HILLARY CLINTON now says the families of Benghazi victims are “liars”

Nothing I hate more is a Worthless Lying Scumbag that just flat out Lies and is running for an electable position.

Hillary Clinton insists that if anyone is lying about the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi Islamic terror attacks that left four Americans dead, it’s ‘not me, that’s all I can tell you,’ Clinton replied, casting blame on the families and attributing any confusion to the ‘fog of war.’

UK Daily Mail  More than three years after the fires inside a U.S. diplomatic compound in the Libyan port city died down, the political heat is intensifying again – with Clinton facing tough questions along her road to the White House.

The Daily Sun, a newspaper in rural Conway, New Hampshire, hosted an editorial board meeting with Clinton on Wednesday. Columnist Tom McLaughlin recounted for her the claims of victims’ family members who said she had told them a crude Internet video that mocked the Islamic faith was responsible for inciting the attackers who killed their loved ones.

Clinton has denied making any such statement, despite the accounts of four people. One, the father of a slain CIA security contractor, took written notes of her words. ‘Somebody is lying,’ McLaughlin told her Wednesday. ‘Who is it?’ ‘Not me, that’s all I can tell you,’ Clinton replied, casting blame on the families.

Clinton made several public statements referring to the video, titled ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ suggesting that it sparked unrest in Benghazi the way it had in Cairo and elsewhere in the Arab world.

On September 14, 2012, she and President Obama attended a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where the bodies of the dead Americans, including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were returned to their families.

On that same day, a State Department official in Tripoli, Libya, wrote to Washington to say that ‘it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.’

And while the inflammatory video had made waves outside of Libya, the writer added, ‘we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists.’ 

But Clinton, still secretary of state, told four different relatives of the fallen that the filmmaker would be held responsible, according to their public statements. Another week would pass before she publicly referred to Benghazi as a terrorist event.

Charles Woods, whose son Ty Woods was a Benghazi casualty, told The Weekly Standard in October that he had written down Clinton’s words, verbatim, in his notebook, as she spoke. Reading from it, he recalled what Clinton had told him: ‘We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.’

Responding more directly to the family members’ recollections, she suggested their grief may have clouded their memories. ‘I can’t recite for you everything that was in a conversation where people were sobbing, where people were distraught, the president and the vice president, we were all making the rounds talking to people, listening to people,’ she explained.

‘I was in a very difficult position because [as of that moment] we have not yet said two of the four dead were CIA … This was a part of the fog of war.’

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/01/01/hillary-clinton-now-says-the-families-of-benghazi-victims-are-liars/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/5500_hillary_emails_released_late_afternoon_on_new_years_eve.html

Hillary Hauls Out Our Former Rapist-in-Chief

This week I was struck by two news items that were offered up to the public -- the first was that Bill Clinton was going to be more actively supporting Hillary’s presidential run; the second that Bill Crosby was indicted for rape. I found the juxtaposition of these two “Bills” both amusing and ironic. A formerly revered comic and alleged rapist may be on his way to jail, and a formerly not-so-revered ex-president and alleged rapist is on his way to the campaign trail on behalf of his wife (the enabler of his various sexual predations). The disparate treatment being accorded these two dirtbags cast a serious cloud over not just our criminal justice system, but of our culture in general.

Of course there are a couple of outstanding differences in the two cases -- one guy was just an entertainer, the other was president of the United States. Cosby’s stuff was kept under wraps for many years; and now that it has surfaced in his dotage, he may well go to jail for his conduct. Clinton’s conduct, which, in many respects, was equally unacceptable (and his womanizing indiscretions were well known throughout his entire adult life), will not result in any punishment of a criminal nature. And, in his case, shameful as that conduct is, it won’t even result in a loss of friends, let alone his personal liberty.

Clinton’s reaction to his adolescent sexualizing was equally amusing to me. When accusations were being hurled at him -- public accusations -- Clinton observed that these slings and arrows might damage his reputation, but they would not affect his “character.” And, of course, in a somewhat perverse sense, he’s right -- you can’t affect something that doesn’t exist. And Clinton, while a charming con man, is a man without content, courage, or character. And the really sad part of this is that the worthless charmer could probably be re-elected tomorrow. Indeed, if Hillary, an angry, incompetent witch, had 1/10th of his charm, she would almost be a shoe-in for the presidency (while a Republican victory should be a no-brainer, given the last eight years under Obama and Hillary, the Republicans can almost always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory).

What adds to the amusement inherent in this situation is Hillary’s recent statement that a woman’s assertion of having been sexually assaulted should be taken seriously -- as indeed it should be. However, when such charges were leveled against her husband -- by a plethora of women -- she not only failed to take them seriously, she immediately went after the women making such charges and sought to ruin them. When confronted by this bit of hypocrisy on the campaign trail by a woman who was paying attention, Hillary’s weak response was:

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”

Of course, this response was not just weak, it was meaningless. Bill’s accusers were never controverted by any evidence stronger than his denial, which no one took seriously. Indeed, Monica’s stained blue dress clearly indicated who should be believed when Bill Clinton was involved.

Given Bill’s disgraceful behavior in this area, you would think that sexually assaulting women would be the last subject that Hillary would want to open up. But, true to form, demonstrating once again another of her failings -- i.e. lack of judgement -- she tried to use it against Trump in response to one of his silly off-the-cuff comments utilizing a sexual innuendo. Even some lefties so the absurdity of this approach -- Ruth Marcus, a left-wing reporter writing for the Washington Post, had this to say:

“‘Sexism’’ isn’t the precise word for his predatory behavior toward women or his inexcusable relationship with a 22-year-old intern.Yet in the larger sense of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said. Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.”

This from a lefty in one of the consummate lefty publications. Trump may shoot off his mouth, but at least he keeps his pants on when he’s doing it.

Another interesting aspect of this “assault-on-women” thing is the double standard. When a conservative crosses the sexual line in the moral sand, the press gets up in arms. It’s like he fell from grace (apparently due to the right’s connection with family values). When a lefty gets caught in the wrong bed, the media (and, of course, lefties) treat it as a sign of his enhanced masculinity (the left having no grace to fall from).

Bill Clinton’s conduct with women was more than disgraceful -- it was criminal, and he should be in jail. Hillary’s supporting him in the great multitude of his meanderings (enabling him in the first instance, and defending him on his being caught) is no less disgraceful. And, certainly, no feminist would consider supporting a husband who has been as compulsively unfaithful as Bill Clinton as an understandable act of standing by your man (which, you will recall, Hillary informed us that she was not). No, I believe that Hillary could not be on weaker ground than to accuse the Republicans of engaging in a war on women. Maybe she should consider cleaning up her own house first.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/hillary_hauls_out_our_former_rapistinchief.html#ixzz3w2lEKusV
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Yellen, You Have A Problem: The "Rate Hike Corridor" Just Broke

One week before the Fed hiked rates by 25 bps we warned that "nobody knows if the Fed can actually do it", citing not only our previous post on the topic, explaining the lack of a detailed framework by the Fed on the mechanics of the rate hike, but also a Bloomberg piece in which we noted the broader logistical concern: "with so much cash sloshing around, will Fed officials be able to nudge rates as high as they want? Will the new-fangled tools they’ve created to engineer the move work, or instead sow the kind of confusion that can dent the Fed’s credibility and spur a broader market selloff?"

The good news, at least initially, was that the Fed's plumbing worked smoothly, and instead of the Fed draining up to the $1 trillion in excess liquidity some such as Citi had predicted, the very first fixed-rate reverse repo operation saw just $105 billion in liquidity soaked up by the Fed from 49 counterparties.

Was there somehow too little excess liquidity, or was there something more structural at hand. It didn't matter: after all the Federal Funds rates was solidly inbetween the 0.25% floor and 0.50% ceiling set by the Fed's Reverse Repo and Interest on Overnight Excess Reserves, and there was no reason to worry that the Fed had made a mistake.

However, this changed today when the Fed Funds rate just tumbled to 0.12%, far below the required 0.25% floor set by the Fed, and down 23 bps from the effective 0.35% Fed Funds rate set yesterday, confirming that indeed the rate hike corridor can and has been breached at least once, and just two weeks into the Fed's rate hike experiment.

To be sure, while this is clearly a structural failure of the rate hike corridor, it also reflect the quarter and year-end window dressing we discussed first well over a year ago. SMRA confirms as much:  

the fed funds rate has dropped to 0.12% this morning, down from 0.47% yesterday. The fed funds rate has dropped at month-end for all of 2015, with some of the larger of these moves occurring at quarter end, like today.

It appears that these drops will still occur even after the fed rate hike, and possibly that the will be even more extreme, since today's drop was about 23 basis points, as opposed to previous declines this year, which were usually between 5 and 10 basis points.

True, there is always an excuse, and in this case it has to do with banks window dressing their balance sheets for the quarter or year-end.

However, the fact that there is this kind of major discontinuity in the Fed's rate hike process, throws a huge wrench in the credibilty of the Fed tightening effort.

After all, if banks can steamroll with impunity the Reverse Repo 0.25% floor to park hundreds of billions, or trillions, in liquidity, then the Fed's entire experiment will be worth nothing. Keep in mind, the rate hike process only works if banks don't get a chance to revert to an old standby liquidity regime on the last day of any quarter, in the process getting all the benefits of ZIRP even as the Fed parades just how tight financial conditions are getting.

Just imagine what would happen on December 31, 2016 if the Fed Funds rate plunged from 1.25% to 0.12% overnight? That would suggest that while the Fed may have drained liquidity for 99% of the quarter, on the one day it matters - the day when the bank's balance sheet snapshot is formalized for 10-Q and 10-K purposes, ZIRP regime has returned.

What all this means is that the Fed's attempt to allow banks to "voluntarily" return excess liquidity has failed, just as we expected it would courtesy of these kinds of dramatic rate discotninuities, and that if Yellen is indeed serious about soaking up liquidity and "bursting bubbles", she will have to either force banks to submit far greater amounts of liquidity, or drain liquidity structurally, by unwinding the Fed's balance sheet instead of pretending financial conditions are tighter by pushing the Fed Funds rate by 25 bps even as the Fed still own trillions in various assets. Because another way of putting all this is that the Fed is tightening bank financial conditions on all days in the quarter... except the one when it actually matters!

And needless to say, the impact on risk assets as a result of the Fed announcing a real liquidity drain - like trimming its balance sheet by a trillion or more - would be dire.

For now, we sit back and watch to see just how the Fed will spin this first failure of the rate hike process, because now it is no longer merely a speculation: the market knows that Yellen has a problem.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-31/yellen-you-have-problem-rate-hike-corridor-just-broke

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-31/15-news-tstories-2015-you-should-have-heard-about-probably-didn

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/01/01/2015-was-the-worst-year-for-the-stock-market-since-2008/

Obama Folds To Iran (Again), Will Delay New Sanctions After Rouhani Threat

Is he a Chickenshit or is he still behind them and screw the American people's security.

On Thursday, we detailed the Obama administration’s plan to impose fresh sanctions on Iran in connection with the test-firing of Tehran’s next-generation, surface-to-surface ballistic missile the Emad back in October. 

While the launch did not technically violate the nuclear accord (on which the ink is barely dry), it did run afoul of a UN Security Council resolution on developing and testing missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. That prompted some US lawmakers to call for new penalties against the country just as international sanctions are set to be lifted.

The new measures reportedly target around a dozen companies and individuals with ties to Tehran’s ballistic missiles program including: 

• U.A.E.-based Mabrooka Trading and its founder, Hossein Pournaghshband
• Hong Kong-based Anhui Land Group
• Five officials from Iran’s Ministry of Defense for Armed Forces Logistics, or MODAFL including Sayyed Javad Musavi, a key figure at a MODAFL subsidiary which has been the subject of Treasury Dept. sanctions in the past

Iran immediately responded, calling the sanctions “arbitrary and illegal.” As a reminder, the Iranians vigorously defend their right to pursue what they call “defensive” capabilities. Tehran says its missile program falls into that category.

For his part, President Hassan Rouhani was not pleased and ordered his defence minister to immediately expand Iran's missile programme. This is precisely what we warned would happen on the heels of the Emad launch when we said the following: 

“..imposing sanctions on countries in order to deter their defense buildup (Iran) or otherwise force them into acting in a way that fits your definition of being an internationally responsible country (Russia) is a fool's errand to the extent that it only serves to aggravate the situation and perpetuates still more of the very same behavior you're trying to deter in the first place."

Of course the more immediate question for The White House was whether the new sanctions would derail the nuclear accord which, as regular readers are no doubt aware, is a rather important part of Obama’s legacy. John McCain - among others - have accused the administration of tolerating incessant Iranian sabre rattling in a desperate attempt to preserve the deal. “Strict, aggressive, and consistent enforcement is critical to punishing Iran for its destabilizing behavior and making the nuclear deal work,” McCain said, in the wake of an “incident” in the Strait of Hormuz involving what Washington says was a “close call” with Iranian rockets.

In a move that will almost certainly infuriate GOP lawmakers, The White House has decided to mothball the new sanctions. “The White House has delayed its plan to impose new financial sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile program,” WSJ reports, citing US officials. The move comes “amid growing tensions with Iran over the nuclear deal struck earlier this year,” The Journal adds. Here’s more: 

U.S. officials offered no definitive timeline for when the sanctions would be imposed after the decision was made Wednesday to delay them. At one point, they were scheduled to be announced Wednesday morning in Washington, according to a notification the White House sent to Congress.

Republican leaders on Thursday accused the Obama administration of losing its will to challenge Iran after Tehran countered on Thursday that it would accelerate the development of its arsenal.

“If the president’s announced sanctions ultimately aren’t executed, it would demonstrate a level of fecklessness that even the president hasn’t shown before,” said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a leading critic of the nuclear deal, in an interview.

Critics of the planned sanctions had already charged they weren’t an adequate U.S. response to Iran’s continuing development of its missile program.

President Hassan Rouhani said Thursday morning on Twitter that he had instructed Iran’s Ministry of Defense to accelerate the development of ballistic missiles in response to the news reports of the impending U.S. sanctions.

The State Department was keen to note that the decision was not in any way related to Rouhani's comments. In a hilariously absurd testament to just how indecisive the current administration has become, Obama was apparently ready to announce the sanctions at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, then got cold feet and pushed the announcement back "a few hours" before cancelling it altogether. Here's The Times again: 

The White House on Wednesday morning sent a notification to Congress that the Treasury Department would announce at 10:30 a.m. new sanctions on nearly a dozen companies and individuals in Iran, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates for their alleged role in developing Iran’s ballistic missile program. The sanctions would have been the first imposed on Iran since the nuclear agreement was reached last July in Vienna. 

The White House then sent a second email to congressional offices at 11:12 a.m. stating the sanctions announcement had been “delayed for a few hours,” according to a copy of the communications seen by The Wall Street Journal. 

In a final White House email sent just after 10 p.m., officials said the sanctions had been delayed, and didn’t specify when they might go ahead.

It's unclear what exactly unfolded between say, 9 a.m. Wednesday morning and lunchtime, but it seems logical to assume that someone conveyed Iran's position to the administration and, upon learning that Rouhani (not to mention the Ayatollah) were about to blow a fuse, Obama simply called the whole thing off.

Needless to say, this will be trotted out endlessly as further evidence that America has become weak, that the President "leads from behind," and that the nuclear was indeed "historic" - a "historic" failure. 

On that note, we close with two statements, one from The White House and one from Rouhani. Compare and contrast.

The White House: "We are considering various aspects related to additional designations, as well as evolving diplomatic work that is consistent with our national security interests, and as such we will not be announcing any additional designations today."

Rouhani: "We have never negotiated regarding our defense capabilities including our missile program and will not accept any restrictions in this regard

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/obama-folds-iran-again-will-delay-new-sanctions-after-rouhani-threat

George Soros Regrets Supporting Obama, Eagerly Awaits President Hillary

Lets think about this. Hillary has been saying the GOP is trying to stop voters from voting by having voter id cards. Some State precincts  Had Obama win 100% of the votes. Obama is doing everything he can to bring in more voters and Soros backs him on that. So how far will these scumbags go to win or throw or cheat in an election to win to keep their power?  I hope we can watch that close this time.

Several weeks ago, we presented a list of CEOs and corporations who have had the highest number of direct visits to the White House and, by implication, president Obama. As we said,these are the corporations (and CEOs) who own the White House, and the US presidency .

One name oddly missing was that of George Soros: the billionaire liberal donor whose fundraising efforts have been critical for the Democratic party in recent years. Which is surprising considering the substantial backing, mostly financial, Soros provided in 2007 and 2008 to a then largely unknown Senator from Illinois.

Or perhaps it is not surprising: a 2012 New Yorker profile of the relationship between the US president and one of the left's most generous donors reveals stormy clouds:

"although he still supports Obama, Soros has been disappointed by him, both politically and personally. Small slights can loom large with wealthy donors. When Soros wanted to meet with Obama in Washington to discuss global economic problems, Obama’s staff failed to respond. Eventually, they arranged not a White House interview but, rather, a low-profile, private meeting in New York, when the President was in town for other business. Soros found this back-door treatment confounding. “He feels hurt,” a Democratic donor says."

Fast forward to December 31, when in the pre-New Year's lull, the State Department released its latest dump of Hillary Clinton emails, amounting to some 5,500 pages, a move Trump promptly slammed.

And while it will take the media a few days to parse through all the emails, one already stands out: one revealing not only the relationship between Soros and Obama, but more importantly, Soros and the person who will likely be America's next president.

As the following excerpt reveals, the abovementioned George Soros told a close Hillary Clinton ally in 2012 that he regretted supporting Barack Obama over her in the 2008 primaries and praised Clinton for giving him an open door to discuss policy, according to emails released Thursday by the State Department.

As first reported by Politico, in an email to Clinton, Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, recounted a conversation she had while seated next to Soros at a dinner sponsored by the liberal major donor club called Democracy Alliance.

After Tanden informed Soros that she had worked for Clinton during her bitter 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination against Obama, Tanden wrote that Soros “said he's been impressed that he can always call/meet with you on an issue of policy and said he hasn't met with the President ever (though I thought he had). He then said he regretted his decision in the primary - he likes to admit mistakes when he makes them and that was one of them. He then extolled his work with you from your time as First Lady on."

The full email below:

Going back to the NY Mag 2012 article, it added that according to a source, although "Soros might have contributed far more money to Obama if the Administration had engaged with him more intently, he said, “Part of me respects Obama for not spending more time with him. This President doesn’t want to spend a lot of time with donors. You have to admire that.”"

Actually he does, as the chart up top shows it. However, for some odd reason Obama simply did not want to spend a lot of time with George Soros.

The time of snubbing Soros, however, is at an end, as Hillary is well-known for having no qualms about spending "a lot of time with donors", especially since virtually every entity on Wall Street is a donor either directly or to the Clinton Foundation.

Which means that as Obama's time in the White House runs out, and as Hillary prepares to take over the throne (barring some Republican miracle), Soros is about to rectify his mistake from 8 years ago and make sure that the special interest puppet in charge of the U.S., is precisely the one he wanted all along.

Then again, perhaps it is really just Obama's fault, and behind the charming facade is a pool of unlikability. According to another email released yeserday , this time citing Germany's foreign minister circa 2009, Germany's Angela Merkel despised the "Obama phenomenon:"

Sydney Blumenthal sent Clinton a memo on Sept. 30, 2009 with background information on John Kornblum, who was at the time taking over as Germany’s foreign minister. “Kornblum strongly suggests you try to develop your personal relationship with Merkel as you can,” Blumenthal writes.

“He says she dislikes the atmospherics surrounding the Obama phenomenon, that it’s contrary to her whole idea of politics and how to conduct oneself in general. She would welcome a more conversational relationship with you.”

Eight years later, all of America is eager to move on from the "Obama phenomenon."  The problem is that the "Hillary phenomenon" is on deck.

* * *

We conclude with a few lines from Ludwig von Mises who 80 years ago described and previewed this twisted, corrupted and politicized mutant that passes for modern "capitalism" in his essay "The Myth of the Failure Of Capitalism", which was published shortly before the coming of Adolf Hitler to power:

“In the interventionist state it is no longer of crucial importance for the success of an enterprise that the business should be managed in a way that it satisfies the demands of consumers in the best and least costly manner.

        

“It is far more important that one has ‘good relationships’ with the political authorities so that the interventions work to the advantage and not the disadvantage of the enterprise. A few marks’ more tariff protection for the products of the enterprise and a few marks’ less tariff for the raw materials used in the manufacturing process can be of far more benefit to the enterprise than the greatest care in managing the business.

“No matter how well an enterprise may be managed, it will fail if it does not know how to protect its interests in the drawing up of the custom rates, in the negotiations before the arbitration boards, and with the cartel authorities. To have ‘connections’ becomes more important that to produce well and cheaply.

“So the leadership positions within the enterprises are no longer achieved by men who understand how to organize companies and to direct production in the way the market situation demands, but by men who are well thought of ‘above’ and ‘below,’ men who understand how to get along well with the press and all the political parties, especially with the radicals, so that they and their company give no offense. It is that class of general directors that negotiate far more often with state functionaries and party leaders than with those from whom they buy or to whom they sell.

“Since it is a question of obtaining political favors for these enterprises, their directors must repay the politicians with favors. In recent years, there have been relatively few large enterprises that have not had to spend very considerable sums for various undertakings in spite of it being clear from the start that they would yield no profit. But in spite of the expected loss it had to be done for political reasons. Let us not even mention contributions for purposes unrelated to business – for campaign funds, public welfare organizations, and the like.

“Forces are becoming more and more generally accepted that aim at making the direction of large banks, industrial concerns, and stock corporations independent of the shareholders . . . The directors of large enterprises nowadays no longer think they need to give consideration to the interests of the shareholders, since they feel themselves thoroughly supported by the state and that they have interventionist public opinion behind them.

“In those countries in which statism has most fully gained control . . . they manage the affairs of their corporations with about as little concern for the firm’s profitability as do the directors of public enterprises. The result is ruin.

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/george-soros-regrets-supporting-obama-eagerly-awaits-president-hillary

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/11/interesting-obama-won-in-every-state-with-voter-id-laws/

Faked Hate in Houston: Man charged with setting Christmas Day mosque fire was DEVOUT MUSLIM regular attendee

The Liberal Media pumped this up as a conservative tea party nut job that did this. Then when they find out who it was they are silent..........

For the past few days we have been clubbed like baby seals about the “hate crime” mosque fire in Texas. Terror-tied groups howled like wolves, rubbing their hooves in glee that they could hang their false narrative of “anti-Muslim” hate crimes on the Houston mosque fire.

Not so fast, jihad Johnny.

As I predicted, the perp was …… a devout Muslim.

Houston: Man charged with setting mosque fire was devout Muslim regular attendee,  By Robert Spencer, December 30, 2015 (thanks to David):

At the time the fire was set, it garnered much attention as a “hate crime”: “The Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on authorities to investigate a possible bias motive in the case, citing what it called a ‘recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide.’” But it turns out to have been yet another fake hate crime. Islamic supremacist groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. Hamas-linked CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have onmany occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. Most notably, in February, a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

“Man charged with setting Houston mosque fire was a devout attendee,” by Carol Christian and Leah Binkowitz, Houston Chronicle, December 30, 2015 (thanks to Steve):

A Houston man has been arrested in connection with a suspected arson at a mosque on Christmas Day.

A spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed that the man was arrested early Wednesday, sometime after midnight, and appeared in court 7 a.m. Wednesday.

The suspect, Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, of Houston, appeared in court at 7 a.m., spokeswoman Nicole Strong said.

According to a charging instrument released by the Harris County District Clerk, Moore told investigators at the scene that he has attended the mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week.

Moore told investigators he had been at the mosque earlier on Dec. 25 to pray, and had left at about 2 p.m. to go home. Moore told investigators he was the last person to leave the mosque and saw no smoke or other signs of fire when he left. He had returned to the scene after hearing about the fire from a friend.

Though the suspect said he was a regular at the mosque, MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, which operates the mosque, said he was unfamiliar with Moore.

Typical. These imams always say they know their parishioners intimately, but they never seem to know the jihadis that attend their mosque regularly.

“We are just looking into it ourselves,” he said Wednesday morning after learning of the arrest.

“We are really very surprised and saddened by this whole thing,” said Khan.

Using surveillance video from multiple businesses nearby, investigators were able to identify Moore, according to records. A search warrant of his home was conducted, in which investigators recovered a backpack and clothing that seemingly matched that which was seen in surveillance footage, as well as one half of a two-pack of charcoal lighter fluid bottles that seemed to match another lighter fluid bottle found inside the mosque….

 http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/12/31/faked-hate-in-houston-man-charged-with-setting-christmas-day-mosque-fire-was-devout-muslim-regular-attendee/