall of Communism presented America with an enormous foreign policy challenge. As it happened G. H. W. Bush handled the crisis skillfully.  No one really pays it much mind.  Historians prefer chaos and drama to effective leadership.

Codevilla offered his indictment:

Since Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Democratic and Republican statesmen have confused America’s interest with mankind’s. In practice, they have taken upon themselves the role of mankind’s stewards (or sheriffs, leaders, pillars of order, or whatever) and acted as if, in Wilson’s words, America has “no reason for being” except to “stand for the right of men,” to be “champions of humanity.” Accordingly, a series of statesmen has forsaken war and diplomacy for strictly American ends and with means adequate to achieve them, and adopted foredoomed schemes pursued halfheartedly—Charles Evans Hughes (commitment to China’s integrity and renunciation of the means to uphold it), Franklin Roosevelt (seeking world co-domination with Stalin and the U.N. to banish “ancient evils, ancient ills”), Harry Truman (pursuing peace through no-win war in Korea), Nixon/Kissinger (scuttling Vietnam to help entice the Soviets into a grand detente), George W. Bush (democratizing the Middle East because America can’t be free unless and until the whole world is free).

True enough, George W. Bush got caught up in the ideological fervor when he announced that he would bring liberal democracy to the Middle East. But, Nixon and Kissinger drew down the Vietnam War because the American people were no longer willing to fight it. And, de-escalating Vietnam surely had something to do with the diplomatic opening with China. That must surely count for something.

Some presidents have pursued policies based on idealism, on the notion that we are all citizens of the world. Others have pursued balance-of-power realism and nationalism in the conduct of foreign affairs.

Yet, Codevilla throws it all into the same basket. He concludes that we should support Trump because he going to break things up and overthrow the establishment elites. One might ask with whom he is going to do this. One might ask which foreign policy experts will know enough to do it efficiently and effectively.

We can make the case against Hillary’s incompetence and corruption. We can make a case that she has done poorly in just about all of her undertakings. One can argue against her by looking at the horrors that have befallen the Middle East, in Syria, in Iraq, during the Arab Spring, since she and Obama—another rank amateur—took charge of American foreign policy. One can argue against her, not merely for pursuing ideals, but for implementing policies that signified, not American idealism, but American weakness around the world.

But, to argue for Trump on the grounds that he will be a bull in the china shop fails to see that no matter how incompetent Hillary is, she does seem familiar. A country has to be in miserably bad shape to take the risk that Trump would represent. And if it is in really bad shape, we would want to hire someone with demonstrated competence in foreign affairs. If the ship of state is sinking you want a captain who has navigated a ship before.

Codevilla supports Trump. He is right to say that Hillary will not cause the world to respect America. Not so much because of her ideas but because of who she is and how she got the job. World leaders might fear a Donald Trump more, because he is far less predictable, but if you believe that they would not relish the chance to take him down, you are simply wrong. He of the orange bouffant hairdo, he who is woefully underinformed about all foreign policy matters, will not restore respect for America.

Codevilla is quite right to say that we have lost the habit of winning wars. We no longer see conflict in terms of winning and losing. And yet, we did win the Cold War… even if crypto- Marxist ideas risk taking over the minds of America’s youth. We even won the first Gulf War. In fact, as Barack Obama himself said, the Iraq War had been concluded successfully… until he chose to surrender the victory.

Having created a monster, Codevilla suggests that anything is better:

The 2016 election is about whether that pattern should change. How much, if at all, it would change under Trump matters much less than the mere possibility it might change. Trump’s virtue in foreign policy lies in having voiced this simple, vital thought: U.S. foreign policy must put America first, and deliver victories rather than defeats. Whether Trump really believes that, whether he would act on it, or even whether he understands past mistakes, is secondary. 

As of today, most Americans disagree.

Save the Date: My Upcoming Seminar with Scott Von

FYI-- the NPAP is located at 40 West 13th St. New York City

Link to analytica.org here.

Sabotaging Your Job

During World War II the Office of Strategic Services (the OSS) wanted people who had been forced to work for Axis powers to sabotage their jobs. It produced a “Simple Sabotage Field Manual” to show how to be a bad employee, how to make your company less efficient and effective, how to waste time and effort. And how to make it that no one knew what you were doing.

During the War it was a noble calling. Today, not so much.

Business Insider has reported some of the suggestions. It added that in many companies today, management gurus have made such proposals the norm.

You can reduce productivity by doing everything… by the book. Refuse to allow anyone to take shortcuts or to exercise discretion and you will slow down the enterprise.

If you are at a conference, you can undermine the work by speaking a lot, by speaking about yourself, by introducing irrelevant topics, and by trying to refer all matters back to committee.

Does this seem familiar yet?

Managers can best sabotage their jobs by praising and rewarding people who are inefficient and ineffective. Then managers can give them undeserved promotions. They can also insist on perfection and hassle people over the trivial errors.

Of course, managers might also treat those who work well and those who work less well as though they work the same. Everyone gets a trophy; everyone gets the same promotion; everyone gets the same raise. Surely, that will demoralize the best employees and reduce productivity.

Employees can help sabotage their companies by working slowly and deliberately. They should seek out reasons to interrupt their work, by taking coffee breaks or bathroom breaks or simply gossiping with their coworkers. When they do bad work they should always shift the blame, to the tools or to the management. If they can't focus they can blame it on their meds, or lack of same. Finally, they should never try to mentor younger and less experienced workers. Let them flounder. It’s good for the war effort.

Something to think about this morning.

"Multikultistan:" The Price of Muslim Immigration in Europe

Thanks to Wikileaks we now have in our possession an extraordinary document. It was not written by anyone in the Clinton campaign, but was sent to her campaign manager, Jon Podesta. The author was a Dutch journalist/academic named Orca. Presumably Podesta commissioned it.

The report outlines the consequences of Angela Merkel’s madness. It does not mention that Hillary Clinton admires Merkel above all other foreign leaders. One does not understand how she could support such a policy when her campaign chairman has read a report like the one exposed by Wikileaks. At the least, she will never be able to plead ignorance.

Orca offers a no-holds-bar picture of what Muslim immigration is doing to Europe, in particular to Germany. And it shows how multiculturalists are aiding and abetting the destruction of the European continent, and thus to the destruction of one of the great examples of Western civilization. It is an object lesson to those dimwits who believe, based on no evidence at all, that it will be easy to integrate a massive number of Muslim immigrants.

Orca begins:

Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany - with far worse to come because of demographics ·

Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin's population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals, revealed Berlin public prosecutor Roman Reusch http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-51448987.html. To be more precise, 46% of Berlin's juvenile serial criminals are of Arab descent, while 33% of them have Turkish ancestry http://www.bz-berlin.de/archiv/jugendkriminalitaet-article961342.html.

In an un-German display of harsh-truth telling, Reusch said in Der Spiegel that "in parts [of Berlin], the population consist almost exclusively of problem cases." As he tells it, immigrant children as young as six or seven years old turn to crime and grow up to see honest hard-working people as targets - walking sources of easy money. German society is completely powerless in the face of growing ruthless violence and crime. To describe the German police and criminal-justice system as a big joke would be unfair to big jokes. You won't be surprised to hear that the outspoken public prosecutor has meanwhile been sacked from his job and banned from talking to the media.

The German police admits that large immigrant areas of Berlin, Hamburg, the Ruhr Area, etc. have become police no-go areas, where criminals and extremists have free reign. Within no time at all, a lone police patrol car making a foray into Germany's ethnic war zones finds itself surrounded by a baying lynch mob, much like US soldiers in Baghdad at the height of the troubles, added Roman Reusch.

Muslim immigrants bear harsh racist prejudices against white people. They have no compunction about acting them out:

Anti-white racism of the most virulent kind has become a fact of life across Europe, but perhaps nowhere more so than in Germany. Kirsten Heisig's book When Patience Comes to an End details the visceral hatred many Muslims feel toward native Germans, who are subjected to a daily torrent of abuse and ethnic slurs in their own country. Even young Turkish women think nothing of calling native girls "German whores" and chanting that "Germans should be gassed," she writes. Here young Muslim women shout "So sieht Deutscher Inzest aus" at police officers.

Muslim students in vocational schools persecute German students, to the point where the latter are forced to drop out. Violence against native born Germans has become a fact of life:

Lone native students at Muslim immigrant-dominated vocational high schools quite often won't last a week and are lucky to escape their bullies physically unhurt. In this footage, four immigrants mug a German man in a Berlin subway station, beating him into a coma and leaving him permanently brain-damaged http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h33KeFIOk7A. The four perpetrators were teenagers from Albania, Kosovo, Iraq and Nigeria, who had earlier shouted "Scheiß-Nazis" and "wir hassen Deutsche" at the victim and his colleagues.

Thanks to political correctness and multiculturalism, Germany has now become a patsy:

Clearly, Germany is now well beyond the banana republic phase and has entered the realm of patsydom. Always lurching from one form of extremism to the next, Germans have now decided that the role of an über-schlemiel is a perfect fit. The New CorrectThink is: Deutschland unter alles!

Naturally, homophobia and hate crimes against gays are pervasive: 

43% of gays in Berlin have experienced hate crimes perpetrated by Muslims in particular, while two thirds of Turkish high school students in Berlin display homophobia

As for assimilation, it is not happening. And not just for Muslims who arrived yesterday:

Young Turkish criminals have a vocabulary of 500 German words largely devoid of any grammar. As a matter of fact, Time writes that most third-generation Turks speak insufficient German (read: Mickey Mouse German) and that almost three-quarters of German Turks live in Turkish-speaking enclaves. You will be straining to follow any of the Turks in the featured clips, whose German is so dreadful as to be almost comical.

Multicultural warriors defend the abominations that Muslim men visit on Muslim women. Honor crimes and female genital mutilation are just the beginning:

"In Germany today," The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-ho w-multiculturalism-is-betraying-women-446806.html writes, "Muslim women have been reduced to third-class citizens stripped of core legal protections - because of the doctrine of Multiculturalism, which says a society should be divided into separate cultures with different norms according to ethnic origin." Also bear in mind that most abused Muslim women are too terrified to ask for outside help in the first place and for good reason. Germany, too, has seen its fair share of reported honor attacks, which probably only form the top of the tip of the iceberg. It is much more difficult but not impossible to hide honor murders. Given the shocking attitudes of young German Muslims toward honor crimes

And this:

100,000 girls and women mutilated by FGM practitioners in the UK; an immigrant rape epidemic in Scandinavia; four Jews and three soldiers murdered in France; predominantly black gangs have parceled up and terrorize London; Pakistani lover boys ply their awful trade in Britain almost without let or hindrance; plus public-transportation workers, hospital staff, ambulance employees, firemen and police officers across the Continent suffer from unbelievable levels of violence, threats and verbal abuse from immigrants, with some of the most appalling scenes witnessed in Sweden, rated as having the worst immigration record in the whole of Western Europe by Elsevier magazine.

Orca makes an excellent point, one that I have often mentioned. A culture that sees honor in murdering or mutilating its children has no sense of honor. Muslim culture has no sense of shame:

What strikes me the most about a Turkish culture so obsessed with "honor" is the total absence of any shame over bringing so much hatred, aggression, crime, misery, urban decay, welfare costs and dysfunctionality in all areas of life to Germany and other European host countries.

The fault, dear readers, lies with the mania about multiculturalism. Much of Europe seems to have gotten beyond it, though they will suffer the fallout for generations. In Germany, it still persists:

Multiculturalism - the human variant of mad cow disease - seems to have run its course in much of Europe, but is still going strong in Germany. Tune into German television or visit German news websites, and it's like going back in time to much darker days. Most (but definitely not all!) German media coverage of Turkish and other Muslim immigrants is just one big blur of Multikulti twaddle. In fact, the reporting is so delightfully deceitful that it becomes entertaining in a demented freaky sort of way. In strident denial of staring-them-in-the-face immigration calamities, the vast majority of German journalists continue to preach the multicultural gospel with all the religious fervor of snake-oil televangelists, threatening the growing number of apostates with fire and brimstone.

Orca concludes that nowhere in Europe is there a successful and integrated and assimilated Muslim community:

More broadly speaking, there is not even a single Western European country with a successful Muslim community, as I've shown with granite-hard facts and figures and will further substantiate with more of the same. Instead, in only slightly varying degrees, Muslim immigration is just one long tale of woe and misery for the long-suffering host countries, which are in for far worse to come in the decades ahead because of barely understood demographic realities.

If you think that the problem is Islamphobia, you have been smoking the wrong kind of cigarettes.

Housework Is Good for Women's Health

Here’s the latest from the psychosocial world. If you thought that the ultimate indignity a woman could suffer was to do housework—second only to cooking dinner—it turns out that you are wrong.

Researchers from Rotterdam have just discovered that doing housework is good for a woman’s health. That’s right. A woman who does more housework will live longer than a woman who does less. 

When it comes to men, the situation is reversed. Doing more housework will only increase a man’s lifespan marginally. If a man wants to achieve a therapeutic benefit and extend his life, he should work outside the house—in the garden. If a woman does more gardening, it will not increase her lifespan significantly.

The Daily Mail has the story:

It's probably not the most popular piece of health advice ever dished out – but researchers say that doing the housework can add years to your life.

They found that women who clean, hoover and do the laundry are likely to live almost three years longer.

It continues:

The team from University Medical Centre Rotterdam found that a 55-year-old woman who does little around the house is likely to live to see her 83rd birthday – but that those who keep on top of the housework should live on to the age of 86.

The benefit for men is much less marked. Their efforts with the loo brush will only buy them an extra year. 

But men who do the gardening live 2.7 years longer, while working outside the home has little effect on women.

What does it all mean? Probably it just means that God is a patriarchal sexist. But, you knew that already. Right?