John Kerry's security detail chief arrested and charged with sexually abusing a young child

John Kerry's former head of security, J. Scott Moretti, has been arrested for raping a 10-year-old

In Neon Nettle, Jay Greenberg reports,

John Kerry's former head of security has been arrested for repeatedly raping a ten-year-old child, according to reports.58-year-old J. Scott Moretti, who worked as Democratic former Secretary of State Kerry's security detail chief from January 2013 to April 2015, was arrested last week in Prince William County and charged with sexually abusing a young child between 2011 and 2013.

Moretti was arrested last Tuesday after special victims detectives concluded an investigation into the sexual assault of the unidentified girl, said Prince William County police spokeswoman Renee Carr.The victim knows Moretti and reported the incidents to police in September 2019.Moretti is charged with indecent liberties and forcible sodomy, Carr said.

Read more here.

Quid Pro Quo

In the Conservative Treehouse, Sundance links to a video in which Steve Hilton of Fox News talks about the corrupt activities of Joe Biden and John Kerry.

Kerry stands with the Palestinian terrorist protectors

Traitor John Kerry violates the Logan Act by sending a message to Palestinian terrorist protector Abbas telling him "Don't give in to Trump." He also told Abbas that he is thinking of running for president in 2020. Read more here.

Hat tip to Ace of Spades, who adds,

I was told it was a crime when Trump aides, during the transition, reached out to foreign leaders.

"We have one president at a time," the Washington Post and other DNC front groups intoned.

Well?

Where is the call for a special prosecutor now?

Bikers for Hillary

Related? Click below to see Amazon's selection of vitamins and supplements
Vitamins & Dietary Supplements

We are flying blind!

Matthew Continetti writes at the Free Beacon,

We are flying blind. And the problem is much larger than the Middle East. A rudderless America, in a moment of transition, is heedlessly reacting to events rather than influencing them. What Halford Mackinder dubbed the world-island of Eurasia is ringed by wars both hot and cold—from the Baltics to the Donbas, across the Shiite crescent, along the Indo-Pakistani border, through the South and East China Seas.

Putin tests NATO, fuels guerilla war in Ukraine, and pummels Aleppo. Turks fight ISIS and Kurds. America fights ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Iran sends aid to Hezbollah, militias to Syria, and swift boats to the Straits of Hormuz. India and Pakistan battle over Kashmir. Americans fight in Afghanistan. China builds its forces in the Pacific. North Korea flirts with nuclear war.

This planet is laced with dynamite. Only one spark is necessary to light it up. And the chances of miscalculation are immense.

Our leaders are not exactly up to the task. John Kerry is possibly the most feckless, credulous, blithering secretary of State in U.S. history. President Obama is on his way out. Secretary Clinton is more eager to use force, defends our intervention in Libya as a success, and would have something to prove early in her term as the nation’s first woman president. Kaine’s response to any criticism of world affairs is “Bin Laden.” Pence decided just to make up his own policy. And Trump—well, we can only begin to imagine.

Niall Ferguson wrote a book in 2006 I highly recommend. The argument of The War of the World is that the first and second world wars were indistinct. They were but phases of one giant conflagration incited by three factors. All of them are present today.

Ethnic Conflict. The move toward nationalism and sectarianism heightens tensions between nations and within them: Shia versus Sunni, Arab versus Persian, Muslim versus non-Muslim, Salafi versus heretic, Chinese versus Vietnamese versus Japanese versus Korean.

In the meantime the surge of Muslim refugees and economic migrants from the Middle East and Africa is reshaping the politics of Europe. Anti-immigrant parties are on the rise in Germany, in France, in England. Nor is the United States immune. Black Lives Matter, Colin Kaepernick, Donald Trump, the alt-right—racial politics is polarized, social cohesion frayed.

Economic Volatility.

Empires in Decline
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly punctured national self-confidence, soured elites and the public on intervention. They also gave us the ambivalent leadership of President Obama, who destabilized one alliance after another as he cut defense budgets, mishandled Russia, emptied Guantanamo, labeled half-measures a “pivot” to Asia, drew red lines and ignored them, turned the Department of Defense into a social justice lab, belittled our friends, and catered to our enemies.

The result is an anxious Europe, a bloodstained Middle East, growing dangers to U.S. forces in the Pacific, and an inward-looking America that, I fear, has neither the strategy nor the will to sustain a global order it paid so much in blood and treasure to obtain.

Read more here.

Ignore it!

Oregon Muse quotes John Kerry's recent remarks about media coverage of terrorism:

..But if you decide one day you're going to be a terrorist and you're willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't cover it quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on.

To which Oregon Muse responds:

I suspect that what Kerry chiefly wants ignored is stuff (like ISIS attacks) that reveals the magnitude of his failures, both his and those of his boss.

When will we learn about how Iran treated our sailors?

Adam Kredo reports for the Washington Free Beacon,

The classified details behind Iran’s treatment of several U.S. sailors who were captured by the Islamic Republic during a tense standoff earlier this year are likely to shock the nation, according to one member of the House Armed Services Committee, who disclosed to the Washington Free Beacon that these details are currently being withheld by the Obama administration.


Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.) told the Free Beacon in an interview that the Obama administration is still keeping details of the maritime incident under wraps. It could be a year or longer before the American public receives a full accounting of the incident, in which several U.S. sailors were abducted at gunpoint by the Iranian military.

“I think that when the details actually come out, most Americans are going to be kind of taken aback by the entire incident, both how Iran handled it and how we handled it,” Forbes disclosed. “I think that’s going to be huge cause for concern for most Americans. That’s why I’ve encouraged members of Congress to get that briefing so they do know exactly what did take place.”

Forbes suggested that Iran’s treatment of the U.S. sailors—which included filming them crying and forcing them to apologize at gunpoint—may have been much worse than what has been publicly reported.

“I think clearly there were violations of international and maritime law that took place here,” Forbes said. “We [the United States] did almost nothing in response, in fact, to have Secretary [of State John] Kerry actually thank them for releasing our sailors after they way they captured them, I think was a slap in the sailors’ face.”

Forbes is pushing a new measure that would increase sanctions on Tehran for its treatment of the U.S. sailors in order to hold Iran accountable for its aggressive behavior.

Forbes’ measure outlines a range of Iranian aggressions against U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region.

Read more here.

Kerry blames “nuclear weapons” — rather than Japan’s fanaticism and nihilism — for Hiroshima.

David Harsanyi writes in The Federalist about John Kerry's visit to Hiroshima and the upcoming Obama trip to Japan.

If the Obama administration is intent on historical score-keeping there’s plenty to talk about. Japan aligned itself with one of the great murderers of the 20th century (though it needed no help initiating genocide) and launched numerous invasions and a war that cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of lives and billions in treasure, both fighting Japan and helping it create a stable, liberal state after the war.

It’s not like the Japanese have ever truly apologized for the butchery, mass rape, destruction, and aggression that made Hiroshima a reality. Has any Japanese foreign or prime minister strolled through the gut-wrenching exhibit about the Nanking massacre? The first time any Japanese official apologized for the Bataan Death March was 2009 — and then only an ambassador.

...our motto the past eight years has been, “Strength Through Moral Equivalence.”

...Now, it’s a shame evil regimes start world wars that other nations are forced to win. But without the use of atomic weapons, World War II would likely have been prolonged. I realize historians debate how many Americans would have been saved, but at the very least, Truman’s intention was not to murder civilians indiscriminately, but to end the war in the Pacific.

Most reasonable people, even those who believe a war is wrong, mishandled, or fought poorly, can probably concede that since the start of the 20th century, the U.S. does not enter into conflict with an intent to steal oil or exact revenge on civilians or to drop atom bombs for kicks. We’re far more inclined to fight wars to try to create democracies or spread freedom — however misguided and botched those efforts are sometimes. And post-war Japan is proof that Americans, unlike most other places around the world, don’t really hold grudges. So, though we are imperfect, we are not equally culpable. Not even close.

Read more here.

A craven ranking of outrages

Charles C.W. Cooke writes in The Corner,

Ladies and gentleman, your Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry:

In the last days, obviously, that has been particularly put to the test. There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.

It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate.

When I first saw the key line here — “there was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale” — I thought that Kerry had likely been misquoted. Alas, he had not. In fact, his words are even worse in context.

There really is no way of reading these comments other than as a craven ranking of outrages. Forget Kerry’s brief flirtation with the word “legitimacy” and assume that he said “rationale” from the start. That changes precisely nothing. The top diplomat in the United States just publicly argued that because the victims at Charlie Hebdo had spoken risqué words but the victims at the Bataclan had not, the violence against the former was more comprehensible than the violence against the latter. Has he lost his mind?

Even if Kerry’s assumptions were all correct, the moral problem here would be obvious. We hear a great deal about “blaming the victim” in our domestic debates, especially as it relates to sexual assault. Does this not apply to other realms? In essence, the American Secretary of State just announced before the world that he could grasp why the woman in the short skirt was raped but that he had been left scratching his head by the attack on the woman in the pantsuit and the overcoat. “Sure,” he said, “I get why they knocked off the hate speakers, but why would they go after progressive kids at a concert? Now things are really serious.”

Read more here.


Update: Rush Limbaugh reminded his listeners today that Ted Cruz was one of three Senators who voted against Obama's nomination of Kerry to be Secretary of State.

Where will James Taylor sing next?

The satirical blog Manhattan Infidel reports that James Taylor is getting a little impatient, waiting to hear from John Kerry.

John Kerry thinks it would be a swell idea to get Russia more involved in the Middle East

Jim Geraghty writes at National Review about a period of time when

...back when red lines really meant something. It’s fascinating to think that back in 1983, the United States ran nuclear first-strike simulations that began with Moscow increasing its military role in the Middle East, arming Syria, and so on.

...Now the administration is trying to get Moscow to take a bigger role in the Middle East. Really. Josh Rogin and Eli Lake report:

...The State Department is now quietly encouraging U.S. allies to engage with Moscow, as part of Secretary John Kerry’s quest to win Russian support for a political process in Syria.

Why, it’s almost as if Obama and Kerry either don’t know or don’t care that the Russian KGB was the incubator of all sorts of terrorist groups, from the Red Brigades to the Red Army Faction to the Palestine Liberation Organization, not to mention its giving assistance to Libya’s terrorist allies. When the KGB was operating at peak power around the world, anti-Western terrorism thrived.

And now Obama and Kerry are encouraging the Middle East to turn to a man who has been in the KGB for 40 years and was considered particularly ruthless by his peers. (You’re a fool if you think a KGB man ever really leaves.)

Read more here.

What a deal!

h/t American Digest

Now what do we do?

I have found a new (to me) satirical blog called DuffleBlog. Joe Zieja writes there,

THE PENTAGON — The US Department of State is in absolute chaos following Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s declaration of war on ISIS, according to sources. The Pentagon remains deadlocked days later, as sources say its foreign policy experts remain unable to decide which of the two groups the US should rush supplies and military advisers to.

“For now,” Kerry explained, “we’ll be standing down all anti-terrorism operations globally, just in case anyone else wants to jump in. We wouldn’t want to bomb our allies. Whoever they are or might become.”

“Usually we expect a gap of twenty, thirty years at least before we have to start killing people we trained,” Defense Logistics Agency analyst Richard Teller said, on condition of anonymity. “This is totally different. We’re not just brushing off intelligence reports that say that they’ll ‘maybe’ want to kill us in a quarter century or so.”

“What do we do?” Teller continued. “Do we kill them while we’re training them? Bob came up with that idea, but he’s an idiot. I have a feeling they’ll stop coming to work if we do that.”

Teller, part of a select team of individuals hand-picked for their logistical experience, is busy coming up with a way to possibly train both groups at the same time, but his isn’t the only proposal.

One convoluted plan involves utilizing Al Qaeda facilitators to move goods to ISIS facilitators, who will in turn train Al Qaeda fighters how to become smugglers. Somehow, Nicaraguan cocaine mules also became involved. Ultimately the plan was scrapped due to the overwhelming amount of American-made materiel that would have to be moved to the Middle East and sold to brokers at extremely high black-market prices.

“I see no issue at all with this plan,” said Sandra Hemsworth, a Lockheed Martin representative.

Still, despite hours of planning meetings and hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into think tanks around the Beltway to help solve the problem, the question still remains: who is going to get the goods?

Read more here.

Iran lobby buys American politicians

Daniel Greenfield writes at Front Page Magazine about how the Iran lobby has bought American politicians.

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

...In the House, the Democratic recipients of IAPAC money came out for the deal. Mike Honda, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iran Lobby backed the nuke sellout. As did Andre Carson, Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards and Jackie Speier. The Iran Lobby was certainly getting its money’s worth.

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

...Appeasement inflation has since raised that $200 million to at least $50 billion. But there are still no strings worth mentioning attached to the big check.

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

...Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

...Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

...Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

Read more here.

Comparing Obama to Reagan?

At Powerline Steven Hayward takes on those who compare Obama's negotiations with Iran with Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev:

Remember one salient fact: Reagan eventually got a deal on his terms—including vigorous on-site weapons inspections that the Soviets had previously refused—by walking away from the table in Reykjavik and hanging tough on his missile defense program. (The Soviets caved on all points within a few months.) Dionne and others conveniently forget that at the time liberals were outraged that Reagan walked away from the table, while conservatives said it was his finest hour.

Reagan’s defense buildup and tough stance led the Soviets to recognize that they could not keep up, and that it was in their interest to reach significant arms reduction deals. But again—liberals like Dionne were outraged at Reagan’s arms buildup at the time, and uniformly blasted SDI. And the first half of this paragraph is wrong: it was Reagan’s prolonged stubbornness that weakened Kremlin hardliners: if Reagan had given in on SDI or on-site inspections, as the hardliners demanded Gorbachev get from him at Reykjavik, they would have been strengthened at home. It was precisely because Gorbachev came home empty-handed that he was able to tell his “hard-liners” that the game was up. Transcripts of post-Reykjavik Politburo meetings make this crystal clear.

Among other howlers, after having prattled on about her concern for human rights, Pelosi pushes back at a reporter’s question about why Kerry didn’t get the four Americans that Iran is holding on trumped up charges released as part of the deal. Pelosi squirms a bit and suggests it is a separate issue: “This is a nuclear agreement,” and not a suitable forum for human rights issues.

Once again, if liberals really wanted to follow the Reagan model, they’d recall that at every summit Reagan always passed a list of specific names of political prisoners we wanted released from Soviet jails. Even at Reykjavik, amidst the tense discussions about strategic nuclear warheads, Reagan still did this. Did John Kerry ever press the issue of human rights in general, or the four American in particular, in the Vienna talks? Someone should ask the State Department and the White House this question directly.

Read more here.

Good cop/Bad cop

Mark Steyn writes,

Millenarian Iran wants to nuke us. Wahhabist Saudi Arabia wants to own us.

The House of Saud has advanced quite a long way toward the goal. Nevertheless, the idea that de facto acceptance of Iranian nukes plus giving them money, arms, technology and global legitimacy will assist Teheran to "change for the better" is stupid. As I said to John Oakley, Iran has spent 35 years declining to accept the most basic norms of state-to-state relations and using all means at its disposal to act extra-territorially. We have just substantially enhanced their means to act extra-territorially and cemented the regime in place.

Besides, Obama isn't thinking about any of that. He isn't weighing who's more likely to moderate their particular virulent strain of Islamic imperialism - any more than he cares whether what replaced Mubarak was better or worse. He was opposed to Mubarak because Mubarak was a designated American ally, just as he was opposed to Gaddafi because George W Bush turned him. That's why, in a choice between a pro-American theocratic dump and an anti-American theocratic dump, he instinctively favors the latter. The "student radical" here isn't me, it's Obama - aided by the quintessential superannuated "student radical" John Kerry.

Read more here.

Zero tolerance for right-wing terrorism.

By now you have probably heard about how Secretary of State John Kerry was attacked by a curb while riding a bicycle.

Manhattan Infidel has the story:

“His only request was that James Taylor be flown to France to sing to him” said a nurse.

...“There will be no stone left unturned until we discover who he is working for” said CIA director John O. Brennan.

It is doubtful that this curbstone would have chosen to attack the Secretary of State of the most powerful, I mean the second most powerful, I mean the third most powerful country in the world by itself. He had to have had outside backing. Was he financed by right wing terrorists from Duck Dynasty? This is why we are waterboarding him as we speak. There will be zero tolerance for right-wing terrorism.

While the CIA interrogates the curb the FBI will be investigating probable links between the the suspect and global warming.

“Could the curb have become unstable because of global warming? Is that why it jumped out and attacked the Secretary? We need to investigate this. And money must be spent!” said FBI director James Comey.

The curb meanwhile denies trying to injure Kerry and refuses to talk to anyone.

Read more here.

Iranian nuclear procurer breaks leg

Ed Driscoll reports at PJ Media that Secretary of State John Kerry hit a curb while biking in Switzerland, and broke his leg. Read the story here.

Love child's charm offensive

Responding to barbarism from the seventh century with soft rock from the 1970s

Out of respect for my readers, I have not re-posted the You Tube video of James Taylor singing "You've got a Friend" to the French. I presume you have already seen it, and were as embarrassed as I. Kevin Williamson writes that

It is the substitution of celebrity for power, of sentiment for analysis, of sloppy gesture for clear-headed commitment.

We’re responding to barbarism from the seventh century with soft rock from the 1970s.

Who is James Taylor?

He became a hired hand for politicians, playing with MoveOn.org’s “Vote for Change” tour through swing states on behalf of – small world! – John Kerry, our national personification of vanity, a kept man, dilettante, and Democratic time-server whose career was both launched and sustained by self-serving accounts of his service in the Vietnam War, a conflict that Taylor avoided by being declared mentally unfit to serve.

If you find yourself in a fight, you want to know that you’ve got a friend. But do you really want that friend to be James Taylor?

It’s not that we should send the 101st Airborne to les banlieues, rather that we should be the sort of country that makes it matter when we say “you’ve got a friend.” When it comes to jihad, there are no obvious solutions, but there are some obvious non-solutions, and an impromptu James Taylor concert surely is one of them.