Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Terrorists Strike Every 83 Hours While Obama, Hillary Clinton Insist ‘Everything Is Fine Here’

sebastian-gorka-hannity-fox-news-islamic-state-screenshot-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 27, 2016:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, told Sean Hannity of Fox News it was significant and profoundly disturbing that the Democrats have yet to mention Islamic terrorism or ISIS, two days into their convention.

“A pregnant woman murdered yesterday, a priest beheaded in front of the altar at a Catholic mass — this is incredible,” said Gorka. “They can’t talk about it, because if they do, they’ll admit that they don’t have a plan, and what they’ve been trying has been an absolute failure.”

Gorka offered a “shout-out” to investigative journalist Patrick Poole for tallying up the carnage: “In the last two months, outside of Iraq and Syria — so outside of the war zone — there’s been a jihadi attack every 83 hours.”

On top of President Obama’s claim that, contrary to those grim statistics, the Western world is safer than it’s ever been because of his policies, Gorka noted the even more absurd and offensive statement by Secretary of State John Kerry that “air conditioners are as dangerous as ISIS.”

“There’s a petition that already has 2,000 signatures that the State Department should get rid of their air conditioners because they’re so dangerous,” he said. “You have to laugh, Sean, because if you don’t laugh, you realize how bad the situation is.”

“Let’s forget, if we can, for a moment, forget about the horror of a priest killed in front of nuns, in front of parishioners,” Gorka said. “Let’s look at here — forget about France, forget about Paris, about Brussels, Istanbul. We have killed, or arrested, 107 people linked to ISIS in America since the caliphate was declared two years ago. So in 24 months, we’ve arrested 107. That is three times as many ISIS suspects we are intercepting than we are arresting al-Qaeda suspects.”

“The situation is rapidly deteriorating,” he warned. “But the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, don’t look for any problems, everything’s fine here.”

“For the left wing, for the Democrat Party, reality is optional, Sean,” Gorka concluded.

***

In an interview with Tucker Carlson Dr. Gorka explains the multicultural mindset and moral relativism that are standing in the way of an effective and rational counterterrorism strategy. Very good interview:

Gorka: “I think the trouble with ISIS, or with radical Islam, is that its existence, its bare existence, countermands the one-world kumbaya moral relativism and multiculturalism that the Democrat Party has been ramming down our throats for 30 years,” Gorka replied. “If all cultures are equal, if everybody has the same values, then how does this thing called jihadism exist, and why do people shout ‘Allahu akbar’ as they’re running out of the church in Normandy, having beheaded a Catholic priest in front of the altar?”

“It’s too much of a smoking gun that disproves the whole argument of cultural equivalency and moral relativism.”

What’s Hillary’s plan to help Special Ops caught in Obama’s Afghan meat grinder? (crickets)

us army special forcesConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 29, 2016:

A few weeks ago, I sounded the alarm about Obama’s dyslexic policy in Afghanistan in which U.S. Special Operators are being placed into the worst combat zones without the ability to engage in combat and without any understanding of the broader mission. Now it appears that we are again taking casualties in eastern Afghanistan, but don’t count on the mass media to ask questions.

Here is a disturbing update from the NATO Commander in the theater from a press conference yesterday:

[Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John] Nicholson revealed that American special operations forces have been heavily involved in ground fighting in Nangarhar in recent days, and five commandos have been wounded — three of whom had to be evacuated out of the country for treatment. All are expected to recover.

The revelation that American forces are again engaged in close-quarters combat in America’s longest war comes at a time when President Barack Obama has been slowly walking back his earlier efforts to pull out all American troops by the end of his term in January. [Foreign Policy Magazine]

Remember, as these warriors are placed in the most precarious situations with no strategic mission and in some of the most rugged parts of the world, they have to call a lawyer before even calling in close air support. This dangerous convergence of mitigating factors is getting our soldiers injured and killed for no reason.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is doing its best to cover up the casualties, and most of the media is not interested in covering this during their nightly broadcasts like they did when Republicans were in power. As the Military Times reported last month, with the surge in troops in Iraq that we are not supposed to know about, the Pentagon has worked even harder to block information concerning casualties on the battlefield. They contend that they are concerned about giving our troop locations away to our enemies, but it is quite evident that they don’t want the American people to know that our troops are indeed on a battlefield (as opposed to being “advisors”).

With no oversight from Congress or the media, Obama is continuing to destroy our military. At the same time, the social engineering of the military is in full swing.

It is extremely disappointing that neither presidential candidate mentioned this 800-pound gorilla in the room. We have never been engaged in any war for 15 years, much less one that has netted no positive result. We have nothing to show for our efforts but over 1,800 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and the Taliban control more territory than ever before – all to establish a sharia-compliant government with a constitution (set up by U.S. officials) which fosters the type of Islamic supremacism we are at war with. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when Afghanistan was lost in 2011 and when we sustained the most casualties. She owns this foreign policy, yet she acted like the firefighter just coming on the scene and obfuscated any mention of this disaster.

Last night, Hillary criticized Trump for observing that the state of our military is a disaster. She boldly proclaimed that “our military is a national treasure” and that we have the most powerful military in the world. She is right. Putting our soldiers in a meat grinder with appalling rules of engagement and no favorable outcome is not a way to treat our national treasure and is not a way to project strength. Nor is the social engineering and making our generals draw up logistical plans for transgenderism rather than a national objective and an end to the 15-year war in Afghanistan.

The American people recognize that the status quo in the war on Islamic terror is not working and nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan.

DNC Speech: Hillary Clinton Deletes Foreign Policy Disasters as Secretary of State

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, July 29, 2016:

PHILADELPHIA – Notoriously missing from Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech here at the Democratic National Convention was a list of any significant accomplishments from her time as Secretary of State.

The words “secretary of state” only appeared twice in her speech.

One of those times she stated, “I have to tell you, as your Secretary of State, I went to 112 countries, and when people hear those words – they hear America.”

Here, she seems to be brandishing her foreign travel as a signature achievement while she was one of the nation’s highest serving diplomats.

The second and final direct mention of her former State position came when she exclaimed, “As you know, I’m not one of those people. I’ve been your First Lady. Served 8 years as a Senator from the great State of New York. Then I represented all of you as Secretary of State.”

When she did briefly mention her record, Clinton mostly spoke in generalities and she seemed to be combining her time as  a Senator and Secretary of State.

She stated:

Look at my record.  I’ve worked across the aisle to pass laws and treaties and to launch new programs that help millions of people.  And if you give me the chance, that’s what I’ll do as President.

I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.

I’m proud that we shaped a global climate agreement – now we have to hold every country accountable to their commitments, including ourselves.

I’m proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia.

While she didn’t outline her role in the talks with Iran that led to the nuclear agreement with Tehran, Clinton did tangentially mention the Iran deal. “I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.”

Absent from her DNC speech was Clinton’s central role in the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, a military campaign that directly resulted in the destabilization of that country and its subsequent descent into chaos. Islamic extremists have since taken over large swaths of Libya, and have used the country as a staging ground to attempt to infiltrate Europe.

Islamic terrorists infamously carried out deadly attacks on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Clinton did not bring up her State Department’s role in denying security requests to the woefully unsecure U.S. facility.

Clinton further failed to mention her strong support for the so-called Arab Spring, including the toppling of the regime of Hosni Mubarak, a staunch U.S. ally, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s resultant rise to power there until a military coup in 2013.

Clinton referenced the threat of the Islamic State without explaining that the global jihadist group has taken up sanctuary in countries that were destabilized during her tenure as Secretary of State.

She stated:

I’ve laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS. We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country. It won’t be easy or quick, but make no mistake – we will prevail.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Disconnected Dems can’t respond to GOP’s national security message

hillaryclinton_getty052716

The Hill, By Rick Manning, July 28, 2016:

GOP nominee Donald Trump got a huge convention bounce nationally with his personal, homeland and national security message out of Cleveland, and the Democrats are systemically unable to respond because any meaningful, tough response would require a repudiation of their own policies and an admission that the world has an Islamic jihad problem.

You can see the weakness of the Democratic position in President Obama’s limp reaction to the Cleveland convention that things aren’t as bad as they seem. A theme that runs counter to his ambulance chasing around the country, attempting to drive his gun control agenda.

It can be seen in the Obama administration’s pathetic response to the news that two Islamic radicals attacked a Roman Catholic mass in Normandy, France, beheading an 85-year-old priest in front of his congregation that, “France and the United States share a commitment to protecting religious liberty for those of all faiths, and today’s violence will not shake that commitment.”

No one wants to restrict religious liberty, but that is really code for Obama and the Democrats’ fear of naming the problem of Islamic extremism and jihad, and the people of the United States know it.

When people, in the name of Islam, kill a French priest in what was described as an almost religious ritualistic execution; murder nine Germans in Munich; maniacally drive through a crowd in Nice, France, ending 84 lives; and open fire on co-workers in San Bernardino, California and gays at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, soft words don’t impress anyone. Least of all, those who seek to murder the infidels all around them.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is trapped in this Obama box, and she dares not utter the basic truth that the world has a Sharia law problem, and the policies she supports that open America’s doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East will make our nation dramatically less safe.

The public rejection of Obama and Clinton’s weakness likely won’t show up in the public opinion polls because Americans have been told by the media that it is racist and bigoted to pinpoint the obvious problem. But it will show up when it counts, at polling places all across America in November.

Americans don’t want their government to coddle those who wish to kill their families and don’t particularly care if their reason is because they are Charles Manson insane or they are following what they have been taught is a fundamental precept of Islam. Americans want a federal government that is more concerned with keeping potential terrorists out of the country than figuring out how to resettle refugees from terrorist states in their neighborhoods.

And the Clinton knee-jerk response of supporting Australian-style gun confiscation laws aimed at denying law-abiding Americans who live in those neighborhoods the right to defend their homes is a sure loser everywhere except in the gated, protected communities where she hangs out.

The Democratic National Convention, with its anti-cop, pro-illegal immigration and amnesty emphasis, is the exact wrong convention at the exact wrong time, and every drop of blood spilled by jihadists, illegal immigrants or Obama’s early released criminals puts an exclamation point on the political disaster Clinton is leading.

Incredibly, the Democrats are so disconnected from real America that they cannot bring themselves to see that their ’60s Woodstock philosophy is a fairy tale, and that there are those in the world whose religion is to kill the rest of us no matter how many flowers you stick in their gun barrels. The real world is a tougher, meaner place where strength is needed to survive.

As a result, the more they talk, the better off Trump looks.

The stunning part is that the Democrats are so blinded that they can’t see what is obvious to everyone else who is paying attention. The end results of Obama and Clinton’s policies toward refugees has already been tested in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where acts of jihad seemingly occur daily and rapes are skyrocketing as Sharia followers envelop communities.

Unless Clinton can figure out a way to change the subject and get voters’ minds on something else, she is not only going to lose, but do so in historic fashion. But to solve a problem, you have to understand it, and for Democrats who fear even calling Islamic jihad what it is, there is no way out of the politically correct thought prison they have constructed.

Manning is the president of Americans for Limited Government.

Hillary Clinton Obstructed Boko Haram Terror Designation Over CIA, DOJ Objections As Clinton Allies Cashed In

boko.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, by Patrick Poole, July 28, 2016:

In January 2015, I was one of the first to report that a massive massacre by Nigerian terror group Boko Haram in Borno State in northwest Nigeria, with reportedly thousands killed. Witnesses on the ground reported that bodies littered the landscape for miles as towns and villages had been burned to the ground, their populations murdered or fled.

By that time, Boko Haram had already become the most lethal terrorist organization in the world, now responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Just yesterday the United Nations accused Boko Haram of “almost unimaginable” levels of violence and brutality.

And yet as Boko Haram began to ramp up its terror campaign in 2011 and 2012, Hillary Clinton obstructed the official terror designation of the group over the objections of Congress, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department.

Boko Haram death toll

Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department drag its feet on the terror designation in the face of near unanimous opposition from the rest of the U.S. government?

A recent series of reports about a close Clinton family confidante and Hillary campaign bundler who profited from Nigeria’s lucrative oil fields and engaged in multiple illegal deals throughout Africa and other donors to the Clinton Global Initiative deeply involved in Nigeria’s corrupt oil industry may provide the answer to that question.

As my PJ Media colleague Bridget Johnson has previously asked, is Boko Haram Hillary Clinton’s biggest scandal?

And as Hillary Clinton is set to accept the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States tonight, why is no one in the media talking about it?

It is worth nothing that Congress had to drag a reluctant State Department kicking and screaming to get Boko Haram designated in November 2013only after Hillary Clinton had left office.

Hillary Clinton’s willful obstruction in the matter is easy to document:

  • Members of Congress also discovered in 2014 that the Clinton State Department intentionally lied and downplayed the threat from Boko Haram, and worked to kill bills in both the House and the Senate calling for their designation in 2012.
  • As Reuters reported, the Justice Department’s National Security Division strongly urged the State Department to designate Boko Haram, but thena group of 21 American academics rallied to State Department’s aid bysending a letter to Hillary Clinton strongly arguing against Boko Haram’s designation.
  • We also now know that the Obama administration was sitting on intelligence obtained as a result of the Bin Laden raid that showed Boko Haram’s direct connection to Al-Qaeda and the international terror network in 2011 and 2012 at the same time Clinton’s State Department was arguing that Boko Haram had no such connections and that it wasn’t a transnational terror threat.

So what was behind Hillary Clinton’s intransigence in designating Boko Haram?

An important two-part investigative series by WORLD Magazine reporters Mindy Belz and J.C. Derrick provides some insight.

What Belz and Derrick discovered was that Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram designation and the continuing chaos in northern Nigeria – Africa’s largest economy and the 10th largest oil producer in the world – directly benefited Clinton Global Initiative donors and a close Clinton confidante who bundled campaign cash for Hillary.

From their second article:

Perhaps the most prominent Nigerian with ties to the Clintons is Houston-based Kase Lawal. The founder of CAMAC Energy, an oil exploration and energy consortium, Lawal had a long history with Bill Clinton before becoming a “bundler” for Hillary’s 2008 presidential bid, amassing $100,000 in contributions and hosting a fundraiser in his Houston home—a 14-room, 15,264-square-foot mansion. Lawal maxed out donations to Hillary’s 2016 primary campaign, and his wife Eileen donated $50,000—the most allowed—to President Obama’s 2009 inaugural committee.Lawal describes himself as a devout Muslim who began memorizing the Quran at age 3 while attending an Islamic school. “Religion played a very important role in our lives,” he told a reporter in 2006. “Every time you finish a chapter they kill a chicken, and if you finish the whole thing, a goat.”

Today the Houston oil exec—who retired in May as CEO but continues as chairman of the board of CAMAC, now called Erin Energy—tops the list of wealthiest Nigerians living in North America. His firm reports about $2.5 billion in annual revenue, making it one of the top private companies in the United States.

In Africa, Lawal has been at the center of multiple criminal proceedings, even operating as a fugitive. Over the last decade, he faced charges in South Africa over an illegal oil scheme along with charges in Nigeria of illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lawal arranged a 2011 plot to purchase 4 tons of gold from a rebel warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, linked to massacres and mass rapes. Ntaganda was on a U.S. sanctions list, meaning anyone doing business with him could face up to 20 years in prison. Lawal contacted Clinton’s State Department, and authorities in Congo released his plane and associates in the plot. He never faced charges in the United States, and he remains a commissioner for the Port Authority of Houston.

Lawal’s energy firm holds lucrative offshore oil licenses in Nigeria, as well as exploration and production licenses in Gambia, Ghana, and Kenya, where he operates in a conflict-ridden area largely controlled by Somalia’s al-Shabab militants.

The firm also has held contracts in Nigeria for crude oil lifting, or transferring oil from its collection point to refineries. Until last year, when newly elected President Muhammadu Buhari began an effort to reform the process, contracting for lifting has been awash in kickbacks, bribes, and illegal activity.

Overland lifting contracts often involve partnership with the North’s past and present governors, including those who serve as quasi-warlords with ties to Boko Haram and other militants.

Lawal’s enterprises have long been rumored to be involved in such deals, as have indigenous oil concerns like Petro Energy and Oando, Nigeria’s largest private oil and gas company, based in Lagos and headed by Adewale Tinubu, another controversial Clinton donor.

In 2014, Oando pledged 1.5 percent of that year’s pre-tax profits and 1 percent of future profits to a Clinton Global Initiative education program. This year, Adewale gained notoriety when the Panama Papers revealed he holds at least 12 shell companies, leading tosuspicion of money laundering, tax evasion, and other corruption.

In 2013 Bill Clinton stood alongside Adewale’s uncle, Bola Tinubu, while attending the dedication of a massive, controversial reclamation project called Eko Atlantic. Critics call Bola Tinubu, leader of the ruling All Progressives Congress party, Nigeria’s “looter in chief.” A Nigerian documentary says that when the billionaire landowner was governor of Lagos State (1999-2007), he funneled huge amounts of state funds—up to 15 percent of annual tax revenues—to a private consulting firm in which he had controlling interest.

In the United States, where he studied and worked in the 1970s and ’80s, Tinubu is still a suspect in connection with a Chicago heroin ring he allegedly operated with his wife and three other family members. In 1993 Tinubu forfeited $460,000 to American authorities, who believe he trafficked drugs and laundered the proceeds.

But wait, there’s more:

Beneath the surface, literally, Boko Haram was making it possible for illicit operators to lay claim to the area for their own purposes, and to pump oil from Nigeria’s underground reserves to Chad. Using 3-D drilling, Chad operators can extract Nigerian oil—without violating Nigerian property rights—to sell on open markets. One benefactor of the arrangement is Ali Modu Sheriff, a leading politician in the North, Borno State governor until 2011, and an alleged sponsor of Boko Haram, who is close friends with longtime Chad President Idriss Déby.The very terrorism that seems to be deterring oil exploration in reality can help illicit extraction, forcing residents to flee and giving cover to under-the-table oil traders. In 2015, a year when overall oil prices dipped 6 percent, Lawal’s Erin Energy stock value skyrocketed 295 percent—the best-performing oil and gas stock in the United States.

Their entire two-part investigative series is worth reading every word.

Of course, Hillary’s defenders will claim that Clinton obstructing the terrorist designation of what is now the most lethal terrorist organization in the world on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors and close Clinton family confidantes is simply crazy conspiracy talk.

Of course, they said that too about Hillary’s role in the fast-tracking approval of Russia’s acquisition of a large chunk of America’s uranium supply as the Clinton Foundation was taking money from those profiting from the deal.

But Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram terror designation in the face of FBI, CIA, DOJ and Congressional urging to do so is a documented fact.

The reason for Hillary’s obstruction, which the establishment media has never really pressed Clinton for, remains unanswered.

And yet don’t expect any of the talking heads on tonight’s coverage of Hillary’s DNC convention acceptance speech to press the matter.

Patrick Poole: How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

Photo courtesy of The Investigative Project

Photo courtesy of The Investigative Project

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 27, 2016:

Right now, prisoner #47042-083, Abdurahman Alamoudi, sits in his cell in a federal prison in Ashland, Kentucky.

It’s a long way down from being one of Hillary Clinton’s favorite colleagues. Alamoudi organized White House events during the Bill Clinton administration. Under Hillary’s supervision, he held official positions: Alamoudi was strategically placed at the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.

That is, until he was arrested and convicted in a bizarre Libyan intelligence/al-Qaeda assassination plot to kill the Saudi crown prince.

Later, he was identified by the Treasury Department as an Al-Qaeda fundraiser who had operated inside the United States.

Hillary Clinton and Abdurahman Alamoudi were no mere acquaintances. According to an affidavit filed in court by Georgetown professor John Esposito, Alamoudi was asked by Hillary Clinton to arrange the first White House Ramadan iftar dinner in 1996:

Hillary - Alamoudi iftar (Esposito)

It appears that no media outlet has ever asked Hillary Clinton about her relationship to Alamoudi.

Under the Clinton administration, Alamoudi was tasked with founding and developing the Defense Department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain program. Alamoudi himself handpicked the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain corps.

As I reported in 2010, one of those chaplain trainers was al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

The State Department, during the Clinton administration, appointed Alamoudi as a goodwill ambassador and sent him on six official taxpayer-funded trips to the Middle East. Remarkably, after Alamoudi’s 2003 arrest a federal agent testified in an affidavit about a recording of Alamoudi complaining to an audience that the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania did not kill enough Americans.

Years before he was helping Hillary Clinton arrange official dinners at the White House, Alamoudi had already been known to the FBI for al-Qaeda fundraising.

Yet Alamoudi became a regular face at the White House, Here, he is pictured with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore:

952_alamoudi_clinton_gore_2050081722-14945

After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the speechwriter for the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman told the FBI that Alamoudi had been funneling $5000 payments from Osama bin Laden to Rahman. Rahman is currently serving a life sentence on terror charges for his role in the “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.

In a July 2005 press release announcing a terror designation, the Treasury Department stated that Alamoudi “had raised money for al Qaida in the United States” and that his arrest was “a severe blow to al Qaida.”

Alamoudi’s donation to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign became an issue in October 2000. Then, Alamoudi was caught on video speaking in Lafayette Park across from the White House publicly announcing his support for Hamas and Hezbollah:

I have been labelled by the New York media as a supporter of Hamas. Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars] Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars again] Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars a third time] Here that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. Allahu Akbar.I wish they also added that I am a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [crowd roars] Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [crowd roars again] Takbir! [crowd responds, “Allahu Akhbar”]

When questioned by the New York Daily News about his statement, Alamoudi first denied making it –he said that the reporters should “check their Arabic.”

When told that he had made the statement in English, Alamoudi responded by saying: “It was in English? Oh my god, I forgot.”

Days before Alamoudi publicly pledged his allegiance to two terror organizations designated as such by President Bill Clinton, he had just returned from a State Department-funded trip to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman.

He received a $100-$200 honorarium every day, plus hotel and travel covered by U.S. taxpayers.

After news of Alamoudi’s statement in support of Hamas and Hezbollah reached the media, Hillary Clinton promptly returned Alamoudi’s political contribution to her U.S. Senate campaign.

Alamoudi’s undoing came when he was stopped in September 2003 at London’s Heathrow Airport with $340,000 of sequential $100 bills on his way to Syria. Prosecutors said they believed he was headed to deliver the money to Hamas and possibly other terror groups.

The money he was carrying was believed to have been provided by Libyan intelligence to Alamoudi as part of a plot involving al-Qaeda operatives in London to assassinate the Saudi crown prince. Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years in prison after pleading guilty to his role in the assassination plot. His sentence was reduced in 2011 to 17 years under an agreement with the Obama Justice Department testimony in a terror-related trial.

As Alamoudi sits in his cell at the federal prison in Kentucky tomorrow night, will he be watching his old friend Hillary Clinton making her keynote speech to the Democratic Party National Convention?

Between now and Election Day in November, will anyone in the media ask presidential candidate Hillary Clinton about her role in mainstreaming her al-Qaeda fundraising friend?

***

A President Hillary is the end to National Security!

What Hillary Clinton Got Wrong About the World

48981920.cached

As DNC 2016 begins, many of Secretary Clinton’s signature causes are now a problem for candidate Hillary.

Daily Beast, by Nancy A. Youssef, July 24, 2016:

America was supposed to make big changes while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton would spearhead a reset in U.S.-Russia relations. She’d usher in an era of new, internet-enabled democratic activism. And rather than focus on protracted wars in the Middle East, the U.S. would pivot toward Asia.

None of that quite came to be. If there is a connective thread in Clinton’s tenure, it was an overestimation in the U.S. ability to shape events around the world and an underestimation of the unintended consequences of change.

In places like Egypt, rather than democracy, there is a return to an even more aggressive police state, where thousands of opponents are in jail, free speech no longer exists and Islamist jihadists are expanding their grip. Rather than improved relations with Russia, the U.S. is trying to dodge a proxy war with the former Soviet bloc in Syria. Through competing airstrikes, the U.S. is supporting opponents to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Russia has helped prop up the regime. And in Asia, rather than a pivot, the U.S. has only kept one eye on a rapidly changing region. China has increasingly claimed its stake to the South China Sea, and in North Korea Kim Jong-un’s ballistic missile launches have rattled his U.S. allied partner in the south.

In other words: The job that was supposed to best prepare Clinton to be the next president could also be the albatross of her campaign, thanks to the chaotic world that emerged since she left the post in 2013.

Presidential campaigns aren’t known for their foreign policy nuance. But this one is looking to be particularly dense, even though one candidate led U.S diplomacy during one of the most complex periods of U.S. foreign policy. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand the kind of quarter-turns that led to failed strategy; the Clinton campaign can’t afford to rehash them.

Take Trump’s acceptance speech on Thursday. He hit Clinton for allowing Egypt to be “turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control.”

It’s a legitimate target. The U.S. government’s handling of the Arab Spring—particularly in Egypt—during Clinton’s tenure was, in hindsight, a total mess. But the Brotherhood did not take over; it was democratically elected. And the military chose to step in and oust the president.

A year earlier, as iconic images of thousands of Egyptians filled Cairo’s Tahrir Square during a so-called “Twitter Revolution,” U.S. officials initially resisted supporting the uprising against Egypt’s strongman president, Hosni Mubarak. It was not until Mubarak’s fall seemed all but certain that the U.S. backed the military forces that took over. But for those protesting, it came too late. They felt that America’s support was wavering. And for Mubarak’s supporters, some of whom now are back in power in Egypt, it was a betrayal. That is, the U.S. gained few benefits from a seemingly bold move by Clinton’s State Department to walk away from a three-decade-long ally.

When the presidency of a democratically elected Islamist, Mohammed Morsi, appeared in peril, the Egyptian military ousted him. In the process, both sides were angry at the United States. Morsi supporters suspected the U.S. was behind the coup; the military resented the lack of U.S. support. And Egypt-U.S. relations have been frayed ever since, even as the U.S. has continued to provide military equipment and aid.

“The administration believed it was supporting democracy when it engaged elected Islamists after the Arab Spring but when those Islamists behaved like tyrants and governed Egypt into the ground, many Egyptian resented what they saw as U.S. support for Islamists,” Eric Trager,  an expert on Egyptian politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Daily Beast.

In her 2014 book, Hard Choices, which was devoted to her time as Secretary of State, Clinton signaled that she was hesitant about Arab Spring, saying she was not convinced the military likely would do much better than Mubarak.

“There is little reason to believe that restored military rule will be any more sustainable than it was under Mubarak. To do so it will have to be more inclusive, more responsible for the needs of the people, and eventually, more democratic,” Clinton wrote.

She also described current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, who announced Morsi’s ouster, as someone who “appears to be following the classic mold of Middle Eastern strongmen.”

In Libya, while Trump has focused on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a consulate in Benghazi, smarter critics point to a more important issue: Clinton’s calls for intervention in Libya a year earlier.

Obama administration insiders say Clinton’s failing in Libya was twofold and predated the attack in Benghazi. What began as a humanitarian mission to save the residents of Benghazi from a government assault during the 2011 uprising somehow evolved into regime change. Who made the decision? And why? Critics have yet to get a clear answer.

To make matters worse, once the regime change decision was made, there was a lack of planning for how Libya would look once its four-decade-long leader, Muammar Gaddafi, fell from power. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained to The Daily Beast, the post-Gaddafi plan did not exist. “We were playing it by ear,” Gates said.

Libya has devolved into a fractured state battling a burgeoning jihadist threat, where ISIS has set up a hub in the city of Sirte, Gadhafi’s former hometown.

Testifying on Capitol Hill in January 2013, Clinton conceded that events in Libya had unfolded in unexpected ways. But she said that the criticisms directed at her were too often about politics, not improving U.S. strategy.

“We are in a new reality. We are trying to make sense of changes that nobody had predicted but which we’re going to have to live with,” she said. “Let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s avoid turning everything into a political football.”

Beyond the Middle East, Clinton proposed a reset with Russia, hoping for better relations to reset relations, which had hit a nadir after Russia attacked Georgia in 2008. She even presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with an actual red button supposedly labeled “reset” in Russian. Lavrov would later say the Russian word that appeared actually translated as “overcharge.”

The reset didn’t go much better after that. Early on, Russia agreed to allow the U.S. military to fly over its airspace en route to Afghanistan and both sides agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenal. But since then, Russia has claimed Crimea, contributed to the ongoing unrest in Ukraine and rattled parts of NATO which is fearful that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks a geographical expansion through member states, like Poland. Most notably, on Sept. 30, 2015, Russia began launching strikes on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the Obama administration once said had to go. With the help of Russian strikes, Assad resurrected his once moribund grip on power. In some cases, Russia has attacked U.S.-allied forces, including a strike last month in southern Syria.

In an October 2015 interview with PBS, Clinton refused to concede that she may have misread the Russians, telling the NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff: “No, I don’t think so at all.”

In Asia, the Obama administration sought to signal that the United States would no longer be focused on the Middle East but rather would turn its attention to Asia. Clinton’s first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia and reportedly a quarter of her foreign travels after that were dedicated to the region.

But like the Russian reset, while there were initial successes, the pivot eventually faltered. During his confirmation hearing in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry was ambivalentabout the pivot toward Asia, saying: “I’m not convinced that increased military ramp-up [in the Asia-Pacific] is critical yet.”

Perhaps most notably, candidate Clinton has distanced herself from the work Secretary Clinton did on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with the 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the U.S., that has since drawn the ire of critics who say it kills American jobs and doesn’t address currency manipulation. The agreement was a keystone in the pivot toward Asia; some see her new position as an example of flip-flopping on the agreement in a bid to win favor with organized labor.

“What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” Clinton said during the same PBS interview.

With little specifics from the Trump campaign on how it would tackle the emergence of ISIS, an emboldened Russia and the rise of inspired terrorism, it will be hard for the Clinton campaign to deflect questions about her role in current world affairs. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an email from The Daily Beast seeking additional comments about her tenure at the State Department.

So far, Trump has suggested a policy of appeasement toward Russia, a potentially reduced U.S. role for NATO and increased U.S. isolationism. But he has never explained how those changes would happen—or addressed the possible consequences of such changes.

“The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017,” Trump said at the Republican National Convention, in perhaps his most specific offering for the way ahead.

Free Global Broadcast of ‘Clinton Cash’ Documentary Online at Breitbart.com

Clinton-Cash-Poster-640x480

Breitbart, July 22, 2016:

The highly anticipated Clinton Cash documentary will air for free on Breitbart on Saturday, July 23 at 8:00 p.m. ET and on Sunday, July 24 at 2:00 and 8:00 p.m. ET.

***Due to the overwhelming demand to view this film, we’ve decided to broadcast it online for free with no password required.***

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE MOVIE ONLINE AT 2:00PM & 8:00PM ET ON SUNDAY, JULY 24. 

The next global broadcast of “Clinton Cash” will be SUNDAY, JULY 24 at 2:00PM ET and 8:00pm ET at this link.

The weekend Clinton Cash global release, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, will set the tone for Hillary Clinton’s nomination. MSNBC calls the movie “devastating” for presumptive Democratic nominee and says it “powerfully connects the dots.” The Guardian lauds the film as “a powerful message, one that is clearly designed to stir up trouble at the convention at just the moment when Clinton should be reveling in her victory in the Democratic race.” And the Fiscal Times warns that Clinton Cash is a “weapon that could knock Clinton out.”

The film, based on the New York Times bestselling investigative book Clinton Cash by Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, has sent shockwaves through media. The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and other Establishment Media haveverified and confirmed the book’s explosive revelations about how Hillary Clinton auctioned State Department policies to foreign Clinton Foundation donors and benefactors who then paid Bill Clinton tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees.

Time says the movie’s power comes from its focus persuading liberals. “[The film is] a scathing broadside aimed at persuading liberals,” reports Time. It is “likely to leave on-the-fence Clinton supporters who see it feeling more unsure about casting a vote for her.”

CNN’s Michael Smerconish says the book-turned-film is shaping up to be the political “playbook for the fall campaign.”

Clinton Cash’s weekend global airing on Breitbart will be for two days only. Click here to watch the film. No password required.

“We wanted Breitbart Nation to see the Clinton Cash movie first and for free,” said the Stephen K. Bannon, Breitbart Executive Chairman and the film’s writer and producer.

Bannon added: “It’s imperative that progressives and conservatives alike see the film to understand Hillary Clinton’s unprecedented auctioning of State Dept. policies.”

Also see:

Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties

Presumptive Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton with her choice for vice-president Tim Kaine.

Presumptive Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton with her choice for vice-president Tim Kaine.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 23, 2016:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s newly-announced running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, has a history of embracing Islamists. He appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission; spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect and received donations from well-known Islamist groups.

Appointing a Muslim Brotherhood Front Leader Who Supports Hamas

In 2007, Kaine was the Governor of Virginia and, of all people chose Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish to the state’s Immigration Commission. A Muslim organization against Islamism criticized the appointment and reckless lack of vetting.

Federal prosecutors said in a 2008 court filing that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” AChicago Tribune investigation in 2004 confirmed this, as well as MAS’ crafty use of deceptive semantics to appear moderate. Convicted terrorist and admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member Abdurrahman Alamoudi testified in 2012, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Read our fully-documented profile of MAS here.

According to Omeish’s website, he was also president of the National Muslim Students Association (click there to read our profile about its Muslim Brotherhood origins) and served for two years on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which the Justice Department also labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial.

His website says he was the vice president of Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a radical mosque known for its history of terror ties, including having future Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki as itsimam and being frequented by two of the 9/11 hijackers and Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood shooting. Omeish’s website says he remains a board member.

Omeish’s website also says he was chairman of the board of Islamic American University, which had Hamas financier and Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Al-Qaradawi chairman of its board until at least 2006.

Omeish was also chairman of the board for the Islamic Center of Passaic County, a New Jersey mosque with heavy terrorist ties and an imam that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport for having links to Hamas.

Omeish directly expressed extremism before Kaine appointed him. He claimed the Brotherhood is “moderate” and admitted that he and MAS are influenced by the Islamist movement.

In 2004, Omeish praised the Hamas spiritual leader as “our belovedSheikh Ahmed Yassin.” Videotape from 2000 also surfaced where Omeish pledged to help Palestinians who understand “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land” (he denied this was an endorsement of violence).

When a state delegate wrote a letter to then-Governor Kaine warning him that the MAS has “questionable origins,” a Kaine spokesperson said the charge was bigotry.

Kaine obviously failed to do any kind of basic background checking in Omeish.

Omeish resigned under heavy pressure, and Kaine acknowledged that his statements “concerned” him. But, apparently, they didn’t concern him enough to actually learn about the Muslim Brotherhood network in his state and to take greater precautions in the future.

Speaking at a Dinner Honoring Muslim Brotherhood Terror Suspect

In September 2011, Kaine spoke at a “Candidates Night” dinnerorganized by the New Dominion PAC that presented a Lifetime Achievement Award for Jamal Barzinji, who the Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch describes as a “founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

He first came on to the FBI’s radar in 1987-1988 when an informant inside the Brotherhood identified Barzinji and his associated groupsas being part of a network of Brotherhood fronts to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The source said Barzinji and his colleagues were “organizing political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government” using “political action front groups with no traceable ties.”

Barzinji had his home searched as part of a terrorism investigation in 2003. U.S. Customs Service Senior Special Agent David Kane said in a sworn affidavit that Barzinji and the network of entities he led were investigated because he “is not only closed associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]…but also with Hamas.”  Counter-terrorism reporter Patrick Poole broke the story that Barzinji was nearly prosecuted but the Obama Justice Department dropped plans for indictment.

Barzinji played a major role in nearly every Brotherhood front in the U.S. and was vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which came under terrorism investigation also. Barzinji’s group was so close to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian that IIIT’s President considered his group and Al-Arian’s to be essentially one entity.

The indictment of Al-Arian and his colleagues says that they “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights (emphasis mine).”

The quotes about Brotherhood operative Barzinji’s aspirations to use civil rights advocacy as a means to influence politicians are especially relevant when you consider that video from the event honoring Barzinji shows Kaine saying that it was his fourth time at the annual dinner and thanked his “friends” that organized it for helping him in his campaign for lieutenant-governor and governor and asked them to help his Senate campaign.

Islamist Financial Support

Barzinji’s organization, IIIT, donated $10,000 in 2011 to the New Dominion PAC, the organization that held the event honoring Barzinji that Kaine spoke at. The Barzinji-tied New Dominion PAC donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign between 2003 and 2005. That figure doesn’t even include other political recipients that assisted Kaine’s campaign.

The PAC has very strong ties to the Democratic Party in Virginia, with the Virginia Public Access Project tallying almost $257,000 in donations. This likely explains why Barzinji’s grandson served in Governor McAuliffe’s administration and then became the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Muslim-American community.

The Middle East Forum’s Islamist Money in Politics database shows another $4,300 donated to Kaine’s Senate campaign in 2011-2012 by officials from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another $3,500 came from Hisham Al-Talib, a leader from Barzinji’s IIIT organization.

It’s worth noting that Barzinji’s IIIT donated $3,500 to Esam Omeish’s 2009 campaign delegate campaign, tying together the cadre of Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders who got into Kaine’s orbit.

Conclusion

Kaine has no excuse. If he has an Internet connection, then he and his staff should have known about their backgrounds. They were either extremely careless (something Kaine would have in commonwith the top of the ticket) or knew and looked the other way in the hopes of earning donations and votes.

Clinton’s choice of Kaine is widely seen as a way of strengthening her campaign’s national security credentials. Yet, Clinton is asking us to trust a candidate on national security who appoints a Hamas supporter to an immigration commission and speaks at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect.

And she is asking us to trust her, who chose such a candidate.

New Ties Emerge Between Clinton And Mysterious Islamic Cleric

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at the Turkish Cultural Center, Sept. 2007. (Youtube screengrab)

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at the Turkish Cultural Center, Sept. 2007. (Youtube screengrab)

Daily Caller, by Chuck Ross, July 13, 2016:

A newly-released email and lobbying documents filed with Congress reveals new ties between Clintonworld and members of a network operated by a mysterious Islamic cleric from Turkey.

Connections between Clinton and acolytes of the imam, Fethullah Gulen, could muddle the complex relationship between the U.S. and Turkey, a key NATO ally, if the former secretary of state wins the White House.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has mounted an aggressive crackdown against Gulen and his followers, known as Gulenists. Erdoğan, who was once allied with Gulen, has even personally asked President Obama to extradite the 74-year-old guru, who has lived in self-exile in Pennsylvania’s Pocono mountains since 1999.

(RELATED: Followers Of A Mysterious Islamic Cleric Have Donated Heavily To Hillary’s Campaign And Charity)

Erdoğan has accused Gulen of attempting to undermine the Turkish government. Gulen’s followers control many Turkish institutions, including the media, courts, and police force.

In addition to muddying that complex geopolitical dynamic, a 2009 email recently released by Judicial Watch provides yet another example of access being provided to a Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation donor.

In the April 1, 2009 message, a Gulen follower named Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in connecting one of his allies to President Obama.

Ozkok is founding board member of the Turkish Cultural Center and part of a network of businesses and non-profits affiliated with the Gulen movement, also known as Hizmet.

Ozkok served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC. He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign last year. He is also listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s website as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation. He’s given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.

Another link between Gulenists and the Clinton orbit was revealed in a lobbying registration disclosure filed last month with the Senate. It shows that a Gulen-aligned group called the Alliance for Shared Values hired the Clinton-connected Podesta Group to lobby Congress on its behalf. The group seeks to lobby for the “promotion of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”

The group’s executive director is Alp Aslandogan, a former professor at universities in Texas. He has also donated to Clinton’s political endeavors, campaign finance records show.

The Podesta Group is a natural choice for those seeking influence with Clinton. The firm was co-founded by John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and his brother Tony, a major Clinton campaign bundler.

Through various non-profit groups, both Gulenists promote the cleric’s teachings, which are relatively moderate and pro-Western. They are also involved in the Gulen movement’s money-making endeavor: a vast network of taxpayer-funded charter schools.

Those schools, which number more than 150, have been a source of controversy for the Gulen movement.

Federal investigators have reportedly investigated some of the schools for using work visas to bring Turkish citizens to the U.S. to teach. In some cases, taxpayer funds were used to pay immigration and legal fees for family members of teachers who worked at the facilities. Funds allocated to the schools have also been funneled to contractors controlled by Turkish nationals with connections to the Gulen movement.

A 2011 New York Times article focused on suspicious ties between Gulenist schools operating in Texas under the name Harmony Public Schools. Harmony contracted with a company controlled by a pro-Gulen non-profit called the Cosmos Foundation. In 2002, Aslandogan purchased property that was later sold to Harmony. He also founded the Texas Gulf Foundation, which has also been awarded taxpayer-funded contracts to provide services to Gulen schools.

Aslandogan did not return a request for comment. Nor did Ozkok, who has affiliations with Gulen-connected education firms Sema Education and Apple Education Services.

The partnerships between the schools and contractors allow taxpayer funds to remain within the Gulen network. Teachers at the schools, many of whom are not fluent in English, are also used to help finance Hizmet, according to one former teacher at a Gulen institute.

The teacher, who is now a government whistleblower, told “60 Minutes” in 2012 that Turkish teachers are required to return a large portion of their salary to the Gulen network. She said that her Turkish husband, who taught at one of the schools, was required to return 40 percent of his salary.

Accusations of visa fraud and other impropriety, which Gulenists largely deny, have contributed to an increased profile for Gulen, who ended up staying in the U.S. permanently after coming here for medical treatment.

Erdoğan’s campaign to rid Turkey of Gulen’s influence has also thrust the recluse onto the public spotlight.

On top of his efforts to crackdown on Gulenists within the Turkish media, judiciary and police, Erdoğan has sought to exert influence over Gulen in the U.S.

During a 2014 visit with President Obama, Erdoğan, who served as prime minister prior to his presidential term, reportedly asked Obama for Gulen’s extradition. The Turkish government has also retained the law firm Amsterdam & Partners in an effort to undermine Gulen and Gulenists in the courts as well as the media.

The connections between the Gulen movement and Clinton are not the first to be revealed. They also add to questions about what it is the Gulenists want from Clinton and whether the Democrat has rewarded their financial support with favors.

Last year The Daily Caller reported that numerous Gulen followers have donated to Clinton’s various political campaigns and to her family charity. One Gulen movement leader, Recep Ozkan, donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

As senator from New York, Clinton gave a keynote address at the Turkish Cultural Center’s annual banquet.

The email to Abedin, which is the first piece of communication showing that a Gulen follower had direct access to Clinton’s staff, sought a favor.

“Please tell Madam Secretary that it would be great if President Obama can include a 15 minutes [sic] meeting with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of of [sic] the Islamic Conference (OIC), in his trip to Turkey,” wrote Ozkok.

April 1, 2009 email from Gokhan Ozkok to Huma Abedin. Obtained by Judicial Watch

April 1, 2009 email from Gokhan Ozkok to Huma Abedin. Obtained by Judicial Watch

It is unclear if Abedin forwarded Ozkok’s request to Clinton or anyone else in the Obama administration. But Ihsanoglu, who is an ally of Gulen’s and lost to Erdogan in the 2014 presidential election, did meet with Obama in Istanbul several days after the email. There, Obama reportedly extended an invitation to Ihsanoglu to visit the White House. The academic visited in June 2009 and reportedly asked Obama to create a U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world.

Huma Abedin (R) and Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill (L). (REUTERS)

Huma Abedin (R) and Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill (L). (REUTERS)

Some terror watchdog groups flagged the meetings, pointing to Ihsanoglu’s past praise of the terrorist group Hamas and for Sudanese president and U.S. foe Omar al-Bashir. But Ihsanoglu does not appear to be a radical firebrand like so many Islamists in the Middle East.

Read more

Hillary’s Libya Debacle

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi_1

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, July 13, 2016:

Colin Powell’s famous words, “You break it, you own it,” are coming back to haunt Hillary Clinton. Powell said those words in cautioning President George W. Bush about the harsh unintended consequences that could result from the military action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Hillary voted to support while in the Senate. As Secretary of State, Hillary forgot all about Colin Powell’s prescient warning. She became the prime mover within the Obama administration for military action to forcibly remove Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi. In fact, upon learning of his death at the hands of a mob, Hillary Clinton exulted. Paraphrasing Julius Caesar, Hillary proclaimed on Oct. 20, 2011:  “We came, we saw, he died.”

What followed the toppling of Gaddafi’s regime, however, was utter chaos, not the smooth transition to a pluralistic democracy that Hillary had naively envisioned. Indeed, the anarchy that ensued has created a dire strategic threat to the United States and its Western and Arab allies that had not existed during the last years of Gaddafi’s reign. Especially after Gaddafi announced the end of his nuclear weapons program in December 2003 and followed through with allowing the removal of nuclear materials thereafter, his regime posed no strategic threat to U.S. national security.

No doubt Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, who sought to ruthlessly put down the rebellion that threatened his rule. However, his death and the end of his regime, which Hillary celebrated, fixed nothing.

Robert Gates, Obama’s Defense Secretary at the time, along with other senior leaders in the Obama administration such as Vice President Joseph Biden and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, foresaw the dangers of an ill-planned U.S. military intervention without a realistic plan for a peaceful transition. They warned against it. But Hillary’s call for intervention won out.  She persuaded a reluctant President Obama to enter the fray in support of our European and Arab allies on humanitarian grounds.

Hillary spent countless hours shuttling among foreign capitals to shore up what became a NATO-led coalition against Gaddafi’s regime.  She engineered the passage of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force in Libya to protect the vulnerable civilian population, which she apparently interpreted to authorize outright regime change. Hillary had personally met with the chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and other Libyans who might become a part of a successor regime. Her top aide Jake Sullivan explained Hillary’s confidence in these leaders’ ability to bring the various factions in the country together to form a relatively stable, democratic and inclusive post-Gaddafi transitional government. He said Hillary had received written pledges to bring about just such a transition from the Transitional National Council.

In a succession of e-mails, Hillary’s senior aides at the State Department, and her informal outside confidante Sidney Blumenthal, sang her praises for leading the implementation of the Libyan strategy she had pushed Obama to accept.

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

Hillary chomped at the bit to take credit for what she initially regarded as a great success in Libya when things seemed to be going well. She sent an e-mail to her top aide at the State Department, Jake Sullivan, forwarding Blumenthal’s recommendation. “Pls read below,” Hillary wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic.”

Sycophant Sullivan wrote back, “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.”

Sullivan had already written an e-mail to two other high level State Department officials, Cheryl Mills and Victoria Nuland, just a day before the above-mentioned Blumenthal e-mail, effusively praising his boss for her leadership role in steering Obama administration policy on Libya. “HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.”

Sullivan then laid out a detailed chronology of all the actions Hillary had taken to accomplish her mission.

However, Hillary’s mission turned into a strategic disaster.  Weapons in the hands of non-state actors, including jihadists, were spreading from Libya across national borders to help further inflame conflicts in Mali, Syria, and elsewhere. Migrants were using Libya as a disembarkation point to try and reach Europe across the Mediterranean Sea in overwhelming numbers. Armed militias fought each other within Libya, while rival governments were formed. Anti-American jihadists, who benefitted from the outcome of the ‘Clinton Doctrine” in Libya, filled the power vacuum. The tragic result was the terrorist attack in Benghazi that took four Americans’ lives on September 11, 2012, including the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Just as Hillary was, in the words of FBI Director James Comey, “extremely careless” in the handling of classified information on her private e-mail system, she was reckless in ignoring clear warning signals leading up to the deadly September 11th Benghazi terrorist attack. Indeed, in addition to threats, there were previous terrorist attacks, including one in June 2012 against the U.S. consulate compound itself and another the same month hitting a convoy carrying the British ambassador. The British decided to evacuate from Benghazi. Yet Hillary pressed on to establish a permanent U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens took his fateful trip to Benghazi in September 2012 in part to advance Hillary’s plan. “At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified to a Congressional committee in 2013.

Multiple requests from people on the ground in Libya for more security, including some from Ambassador Stevens himself, were sent to the State Department prior to the September 11, 2012 attack.  Stevens’ last diary entry was “never ending security threats.”  Somehow the security concerns never reached Hillary’s desk. She told the House Benghazi Committee that “I was not responsible for specific security requests.”  But Hillary’s attempt to wash her hands of any responsibility raises more questions than it answers.

Hillary said that Stevens was a friend. She had, in her words, “hand-picked” Stevens for what she knew was a highly dangerous post even as her so-called Clinton Doctrine unraveled. By her own account, there was “lawlessness” in Benghazi, which she said Stevens had been aware of. Yet she never bothered to reach out to him directly to ask whether there was sufficient security for the mission she had hand-picked her friend to carry out.  She simply said that Stevens knew the risks and “felt comfortable” with conditions on the ground. One phone call or e-mail directly to her personal friend would have informed her of Stevens’ concerns over the “never ending security threats.” Hillary had not even provided Stevens with her cell phone number, fax number or personal e-mail address in case he needed to reach her. Apparently, Hillary had less compunctions about giving out that contact information to Blumenthal.

Through her reckless indifference to the security needs of Stevens and other Americans who became caught in the terrorist attack at the Benghazi facility that she wanted to make permanent, Hillary Clinton for all intents and purposes left them there unprotected to face the deadly consequences. She then lied to the families of the victims of the attack, telling them that an obscure anti-Muslim video was the cause of the attack when she knew at the time that the attack was a coordinated, pre-meditated act of jihadist terrorism. And she doubled down on her reckless indifference – literally – a year later at a Senate hearing with her infamous remark: “What difference at this point does it make?”

As she runs to become the next president and commander-in-chief, Hillary Clinton is trying to disown what she broke in Libya. Her recklessness and indifference to the consequences of her actions, as well as her lies to cover up her mistakes, follow the same pattern as her e-mail debacle and should disqualify her from the presidency.

Also see:

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi

witch-of-benghazi

Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, July 5, 2016

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report confirms what we pretty much already knew. The Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completely politicized this country’s foreign policy in order to ensure the reelection of Obama and to serve the future presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Along the way Obama, Clinton et al. made dangerous decisions, such as establishing the consular outpost in Benghazi, and ignoring the consul’s pleas for more security. They also ignored the many warning signs of incipient attacks, bungled the response to the attack on September 11, 2012, and then obfuscated, spun, and outright lied in the aftermath. The House report adds new details that flesh out the story, but enough had already been leaked to confirm Clinton’s despicable sacrifice of American lives on the altar of her obsessive ambition.

Toxic ambition, sheer incompetence, and the self-serving politics of the individuals involved mean they bear the primary responsibility for this disaster. But Benghazi illustrates as well the climate of bad ideas that make such decisions possible. Bad politicians eventually go away, but malignant ideas and received wisdom are deeply rooted in our institutions, transcending individuals. The Benghazi fiasco illustrates two particularly tenacious ones.

The military intervention in Libya, the origin of the Benghazi tragedy, was another act of Western wishful thinking about “democratizing” and “reforming” the Muslim world. Despite the failure of George W. Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions encouraged the Wilsonian “freedom and democracy” promoters in 2011 to make Libya yet another poster-child for this doomed project. Moreover, intervention seemingly could be done on the cheap. No troops need be deployed, since jets and missiles could topple the psychotic Muammar Gaddafi––an autocrat straight out of central casting, whose genocidal bluster gave the West a pretext for intervention.

For Hillary and Obama, this was the perfect opportunity to show those neocon militarists what “smart power” was all about, and strike a contrast with the “cowboy” Bush’s “unilateralist” bumbling in Iraq. A UN resolution was secured, and a NATO-led coalition of 19 states assembled for enforcing a no-fly zone. The mission soon escalated into bringing about regime change and the death of Gaddafi.

For a while, this was a perfect, low-cost, quick little war that would illustrate the various shibboleths of moralizing internationalism: international diplomatic approval for the use of force, multilateral coalition building, a reliance on air power that minimized casualties among participating militaries, and a smaller role for the US, which would be “leading from behind,” as an Obama advisor said. This last idea reflected Obama’s belief that the US needed to diminish its role in world affairs and avoid the arrogant overreach that stained its history abroad, most recently in Iraq. This notion of America’s global sins is another bad idea reflecting ideology, not historical fact.

For Secretary of State Clinton, the Libya intervention would be the showcase of her tenure at State and proof of her superior foreign policy skills and presidential potential. Of course, we all know that the toppling of Gaddafi has been a disastrous mistake. Gaddafi was a brutal creep, but he kept in check the jihadists from Libya eager to kill Americans in Iraq and foment terror throughout the region. His departure created a vacuum that has been filled with legions of jihadist outfits across North Africa, including ISIS franchises. They are armed in part with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals such as surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles, machine guns, mines, grenades, antitank missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. Yet eager to protect her defining foreign policy achievement, Hillary kept open the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi even as other nations pulled out their personnel because of the increasing danger caused by the new Libyan government’s inability to control and secure its territory.

Four dead Americans were the cost of political ambition and adherence to the bankrupt idea that liberal democracy can be created on the cheap in a culture lacking all of the philosophical and institutional infrastructure necessary for its success: inalienable rights, equality under the law, transparent government, accountability to the people, separation of church and state, fair and honest elections, and the freedom of speech and assembly. The folly of expecting democracy in a culture alien to it became clear in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s Draft Constitutional Charter proclaimed, “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” The idea of exporting democracy, however, still has a tight hold on many in the West both on the left and the right, which means we have not seen the last of its bloody and costly failures.

Equally bipartisan has been the next bad idea: that al Qaeda, ISIS, et al. are fringe “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” grieved by this tarnishing of their noble faith. It was George W. Bush who said in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” establishing the model for his administration’s policy of “outreach” to Muslims. Obama has taken this delusion to surreal extremes, refusing in the face of mountains of evidence to link the numerous ISIS attacks of the last few years to Islam, and proscribing “jihad” and “radical Islamist” from the government’s communications and training manuals.

It was this imperative to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots in traditional Islamic doctrine that in part accounted for the lies that Hillary, Obama, and their minions like National Security Advisor Susan Rice told in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. They peddled the narrative that a spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video insulting Mohammed had morphed into a violent attack. This lie traded in the delusional belief that despite its 14-century-long record of invasion, murder, slaving, colonization, and occupation­­––all in fulfillment of the divine commands “to slay the idolaters wherever you find them” and “to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah” –– Islamic doctrine could not possibly justify the actions of modern terrorists. So powerful was the need to protect this belief and, of course, her political future that Clinton lied to the faces of the parents of the four dead Americans, promising to “get” the hapless filmmaker, even as she knew on the very night of the attacks that there was no protest against the video near the consular outpost.

Nor are the various pretexts for this evasion of historical fact convincing. The worst is that making explicit the link between jihadism and Islam will endanger innocent Muslims and stoke “Islamophobia.” There is no evidence that this is the case, and hate crimes against Jews still vastly outnumber those against Muslims. Not much better is the notion that pious Muslims, supposedly offended by “blasphemers” like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, will not cooperate with police and the FBI if we state simple facts about their faith and its history.

This idea is psychologically preposterous. It assumes that Muslim pique at infidel statements about their religion trumps their assumed desire to stop the violent “distorters” of their beloved faith. It also assumes that to Muslims, such insults justify keeping quiet about the planned murders of innocents––a damning indictment of the very people whom the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd are so anxious to mollify. Worse, it confirms the unique triumphalism of Islam, whose adherents expect from non-believers deference to their faith, even as Muslims across the globe are slaughtering and torturing people simply because they are non-believers. Such careful monitoring of our discourse about Islam, at the same time Muslim intellectuals routinely attack the West for its alleged historical sins against Islam, is a sign of weakness and fear that encourages our enemies to hit us again.

We’ve been operating by this double standard for decades, and terrorist groups have expanded across the globe, while jihadist violence has murdered Americans in Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando, to name just the deadliest attacks. It’s safe to say that the tactic of flattering Muslims and confirming their sense of superiority to infidels has failed to keep us safe.

But if we really want to be honest, we won’t just rely on the weasel-word “Islamist,” which still suggests that the beliefs of the jihadists are somehow a doctrinal aberration. Those of both parties who continually talk about “moderate Muslims” and use the word “Islamist” to distinguish them from jihadists should heed Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.” Using “Islamic” rather than “Islamist” will recognize the continuity of modern jihadism with traditional Islamic doctrines. Whitewashing that fact has done nothing to stop jihadist violence, and it is an enabler of those ordinary Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Islam’s illiberal and violent doctrines.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the opprobrium history will inflict on them for sacrificing our security and interests to their personal ambition and ideological obsessions. But bad ideas had a hand in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, and those bad ideas will continue to cripple us until we discard them and start facing reality.

***

RESCUE INTERRUPTED:

What did not happen to save American lives the night of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya? In recent days, the House Benghazi Committee released results of its investigation. Full Measure asks real intelligence officers what should have happened that night.

 

***

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) Press Conference June 29, 2016 – National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
CCB releases new report and comments on release of House Select Committee on Benghazi report.
Participants are as follows:
Roger Aronoff, Clare Lopez, Dennis Haney, Charles Woods, Tom McInerney, Ace Lyons, Chuck Kubic, John Clarke

Also see:

FBI: ‘Hostile Actors’ Likely Hacked Clinton Email Secrets

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, July 6, 2016:

An extensive FBI investigation found evidence that foreign government hackers accessed private emails sent by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton but no direct evidence spies hacked into the several unsecure servers she used.

FBI Director James Comey revealed Tuesday the 11-month probe into Clinton’s private email servers uncovered negligent handling of very sensitive classified information that was placed on several unsecure servers between 2009 and 2013, when Clinton served as secretary of state.

In an unusual public announcement, Comey outlined findings that included discovery of highly classified information sent and received on Clinton’s private email servers, and signs that “hostile actors” gained access to email accounts of people who were sharing emails with Clinton.

Comey said no clear evidence was found that Clinton and her aides intended to violate laws but “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Despite the evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing regarding communicating top secret, secret, and confidential information in emails, Comey announced at FBI headquarters that he is not recommending Justice Department prosecution of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

“Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.

The decision drew fire from Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee. “FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security,” he stated on Twitter. “No charges. Wow!” Trump added that the “system is rigged” since Gen. David Petraeus, a former CIA director, “got in trouble for less. Very very unfair.”

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon praised the FBI announcement.

“As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved,” Fallon said.

On the foreign counterintelligence aspects of the case, Comey said investigators found no “direct evidence” foreign state hackers gained access to the private email system. Advanced state cyber attackers, however, would be unlikely to leave traces of such intrusions, he added.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” Comey said, without elaborating or identifying the people in question.

During foreign travel, Clinton also used the personal email system extensively on “the territory of sophisticated adversaries,” likely a reference to China and Russia.

“Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” Comey said.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden, commenting on Comey’s remarks, said Clinton’s use of private email servers highlights the danger posed by the use of such servers, noting he believes it is very likely foreign states hacked into her server.

“I would lose respect for any serious intelligence agency on this planet if they had not accessed the emails on the server,” said Hayden, also a former director of the NSA.

According to Comey, seven email “chains” examined by the FBI contained classified information labeled “top secret, special access program,” among the highest security classification levels.

Special access programs are used in government to protect extremely sensitive information requiring extraordinary security measures. They can include such things as the identity of clandestine human agents or secret intelligence operations, military operations, or the characteristics of electronics used by foreign radar systems.

“Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters,” Comey said.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

A small number of the emails contained markings indicating the presence of classified information, Comey said.

That contradicts Clinton’s repeated statements that she did not misuse any information marked as classified data. The campaign website also contains the statement that “no information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”

Comey said even if the data was not marked as classified “participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive, said she was surprised that the FBI announcement did not address whether federal Records Act violations occurred, or whether evidence was found of corruption involving improper actions by Clinton to support the Clinton Foundation.

“Is the FBI’s investigation into those matter still ongoing?” she asked.

On the foreign intelligence targeting of the Clinton emails, Van Cleave said there is no question the former secretary of state knew her email messages were and are targeted by spy services.

“The working assumption of the intelligence community is that they have it all and damage assessments are still underway,” Van Cleave said. “She simplified their job by neatly packaging all of her email out of the hands of government security personnel. If that isn’t an open-and-shut case of ‘gross negligence’ under the espionage laws I don’t know what is.”

Van Cleave said she is concerned by the precedent of not prosecuting a former senior government official who mishandled classified information. “If government workers see their leaders play fast and loose with classified information with impunity, what is the incentive for them to behave differently,” she said.

The FBI announcement comes just over a week after former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix, raising charges of political interference in the investigation. Lynch was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York by Clinton in 1999.

President Obama also appeared to interfere with the investigation by announcing in October that “I can tell you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, former White House National Security Council staff intelligence director, said the FBI’s decision not to recommend prosecution is a case of politicization. “The Bureau is indelibly stained by this blatantly political act,” deGraffenreid said. “What would have happened to any other government official?”

DeGraffenreid said Comey overstepped FBI authority by asserting that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton. “He is not a prosecutor,” he said. “That is the attorney general’s job. Not Comey’s.”

The Justice Department’s National Security Division now must decide whether to follow the FBI recommendation or prosecute Clinton, who spent three and a half hours last weekend undergoing questioning by FBI agents.

Analysts say the Justice Department has been politicized through liberal appointees and thus is unlikely to go against the FBI recommendation.

The FBI announcement clears the way for Clinton to gain the Democratic nomination for president later this month at the party’s convention in Philadelphia.

Comey, in an unusually detailed statement regarding a criminal investigation, announced that his recommendation was not cleared in advance with the Justice Department and was more detailed than usual “because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.”

The FBI investigation was launched in August of 2015 following a July 24, 2015, referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and Intelligence Community. The notice said classified information may exist on at least one server and a thumb drive.

The FBI director also faulted what he said was a lax security culture at the State Department regarding the care and handling of classified information.

Comey said the probe examined if classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal system in violation of laws that make it a felony to mishandle classified information intentionally or in a grossly negligent way. A second law makes it a misdemeanor to remove classified information from secure systems.

The FBI found Clinton used not one but several servers and numerous mobile devices to read personal emails.

From the 30,000 emails Clinton gave to the State Department, the FBI found 110 emails that contained classified information at the time they were sent, including eight emails with top secret data, 36 with secret information, and eight with less-sensitive confidential data, Comey said.

Some 2,000 additional emails were later re-classified to “confidential.”

“The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014,” Comey said, noting the emails were found from deleted emails and traces on servers and devices.

Comey said no evidence was uncovered indicating Clinton deleted emails containing classified information an in effort to cover up a crime.

But he added: “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.

“But their presence is especially concerning because all of the emails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,” Comey said.

Based on factors such as strength of evidence, criminal intent, and how similar situations of mishandling or removing classified data were handled in the past, “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” he added.

Comey said the announcement would trigger public debate but insisted the probe was done “honestly, confidently, and independently.”

“Criminal intent aside, anyone experienced in these matters knows that the real sin here was the original sin,” said Hayden, the former CIA director who noted that that the initial creation of the private server without security procedures was a major vulnerability.

“[It meant] bad things with regard to preserving federal records and really bad things with regard to security,” he said.

***

Hillary Clinton can be blackmailed 

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

l1MaMIlkPoh1MRvphR7Lujl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVvK0kTmF0xjctABnaLJIm9National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy — July 5, 2016

On September 11, Huma Abedin Worked For Hillary Clinton and Saudi Charity Suspected of Terror Funding

Getty images

Getty images

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, June 28, 2016:

On September 11, 2001 Huma Abedin — Hillary Clinton’s aide for twenty years and co-chair of her current Presidential run — was working for an organization located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.

That’s a Wahhabist Islamic group that Breitbart News recently reported was going to be put on a list of terror funders by U.S. government but was removed, reportedly under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

This latest revelation ties the Muslim World League directly to the The Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs and the Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization that Vanity Fair writer William D. Cohan called “the Abedin family business.

Huma Abedin is scheduled to give a deposition today on her role in the Hillary Clinton email server scandal, which involved classified documents.

Muslim World League London Office & Abedin Family Business Have Same Address

An archived webpage from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from a little over a year after 9/11 — December 2, 2002, the earliest date available — shows that then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin was an assistant editor of the Journal.

Aside from Huma herself, also listed on that same date as editors are her sister Heba, her brother Hassan and her mother, Saleha S. Mahmood.

Listed on the Board of Advisers on that date is former Muslim World League Secretary General Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is listed as being on the “Majlis as-Shura.”

Majlis as-Shura or Shura Council, also known as the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, is a 150 member board of advisers—all appointed by the Saudi Arabian King—that proposes laws to the King and cabinet in the Kingdom’s absolute monarchy.

From that same December 2002 date, another webpage on the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs site about how to reach the Journal says “Editorial Correspondence including submission of articles and books for review should be addressed to: Editor, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 46 Goodge Street, London WIP 1FJ, U.K.”

The current official Journal website also lists the same 46 Goodge Street address, which is the same exact address listed on the Muslim World League’s London office address.

The official website for the Muslim World League’s London office lists its address as 46 Goodge Street.

The current day London Online website also lists the Muslim World League office in London and the Journal’s parent organization Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs as having the exact same 46 Goodge Street address.

A Yelp! listing for the Muslim World League shows the same 46 Goodge Address and a photo of the entrance.

Google Maps from 2008—the earliest date available—shows the Muslim Word League London office entrance, which appears to have office space above a pizza restaurant.

The Muslim World League Was Reportedly Pulled From Terror Funder List

Although she was working for Senator Hillary Clinton in 2001, at that time Huma Abedin was an unknown but influential aide, so her connection the the Muslim World League went unexamined.

Reports from mainstream media sources at the time of the 9/11 terror show that U.S. intelligence officials thought for years that the Muslim World League was connected to terror, but failed to inform the public of the connections due to pressure from Saudi Arabia.

Newsweek reported less than a month after the 9/11 attack:

Two interrelated global charities directly financed by the Saudi government–the International Islamic Relief Organization and the Muslim World League –have been used by bin Laden to finance his operations. The organizations were left off the list of groups sanctioned by the United States last week, U.S. officials hinted to NEWSWEEK, in order to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.

Harper’s magazine confirmed in a 2004 story:

In other cases, the Bush Administration made a conscious decision not to pursue major Saudi conduits for terrorist funding. The clearest example involves two ostensible charities that are long known to have funneled money to Al Qaeda–the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and the Muslim World League (MWL). Both are financed directly by the Saudi government. MWL is an evangelical organization that was created to help spread Wahhabism, the Saudi brand of Islamic fundamentalism; IIRO is a humanitarian relief organization that operates primarily in Muslim countries.

There is no record of either Hillary Clinton or Huma Abedin ever coming forward with information about the Muslim World League, even though the group was suspected of terrorist funding at the time.

Hillary Clinton Needs To Answer Questions About Huma Abedin

This clear connection between the Muslim World League and the Institute of Muslim Minority raises even more questions about the mysterious Huma Abedin.

A recent Breitbart News article from Republican political operative Roger Stone called for the media to force Hillary Clinton to break her silence about how Huma Abedin got into her current position as a Hillary Clinton confidant and how she was able to get a security clearance. Stone asked three questions: number one was What is Huma’s relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

It’s a question that neither Hillary Clinton nor Huma Abedin ever appears to have been asked by the media.

Follow Breitbart News investigative reporter and Citizen Journalism School founder Lee Stranahan on Twitter at @Stranahan.