Patterico's Pontifications

3/16/2015

Jen Psaki Refuses To Say Whether Clinton Signed Separation Form

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:41 pm



[guest post by Dana]

How hard can it be to locate the required exit papers of a former employee? Well, at most organizations, it wouldn’t be that difficult. Human Resources typically maintains any and all personnel records of current and former employees. Unless, of course, the employer is the State Dept. and the employee in question is Hillary Clinton. Then all bets are off.

Incompetency: Another day at the podium, another opportunity to look like a fool.

MATT LEE, AP: Last week, I think a couple times you were asked about whether the department has a record of Secretary Clinton signing the separation form.

JEN PSAKI: I don’t have an update on this, Matt. We’re still working on it. I understand.

MATT LEE: There has to be a human resources department, they presumably have a file on every employee at the State Dept. It can’t be that difficult.

JEN PSAKI: I don’t think former secretaries are standard employees.

MATT LEE: They might not be but how hard could it be? How hard can it be to find out whether she did or not?

JEN PSAKI: I understand why you’re asking. We’re looking to get an answer. I don’t have an answer today.

MATT LEE: Do you know — where are these forms after they are signed? Where do they go?

JEN PSAKI: Where in the building do they go?

MATT LEE: If I asked for one from someone else.

JEN PSAKI: I’m not sure how many forms we’d be willing to give you access to. Hahaha.

We keep records. I don’t have an update on this particular question today. We keep records, yes…

MATT LEE: So if someone had signed one of these forms it would be on file somewhere?

JEN PSAKI: We do keep records, yes, it would be on file.

MATT LEE: Then I can’t understand why– whatever.

Bonus points to Matt Lee for not gouging out his eyes in utter frustration.

Remember the unfortunate no-win:

If she signed it and was not honest, she is in a heap of trouble. If she did not have to sign it, it is further evidence that the rules don’t apply to her and that she is deliberately evasive enough to avoid perjuring herself.

And, to clarify:

If State can’t find the form then Hillary’s not guilty of perjury. If State can find the form then perjury is back in play, but remember that perjury is a crime of intent. You have to knowingly and willfully falsify facts to be guilty; an honest or pretend-honest mistake isn’t actionable.

–Dana

127 Responses to “Jen Psaki Refuses To Say Whether Clinton Signed Separation Form”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. JEN PSAKI: I don’t think former secretaries are standard employees.

    So it should be even easier to locate the form.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  3. Does anyone expect the Holder/Lynch/Obama DOJ to do anything with this? Better for their chosen squaw Fauxachontas this simply lingers, comes out in dribs and drabs, dying somewhere near Iowa or New Hampshire. A Grand Jury might have to look into Valerie Jarrett, and simply that will not happen. Remember this….woman said the 2nd term would be for settling scores. We’re moving toward a government that operates more like a criminal gang than one of men and women ruled by laws. And right now Obama and his crew are running things.

    Bugg (aace18)

  4. It’s pretty obvious

    They can’t find it, and they are not prepared to say she didn’t sign it.

    Probably they are looking in various places it might have been filed and/or for evidence taht it was or was not signed, and nobody anyway is asking Hillary Clinton about it, or, if they are, they are asking through her lawyers, who are delaying an answer, and eventually will report that she doesn’t remember or know whether she signed any such thing.

    They are also looking maybe for records as to who might been responsible for asking to sign it, and that person is no longer there, but they are probably searching e-mails to see if there is some kind of record of somebody asking Hillary Clinton to sign things or to do things before leaving office.

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  5. Orrin Hatch says this Lynch lady is a straight shooter who’s gonna be a credit to the firm

    and me I believe him cause Sarah Palin said he was the most stalwart one

    happyfeet (831175)

  6. It depends on the definition of signed.

    ropelight (8f23a7)

  7. Perjury is not the only potential crime here, nor the most likely. Rather, Hillary’s more likely at risk under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) — the Martha Stewart/Scooter Libby statute — which provides in pertinent part that

    whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  8. Jen Psaki: “And please take a minute to be distracted by my red top and how it shows off my better attributes.”

    Cheshirecat (4ac1cf)

  9. It is very becoming. It’s the most attractive I’ve seen her. More mature looking as well. Think she’s pregnant? Googled it. She is pregnant.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. OT–but wow wow wow. Jonathan Capehart of all people is the first of the hounds to finally try to put to rest the “Hands Up don’t shoot” lie.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=2391426534085263

    elissa (a5fcec)

  11. This is the silver bullet fired over still water and the funny part is that she pulled the trigger herself.

    “Too clever by half,” is the old saying.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  12. The purveyor of bullshi Smart Diplomacy® not smart enough to understand the importance of that signed statement? Preposterous.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  13. Not even with yours, nk.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. the silver bullet fired over still water

    What?!

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  15. I don’t see the big deal. Hillary emailed the completed form to Lois Lerner. So, just check either one of their email accounts to retrieve the form.

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  16. like were wolves, I think

    narciso (ee1f88)

  17. Beldar,

    How do you think Hillary will spin out from under the statute you linked if it comes to that? What sort of plausible excuse could she make?

    Dana (86e864)

  18. It’s how you kill a witch. Bothers Grimm, also Appalachian folklore.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Brothers Grimm

    nk (dbc370)

  20. In February 2017 Jen Psaki will start her new job as spokesweasel for the Barack Obama Library by refusing to confirm rumors that Barack Obama was ever President.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  21. can we not concur Steve, this has been a figment of our imagination, like St, Elsewhere,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  22. Jen Psaki’s career is a perfect example why y’all ain’t gonna see sh*t get done, by any Congress or any President, to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy and the power of government agencies. She made her bones in political campaigns, Rep’s, Senator’s, Obama’s. Then she got rewarded with a succession of government jobs — White House, State, back to White House, with a little dab at private employment connection-peddling somewhere in-between. And that’s the same for all the spear carriers and cup bearers of all the politicians — Democrat, Republican, or wacko-bird. Just pay your tithes to your lords, peasants.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. I had a dream last night about missing a flight and it was going to cost me a fortune to buy a new ticket.

    This figment of our imagination about a Barack Obama presidency is far worse.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  24. This guy claims to be a Democrat and Warren supporter. Well, like they say, when thieves fall out, honest men prosper.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Even if Obama dislikes Hillary, as he probably does, I don’t think he or his Justice Department would prosecute her. But if she were prosecuted under Section 1001, I suspect one claim she might make is that any retained or destroyed records were personal in nature and did not involve her work. Thus, there was no material destruction or falsification.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  26. By the way, I’m not saying I agree they weren’t material or that she shouldn’t be prosecuted, only that that’s what she may argue. I bet a lot of people — including the media, Democrats, and some prosecutors, judges, and jurors — would want to believe what Hillary says.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  27. Look under “Rodham”.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  28. I think there has to be an underlying crime involved, too? For materiality? Scooter and Martha were being investigated, respectively, for revealing classified information and securities fraud.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. “Cankles is down.” Testing one two three

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  30. Our intellectual and moral betters at the DoS in action.

    The US government has made a bizarre internet gaffe by posting a British Muslim extremist’s photograph of veiled women calling for sharia law, citing it as an inspirational example of free speech in the West.

    The American State Department’s ‘Think Again Turn Away’ campaign is designed to dissuade Muslims from joining IS – also known as ISIS – and other extreme groups.

    The campaign posted the picture on its Twitter account last week, adding: ‘In open societies, all faiths enjoy freedom of speech; under ISIS rule, no such thing as freedom of expression…’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995171/Internet-gaffe-government-UK-extremist-s-sharia-law-photo-used-free-speech-ad.html#ixzz3UcAmbWi1
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    A group that calls for ISIS-style suppression of freedom of speech that also refuses to participate in British elections because democracy is unislamic is pictured in a campaign our geniuses at Foggy Bottom have put together to promote the virtues of open western societies.

    You can’t make this kind of stupidity up. Nobody would believe it if you wrote it into a novel.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  31. Silencing critics is a central doctrine in Islam.

    Surat At Tawbah 9:12

    And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

    Fitna, according to Islam, is worse than murder. What is Fitna? It’s a broad concept; basically it’s “discord.” It can be as simple as dissent. That’s why the Muslims gave themselves license to break treaties at will, and then blame the other party for “making” them break the treaty (like today, when it’s always someone else’s fault for “making” them go on violent rampages). It’s impossible not to say something that a Muslim can not take offense to.

    In the case of the treaty the Muslims had with the Meccans, it was actually the Muslims who broke the treaty. The treaty said that if any members of the Meccan camp defected to the Muslim camp the Muslims were bound to return them. The Muslims agreed to this, but of course it was deception. When they were strong enough militarily they broke the treaty by claiming the Meccans were committing fitna by enforcing the terms of the treaty (Muslim logic; a party to a treaty with Muslims violates the treaty by insisting Muslims live up to the terms of the treaty).

    Of course, killing all the polytheists who didn’t flee for their lives and barring them from Mecca presented a problem. The Muslim Meccans made most of their income from the polytheists who made the Hajj to worship at the shrines to the 360 pagan gods. But Allah provides!

    Surat At Tawbah 9:28 – 32

    O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

    Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

    The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

    They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

    They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

    They’d grow rich by extorting money (the jizyah) for the Christians and the Jews. This presented a bit of a problem as Christians and Jews were supposed to be kindred spirits as they had revelation from the same god Muhammad claimed to have received revelation from. Up until this point the Muslims weren’t supposed to fight Christians and Jews.

    Ahh, but they say things that “defame” Islam and Muhammad, too. It’s an offense to say why, if you’re a Christian or Jew, you remain a Christian or Jew.

    The whole point of Jihad in the way of Allah is to shut up Christians and Jews (who would extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths) and convert everyone else to Islam.

    Shooting up the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo, then, was the epitome of Islam. No matter what our genius theologians in the Obama administration try to tell us. The same people who think Islamic extremists (…The Mail on Sunday can reveal he is Moshiur Rahman, a 33-year-old from Luton, who last year was one of 12 Islamists given Asbos banning them from taking part in demonstrations over a violent protest rally on Oxford Street…) calling for Shariah in that pic somehow represent our open western society.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  32. So let me get this straight. If Hillary didn’t sign a form which is a standard separation paper, probably part of a standard separation packet of papers, then the verdict is ‘Shame on you. Bad Hillary. Bad, bad Hillary. Now go and sin no more’.

    BUT if she did sign the paper, one of many papers to sign in the separation packet, Then she is guilty of a felony and liable for a probable commuted sentence of anywhere from 5 month to 5 years in a Federal Corrections facility?

    IF that’s the case , simple math what’s going to happen.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  33. Everybody, don’t forget to wish Patterico happy name-day, tommorrow.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. 33. …IF that’s the case , simple math what’s going to happen.

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/16/2015 @ 10:20 pm

    The Clinton Foundation is going to make whoever took that perfect blackmail material out of her file and stashed it away for a rainy day very, very rich.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  35. 60% of the Clinton Foundation’s take goes to “other expenses.”

    Hush money no doubt fits into that category.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  36. it was signed by the autopen, but that was unauthorised.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  37. you can’t blackmail someone who has no sense of shame.

    just sayin’…

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  38. lmao at how the American justice system does not work.

    mg (31009b)

  39. Giving more time to get things right. I look at this as aiding and abetting the enemy.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/benghazi-panel-hillary-clinton-116129.html
    Gowdgahzi.

    mg (31009b)

  40. France knows who will die first.

    mg (31009b)

  41. Check for super seekrit mail.clintonemail.com here:

    https://certlogik.com/ssl-checker/

    Hacktastic!

    DNF (946592)

  42. DRJ @27 and 28.

    But if she were prosecuted under Section 1001, I suspect one claim she might make is that any retained or destroyed records were personal in nature and did not involve her work. Thus, there was no material destruction or falsification. By the way, I’m not saying I agree they weren’t material or that she shouldn’t be prosecuted, only that that’s what she may argue. I bet a lot of people — including the media, Democrats, and some prosecutors, judges, and jurors — would want to believe what Hillary says.

    You would need to prove that the opposite was true – that there were indeed what should unquestionably be government records there.

    This probably could only be done of you could prove a lot more.

    Her defense also would be (unless she had destroyed some e-mail that she had agreed to provide) that the State Department had come to an agreement with her lawyers as to what was a government record.

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  43. From narciso’s link to Dvorak Uncensored at #24:

    …It’s interesting to note IP addresses in the DNS for the clintonemail.com domain. Most host names like http://www.clintonemail.com all map to some holding page of no importance. However that host mail.clintonemail.com maps to a different IP address 64.94.172.146, which is in a data center in the New York area, Internap.com. Interesting that her “home server” resolves to a data center. Seems worth investigating to me. mail.presidentclinton.com resolves to the same IP address and also uses MxLogic.

    So I thought, what if she has web mail? And sure enough – I GOT A LOGIN PROMPT! https://mail.clintonemail.com And I have verified by the SSL certificate that this is indeed the clintonemail.com server – still online! Click here and type in mail.clintonemail.com

    ropelight (feeaec)

  44. i don’t understand how a bunch of failmerican ivy league state department trash that can’t get a pipeline approved in eight years and counting are supposed to find a piece of paper in less than a week

    it’s just not realistic

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  45. Greetings:

    Looking voluminous in that red sweater, I’d say.

    11B40 (844d04)

  46. Meh…, she’ll always look bovine to me.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. she has pretty hair

    it’s very shiny

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  48. I doubt she signed it because I doubt the administration had any of their key executives sign anything that could later be excused by “ooops, sorry – administrative oversight.” What lower-ranking SES or bureaucrat was going to risk their job insisting Hillary or anybody else follow the rules? Our political aristocrats have figured out how to bend the rules to their advantage and escape accountability when caught. That’s the real crime being exposed. Hillary is a symptom of a far bigger problem.

    crazy (cde091)

  49. {sigh} , sheesh, come on people. Jen Psaki is pregnant.
    due date sometime in July , iirc.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  50. the psakispawn will be walking and talking and eating gummi worms before this form is found i bet

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  51. What were they going to do to Mrs Clinton if she didn’t sign it? Fire her? :)

    The snarky Dana (f6a568)

  52. re #53: might be close, how many years did it take for the Rose Law Firm papers to show up?

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  53. The lovely Mrs Clinton has twelve long years of government service, and is surely eligible for federal retirement. The answer is obvious: federal employees who do not complete their exit paperwork should be ineligible for any pensions or severance pay they have coming until the paperwork is completed. In Mrs Clinton’s case, it wouldn’t be just chump change.

    Well, maybe it would be for her, but it wouldn’t be for me!

    The Dana who understands that this will never happen (f6a568)

  54. What, they couldn’t get Marie Lucas to do this?

    The very snarky Dana (f6a568)

  55. They don’t seem to have these kind of problems finding a DD214

    Angelo (9a86ec)

  56. At least Psaki’s got a decent pair of schmeebs.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  57. {sigh} , sheesh, come on people. Jen Psaki is pregnant.
    due date sometime in July , iirc.

    seeRpea (b6bbec) — 3/17/2015 @ 8:55 am

    Just what the country needs… more nitwit, entitled puppies…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  58. you can’t blackmail someone who has no sense of shame.

    just sayin’…

    redc1c4 (b340a6) — 3/17/2015 @ 12:03 am (a037ad) — 3/17/2015 @ 9:07 am

    You can blackmail a cornered rat. It may be shameless but it wants to survive.

    The form’s an insurance policy. Like the stained blue dress Monica packed away instead of having it cleaned (or incinerated).

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  59. 43. so that is that:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/15/its-clear-tom-cotton-won-his-battle-with-obama/

    narciso (ee1f88) — 3/17/2015 @ 3:44 am

    Yes, that was my read on the dust-up.

    http://patterico.com/2015/03/13/more-from-hillaryland/#comment-1748868

    I was especially amused by the Democrats squealing like stuck pigs about how Cotton’s letter was “unacceptable.” If anybody knows Liberal doublespeak that’s the word they apply to something right before they demonstrate by their actions that it’s perfectly acceptable. Even desirable.

    As President Tiger Beat did with the IRS targeting of his enemies. Which he shows is what he wanted all along.

    And as the Senate Democrats have with Cotton’s letter. They made the appropriate animal noises for a while, then dropped the charade because it was just fine with them.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  60. Ok, State doesn’t have the paperwork on the last few Secretaries.

    And what’s worse we still have no recovery either:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-17/q1-gdp-now-just-03-according-fed-model

    DNF (946592)

  61. Key to understanding Cotton’s victory are two developments: the White House doing its damndest to vilify him on the Sunday talks shows

    if they can use this stupid juvenile letter to make this goony arkansas hick the new face of the GOP what in their track record suggests they’re not going to make the absolute most of this opportunity

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  62. high end Vogon recordkeeping, what could go wrong?

    narciso (ee1f88)

  63. 64. Key to understanding Cotton’s victory are two developments: the White House doing its damndest to vilify him on the Sunday talks shows

    if they can use this stupid juvenile letter to make this goony arkansas hick the new face of the GOP what in their track record suggests they’re not going to make the absolute most of this opportunity
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/17/2015 @ 12:31 pm

    What’s stupid and juvenile are the lies and the complaints about the letter.

    That’s why Tom Cotton won this round.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  64. i disagree Mr. 57

    this letter was no good

    yes it has elicited many lies and hyperboles

    the letter is not treasonous

    it just dumb

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  65. it was fine, like Schoolhouse Rock in Farsi,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  66. …goony arkansas hick…

    See what I mean. Your clever nicknames make my point, Mr. feets.

    The “goony arkansas hick” graduated from Harvard magna cum laude before graduating from Harvard law.

    Basically his IQ is about 50 points higher than Obama’s, Valerie Rasputin Jarrett, and the entire student government cabinet combined.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  67. now it’s true the Majlis over there is a toothless body,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  68. 67. …it just dumb
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/17/2015 @ 12:52 pm

    What was dumb about it?

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  69. I’m not a super-big fan of putting harvard trash in positions of authority generally speaking Mr. 57

    their track record sucks

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  70. what was dumb was how it said nothing nobody didn’t know already and it said it in a tone of juvenile pedantry that made me cringe to read it

    plus it was written and signed by cowardly US senate losers what can’t even stand up to a fascist whore president here at home on a picayune issue like funding illegal amnesties in a DHS bill

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  71. Amusing, Mr. feets.

    It ripped the cover off Tiger Beat’s communist fanbois who think anything that gets in the way of their Messiah is treasonous, including the Constitution.

    Which is something everybody should know already but needs to be demonstrated at every opportunity.

    And if the Republicans did more of that they’d have a clearer path to standing up to the fascists whore preezy on amnesties.

    So the problem isn’t what Cotton did. The problem is that the GOP doesn’t do more of it. And if you think the GOP should be standing up to the fascist whore preezy then the letter isn’t anything to complain about.

    Basically you’re complaining Cotton didn’t just bend over for the fascist whore preezy. Which is an odd thing to complain about if your problem with the GOP bends really is that it bends over for this guy way too easily.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  72. “The “goony arkansas hick” graduated from Harvard magna cum laude before graduating from Harvard law.”

    – Steve57

    So an Ivy League education is great when we’re talking about Tom Cotton, but very bad and stupid when we’re speculating about carlitos. Hmm.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  73. “Did you graduate from an Ivy League institution, carlitos? As Orwell observed, some ideas are so obviously stupid that no ordinary man could ever embrace them. Only a highly educated person could possibly believe it. My contribution to Orwell’s observation is that you have to pay extra to go to a school that’s trashed any prestige whatsoever it may have once had to get dumbed down to that degree.”

    – Steve57

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  74. there does seem to be generally the rot in the Ivies, Cruz and Cotton are the exception, just like Oxbridge is equally clueless, and Farage, a Public school man, should be on the cover of Dos Equis,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  75. Ah, there we go. It’s really not about the Ivies, is it?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  76. Who said it was great? I was making an apples to apples comparison. An Ivy League education carries no weight for me but it does for the kind of people who think Sarah Palin can’t be President because she didn’t go to the “right school.” And Scott Walker can’t be President at all no matter his track record because he didn’t graduate from college.

    The kind of people who think Obama is a superior human being despite the fact he’s never accomplished anything except leaving a path of destruction in his wake since leaving school. But it was the right school he left 30 years ago.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  77. What an exceptional country we have. Any foreign jackhole can waltz in and take the reins from our born and bred corruptocrats.

    DNF (946592)

  78. “The “goony arkansas hick” graduated from Harvard magna cum laude before graduating from Harvard law.

    Basically his IQ is about 50 points higher than Obama’s, Valerie Rasputin Jarrett, and the entire student government cabinet combined.

    [but] An Ivy League education carries no weight for me.[!]”

    – Steve57

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  79. Basically you’re complaining Cotton didn’t just bend over for the fascist whore preezy.

    i don’t think his little letter’s moved the dial in any way with respect to the realities in the whirl

    the writing’s on the wall

    failmerica is a crappy whore of an ally and it’s in the process of selling Israel out

    (that’s what it says on the wall)

    it makes no difference whether or not this agreement has the force of a treaty – that’s why the letter is so silly

    no matter what you want to call the agreement that results, the message our twice-elected fascist whore president’s dealings with his mullah friends is sending is this: America is not a good ally

    treaty or non-binding agreement

    letter or no letter

    there’s great evil afoot

    and Team R is focused on process

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  80. “You had to have gone to Harvard, carlitos. Like our preezy, who is also historically illiterate and proud of it.”

    – Steve57

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  81. Mr. carlitos is smart i bet he studied hard wherever he went and highlighted many important passages

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  82. 78. Ah, there we go. It’s really not about the Ivies, is it?

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/17/2015 @ 1:14 pm

    No, it’s not. I could care less, for instance, that Ted Cruz went to Ivy League schools. But he has successfully represented Texas as its solicitor general before various US Courts of Appeals as well as the Supreme Court.

    What’s Prom Queen’s record of success as a lawyer?

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  83. Whatever you say, buddy.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  84. 83. “You had to have gone to Harvard, carlitos. Like our preezy, who is also historically illiterate and proud of it.”

    – Steve57
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/17/2015 @ 1:20 pm

    If you’re intelligent then you don’t come out of Harvard any stupider than you went in.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  85. So it has nothing to do with anything – and yet you keep trying to use it as a rhetorical cudgel.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  86. 82. …there’s great evil afoot

    and Team R is focused on process

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/17/2015 @ 1:20 pm

    Whatever Team R is focused on, Cotton and several others are focused on the deal. Which is evil. It’s the Freshman Dorm that’s focused on process, as they need to find loopholes to screw over the US and its allies.

    And Cotton’s letter informed the WH there won’t be any loopholes.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  87. 88. So it has nothing to do with anything – and yet you keep trying to use it as a rhetorical cudgel.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/17/2015 @ 1:30 pm

    As long as people like Howard Dean think that if you got into Harvard you’re a soooper genius and it doesn’t matter how dumb you are for the rest of your life I’ll use it as a rhetorical cudgel.

    These aren’t my standards, they’re theirs. And I’ll use them against the hypocrites.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  88. 59. At least Psaki’s got a decent pair of schmeebs.
    CrustyB (69f730) — 3/17/2015 @ 10:05 am

    She missed her calling. A Hooters in Baltimore is missing its hostess.

    Speaking of incompetence.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415534/state-dept-no-records-indicating-hillary-signed-separation-form-brendan-bordelon

    Psaki is trying to sell the idea that the OF-109 that departing employees sign under penalty of perjury isn’t a required document. It’s just a “recommendation.”

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  89. So, since she never signed the official separation papers …

    … does this mean she’s still SecOfState?

    SaveFarris (0a2aa2)

  90. The only thing better than a standard is a double-standard!

    /sarc

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  91. it’s like veterans matter in 2004, but not 2008, or 1992,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  92. Yes, Leviticus. And it’s not my double standard.

    But then if liberals didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

    As demonstrated by how it’s beyond the pale of decency to even question Obama’s patriotism. And the same people who are offended anyone could possibly doubt Obama’s love of country no matter what he does turn around and call 47 GOP Senators “traitors” for a “treasonous” letter that merely paraphrases the Constitution.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  93. “And it’s not my double standard.”

    – Steve57

    It clearly, clearly is. You might not admit that you want Harvard to mean one thing for one person and the opposite thing for another, but everybody who cares to look at this thread would see otherwise.

    Go ahead and switch the topic to “liberals” if you want.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  94. what was dumb was how it said nothing nobody didn’t know already and it said it in a tone of juvenile pedantry that made me cringe to read it

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/17/2015 @ 1:00 pm

    Well it wasn’t as pithy as “Death To America”. Come to think of it the Iranians have congress beat on cringe factor as well.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  95. BTW Psucki has confirmed the simple math regarding the severance papers of Hillary Clinton.

    Seems the State Department has no record of a person named Hillary Rodham Clinton having ever worked there.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  96. Dana (# 17), you ask, “How do you think Hillary will spin out from under the statute you linked if it comes to that? What sort of plausible excuse could she make?”

    Her needing to do so first presupposes a DoJ willing to enforce that statute against her — that is, to investigate fully, determine if there’s probable cause, seek a grand jury indictment, and prove every element of her violation of it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    She is presumptively innocent unless and until that happens. I doubt it will ever start, at least not until Obama’s out of office, and her best path to avoid that path thereafter is to get elected POTUS herself, or failing that, to see another Dem elected. Many of her & Bubba’s voters will quite literally vote for her no matter what. She obviously hopes to ride that to the nomination, and then ride the nomination into office.

    But it’s an incredibly powerful statute, and assuming she made the written promises required by the law upon her departure from office, she’s going to have a lot harder time rationalizing or evading the consequences of their untruth than either Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby did.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  97. Well that’s just a lot of gum flapping, Mr. Beldar. The lady is not on file. She never worked there.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  98. Steve57, I’m still confused how leftists get all crazy when I call Obama a moslem. Name one other “Christian” with the name Hussein.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  99. 96. “And it’s not my double standard.”

    – Steve57

    It clearly, clearly is. You might not admit that you want Harvard to mean one thing for one person and the opposite thing for another, but everybody who cares to look at this thread would see otherwise.

    Go ahead and switch the topic to “liberals” if you want.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/17/2015 @ 2:24 pm

    As is always the case with you, Leviticus, any honest reading of the comments on this thread prove the exact opposite of what you wish was reality.

    I’m not the one who thinks that an Ivy League education makes one a member of the “best and the brightest.” That’s a conceit of the left.

    But given that’s their standard then they can’t dismiss Tom Cotton as a “goony Arkansas hick” since by they’re standard (not mine) he qualifies as a member of the “best and the brightest” club.

    It’s a pretty straightforward point. I’m not surprised you’re trying to twist it.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  100. What would be the charge for impersonating a Cabinet member? Is that a thing?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  101. If you really wanna bust Leviticus’ stones Steve57, just remind him I have a degree from Princeton. Funny thing is, I know I’m not among the best and the brightest but I’ve accomplished more in real world terms than any of these dumbasses.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  102. I think what will/may happen with the DOJ is highly contingent on how involved Obama and Valerie are in the “set up” of exposing this scandal. If there is any truth to the published rumors that Valerie (using outside people) tipped off some in the press about Hillary’s emails, gave them the WH go-ahead to push it, and got a few investigations underway inside the State Dept. which are separate from Congressional investigations, then all bets are off as to how “safe” Hillary is from prosecution. By all accounts the Clintons and the Obamas detest each other.

    elissa (9684cf)

  103. Sorry elissa, but the Clintons and O’Bamas (it’s St. Pats day) may detest each other when they’re running against each other but like any true leftists they close ranks if anyone right of Stalin poses a threat to their power.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  104. “The “goony arkansas hick” graduated from Harvard magna cum laude before graduating from Harvard law.

    Basically his IQ is about 50 points higher than Obama’s, Valerie Rasputin Jarrett, and the entire student government cabinet combined.

    /////

    “Did you graduate from an Ivy League institution, carlitos? As Orwell observed, some ideas are so obviously stupid that no ordinary man could ever embrace them. Only a highly educated person could possibly believe it. My contribution to Orwell’s observation is that you have to pay extra to go to a school that’s trashed any prestige whatsoever it may have once had to get dumbed down to that degree.”

    You had to have gone to Harvard, carlitos. Like our preezy, who is also historically illiterate and proud of it.

    //////

    it’s not my double standard.”

    – Steve57

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  105. Maybe (in the future) you can just avoid these inconsistencies by not jumping to conclusions about people based on where they went to school?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  106. Hoagie–not necessarily. If the Obamites want to be the head of the Democrat Party going forward and want someone else in the WH to “carry on their legacy” they’ll have to get rid of Hillary (and Bill) first.

    elissa (9684cf)

  107. snorfle, oh your serious, Obama was trained by the critic legal theory ‘demolition crew’ hence he doesn’t understand the first amendment or contract law, or any other relevant area of the law,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  108. “Section 16-17-735. (A) It is unlawful for a person to impersonate a state or local official or employee or a law enforcement officer in connection with a sham legal process. A person violating the provisions of the subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    There are other counts regarding false assertion of authority, acting without authority, falsely asserting authority to intimidate or hinder a state employee or officer,
    but they all boil down to a misdemeanor $500 bucks and not more than one year in the clink.

    I should mention this is North Carolina law.

    Maybe Hillary Rodham Clinton can get a reduced sentence. I hear she has connections on the inside.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  109. 101. Steve57, I’m still confused how leftists get all crazy when I call Obama a moslem. Name one other “Christian” with the name Hussein.

    Hoagie (58a3ec) — 3/17/2015 @ 2:39 pm

    Because another leftist double standard is to claim conservatives can’t be Christians because if you follow what passes for their logic Christ was a socialist. The pseudo Christian left’s position explained here.

    http://www.forwardprogressives.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-republicans-arent-christians/

    So it’s perfectly acceptable for liberals to accuse or imply that conservatives are not Christians since they twist Christianity into faith in government (run by liberals).

    “I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.”

    Hillary!, 1997, Richmond Times-Dispatch

    I wonder if it’s possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.

    Hillary!, 21 June 2004, C-Span

    Whereas if you actually believe in Christ then you don’t believe in establishing socialism on earth. You believe Christ was God in the flesh, that He died on the cross to redeem men’s sins, that he rose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures.

    So no Christian could ever refer to Muhammad as a prophet of God, and the Quran as “holy” since it denies the core teachings of the Gospels. But don’t take my word for it.

    1 John 2:

    22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

    So according to the Bible, Muhammad is an anti-Christ because he denies the Son.

    Surat Al-Maidah 5:72 – 73

    They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

    They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

    5:75

    The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

    Surat An-Nisa 4:157 – 158

    And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

    Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

    So according to the Quran Allah had no son, Jesus was just a human messenger, he didn’t die on the cross, and he wasn’t raised from the dead (Allah raised Jesus into heaven before he died and sent a look-alike to die on the cross in Jesus’ place.

    Since this is exactly what the Apostles say are the unmistakable marks of an anti-Christ, no Christian could run around saying what Obama says about the “prophet” and calling the Islamic text the “holy quran.” Yet that’s what Obama does; something no actual Christian ever would.

    And that’s why they go crazy. Like with Cotton’s letter, they hate it when someone exposes their lies.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  110. 108. Maybe (in the future) you can just avoid these inconsistencies by not jumping to conclusions about people based on where they went to school?

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/17/2015 @ 2:54 pm

    There are no inconsistencies between what I said before and what I’m saying now. Your campaign to manufacture them is a failure.

    It takes a powerful intellect not to be dumbed down by extended exposure to the American educational system. Cotton and Cruz have demonstrated by their accomplishments since they graduated that they have such powerful intellects.

    Obama and his ilk have done nothing since they left school that shows they resisted the infection.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  111. 113. No undue offense 57 but why give numbnuts the time of day?

    DNF (946592)

  112. 114. 113. No undue offense 57 but why give numbnuts the time of day?

    DNF (946592) — 3/17/2015 @ 3:53 pm

    Because when you get right down to it by drawing Leviticus out I can best illustrate my point.

    I’m not necessarily going to hold overexposure to the type of indoctrination you get in what passes for an education in the US, particularly at what are euphemistically called elite institutions such as the Ivy League, against anyone if they can demonstrate they’ve managed to overcome it.

    When I throw it back at Liberals who believe that an Ivy League degree (or several) is the mark of the anointed that by their standards Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz are therefore among the anointed Leviticus imagines I’m being inconsistent or hypocritical. But that’s not rational, and demonstrates the precise disability that spending too much time in school will produce.

    I advance the hypothesis. Leviticus provides the evidence for it.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  113. I’d call your attention to this part of the exchange between Howard Dean, who believes in magical thinking, and Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe:

    DEAN: I worry about people being President of the United States not knowing much about the world and not knowing much about science. I worry about that.

    SCARBOROUGH: Oh, God. Let’s name the people that didn’t finish college that have changed this world.

    DEAN: Harry Truman, who was a great president, there’s no question about it.

    SCARBOROUGH: Did Bill Gates finish college?

    DEAN: I think Bill Gates is a little on a different –nobody is accusing Scott Walker of having the intellect of Bill Gates.

    SCARBOROUGH: Well, nobody is accusing Scott Walker of being dumb because he didn’t graduate from college except you.

    DEAN: I didn’t say dumb, I said unknowledgeable.

    – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2015/02/12/howard-dean-scott-walker-unknowledgeable-because-no-college-degree#sthash.JRx6kxa5.dpuf

    What they try to fill your head with in college, unless you get a STEM degree, is in no way knowledge. It’s just prejudice and unchallenged liberal pieties.

    It’s absurd for Dean to say that someone like Obama is knowledgeable about the world and about science because he got a BA in political science (somebody needs to tell Dean that ain’t really a science) and a JD. This as is ridiculous as Obama’s declarations that the heads of organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS are not religious leaders.

    It takes a special kind of stupid for a guy to think he has the authority to declare a guy like Abu Bakr al Baghdadi who has a PhD in Islamic Theology from the University of Baghdad isn’t an Islamic religious authority, because some guy with a couple of Ivy league degrees that have nothing to do with Islamic studies says so. The kind of stupid that comes with blind faith in the magic of the Ivy League.

    Students, if they actually are under the same delusions as Howard Dean and Barack Obama come out more close-minded then they went in. Sandra Korn demonstrates the point:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/

    …Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

    Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

    The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly. Does Government Professor Harvey Mansfield have the legal right to publish a book in which he claims that “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty?” Probably. Do I think he should do that? No, and I would happily organize with other feminists on campus to stop him from publishing further sexist commentary under the authority of a Harvard faculty position. “Academic freedom” might permit such an offensive view of rape to be published; academic justice would not….

    This is the product of a Harvard “education.” Any idea that runs counter to her entrenched, unthinking biases can not be allowed. Because of course she can’t come up with a rational argument. She’s just been indoctrinated to demand ideas that offend her be suppressed.

    I’m supposed to be impressed with this?

    I’m not. But Howard Dean is. That’s why I bring up Cotton and Cruz’s Harvard degrees. I don’t value them, but he does. I just use them to expose his inconsistencies; his inability to think. Like Sandra Korn’s.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  114. My part time job is interviewing and doing physicals on applicants to the military. Quite a few are pretty interesting people. Today I was talking to a young man who has a Computer Science degree from a UC campus and we were laughing at the Clintons hiring a commercial SPAM filter firm to filter e-mails. He couldn’t believe it when I first told him about it. Then we had a good laugh.

    NO ONE would do this who knew anything about computers and the internet.

    The story gets funnier and funnier.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  115. 115, 116. I follow. Planning myself to run for local school board next term, likely unopposed.

    Providing an education beyond technology and social justice is my passion.

    DNF (946592)

  116. oh my goodness hot air bottom feeder jazzy jazz has a butthurt

    happyfeet (831175)

  117. 108.Maybe (in the future) you can just avoid these inconsistencies by not jumping to conclusions about people based on where they went to school?

    Excellent point, Leviticus. It matters not where one went to school, or in the case of Scott Walker whether or not he even finished. Don’t judge a man by the name on his sheepskin but by the content of his character.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  118. “Excellent point, Leviticus. It matters not where one went to school, or in the case of Scott Walker whether or not he even finished. Don’t judge a man by the name on his sheepskin but by the content of his character.”

    – Hoagie

    Agreed.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  119. @123, actually it’s been my point all along that it’s the content of one’s character that matters.

    It’s just that very few have the kind of character (I know I said earlier “powerful intellect” but intelligence alone isn’t sufficient; it’s character that powers the intellect) to resist the poison of a modern American education.

    The philosopher, classicist, and professor Allan Bloom wrote a searing indictment of the American educational establishment in 1987, Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students.

    Things have only gotten worse since Bloom published his book (it’s out of print, and no you can’t have my copy), as detailed in this study of Bowdoin College by the National Association of Scholars:

    http://www.nas.org/articles/what_does_bowdoin_teach_how_a_contemporary_liberal_arts_college_shapes_stud

    Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine is a highly-regarded liberal arts college—one of the oldest in the country. Bowdoin is the alma mater of great writers (Hawthorne, Longfellow), war heroes (Joshua Chamberlain) and a U.S. president (Franklin Pierce). But Bowdoin is also a before and after story. Before 1969, it was a college with strong intellectual traditions, a core curriculum, and a commitment to Western Civilization. But after 1969, it abolished all general education requirements and turned from what it called “collegiate” education to what its president at the time called “liberating” education. Out went the old standards and in came a new focus on race, class, gender, and the environment. Out went the old style of scholarly generalists as teachers and in came the new style of research specialists as faculty members. The new Bowdoin dedicated itself to the achievement of social justice and to reshaping America in the image of progressive politics. Bowdoin today is the direct heir of these major shifts. Bowdoin claims that these changes have transformed the college into an educational experience which is far superior to its older model. According to Bowdoin, the education it offers in 2012-2013 is the best education that it has ever offered. The National Association of Scholars tests these claims by thoroughly examining what Bowdoin teaches, through its formal curriculum, student life, and the relationships between students and faculty members.

    You can download the study at the link. From the Foreward:

    In the Republic, where Plato attempts to conjure the ideal of the just city, he wrestles with the questions: Who will teach the children? And what will they be taught? Although college students are not children in a legal or behavioral sense, they are still impressionable young men and women shaped by their educational experience. They will not be college students forever. They will become husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, employees, bosses, and citizens. They will make adult decisions about how best to participate in and influence America. I say this because many have forgotten that what is being taught on America’s campuses, and who is teaching it, will play a larger role in determining not only the moral and intellectual trajectory of the individuals in the classroom, but the course of America itself.

    In this report, Peter Wood and Michael Toscano have painstakingly used Bowdoin College as an example of how many liberal arts colleges fail their students. Bowdoin illustrates the intellectual and moral deficit of the American academy. The curricular offerings and worldview that characterizes Bowdoin College—regarded as one of the finest liberal arts colleges in the country—are in many ways antithetical to the American experiment and the best traditions of learning. Moreover, this study shows how this intellectual climate does not befit the traditions of Bowdoin, a school that has shown itself to be excellent in many other respects.

    This report is unique and important in several ways:

    The report is perhaps the most deep and specific to date on how progressive ideology has altered the character of American higher education. By focusing on just one college in detail, the authors capture the full context of how advocacy and ideology have significantly displaced the pursuit of truth and the cultivation of character. Their hope is that faculty members, administrators, parents, and yes, students from other colleges, will recognize the less desirable features of Bowdoin College in their own institutions.

    The authors have done a remarkable job in showing the inconsistency of Bowdoin in its commitment to ideas of “open-mindedness” and “critical thinking.” These ideas are necessary preconditions for healthy intellectual discourse. But Bowdoin has supplanted the “classical liberal” principles of reasoned argument, the West, the universally true, and the potential for discovering the truth. Instead, its regnant orthodoxies are ideas such as “global citizenship,” “social justice,” and “sustainability.” A free society rests on a commitment to reasoned argument. When illiberal dogma is substituted for reasoned argument, it compromises its own liberal arts principles and erodes the basis for a free society.

    Essentially my “inconsistency” is this: I know what this illiberal dogma that can’t withstand reasoned argument is, and I reject it. But, again, I know what it is. And consequently I know what the adherents of this illiberal dogma believe, and I use it against them.

    When Howard Dean and other people like minded people claim Scott Walker is “unknowledgeable,” he means Scott Walker is not steeped in the tenets in which they have blind, unshakeable faith. And he takes credentials such as Ivy League degrees as evidence of having “knowledge” of the one true faith.

    Well, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz have those same credentials. They have the same “knowledge.” And they saw through it and know it’s BS. But they studied at the feet of the ordained ministers of the leftists’ illiberal dogma, they have the credentials to prove it, and since that matters to the left I’ll use it against them.

    I’m not the one who thinks that an Ivy League education makes one a member of the “best and the brightest.” That’s a conceit of the left.

    But given that’s their standard then they can’t dismiss Tom Cotton as a “goony Arkansas hick” since by they’re standard (not mine) he qualifies as a member of the “best and the brightest” club.

    If that’s being “inconsistent” then I not only plead guilty to the charge but stand by. I am similarly inconsistent when it comes to another illiberal dogma that substitutes for reasoned argument, can not therefore withstand reasoned argument, and precisely because of these features has become a darling of the Left. Islam.

    Ironically Islam (which means “submission,” as in blind, unthinking, unquestioning submission, which the leftist illiberal dogma also demands [look under “climate deniers,” “settled science,” and proposed punishments to shut people up for examples]) knows it can not withstand reasoned argument.

    Surat Al-Mā’idah 5:101 – 102

    O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.

    A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.

    I know what Islam teaches, and I know what adherents of this illiberal dogma have to believe. Even if soccer playing Muslims and some guy in the WH with a poli sci degree from Columbia and a JD from Harvard does not. Coincidentally, Islam does not teach that what soccer playing Muslims in New Mexico and the Resident-Assistant-in-Chief of the United States have to say about Islam is in any way authoritative. Religious authority is to be found in the Quran, the Sunnah of Muhammad, the Tafsir, and in Sharia.

    I don’t believe a word of it. But I have some knowledge of it, and I use it against people who do believe it.

    How “inconsistent” of me. I denounce myself.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  120. I thought it would be helpful if I backed up my assertions that Islam is an illiberal dogma that substitutes for reasoned argument, can not withstand reasoned argument, and therefore demands unthinking, blind obedience.

    Surat An-Nisa 4:65

    But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.

    I will disregard the theological damage this ayat does to the Islamic claim that it is a religion of strict monotheism, since Islam elevates Muhammad to a partner with Allah (the Arabic “wal” is translated as “and” but it actually indicates partnership, equality) and demands a Muslim (“one who submits”) to submit fully and completely to not just Allah but Muhammad with no outward or even inner reservations whatsoever (and Allah knows, and if you don’t you are a hypocrite who will burn in hell) for the moment.

    The important thing is that Muhammad is the judge in all things. And where are Muhammad’s judgements to be found, boys and girls? In the Sunnah. This is why Sunni Muslims are called Sunnis, or occasionally Sunnites. Because they adhere to the Sunnah.

    Surat Al-Aĥzab 33:36

    It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

    Once Allah’s partner Muhammad has rendered a judgement, which is found in the Sunnah, that’s it. It’s “settled science” like climate change. Anyone who deviates from the illiberal dogma is a hypocrite or an apostate.

    And ISIS has shown how to deal with those. And Al Gore and Greenpeace have wet dreams about being able to imitate their example.

    So if the Muslims you play softball or soccer with think they can read the Quran and reinterpret it as suits their wishes since they really don’t want to wage Jihad against the infidel, they can’t. Islam has closed the door on that.

    I don’t push this one too hard with Muslims at all. Like all good leftists, once you have them cornered they start calling you names. Then pull out the “I am offended” card (that’s usually how the Great National Conversation we’re supposed to have but not really usually ends, when the conservative talks back instead of just shutting up and listening to the lecture).

    So you read a verse of the Quran. They say it doesn’t mean what it says. You’re taking it out of context. Great, let’s put it in context. Here’s what Muhammad said about it. Here’s what the Tafsir says about it. It’s actually worse when you put it in context.

    “Well then you’re just a racist and Islampophobe.”

    I’d rather have them believe that than believe their holy books and put their beliefs into practice.

    If anyone has any doubts that leftism has the same modus operandi as Islam, read the National Association of Scholars study I linked to earlier.

    Steve57 (88b05c)

  121. can’t wait to see her take, snorfle:

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/03/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-for-tunis-massacre.php

    tell her that’s where they shot Star Wars,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  122. narcisso, if only John F’n Kerry had ISIS fix his derailleur instead of a Swiss bike shop owner, that attack would have been prevented.

    http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Harf-on-Jobs-for-ISIS.jpg

    Steve57 (88b05c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4710 secs.