He discussed “Hillary Clinton’s War On Free Speech”:
Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, April 14, 2015
The presidential race for 2016 is gearing up and candidates are preparing themselves for the upcoming campaign. On April 12, 2015, Hillary Clinton became the first candidate to announce her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She follows senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who are running for the Republican nomination. Their profiles by Clarion Project are linked to.
As each candidate announces their intention to run, Clarion Project will provide a summary of each candidate’s positions on issues relating to Islamic extremism, in order to help our readers make the most informed possible choice come voting day. Should there be any significant changes, we intend to update our readers on the positions of any given candidate.
As Clarion is a bipartisan organization, we will not be endorsing any party or any candidate. All information provided is intended as informative only and should not be taken as evidence of Clarion’s preference for any given candidate.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton
Arkansas First Lady to Governor Bill Clinton (1979-1992)
First Lady to President Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
New York Senator (2001-2009)
Secretary of State under Obama Administration (2009-2013
View of Islamism
- Acknowledges that the threat is ideological in nature and is a “contest of ideas and values.”
- U.S. needs an “overarching strategy” against jihadists and their ideology like the West had to defeat Communism.
- “Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat.”
- Defines Islamists broadly as Muslims who want a “guiding role” for Islam in politics and government. Clinton says there is a “wide spectrum” of Islamists including some who are hostile to democracy, indicating a belief that Islamism and democracy can be compatible.
- Uses the term “moderate Islamist” to describe the Ennahda party in Tunisia, complimenting it for its inclusive rule after coming to power. Ennahda is actually an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood and its spiritual leader, Rashid Ghannouchi, has radical history. Popular unrest forced it to resign and secular-democrats were subsequently voted into power.
- U.S. must use “smart power” to promote democracy and human rights and not just elections. She writes that the U.S. needs to focus on building civil society and democratic institutions. Clinton points out that only the military and Muslim Brotherhood were organized for a democratic process when President Mubarak was overthrown.
- A political offensive is needed to confront anti-American sentiments and extremism overseas like during the Cold War. Clinton says America needs to “tell our story” and defend its policies through public engagement, but it was an “uphill struggle to convince either Congress or the White House to make this a priority.”
- Promoting women’s rights should be a central pillar of foreign policy and “at the top of America’s diplomatic to-do list.”
- Refused to meet with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan after Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman expressed his willingness.
- Returned $50,000 in donations from the American Muslim Alliance for her Senate campaign after its president justified Palestinian violence against Israel. She said the statement was “offensive and outrageous.”
- She also returned a $1,000 donation from Abdurrahman Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council after he publicly announced his support for Hamas and Hezbollah. He later was convicted on terrorism-related charges and admitted to being a secret member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.
- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity according to the Justice Department, promoted an article accusing Clinton of relying on advisers who want to start a world war and implement a “50-year project of ‘reordering’ the Middle East in order to make the region safe for Israel.”
- It also criticizes advisers to Clinton and former New York Mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani for “envisioning a grand project of secularizing and ‘democratizing’ the Middle East.”
- CAIR also posted an article that calls Clinton “Israel’s new lawyer.”
- Her State Department had Abed Ayoub, CEO of Islamic Relief USA, as an adviser. He was on the Department’s Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group, specifically the Sub-Group on Faith-Based Groups and Development and Humanitarian Assistance. Islamic Relief is linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and was later banned by Israel and the United Arab Emirates for its alleged terrorism links.
- Huma Abedin, a top aide to Clinton since 1996 and Deputy Chief of Staff when she was Secretary of State, was assistant-editor of an Islamist journal from 1996 to 2008 and three of her immediate family members are closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her husband’s mayoral campaign also received donations from a lobbyist for Al-Jazeera. This has raised questions about the security clearance process.
- Her husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner, is Jewish and very pro-Israel. Clinton denies that Abedin is part of the Brotherhood and described those voicing concerns as “irresponsible and demagogic.”
- Abedin was also defended by Republican officials. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says “she is about as far away from the Muslim Brotherhood view of women and ideology as you can get.”
- Clinton Foundation has received tens of millions of dollars from seven foreign governments, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It also received $50,000 in 2005 from the Alavi Foundation, a New York-based group that was later shut down as an Iranian regime front. Former president Clinton responded that receiving their money did “a lot more good than harm” and all donations are disclosed.
- The Foundation’s director for Egypt from 2007 to 2012, Gehad al-Haddad, has been arrested by the Egyptian government for being a Muslim Brotherhood member. Al-Haddad worked as an adviser for the Brotherhood’s political party at the same time as he worked for the Clinton Foundation. His father is a member of the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.
- Favors a policy of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and rejects a strategy of containment.
- Iran does not have a right to enrich uranium. Our objective should be to end or minimize its enrichment. Ending enrichment altogether is “not an unrealistic position.”
- “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right.”
- “The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out. So, little or no enrichment has always been my position.”
- The U.S. should provide a security umbrella for Arab states against Iran but membership should require a “non-aggression pact” with Israel.
- Regrets that she and the Obama Administration did not speak out forcefully in favor of the Green Revolution in 2009. She reportedly pressured President Obama to openly support the protests at the time.
- She recognizes that the movement was about more than just the fraudulent re-election and many wanted the regime to fall. Clinton says her State Department used high-tech tools to help Iranian dissidents evade repression.
- Urged President Obama to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels to fill the power vacuum before jihadists could.
- She expressed confidence that the U.S. could work with Jordan and the Islamist government of Turkey in vetting Syrian rebels.
- She said, “there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle,” indicating that her strategy would include Islamists that do not belong to designated terrorist groups.
- Opposes sending U.S. troops to Iraq to directly engage in a combat mission against ISIS.
Read more in-depth on Hillary Clinton.
Frontpage, April 14, 2015 by
There are so many Clinton scandals that Wikipedia had to create an index page to list them all. Clinton-watching is an exhausting hobby that will turn into a full-time job for multitudes of talking heads, journalists, columnists, and activists should the Clintons take up residence in the White House again.
In the meantime we are left to wonder what role Abedin played in a long list of irregularities, mishaps, scandals, and America-weakening events while serving at the Department of State.
What role, if any, did Abedin play in:
*the Benghazi massacre and the coverup of it
*the State Department’s accountability review board failing to blame Clinton for Benghazi
*the failure of the Obama administration to disclose the cause of death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who was reportedly tortured and sodomized to death by Muslim terrorists
*the Obama’s administration’s perverse embrace of America’s longtime enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran whose leaders can’t go a day without screaming “Death to America” (and “Death to Israel”)
*Iran’s conquest of its neighbors
*the ousting of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi
*the rise of Islamic State
*the removal of longstanding ally Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt followed by the installation of Muslim Brotherhood favorite Mohamed Morsi in the position
*the conversion of NASA into a Muslim outreach agency
*the odious, lie-strewn “A New Beginning” speech President Obama gave at Cairo University in 2009
All these things that happened on then-Secretary Clinton’s watch. And they happened while the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation reportedly raked in millions of dollars in donations from the governments of Muslim countries including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Algeria.
Call them anticipatory bribes thrown over the transom in case Mrs. Clinton secures the presidency. (Statistics wiz Nate Silver says Clinton is a virtual shoo-in for her party’s nomination but gives her roughly a 50/50 chance of winning the general election.)
As Hillary was screwing up America’s foreign policy, Bill was giving highly remunerative speeches in the Islamic nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey, according to Judicial Watch.
For what it’s worth, President Obama’s Cairo speech came on the heels of his worldwide apology tour in which he begged forgiveness from the countries of the world supposedly oppressed for so long by the U.S.
The oration was a major propaganda victory for Islamism that has emboldened fanatics and terrorists worldwide. It was also jam-packed with falsehoods, according to academics Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow.
The address, of course, is a breathtaking work of fiction that whitewashes the blood-drenched history of Islam and falsely attributes accomplishments such as printing, navigation, and medicine to the Islamic world.
Obama gave Islam credit for un-Islamic things such as the Enlightenment and religious tolerance. Islam “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for European Renaissance and Enlightenment,” and “has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” Obama said.
Grabar and Birdnow counter that in fact “the intellectual Renaissance began when Byzantine scholars, mostly Greek, fled the advancing Turks in the 14th century and settled in Italy. The Enlightenment was openly anti-theistic and would have been anathema to most practicing Muslims.”
Moreover, they add, “Muslims wiped out Zoroastrianism, they battled Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries, and they levied a special tax on Christians and Jews in their domains.”
The lies in the Obama speech would no doubt be embraced by Abedin’s family. Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep.
Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin, widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 1978 Mr. Abedin was hired by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank created by Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden.
The elder Abedins both became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”
Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.
Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” Huma Abedin was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA has extensive ties to al-Qaeda. From 1996 to 2008, she was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington. Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then surreptitiously deleted their electronic correspondence.
Were Secretary Clinton’s dealings with the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton Foundation discussed in the emails that she deleted from her now-infamous private email server? We may never know.
There is, nonetheless, some reason for hope. Yes, it is depressing that even as evidence continues to accumulate that Mrs. Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.
Republican lawmakers seem for the most part unaware of Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism, or like John McCain, remain stubbornly in denial.
But with the State Department Inspector General’s investigation set in motion, there is at least a possibility something will be discovered about Abedin that will spark the interest of the party whose elected officials now dominate both chambers of Congress.
The exposure of Huma Abedin is vitally important to the national security of the United States.
Frontpage, April 10, 2015 by
In The Manchurian Candidate, the son of a prominent right-wing politician is captured by the Soviets and brainwashed in a secret Manchurian location. His task is to assassinate a presidential candidate, thus ensuring the election of the demagogic vice-president. Hence, the title “Manchurian Candidate.”
The film has several parallels to current events. The main difference is that in those days, Americans had to be brainwashed into serving enemy interests by psy-ops teams. Nowadays, they come self-brainwashed with some indoctrinative assist from the American educational system.
In the film, a scary lady with leftist sympathies who looks vaguely like Hillary Clinton manipulates her husband into high political office. In real life, a scary lady with leftist leanings who looks vaguely like Angela Lansbury (only scarier) manipulates herself into high political office.
In her case, teams of brainwashers are not required, since she has brainwashed herself into believing that foreign governments are dumping truckloads of cash into her family foundation because she’s such a charming and intelligent woman. And also because Arab sovereigns like nothing better than to do their part to improve the lives of the poor, the hungry, the environmentally underserved, and kids who need braces—in short, the very causes for which the foundation was founded.
Another similarity is that in the film, the Angela Lansbury character has some sort of hypnotic power over her son, the unwitting assassin. Whenever it begins to dawn on him that something funny is going on, she flashes a Queen of Diamonds playing card and he falls into a catatonic state of complete obedience. In the present situation the Angela Lansbury look-alike has merely to flash the gender card and, presto, skeptical voters fall back into line.
There are parallels to other movies as well. Today’s Queen of Diamonds has a secret server in her home so that her exchanges with foreign dono—I mean “diplomats”—can’t be traced. I’m not sure if the server takes up only one room of the palatial house, or a whole suite of rooms. And who knows what’s in the cavern-like basement? It’s all faintly reminiscent of those James Bond thrillers in which the villain’s remote island estate sits atop a vast underground military-industrial complex.
At some point the analogy breaks down. You could still convince a sixties audience that leftists were willing to sell out the country. We, on the other hand, have convinced ourselves that we live in a brave new world where such things never happen—at least, not in modern Western societies. No one would dare to pull a fast one on us because we’re just too smart. We’ve grown up watching CSI, we went to schools that taught critical thinking, and our history texts were written by Howard Zinn. We’ve also been nurtured on relativism, so if it were discovered that Arabs controlled the White House, we would shrug our shoulders and say, “at this point, what does it matter?”
The Clinton-Arab connection actually goes back to the time when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and worked to secure a hefty Saudi contribution to a Middle-Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas. But let’s skip all that and fast forward to relatively recent times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her longtime aide Huma Abedin as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department. When it was discovered that Abedin’s family was deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, very few eyebrows were raised. After all, even President Obama had relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood. So it would have been silly to make something of it.
It’s probably just a coincidence that while working for the Clintons, Huma herself was the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs which—you guessed it—is a Muslim Brotherhood journal. Before that, and while still interning at the White House, she was an executive board member of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at George Washington University. The MSA was the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States and George Washington was the first Muslim president. Well, the latter hasn’t yet been firmly established, but it’s just a matter of time until those Saudi-funded Mid-East studies professors at the University of Arkansas and the Saudi-funded professors at Georgetown (Bill’s alma mater) discover the prayer rug in the attic at Mount Vernon. It’s also probably a coincidence that, like her boss, Huma conducted State Department business using her own personal e-mail address, connected, one supposes, to the same master server that served her master so well… er, mistress.
On Sunday the Iranian regime backed away from a critical part of the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is desperately trying to get them to agree to. The part they walked away from was the proposal for them to send a large portion of their uranium stockpile to Russia, where it wouldn’t be accessible for use in a weapons program. The Iranian Foreign Minister’s abrupt announcement on Sunday shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, yet the US State Department (DoS) is still at the negotiating table talking about giving them even more concessions – such as taking inconvenient things off the table like “intrusive inspections” for instance.
Intrusive inspections are a key part of ensuring that the Iranian regime isn’t continuing to move forward with obtaining a nuclear strike capability. The inspections themselves are designed to keep the regime honest and deter any covert activity. Unfortunately, our sources are suggesting that the Obama administration was already moving towards taking intrusive inspections off the table in order to keep the regime engaged. The regime – which smells the Obama desperation to get a deal done as well as some semblance of a “victory” in Iraq – had ordered IRGC-Qods Force commander GEN Suleimani to pull his Ramazan Corps personnel and Shia proxies off the front-lines in the Tikrit offensive in order to apply even greater pressure on the Obama administration, forcing them into making more concessions during the negotiations. As of this writing, those forces remain nearby and are currently holding territory seized from the Islamic State (IS) in the outskirts of the city. They can quickly move back into the fight, but like we said in “Tikrit OP Shows Signs of Falling Apart Despite US Airstrikes,” whether Suleimani orders his forces back into the fight while the US military continues to provide air support will depend entirely on what happens during these nuclear talks. Further south the Iranian regime has dramatically increased their direct support to their Houthi proxies in Yemen in order to gain control of that country’s key port cities – which would enable the Iranian military to potentially disrupt oil shipments in addition to forcing Saudi Arabia to redirect resources originally meant for the anti-Assad war effort in Syria back closer to home.
Tikrit OP Shows Signs of Falling Apart Despite US Airstrikes
The Yemen Octagon: GCC vs Iran vs Houthis vs AQAP vs Islamic State
Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal
Iran talks stretch into the night hours before deadline
The hidden truth about Iran’s nuclear program
Sensing they could get even more concessions from the Obama administration, the Iranian regime walked away with a promise of a “final agreement” being reached by the end of JUN 2015. What the west got out of all the time they wasted was a “framework understanding.” Along with intrusive inspections being taken off the table, there was no serious talk about the ICBM program that is a key part of this nuclear weapons program. If the Iranian regime has a “peaceful program” as claimed, then why are they rushing to advance their ballistic missile technology? In fact, why are they working so closely with the North Koreans in joint-nuclear and ballistic missile projects? We wrote back in NOV 14 in “How the North Korean Regime Affects the Middle East” the aspects of these joint endeavors and how they were designed to circumvent the sanctions placed against the two rogue nations. These joint programs have been going on for years where Iran shares their know-how in ballistic missile technology in exchange for DPRK expertise in the nuclear-arena. In fact, the DPRK’s front companies have been instrumental in bringing in equipment to Iran that have been targeted by sanctions. With the DPRK sending officials to Iran for ballistic missile development and Iranian researchers sent to Pyongyang for work on the nuke program, we see how this problem is worsening – and it won’t get better if we give them everything they want like the Obama administration is proposing.
How the North Korean Regime Affects the Middle East
Exclusive: Iran pursues ballistic missile work, complicating nuclear talks
Iranian President Hasan Rouhani and DPRK ceremonial head of state Kim Jong Nam
Source: Forbes Magazine
The Obama administration will charge that the Iranian nuclear weapons program isn’t “that advanced” right now. Although true at the moment, what they neglect to mention is how the Israeli MOSSAD has been the only reason that they don’t have a nuclear strike capability already. As previously stated in “Inside Iran’s Middle East: the Nuclear Weapons Program,” Iran’s current efforts are simply the resurrection of the Shah’s old program – which was designed as a counter-measure to the Soviet’s nuclear strike capability. All the Ayatollah’s regime did was reconstitute that program once the Shah’s regime collapsed. If it was a weapons program then – what suddenly makes it “peaceful” now? The Israelis – led by their dynamic leader Bibi Netanyahu – fully understand the threat for what it is and have been actively waging a cold war of sabotage and assassinations to roll back the program enough to buy them some time. We assess that even if a deal is reached by JUN 15, it won’t keep the Israelis from escalating their operations against the Iranian regime, and we don’t blame them.
Inside Iran’s Middle East: the Nuclear Weapons Program
Mr. Netanyahu Goes to Washington
Bibi has sacrificed much while serving in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and fully knows what it will take to defend his people. Wouldn’t it be nice if President Obama had the same understanding regarding the American people?
There’s a very strong pro-Iran lobby in the Beltway led by Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) asset Trita Parsi and the MOIS front that he runs known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). This organization was set up by the MOIS to conduct an IO campaign in America in order to influence American politicians enough to get them to push for the lifting of sanctions against the regime. Parsi serves as the primary lobbyist for the regime’s agenda on Capital Hill and has seen the most success from 2009-the present with several Democrat lawmakers having been wined and dined by the man and his cronies, which is probably why we haven’t seen a whole lot of pushback coming from that side of the aisle. But its not just the members of Congress, its also CIA officials, former-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and former-Secretary of State -now likely 2016 Democrat Presidential nominee – Hillary Clinton. The reason the American people – and their allies – should care is that this implies that Parsi’s organization possibly had a hand in the US government’s current Iran policy (Parsi defended Hagel’s stance on Iran in multiple Op-Eds). Parsi has been invited to the White House on numerous occasions by Valerie Jarrett, for instance. More disturbing is the fact that the Democrat Party’s first choice for President in the 2016 election has been cultivating a relationship with Parsi directly since SEP 09 – which set the stage for the current situation regarding the nuclear talks. Although we haven’t seen a “smoking gun,” we have strong suspicions that these ties to a known MOIS front is the primary reason for her secrecy surrounding the foreign contributions being made to the Clinton Foundation and why she chose to only do email correspondence on a privately-held server. That, our dear readers, would be far more explosive than anything pertaining to Benghazi – and more dangerous. The fact that none of the legitimate Iranian expat groups in the US or Europe wants anything to do with the NIAC should be a huge red-flag on their true intentions. Unfortunately, we doubt that the mainstream media will ever seriously cover this serious charge. To our Republican readers, this is also a good gauge to see if Congressman Trey Gowdy is truly a man of integrity and substance or just another grandstander a la Rand Paul who talks a great game but really stands for nothing other than his own personality cult.
The card the NIAC sent to Valerie Jarrett after their first visit to the White House
Source: NIAC homepage
You can find more on the MOIS’ IO campaign right here:
Inside Iran’s Middle East: the Charm Offensive
Source: NIAC homepage
The Obama administration claims that any push for more sanctions against the Iranian regime would “undermine” their efforts at achieving “peace” with Iran. They couldn’t be more wrong. How so? The Iranian regime’s actions are quite easy to read – they’re maneuvering to dominate the Middle East and view a nuclear strike capability as being the “golden ticket” that will keep the west from intervening as they tighten the noose. They’re fully aware of the fact that nothing happened to India, Pakistan or the DPRK after they announced that they have “the bomb,” so when they make that announcement themselves they fully intend to exploit their newfound immunity. Who’s going to stop them? It won’t be the US since our leadership is too weak and flaccid to do anything to Iran even it wanted to. We may be able to do business with the Iranian people – but the Iranian people aren’t the runs running the current regime. As long as Khameini’s people remain in power there will be no peace. The regime’s interpretation of “peace” is a Middle East that’s purged of all Sunni and non-Muslim influences. In other words, when they say they want to “wipe Israel off the map” – they mean it. All one has to do in order to get a taste of what’s coming is to see how the IRGC-Qods Force is fighting in the Syria, Iraq and Yemen fronts. In each case we’re seeing the Qods Force and their Shia proxy groups waging a very sectarian campaign where the civilian population is targeted just as much as IS and AQ fighters. Its also worth noting that this campaign and the increased targeting of Americans and Israelis living abroad is occurring while a so-called “reformist” occupies the Iranian President position, which adds further weight to what we’ve been saying about Rouhani being nothing more than a “smiling face” that the regime presents to the public while they further their agenda.
The Iranian regime already controls the Arab capitals of Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sanaa, and yet we’re being told by the US government that Iran is a “willing partner of peace.” The truth is that Iran has outmaneuvered the Obama administration from the start and are now on the verge of reaching the culmination point of being targeting Saudi Arabia and Israel. Turkey is also learning that they’re no longer immune from the hand of GEN Suleimani (which we’ll discuss in another article to be published in the near future). The new “Arab Army” that the Saudis have been pushing for has the rising Iranian threat in mind. But it won’t stop there. You see, Saudi Arabia will also be pursuing a nuclear strike capability of their own, and don’t be surprised if a back-room deal is made with the Israelis to “deal” with the Iranian nuclear weapon problem with the Saudis granting the Israeli Air Force use of their airspace to launch airstrikes. Yemen is the point from which all the different factions – al-Qaida, IS, Iran and the Arab nations converge in a massive regional war. This is no longer just about Syria or Iraq, no matter how much the US DoS will attempt to dismiss how serious the crisis has become. Don’t get it twisted, the Obama administration isn’t intentionally trying to bathe the Middle East in flames – they’re just really that naive and ignorant on how the world works. Remember, most of the people occupying the most senior positions of the Obama administration are academics who never really held a real job or actually applied any of the things they talk about in lectures in real-world settings until 2009 – and we’ve seen the painful results. Here, the saying of “those who can’t do – teach.” With the possibility of a Saudi-led ground operation being launched against the Iranian proxies in Yemen getting closer to reality with each passing day, we need to reverse course by maintaining sanctions against the Iranian regime, repair the damage done to US-Israeli relations and shutdown the NIAC. Unfortunately, these are academics we’re talking about here, so forget about them ever admitting to being “wrong” an correcting their deficiencies…
Other Related Articles:
Inside Iran’s Middle East: the “Reformers”
Inside Iran’s Middle East: the Southeast Insurgency
Inside Iran’s Middle East: the Kurdish Insurgency
Republican lawmakers are probing why Hillary Clinton’s longtime Islamist aide Huma Abedin was allowed to work at the State Department under a special, part-time status while simultaneously working at a politically-connected consulting firm.
Demands for information are coming from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) after the public learned both women used Clinton’s private Internet server and email accounts for Department of State correspondence.
Disturbingly, Republicans have yet to focus on Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism.
Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin, widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania.
In 1978 the Abedins moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Omar Naseef, then-vice president of Abdulaziz University, hired Mr. Abedin, a former colleague of his at the university, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank Naseef was then in the process of establishing. Mr. and Mrs. Abedin became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”
Naseef himself was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.
Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” IICWC promotes strict Sharia Law and advocates the rescission of Egyptian laws that forbid female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape.
Mrs. Abedin is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian opposition newspaper Al-Liwa Al-Arabihas reported that Muslim Sisterhood members: “smuggle secret documents”; “spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes”; “fulfill the interests of the Brotherhood”; and “organiz[e] projects which will penetrate [the Brotherhood’s] prohibited ideology into the decision-making in the West … under the guise of ‘general needs of women.’” Nagla Ali Mahmoud, wife of Mohammed Morsi, the Islamist who was elected president of Egypt in June 2012, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.
When Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. and was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA had extensive ties to al-Qaeda.
From 1996 to 2008, Abedin was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of itsJournal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Her brother, Hassan Abedin, an associate editor at the journal, was at one time a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. During his fellowship, the Center’s board included such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef. Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin, is an assistant editor with the journal.
Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington.
Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then erased their electronic correspondence.
What are these two women hiding?
Read more at Frontpage
Orchestrating lawless secrecy, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, prevaricator extraordinaire, broke U.S. law and compromised national security by diverting State Department records to Bill Clinton’s private and unsecured email server and by also exposing classified secrets to enemies of the United States. She didn’t want anyone in the government or the public to see her records, which she knew would contain damning evidence that would derail any successful run for the U.S. Presidency.
Although the Federal Records Act of 1950 makes it clear that all records received and generated by any employee of the federal government belong to the government, Hillary Clinton and her aides decided not to preserve her emails on State Department servers, during her four years as Secretary of State. They also performed their own review of these emails, in order to determine which ones to return and which ones to destroy, turning the law on its head and illegally destroying 33,000 emails.
“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” observed Jason Baron, a former National Archives director of litigation (2000 – 2013).
On March 3rd, Judge Andrew Napolitano asserted that Clinton committed a felony by using her personal email address, which essentially concealed the government documents she generated from the U.S. government. This is an offense punishable by three years in prison and permanent disqualification from holding office. And holding classified secrets in a non-secure facility outside the government’s control is punishable by a large fine and a year in jail.
Since the story broke (NYT) on March 2nd, Clinton has argued that she turned over all the proper documents, but she just did it two years after leaving office; however, the State Dept Records Management Handbook explains that officials who fail to turn over documents can face “fines, imprisonment or both for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code.”
DOJ attorney Shannen Coffin told viewers on the Kelly File, “State Department regulations also say that departing officials have to make sure that all their official records are in the files of the Dept of State upon departure. That couldn’t be any clearer.”
Will the Obama administration’s Dept of Justice prosecute Clinton for keeping four years of classified records on her non-secure server after she left office, just as Eric Holder prosecuted Gen. David Patraeus, who kept 15 months of classified records in his home in a desk after he left office?
Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker Boehner, noted that Hillary Clinton didn’t hand over 55,000 emails “out of the goodness of her heart” last year. Steel recently stated, “She was forced to by smart, determined and effective oversight … The American people deserve the truth.”
The existence of Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, as it investigated the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and sought correspondence between Clinton and her aides about the attack. Clinton’s correspondence could provide pivotal clues concerning the terrorist attacks and the following days, whether Clinton wants it to or not.
A review of approximately 300 emails in February made Rep. Trey Gowdy realize that the State Dept records were seriously incomplete. He explained to Chris Wallace (Fox News) that “huge gaps” existed in Clinton’s email records, and this was debilitating the House Select Committee’s efforts to get to the bottom of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi.
These huge gaps became apparent in light of the photograph of Clinton on a C-17, with blackberry in hand, and on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy. There are not any emails for several weeks on either side of that trip, including the trip itself, according to Rep. Gowdy.
Can anyone actually believe that such a trip wouldn’t have generated a single document?
It is also of the utmost importance to find any existing emails between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, her top aide and confidant, since it has long been known that Abedin’s family is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Huma’s mother, Dr Saleha Abedin, still edits the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which was founded by an associate of Osama bin Laden’s, Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the secretary of the Muslim World League, a front for financing terrorism. Huma worked for JMMA from 1996 to 2008.
How did Huma Abedin receive a security clearance to work at the State Dept, which allowed her access to top-secret documents?
The Abedins were deeply involved in plans to use the Muslim Minority Affairs to create a fiery cauldron of Islamic revolution, and it was while Huma Abedin was advising Hillary that the State Dept dropped its “terrorist” designator for the Muslim Brotherhood and its policy of refusing to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. One must wonder how many top-secret files Huma Abedin transferred to various Islamic nations, not necessarily our friends, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Clinton’s top two aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, used personal emails while working for Clinton at the State Dept. Were they all transmitting sensitive, classified State Dept information and information about Benghazi on their personal emails?
The foreign policy implications surrounding former Sec. of State Clinton’s emails are significant, especially once one reviews El-Mogaz News reports (Aug 2014) that Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian President Morsi, was “threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton,” through letters in her possession. One email sent to Clinton, by former Clinton White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal, quotes an intelligence source asserting that the attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi was funded by “wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.”
On March 20th, Chairman Trey Gowdy gave Hillary Clinton until April 3rd to respond to the following formal request in a letter to her lawyer, David Kendall, or face a subpoena: “I am asking Secretary Clinton to relinquish her server to a neutral, detached and independent third-party, such as the Inspector General for the State Department, for review and independent accounting of any records contained on the server … .”
America demands answers for the families of the four brave Americans who perished horribly in the attacks in Benghazi. They deserve the truth surrounding the decision to leave them to die, and the answers must be mercilessly retrieved from Clinton’s emails by Congress, the independent third-party and a Special Prosecutor. Other truths are certain to come to light concerning the Obama administration’s numerous Middle East policy failures. But the terrible images of our fallen Americans, unnecessary deaths, remain fresh, and Obama and Clinton must be held accountable for this one betrayal and act of treason, if nothing else: America demands the truth.
Fox News, March 20, 2015:
The chairman of the congressional committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks has formally asked that Hillary Clinton turn over her personal server — warning that the House could take steps to pressure her if she refuses.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sent a letter, released Friday, to Clinton’s attorney requesting that the former secretary of state “relinquish” the server to a “neutral, detached and independent third-party” for review.
The server has become a point of controversy after she admitted to exclusively using a private email account and a personal server while secretary — yet insisted her server would remain private, though some lawmakers want access to it to ensure she’s turned over all official emails during her tenure.
Gowdy’s letter suggested that Clinton could turn the server over to the State Department inspector general for review. He said it’s important for a third party to look over the contents to ensure any public documents are released.
“Her arrangement places her as the sole arbiter of what she considers private and what is beyond the view of the public,” Gowdy said in the letter addressed to her Washington attorney Friday.
One source told Fox News that Gowdy’s committee does not have the statutory authority to subpoena the server itself — only witnesses and documents. However, the full House does, should it escalate to that point.
At the end of his letter, Gowdy asked for a response by April 3. He pointedly warned that if Clinton won’t comply, he will tell House Speaker John Boehner so he can use the “full powers” of the House to take the “necessary steps.”
Gowdy has expressed concern that because Clinton was using a personal email to conduct business as America’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013, lawmakers cannot be confident that the official Benghazi investigation has received all pertinent communications involving Clinton and other government officials at the time.
Her office has turned over more than 30,000 “work-related” emails and, responding to the media uproar caused by the revelations this month, asked the State Department to make them public. Her office acknowledged that she established a private server, and that she deleted what she described as personal emails from the account.
She said that in hindsight, it would have been better to use the government account. But she assured that all the official emails were saved and turned over to the State Department for their official archives.
Gowdy voiced doubts in a written statement Friday, separate from the letter.
“An independent analysis of the private server Secretary Clinton used for the official conduct of U.S. government business is the best way to remove politics and personal consideration from the equation,” he said in the statement.
“Having a neutral, third-party arbiter such as the State Department IG do a forensic analysis and document review is an eminently fair and reasonable means to determine what should be made public. ”
Fox News’ James Rosen contributed to this report.
Search warrant needed to get a hold of Hillary Clinton’s server?
There are many reasons Hillary doesn’t want us to see her email. Read this eye popping account of her corrupt money raising schemes: (h/t Wayne Simmons)
- Hillary: The New York Times Will Never Tell Us This (journal-neo.org)
- Congress has subpoenaed about a dozen people who worked in Hillary Clinton’s State Department (businessinsider.com)
Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends (wsj.com)
- Clinton’s Cover-Up Team (nationalreview.com)
- Judicial Watch Sues for Hillary and Huma’s Egypt Emails (standardnewswire.com)
CSP, by Fred Fleitz, March 19, 2015:
Ambassador John Bolton just issued this statement about the Hillary Clinton email scandal:
“Revelations about former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account have also raised another issue. Her use of an insecure cellphone could also compromise national security by its vulnerability to capture by unfriendly sources.”
“We know that many hostile intelligence services have the capability to turn cellphones — even if they are turned off — into microphones that can be used to eavesdrop on conversations and meetings. If Secretary Clinton did not use a State Department-provided cellphone for official business she would not have had the benefit of monitoring by State security experts to ensure that her cellphone was not being exploited for this purpose. There is an urgent need to understand and evaluate this threat through an independent review and a forensic assessment of Clinton’s cellphone and server either by Congress, the State Department Inspector General, or the National Security Agency.”
Hillary Clinton decided to use a private email server and private cell phone for official business while she was Secretary of State to avoid having over to turn over records of these communications to judicial and congressional inquiries. This decision was a blatant violation of State Department rules and probably the law. Concerns also have been raised that Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed U.S. adversaries to hack her email.
Adding to this scandal was Clinton’s statements that she will not turn over her email server to the Benghazi Commission and her staff unilaterally deleted 30,000 emails that they deemed personal.
A separate scandal is brewing concerning Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide while she was Secretary of State. Andrew McCarthy and Frank Gaffney have written about Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. We now know Abedin had an email account on Clinton’s private server and simultaneously worked at State as Clinton’s aide and in positions with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm whose president is Doug Band, a former top aide to Bill Clinton. Reports of million-dollar contributions from foreign countries to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State – including from Qatar, Oman and Kuwait – coupled with Abedin’s Clinton email account, her Muslim Brotherhood ties and her consulting work for the Clinton Foundation, could be the makings of an extraordinary conflict of interest scandal.
In addition to these concerns, John Bolton believes Clinton’s use of a private cell phone created a serious security vulnerability that may have allowed hostile powers to eavesdrop on her official conversations.
Hillary Clinton did not comply with State Department guidelines on official email and cell phones because she thought the rules didn’t apply to her. It is becoming apparent that Clinton’s arrogance may also have endangered U.S. national security.
30,000 deleted emails… Bill Whittle looks at the lawlessness, the arrogance, and the unmasked contempt that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have for the American people.
Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.
The American experiment was many things, but first and foremost it was an attempt, for the first time in human history, to create a society based upon the rule of law. The Declaration of Independence lists, in exhaustive and minute detail, nearly thirty enumerated cases of lawlessness on the part of King George III. This nation showed the world that common people could not only rule themselves; they could do so without an aristocracy and especially do so without an aristocracy that was, like King George, above the law.
Here’s a law: U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to conduct, for four years, the office of Secretary of State using her own private email server. Because these emails were not transacted and recorded through the official State Department servers, Mrs. Clinton “willfully concealed and removed” these critical documents from the records and archives of the United States Government. You can further argue that by electing to not have these records placed onto government servers – which are secure, routinely backed up, and most importantly subject to Freedom Of Information Act requests, that she has, by any reasonable interpretation, “mutilated, obliterated and destroyed” these essential records, which belong not to Hillary Rodham Clinton but rather to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and her employers, the people of that nation.
The penalty for this is a fine or up to three years imprisonment, or both. That’s paragraph (a) of the law.
By her own admission, transacting ALL of her State Department business through her private server means that by not turning the entire server over to the State Department – all of it, that’s for us to decide what is important or incriminating, not her – she has in fact “willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, falsified, or destroyed the same.”
That too is punishable by fine, up to three years imprisonment, or both… and, parenthetically, forfeiture of office and disqualification from holding any office under the United States.
That’s the law. That’s what the law says.
The lawlessness is endemic in this administration. But beyond the lawlessness is, of course, the contempt. The contempt for the very idea that these Harvard and Yale Law School grads have to actually, you know, obey the law. The contempt for the American people’s right to know what their elected officials are doing. And beyond all of this, the towering, monumental, criminal arrogance of it: that the official business of the United States of America; the nation’s diplomacy, strategy, defense posture, privileged communications between our allies and in point of fact every particle of our nation’s foreign policy was being discussed and archived in a single box in either Texas or Manhattan or wherever the hell it is; that this server’s basic, routine, Microsoft security updates – the kind you and I get pestered with every day — were not complied with; that the vital security interests or in fact the very lives of 320 million people did not warrant the effort to even obtain a unique encryption certificate but rather used the same one issued to thousands if not millions of users; all of this gets to the heart not only of who Hillary Clinton is and the contempt in which she holds the American people. It is deeper than that.
When the President of the United States gets an official notification from his Secretary of State from BestMattressDeals99@yahoo.com, or any email that does not end in dot gov, then he too is complicit in this lawlessness, and for the same reason.
Barack Obama’s Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, admits that the President did receive emails from his Secretary of State, and went on to say this:
((14 SECOND CLIP))
Feel better now? The President of the United States, receiving emails from an illegal source, did not know or care or take any action whatsoever to ensure that she complied with the federal law she was in violation of. And neither did any of the people we pay to be responsible for the security of the communications of those at the uppermost level of the most powerful nation in the world.
This country was founded to be rid of the incompetence, reckless arrogance and casual stupidity of Kings and Queens who acted as though they were above the law. If we let these crimes go unpunished it will die of that same parasitical disease.
Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Wiser, March, 12, 2015:
Legal experts are refuting a claim by Iran’s foreign minister that revoking a potential deal on the country’s nuclear program would violate international law, amid confusion Wednesday regarding whether or not the deal the State Department is negotiating will be in any way legally binding.
Javad Zarif, Tehran’s chief representative in the ongoing nuclear talks among the United States, Iran, and five other world powers, criticized on Tuesday an open letter sent by 47 Republican senators concerning the negotiations. While the lawmakers said in their missive that a future president or Congress could revoke or substantially alter a nuclear pact, Zarif responded that such changes would be illegal under international statutes.
“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said, according to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
However, the U.S. State Department asserted on Tuesday that a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran would be “nonbinding.” Secretary of State John Kerry also confirmed in congressional testimony on Wednesday that the Obama administration is “not negotiating a legally binding plan” but one from “executive to executive,” Politico reported. Kerry insisted such a deal would still “have a capacity of enforcement.”
Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University and an expert in international law and Constitutional history, said in an email that “nonbinding” by definition means that the United States “will not violate international law if we don’t adhere to its terms”—contrary to Zarif’s assertion.
“In other words we’re saying it is NOT an international obligation, just a statement of intent,” he said.
The legal nature of a potential nuclear agreement remains a matter of dispute.
The GOP senators wrote about the necessity of congressional oversight for “binding international agreements” in their letter. But on Wednesday, Kerry rejected that characterization as “absolutely incorrect,” because the plan would not be legally binding.
The potential deal’s executive and nonbinding nature means Congress could not amend it, Kerry said.
Rabkin said the question of whether a U.S. president can institute a binding international agreement without congressional approval is disputed among legal scholars, but the State Department’s declaration that an Iran deal would be nonbinding places it in a different category.
“What Kerry seemed to say was not that his Iran deal would be in the same category but that it would not be legally binding in any sense, just a kind of memorandum of understanding,” Rabkin said. “I wonder whether he understood what he was saying. It was more or less conceding that what Cotton’s letter said was the administration’s own view—that the ‘agreement’ with Iran would not be legally binding, so (presumably) not something that could bind Obama’s successor.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), one of the lead authors of the GOP’s letter to Iran, expressed confusion on Wednesday about the State Department’s classification of a nuclear deal with Tehran.
“Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?” Cotton tweeted.
John Yoo, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, wrote on Wednesday that Cotton and his fellow senators had it “exactly right” in their letter on matters of Constitutional law.
“The Cotton letter is right, because if President Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran using only [an executive agreement], he is only committing to refrain from exercising his executive power—i.e., by not attacking Iran or by lifting sanctions under power delegated by Congress,” Yoo wrote on National Review Online. “Not only could the next president terminate the agreement; Obama himself could terminate the deal.”
Additionally, Yoo said that under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause, Congress could still apply financial pressure on Iran regardless of an executive agreement.
“Obama’s executive agreement cannot prevent Congress from imposing mandatory, severe sanctions on Iran without the possibility of presidential waiver (my preferred solution for handling the Iranian nuclear crisis right now),” he said. “Obama can agree to allow Iran to keep a nuclear-processing capability; Congress can cut Iran out of the world trading and financial system.”
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Cotton letter should be no more controversial than a letter that simply enclosed a copy of the U.S. Constitution (without President Obama’s editing),” he added.
- Exclusive: Talks under way on ending U.N. sanctions on Iran – officials (reuters,com) Security Council resolution on a nuclear deal with Iran could be legally binding, say Western diplomatic officials, complicating and possibly undercutting future attempts by Republicans in Washington to unravel an agreement
- Vitter: Congressional Vote on Iran Nuke Deal ‘Setting Us Up to Fail’ (freebeacon.com)
Iranian President: Diplomacy With U.S. is an Active ‘Jihad’ (freebeacon.com)
Published on Mar 12, 2015 by EnGlobal News World
Shannen Coffin had an important NR column Wednesday, exploring for a second time the question whether Hillary Clinton committed a crime by failing to turn over government records – the thousands of work-related emails on her private server – when she left the State Department two years ago. On Fox News’s The Kelly File last night, he and Megyn Kelly followed up: outlining how, contrary to suggestions from Camp Clinton, there is a serious process involved when a high-level official stops working for a federal department – a process designed to ensure that all work-related information has been turned over for retention in government files.
While it is true, as Mrs. Clinton has said, that the departing official must decide what information belongs to the government and what is private, that is just the start of the process. What the official claims is private must be inventoried and reviewed by the department’s records retention staff; if there is any doubt about whether a record is related to official business, the default position is that the government retains the record.
More importantly for present purposes, there is a form involved – this is the government after all. The departing official must complete Form OF-109. As Shannen explains:
It is a formal separation statement, in which the departing official certifies the return of any classified materials, and, more relevant for present purposes, that the departing official has “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents, and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department.” The form makes very clear that a false statement in the certification is punishable as a crime, including under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal facts in statements made to federal agencies concerning a matter within its jurisdiction.
As Megyn reported last night, Fox News has asked the State Department to produce Mrs. Clinton’s Form OF-109. The public should be able to learn whether she signed it, thus representing, falsely as it turns out, that she had turned over to the State Department all files and documents relating to official government business.
I would further point out that Mrs. Clinton, even by her own account, even with respect to the copies of e-mails she has deigned to produce, is still in defiance of federal law.
Not only did she conceal and apparently delete files without completing an inventory and enabling State Department record retention officers to review her claim of privacy. Even with respect to the thousands emails she has finally revealed, she is still withholding information. What Mrs. Clinton hoarded on her server are (or were until deleted) electronic communications; what she has reportedly turned over, by contrast, are paper copies of those e-mails –reportedly, 30,490 e-mails comprising 55,000 printed pages. The paper copies may or may not have some information deleted from them.
The government record is the e-mail, the electronic communication itself. A paper copy is just a picture – and perhaps an incomplete one – of an actual electronic mail. When I left the Justice Department, I had to surrender my files and my credentials, not photocopies of them. The photocopies are depictions of the records, they are not the records. The public is entitled to maintain the actual records in the government’s filing system. It is Mrs. Clinton who must content herself with photocopies (and only of files that contain whatever categories of non-classified information she is permitted to retain as a private citizen).
It is not just that what Mrs. Clinton produced are not the actual electronic records she continues to hoard. The paper production is also not searchable in the way the actual electronic government records are. If Mrs. Clinton is permitted with impunity to continue denying the public the actual records that, by law, must be retained in the government’s files, it will cost the public additional, unnecessary millions of dollars. After all, the insufficient paper copies will have to be reviewed, organized, converted into a searchable format, and analyzed to determine if they are responsive to pending or past congressional, judicial and public disclosure demands on which the State Department is now derelict because of Mrs. Clinton’s obstruction.
This is no longer a mere political issue, much less a partisan issue. It is now a black-and-white law-enforcement issue: Mrs. Clinton is withholding records that belong to the public and there is probable cause to believe she made a prosecutable false statement to the government in claiming to have surrendered all records of official business to the State Department.
If she does not voluntarily surrender her server, forthwith, to the State Department, the Justice Department should be taking prompt action – probably through the United States attorney’s in the Southern District of New York (where the Clintons reside and where their servers are believed to be stored), or in Washington (where the State Department’s records are retained and where Mrs. Clinton probably signed her departure form – assuming she did so).
Whether voluntarily or by judicial warrant, the Justice Department should take custody of the server(s). At an appropriate time, counsel for Mrs. Clinton could then meet with prosecutors and State Department record-keepers to sort out what electronic records should be transferred to the State Department, what records the Justice Department should retain in the event there are any criminal proceedings, and what records are private and should be returned to Mrs. Clinton.
Listen to Secure Freedom Radio:
AIM, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, March 11, 2015:
Until Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) revealed last week that his Benghazi Select Committee was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for her official State Department communications, no one had a good explanation for why none of the Congressional committees that had previously investigated Benghazi had ever cited a single Hillary Clinton email in their reports.
Congressional Democrats had been pooh-poohing Gowdy’s investigation, claiming that all the important questions about Benghazi had been “asked and answered” by previous committees.
Now the best that Gowdy’s counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), can do is object to subpoenas (especially when they are issued to Hillary Clinton in person, through Counsel), and to huff and puff about the investigation becoming a “surrogate” for the “Republican National Committee.”
What a change a single revelation can bring.
We now learn that Hillary Clinton not only used a private server, maintained at her Chappaqua, New York home for official communications, but that she never used a government email at all. Not once.
No email@example.com, or Clinton.firstname.lastname@example.org or anything of the kind. Just multiple accounts on her family server, clintonemail.com, including email@example.com, the same address used by former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal to communicate with her on Benghazi and related matters.
Federal prosecutors recently finished up their case against former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was conveniently forced to resign just three days after the November 2012 elections, before he could clarify what he knew about Benghazi. (Given that Petraeus had just returned from a September 2, 2012 trip to Ankara, Turkey, where he had been trying to tamp down publicity due to an arms shipment from Benghazi to the Syrian rebels, he certainly knew a lot.)
In a widely criticized decision, they forced him to plea bargain one count of a misdemeanor in exchange for dropping more serious charges. The full extent of the FBI’s case against Petraeus involved him sharing personal, hand-written notebooks with his biographer.
Prosecutors noted that the CIA had installed a SCIF—a specialized high-security area—in his Arlington, Virginia home where he could safely store classified materials brought home from the CIA. That facility was dismantled by the CIA without incident two months after Petraeus resigned from the Agency.
The prosecutors never accused Petraeus of improperly storing U.S. government classified materials either in the SCIF or elsewhere. Nor did they accuse him of sending classified materials over an unsecure server.
If they could prosecute Petraeus on one count of improperly handling classified material (he kept those personal notebooks in a rucksack in his attic), one can only speculate how many thousand counts of mishandling classified information could be brought against Mrs. Clinton. Of course, she denies having sent classified information over her personal server, but in that case how did she communicate on classified matters with her envoys and subordinates?
Was the private server at her residence designed, installed, and maintained by a U.S. government security agency? Was it connected to the government’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and physically separated from the open Internet?
The Sid Blumenthal memos, sent from his AOL account to Hillary’s private email server, suggest that this was not the case. If so, the former Secretary of State was breaking the law—big time.
When the memos first surfaced in 2013—posted to the Internet by a Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” —neither the State Department nor their purported author acknowledged their authenticity. Given that they initially surfaced on the website of Russia Today, Vladimir Putin’s reliably anti-American TV network, that was enough to consign them to oblivion as yet another Internet hoax.
Now we learn that former CIA official Tyler Drumheller apparently helped to gather the “intel” that Blumenthal sent to Hillary on the Benghazi attacks and other political developments inside Libya.
This is extremely significant because the initial memo sent by Blumenthal, dated September 12, 2012, cites “a sensitive source,” who purportedly met with Libyan President Magarief shortly after the attacks began and claimed that a YouTube video sparked the “protest” against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
Magarief himself never said such a thing, although the memo is worded to suggest that he did. He blew up when he heard Susan Rice make that claim on the Sunday talk shows after the attack, as I write on pages 347 and 348 of Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi.
Drumheller became infamous for several earlier pieces of disinformation. As European Division chief at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations in 2001 and 2002, he was the one who planted the phony evidence about the Niger uranium contract that was later used by the media during the Valerie Plame affair to claim that George W. Bush had “lied” about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. On three separate occasions, he passed the Niger information up the food chain as validated intelligence, when the CIA had been warned that it was not (see page 63 of my book Shadow Warriors).
Then-CIA Director George Tenet was so fed up with Drumheller that he spent seven full pages in his memoir debunking claims by Drumheller regarding the defector known as CURVEBALL that Tenet said were simply untrue.
Drumheller and Sid Blumenthal have a history together. In 2007, Blumenthal used Drumheller as a source to “prove” that Bush had “lied” about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Drumheller and Blumenthal went on to work in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008.
So was the Guccifer/Blumenthal memo intended as disinformation, written after Hillary Clinton put out her statement on the night of the attacks blaming them on a YouTube video? Or was it actually the source of Hillary’s false claim about the video, written and sent by someone on the ground in Libya who was attempting to plant the story?
Many reporters, myself included, have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the State Department, asking for all documents and communications that would show how Mrs. Clinton’s statement came to be worded as it was finally released. Where are all the drafts? Who commented on them? What did it say initially? How was it changed? By whom?
We have much of that information for the Susan Rice talking points, but nothing at all for Hillary Clinton’s statement on the evening of the attacks.
Given that there is not a single mention of a protest or the YouTube video in all the documents released to Congress, which included real-time communications from Tripoli and Benghazi from the State Department and CIA that night, exactly how Mrs. Clinton came up with that idea could provide key insight into what actually happened in Benghazi, and why.
- The Benghazi Brief – A Powerpoint
McCarthy Picks Clinton Apart – What Security? (standupamericaus.org)
Is Hillary’s Email Server In Manhattan? Technology Security Analyst Says Yes…. (theconservativetreehouse.com)
- Private email exposes Hillary’s ‘off-the-books intel op’ (wnd.com)
Report on Hillary Email: Apparently It Was Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills Executing The Plan (theconservativetreehouse.com)
By Walid Shoebat, March 6, 2015:
Fox News reported tonight that Hillary Clinton may have had several different private email addresses she used that were all on her private email server. They got this information on the multiple email addresses from a professional hacker that used a tool to comb through public information found in major search engines.
A prominent hacker tells Fox News’ James Rosen that Hillary Clinton appears to have established multiple email addresses for private use.
Aides to the former secretary of state say she only used one private email while in office — firstname.lastname@example.org. That domain name has been traced to a private Internet server in Clinton’s hometown of Chappaqua, N.Y. The server was registered in the name of Clinton’s former aide Eric Hothem a week before the Obama administration assumed office.
Rosen’s hacker source employed a tool called “The Harvester” to search a number of data sources to look for references to the domain name Clintonemail.com. The source says it appears Clinton established multiple email addresses, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com.
Other email addresses include firstname.lastname@example.org,Hillary@clintonemail.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org.
After ignoring a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in August 2014, government watchdog Judicial Watch has issued a lawsuit against the State Department for all emails between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her top aide Huma Abedin and wife of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi, Nagla Mahmoud, from January 2009 to January 2013. It was discovered earlier this week that both Clinton and Abedine used personal email accounts to conduct government business, potentially violating federal records laws.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit specifically seeks the following:
A. Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
B. Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoudfrom January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.
“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s communications,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications.”
Hillary received memos which included a note on the sources of intelligence referred to as “Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.”
Both Hillary and Huma Abedin, her assistant had multiple emails, as it seems. Now we shall see what becomes of the lawsuit. Will it be discovered that Hillary and Huma were neck-deep involved with the Muslim Brotherhood?
But is it only the emails that will reveal such connections?
Shoebat.com has spent quite some time revealing the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabist connections of the Abedin family and it is perhaps the right time for all this to resurface again. We do not need just emails to prove it.
And just to give a glimpse of what we researched, it was Huma’s mother, father and brother who were neck deep as well as Huma with activism for the Wahhabists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Her mother Saleha Abedin is Vice Dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia, Saleha was also one of the institution’s founders, along with Yaseen Abdullah Kadi—a designated terrorist by the U.S.—and members of the bin Laden family.
In 2010, Huma arranged for the Secretary of State to visit Dar El-Hekma where Clinton spoke alongside both Saleha and another Sisterhood member named Suheir Qureshi, who like so many of her colleagues, holds a Ph.D.
Courtesy of Internet Archives, we were able to learn that Huma Abedin served as an Assistant Editor with IMMA (Institute For Muslim Minority Affairs) from at least December 2, 2002—September 24, 2008. Her name fails to appear on the IMMA website some time before February 14, 2009. Presumably, Abedin left IMMA to accept her current position as Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton.
Our detailed research shows the roots of IMMA which had its roots from the Wahhabists and an Al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef, in which the Abedins were neck deep in involvement on plans to use the Muslim Minority Affairs to bring forth a grand Muslim revolution.
Frontpage, March 6, 2015 by
What short memories we have.
Just three weeks ago, gloating ISIS terrorists beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach. The Catholic Church proclaimed them “martyrs.” Former Virginia Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, now at Baylor University, called for the creation of a safe haven for Middle East Christians.
And then, the world moved on. The body of yet another beheaded Coptic Christian was found in Libya on Wednesday. But by then the media had turned their gaze elsewhere so the outrage was gone.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the national media are counting on our short memories to allow them to tout her “successes” as Secretary of State as they gild her chariot for a ride to the White House in 2016.
And therein lies reason #1 why Mrs. Clinton will do everything in her power to keep the public from seeing her email — at least, an unsanitized version that would provide the full record of her tenure as Secretary of state.
“We came, we saw, he died.”
Anyone remember that one? That was Hillary Clinton, joking with a reporter just days after visiting Libya on October 18, 2011 when she was told that Qaddafi had just been killed. She immediately burst out into the famous cackle. But since she was not a Republican, Mrs. Clinton did not have to declare, “I am not a witch.”
She learned of Qaddafi’s demise when her aide, Muslim Brotherhood royal Huma Abedin, passed what appeared to be her personal Blackberry to her boss. One can only wonder who sent that message to Ms. Abedin. Was it a government official who used an official email account? Or was it some nebulous “informant” – perhaps the same one who convinced Mrs. Clinton on the night of the Benghazi attacks that a shadowy video they wrongly claimed was made by American right-wingers was at fault, when there was nary a trace of that “information” in the official reporting channels from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, the defense attaché in Tripoli, the CIA station chief, the CIA sub-station in Benghazi, or the State Department Operations Center.
Why can I say that? Because we have been told repeatedly that all the official reporting on the night of the Benghazi attacks has already been produced to multiple congressional committees. That’s why Media Matters and the Hillary Media Brigades continue to insist there is no story. It’s all a hoax. Move on.
I believe the question of where the YouTube video-is-the-culprit story originated lies at the core of the Benghazi scandal. I have called it the original “sin,”which led to the original “spin” by Susan Rice and others, including President Obama and of course Mrs. Clinton herself.
What prompted Mrs. Clinton to advance a story she knew was a fiction and to think she could get away with it? What real story was the fiction papering over?
Until now, although the State Department has said repeatedly they have produced every document and communication Congress has requested in a timely manner, we still don’t have any record of why Mrs. Clinton gave the stand down order to the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), an inter-agency rapid reaction force, with a substantial special operations component, that was created precisely to respond to the type of emergency that was taking place in Benghazi and is on call 24/7.
We still don’t know what instructions Mrs. Clinton gave her subordinates in preparing the infamous talking points for Susan Rice that blamed the attacks on a YouTube video and claimed preposterously that they were a demonstration gone wild. Nor do we have any inkling of the communications between Mrs. Clinton and her ambassador, Chris Stevens – although Steven’s #2, Gregory Hicks, has testified that they communicated directly. (Indeed, it would have been extraordinary if they had not).
We don’t know if she instructed him to head to Benghazi to circle the wagons with the CIA and the Turkish Consul General, to tamp down the growing scandal over the Entisar, a Libyan fishing boat carrying 400 tons of weapons sent by jihadi groups in Benghazi to the Syrian rebels whose presence in the Turkish port of Iskenderun had attracted the attention of Western reporters.
We should have had answers to all of those questions within three months of the attacks, when the Hillary-appointed Accountability Review Board delivered its “definitive” report.
But as the co-chairmen later testified, they never interviewed Mrs. Clinton during their “definitive” investigation, nor did they cite a single email from Mrs. Clinton. And no one understood enough to call the foul.
What about those pictures of Mrs. Clinton posing with jihadi fighters in Tripoli, who had come to welcome her U.S. Air Force C-17 in October 2011? How many of them have since joined up with al Qaeda or ISIS? How many of them took part in the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi?
For with our short memories, we forget that Libya was Hillary’s war.
In separate tell-all accounts, former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta agreed that Mrs. Clinton dragged President Obama into this war kicking and screaming. She saw the fight against Qaddafi as a perfect opportunity to illustrate the wisdom of her new national security dogma, Responsibilty To Protect.
The Obama White House eventually bought into it hook, line and sinker, even touting their version of Hillary’s war by saying they had defeated Qaddafi by“leading from behind.”
Where has Hillary’s War left us?
Libya is a disaster. Jihadi militias who took part in the U.S.-backed rebellion against Qaddafi seized control of Tripoli this past summer, turning the international airport into a sand heap, forcing the evacuation of the remaining U.S. diplomats in Tripoli, shutting down much of Libya’s oil production, and driving the elected government into internal exile.
Today, two rival governments continue to jockey for power, while groups who have pledged loyalty to ISIS have taken over much of the eastern part of the country, including Derna and Benghazi.
Hillary’s War not only ended any attempts at mediation between Qaddafi and his opponents, which we have since learned were favored by the U.S. military and had a reasonable chance of success. It also ushered into power a jihadi state that has pledged its support to ISIS with the goals of launching terrorist attacks against the United States and of establishing a world-wide Islamic caliphate. And it sent a terrible message to dictators the United States might try to woo into giving up their weapons of mass destruction willingly, as Qaddafi did.
With successes like these on her account, who knows what failures those secret emails might reveal?
Published on Mar 5, 2015 by Dan Adams