Clinton State Department silenced them on Benghazi security lapses, contractors say

Fox News, by Catherine Herridge Sept. 12, 2017:

EXCLUSIVE: Security at the State Department’s Benghazi compound was so dire that another contractor was brought in to clean up the mess just two weeks before the 2012 terror attack – and was later pressured to keep quiet by a government bureaucrat under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to two men from the American security company.

Brad Owens and Jerry Torres, of Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, say they faced pressure to stay silent and get on the same page with the State Department with regard to the security lapses that led to the deaths of four Americans.

They spoke exclusively with Fox News for “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” revealing new information that undermines the State Department’s account of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, where Islamic militants launched a 13-hour assault from Sept. 11-12 that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALS Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty.

Jerry Torres, CEO of Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, shown here in Afghanistan.

Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions provides security for U.S. embassy and consulate personnel around the world in some of the most dangerous locations spanning Africa, the Middle East and South America, according to the firm.

Jerry Torres remains haunted by the fact specific bureaucrats and policies remain in the State Department after the Benghazi attack despite the change in administrations. “A U.S. ambassador is dead and nobody is held accountable for it. And three guys … all died trying to defend him,” said Torres, the company’s CEO and a former Green Beret.

Asked if there was a specific effort by a senior State Department contracting officer to silence them, Torres said, “Absolutely, absolutely.”

Owens, a former Army intelligence officer, echoed his colleague, saying those “who made the poor choices that actually, I would say, were more responsible for the Benghazi attacks than anyone else, they’re still in the same positions, making security choices for our embassies overseas now.”

In 2012, Owens was the American company’s point man in Libya with extensive experience in the region. After the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in the fall of 2011, Owens stressed to Fox News it was well-known that Islamic radicals including Al Qaeda-tied militias were pouring into the region and security “had deteriorated considerably.”

Based on documents reviewed by Fox News, Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions bid on the Benghazi compound security contract in the spring of 2012. But the State Department awarded the deal to a U.K.-based operation called The Blue Mountain Group.

Owens, who had personally visited the Benghazi compound to assess security, was shocked. “Blue Mountain U.K. is a teeny, tiny, little security company registered in Wales that had never had a diplomatic security contract, had never done any high threat contracts anywhere else in the world that we’ve been able to find, much less in high threat areas for the U.S. government. They had a few guys on the ground,” he said.

According to Torres, the Blue Mountain Group came in 4 percent lower than their bid – and they challenged the decision, claiming the American company should have been preferred over the foreign one.

Torres said State Department contracting officer Jan Visintainer responded that the State Department had the “latitude to apply” that preference or not.

And there was more: The Blue Mountain Group hired guards through another company who were not armed.

Problems soon arose. One month before the attack — in August 2012, with The Blue Mountain Group still in charge of compound security — Ambassador Stevens and his team alerted the State Department via diplomatic cable that radical Islamic groups were everywhere and that the temporary mission compound could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” The classified cable was first reported by Fox News.

By Aug. 31, 2012, the situation had deteriorated to the point that Owens and Torres said the State Department asked them to intervene – as Owens put it, an “admission of the mistake of choosing the wrong company.”

“They came back to us and said, ‘Can you guys come in and take over security?’ Owens said. “So we were ready.”

But Torres emphasized that time was against them, saying it would have taken two-to-three weeks to get set up.

Twelve days later, the ambassador was killed. Torres learned of the attacks by watching television. He called the circumstances leading up to the tragedy “bad decision-making from top to bottom.”

“There was nothing we could’ve done about it. If we’d had one month warning … who knows what might’ve happened,” Owens said.

In the chaotic days following that attack, the Obama White House blamed the attacks on an anti-Islam video and demonstration which was not accurate. As a former Green Beret, Torres was stunned: “Coming from a military background, I would expect the administration to tell the truth. So I bought into it for a minute. But I didn’t believe it in the back of my mind.” He said they later figured out the video was not the culprit. The attack was a coordinated terrorist assault which included a precision mortar strike on the CIA post in Benghazi.

But as the Obama administration and Clinton’s team struggled to answer questions about the attacks, Visintainer apparently took it one step further — summoning Jerry Torres from overseas to attend a meeting at her government office in Rosslyn, Va., in early 2013.

Torres took Fox News back to the Virginia office building where he recalled that day’s events.

“[Visintainer] said that I and people from Torres should not speak to the media, should not speak to any officials with respect to the Benghazi program,” he said.

Torres said he was afraid for his company – and hasn’t spoken publicly until now.

“We had about 8,000 employees at the time. You know, we just didn’t need that level of damage because these guys, their livelihood relies on the company,” he said. “I trust that our U.S. government is going to follow chain of command, follow procedures, follow protocols and do the right thing.”

Another part of that conversation stuck out to Torres. He said Visintainer told him “in her opinion, that guards should not be armed at U.S. embassies. She just made that blanket statement. … And she said that they weren’t required in Benghazi. So I was kind of confused about that. And she said that she would like my support in saying that if that came up. And I looked at her. I just didn’t respond.”

The State Department declined Fox News’ request to make Visintainer available for an interview, or have her answer written email questions.

The Blue Mountain Group did not immediately respond to questions from Fox News.

Torres and Owens said repercussions against their company continue to this day – and that of the 20 security force contracts they’ve bid on since that conversation, they’ve lost 18.

Torres and Owens are concerned another attack like the one in Benghazi could happen again because the same State Department employees responsible for the Benghazi contract remain in place and the contracting rules are outdated.

“In 1990, Congress passed a law that required contracts of this nature to go to the lowest bidder that’s technically acceptable,” Owens explained. “Now, what that has created is a race to the bottom, is what we call it. So basically, every company tries to cut every corner they can for these contracts.”

The men say they are hopeful that changes will come with the Trump administration’s promise to “drain the swamp.”

“Let’s just say there’s been a change at management at Department of State,” Owens said. “I feel now that, given that the politics has been taken out of the Benghazi situation, now that there’s no longer a candidate or anything related to it, a change of administrations, that actually, we have an opportunity here to fix the problems that made it happen.”

On the fifth anniversary, Torres said he thinks about the four families who lost a father, a brother or a son in the 2012 attack, and feels sorry “for not bringing this up earlier. For not actually being there, on the ground and taking care of these guys.”

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”

***

Poole: Libyan Army Spox Says Obama, Clinton “Abandoned the Libyan People to the Terrorists”

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 11, 2017:

In an exclusive interview with PJ Media, the Libyan National Army (LNA) spokesman, Col. Ahmed al-Mesmari, says that President Obama and Hillary Clinton “abandoned the Libyan people to face these terrorists alone,” and implicates the Obama administration in supporting terrorist militias.

With the continuing crisis between several Arab nations, including the Tobruk-based Libyan House of Representatives, and Qatar, Col. al-Mesmari discusses Qatar’s role in arming and financing terrorist militias in Libya.

He also ties the Muslim Brotherhood militias that have been fighting against the LNA with al-Qaeda and ISIS elements operating in the country.

Col. al-Mesmari also claims that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade hired by the State Department to protect the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi cooperated with Ansar al-Sharia in attacking the consulate compound on September 12, 2012,which led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Libyans celebrated last week when after three years of battle the LNA finally liberated Benghazi from all terrorist groups in the city.

And over the past month Col. al-Mesmari has publicly charged Qatar with direct support of terrorist groups operating in Libya.

The following is an exclusive interview I conducted by email earlier today with Col. Ahmed al-Mesmari, official spokesman for the Libyan National Army:

Read more

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary

ac5d638fd185415d8f08013cae9db38f-2Clinton donations expose political agenda behind calls for Trump to reconsider “racist” Cabinet picks

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, December 2, 2016:

A coalition of self-described “civil rights groups” tarring GOP President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers as “white supremacists” unleashing “hate crimes” against Muslims and other minorities is made up of Democrat activists who endorsed or donated heavily to Hillary Clinton, federal records show.

The group — comprised of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Muslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference, National Council of La Raza and the American Federation of Teachers — says it formed to protect minorities from the “hate-filled” and “bigoted rhetoric” of Trump and his supporters. But it has a decidedly partisan political agenda that includes trying to derail key Trump appointments to his Cabinet.

Earlier this week, the group held a press conference in Washington calling on Trump to “disavow” supposedly “anti-Muslim” policy proposals and “reconsider” Cabinet appointees “who have sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue this days.”

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

Added Abdelall: “He needs to disavow the dangerous proposals and ideas that single out and demonize Muslims and other communities.”

The George Soros-controlled group bankrolling Muslim Advocates, the Open Society Foundation, gave $9,463 to Clinton and $0 to Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House visitors logs show San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates met with Obama officials at least 11 times, including several times in 2011 to lobby the administration to purge FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism training materials it deemed “ ffensive” to Muslims. Muslim Advocates played a central role in the agencies removing in 2012 more than 870 pages of material from some 390 presentations — including PowerPoints and papers describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide jihadist movement bent on, according to its own bylaws, “establishing an Islamic state.” Security experts say the purge weakened terrorism investigations and left the US vulnerable to the rash of deadly homegrown jihadists attacks seen in the country starting with 2013’s Boston Marathon bombings.

Top Muslim Advocates officials have spoken at Islamic conferences held by known Muslim Brotherhood front groups and defended a major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood charity convicted of financing terrorism.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen called Trump’s naming of Bannon as his top White House strategist “a very unfortunate sign.” He contended that Bannon “is the alter ego” of American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

“Mr. Trump has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy,” Cohen claimed, adding that “he needs to apologize to the Muslim community.”

Cohen, who says he was the target of discrimination “growing up as a Jewish kid,” has hired security guards to protect his offices and home in Montgomery, Ala. In the past, he has said that he so feared “white supremacists” that he “had to leave his home and stay in a hotel as a precautionary measure.”

A search of Federal Election Commission records shows that Southern Poverty Law Center directors have given more than $13,450 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also backed by the ultra-liberal billionaire Soros, and has supported radical leftists, including unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers, whom the group once called “a highly respected figure.”

The National Press Club event also featured Janet Marguia of the National Council of La Raza, an illegal immigrant advocacy group, who claimed Trump was “threatening” Hispanic children.

La Raza, which means “the race,” refuses to condemn an openly racist affiliate known as MECHa, which claims the Southwest was stolen and should be returned to Mexico and whose slogan is “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

In the 2016 election cycle, La Raza gave $6,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $0 to Trump’s campaign.

American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten also took the podium to denounce Trump and his appointments.

“The nomination of Jeff Sessions, the appointment of Steve Bannon and the appointment of Mike Flynn all sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue these days,” she said.

American Federation of Teachers formally endorse Clinton and donated $38,885 to her campaign while contributing nothing to Trump.

“We endorsed Hillary today for the same reasons we endorsed (her) in the Democratic primary. She is a tested leaders who shares our values,” Weingarten said</> earlier this year. “Today, our members made it clear we stand with her.”

During the campaign, AFT made more than 1 million phone calls and knocked on more than 500,000 doors to get out the vote for Clinton.

Leadership Conference President Wade Henderson also laced into Trump and his nominations, claiming they were “racist.”

“We are concerned about the impact of Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, Gen. Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon just a heartbeat away from the presidency,” he said during the press conference.

Henderson charged that Bannon “has supported and embraced organizations that take direct views that are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and racist.” He also alleged that Sessions is “someone whose record will suggest that he will have great difficulty in enforcing civil rights laws, including hate crimes laws on the books.”

In the 2016 election cycle, records show The Leadership Conference donated $8230 to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, while contributing $0 to Trump. All told, the conference gave $81,800 to Democrat candidates for federal office in 2016 vs. $0 for Republicans.

In addition, FEC individual donation records reveal that The Leadership Council’s top lobbyists — including executive vice president Nancy Zirkin and senior counsel Emily Chatterjee — have personally given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Will Obama Pardon Hillary? Should He?

hillary-please-640x480And does Trump actually want her to be pardoned?

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 12, 2016:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when he engaged on the question whether President Obama would pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office. Earnest did not indicate that the president had made any commitment one way or the other, but the fact that he is clearly thinking about it is intriguing.

The question primarily arises because there is significant evidence of felony law violations. These do not only involve the mishandling of classified information and the conversion/destruction of government files (i.e., the former secretary of state’s government-related e-mails). It has also been credibly reported that the FBI is investigating pay-to-play corruption during Clinton’s State Department tenure, through the mechanism of the Clinton Foundation — the family “charity” by means of which the Clintons have become fabulously wealthy by leveraging their “public service.” Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has been spared prosecution, but we have learned that the e-mails aspect of the investigation was unduly limited (no grand jury was used); and the legal theory on which FBI director James Comey declined to seek charges is highly debatable, even if it has been rubber-stamped by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The proximate cause driving the pardon question, however, is President-elect Donald Trump’s commitment that if victorious, he would appoint a special prosecutor to probe his rival’s “situation.”

This is one of what will no doubt be many things that Mr. Trump will find were easier to say in the heat of the moment (a contentious debate between the candidates) than to do in his new political reality. During the campaign, nothing damaged Clinton as badly as the specter of criminal jeopardy. But now Trump has been elected, and he has a governing agenda that will require cooperation from Capitol Hill. A prosecution of Clinton would provoke Democratic outrage, which means media outrage, which, in turn, means Republican panic.

Much of the outrage is ill-considered — although that doesn’t stop some smart people from expressing it. The objection is that the United States is not, for example, Turkey, where the Islamist despot persecutes his political opposition. But the comparison is apples and oranges. Clinton would not be under investigation for opposing Trump; the probe would be based on evidence of non-trivial law-breaking that has nothing to do with Trump. We know this because Clinton’s misconduct has already been the subject of ostensibly serious investigations by the incumbent administration’s law enforcers. If your position is that a politician may be investigated only if her own party is in power, then you are the one politicizing law enforcement — and creating an environment that breeds corruption.

But that, of course, is logic. Politics is not obliged to be logical. Even those of us who believe Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct demands a thorough investigation must acknowledge the real-world circumstances. The Trump administration will need to move on filling Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court seat; repealing Obamacare; debt, tax and regulatory reform; Iran; and who knows what unforeseen crises. A prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, especially if it is perceived as a rush to judgment, could derail the Trump train before it even pulls out of the station.

So what is to be done? Well, let’s put the merits of prosecution versus pardon aside for a moment. Politically speaking, the easiest out for Trump would be an Obama pardon of Clinton. But will the incumbent president do it? I suspect he will. There is no love lost between Obama and Trump, and probably not much between Obama and Clinton. But the president does have himself to think about — lots of love there.

Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct occurred when she was a high-ranking member of Obama’s cabinet. Her improper use of a non-secure private e-mail system was widely known in administration circles, yet it went unpoliced. Moreover, there is good reason to believe the administration was aware of Clinton’s serial flouting of the agreement she made with the White House as a condition of being appointed secretary of state — the one that required her to disclose and seek prior administration approval of Clinton Foundation activities that generated payments and donations from foreign sources. As it is, Obama’s dereliction in failing to make Clinton toe the line reflects poorly on him. Were these matters ever to be fully explored at a public trial, though, his legacy would take a major hit.

More to the point, as we’ve repeatedly noted in these columns, Obama, using an alias, willfully communicated with Clinton via her private e-mail account at least 18 times. This implicates him in her mishandling of classified information. Indeed, the Obama–Clinton e-mails would be admissible evidence in any trial of Mrs. Clinton — as likely would be the fact that the president falsely denied knowledge of Clinton’s private e-mail usage when asked about it in media interviews.

If President Obama had wanted these matters publicly exposed, he would have encouraged an aggressive criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton, and he would not have invoked a confidentiality privilege to prevent Congress and the public from reading the Obama–Clinton e-mails.

For all the president’s gracious rhetoric this week about helping his successor succeed, the thought of leaving the thorny Clinton dilemma on Trump’s desk must be very tempting to Obama. On the other hand, Obama may calculate that a pardon for Clinton would burnish his legacy, just as historians have smiled on Gerald Ford for granting clemency to Richard Nixon (although, as I’ve argued, Nixon’s situation was very different from Clinton’s.) But all that aside, and regardless of the president’s feelings for Mrs. Clinton (which I suspect are warmer than some have suggested), this is more a matter of Obama’s self-preservation than anything else. That’s why I believe he will pardon her — after all, he seems to be pardoning everybody else. A pardon issued by Obama would make the whole affair go away, leaving Trump a clean slate.

But what if he doesn’t? What should President Trump do once the reins are in his hands?

Some are already arguing that Trump should pardon Clinton. There is some sense to this. Most of Trump’s ardent supporters would forgive him for going back on his word (as they would forgive him, it seems, for most anything). They would rationalize that he has more important fish to fry. There would also be reveling in the five or six minutes the media spent extolling Trump’s magnanimity before reverting to attack mode. As for the many in Republican circles who are tepid, at best, when it comes to Trump, a goodly number of them would cheer a Clinton pardon.

So if that’s the case, why shouldn’t Trump pardon Clinton?

Well for one thing, because a president is supposed to know what he is pardoning before resorting to that conclusive, irrevocable power. That is why the Justice Department has a pardon office, funded annually by Congress. The pardon office oversees an elaborate procedure, a key element of which is input from the prosecutor responsible for the case. The point is to ensure that the president is fully aware of the extent and nature of the criminality involved before deciding whether to grant clemency.

Mrs. Clinton has never been subjected to a full-blown criminal investigation, with FBI agents and prosecutors working jointly (rather than at cross-purposes), using the grand jury to compel the production of testimony and physical evidence. Such an investigation would be important here because Clinton did not act alone. Her use of private e-mail was systematic, with numerous staffers supporting it, covering it up, and moving classified intelligence through it; several underlings carried out the destruction of government files; many subordinates may have made false statements to FBI investigators; and the Clinton Foundation is a vast multi-billion-dollar enterprise — one that will continue its potentially criminal activities if a prosecution does not put it out of business.

Among the salient factors considered in pardon decisions are (a) where the offender under consideration fit in the pecking order of conspiratorial activity and (b) how similar offenders are typically treated. To be sure, Hillary Clinton is a special case: A prosecution against a major party’s most recent presidential candidate (which may also implicate her husband, the former president) would roil the nation and could complicate its governance. Still, we are talking about serious crimes, and Mrs. Clinton is the most culpable participant. Is the plan to pardon everyone involved, or should Mrs. Clinton get a pass while her minions face the anxiety and costs of potential legal jeopardy?

And if Mrs. Clinton is to walk away scot-free after compromising our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence operations, and after she has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars by putting our government’s foreign and security policy on sale, what is a Trump Justice Department going to do in far less consequential cases?

Trump campaigned as the people’s champion, the president who was going to “drain the swamp” and end the sordid Washington system of two sets of rules: a forgiving one for the well-connected and a harsh one for everybody else. Well, what about it, then? If Mrs. Clinton skates, is the run-of-the-mill fraudster also going to get a pass for the more mundane $100,000 scheme? How about the low-ranking naval officer who takes a couple of souvenir photos of a top-secret submarine? The mid-level CIA analyst who brings a few classified memos home rather than staying late to read them in the agency SCIF? Is everybody off the felony hook now, or just the Clintons?

These are not easy questions. If President Trump and his advisers are going to answer them fairly and properly, it ought to be done on a much better-informed basis than what we now have. The new president should direct his attorney general to select a scrupulous, objective, non-partisan special prosecutor, an attorney with solid law-enforcement experience who is respected on both sides of the political aisle (there are more of those than you might imagine). That special prosecutor and a team of FBI agents, operating outside the supervision of Trump’s political appointees at the Justice Department, should conduct a full and fair investigation — under normal law-enforcement protocols, which means no public commentary unless and until a decision is made about whether to file charges.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s pardon office should begin preparing a full clemency petition, working, as always, out of the public spotlight. Eventually, input from both Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys and the special prosecutor should be invited.

At the end of that process, with a normal investigation and a full understanding of the facts, the special prosecutor should file an indictment if the facts are so damning that prosecution is warranted. But, before or after that is done, President Trump could issue a pardon if the equities weigh in favor of one, especially if the evidence appears to be ambiguous. Significantly, the special prosecutor and the attorney general could also end up announcing that the investigation is being closed without charges and with no need to address the question of a pardon. That would give Mrs. Clinton the vindication she deserves if there truly is insufficient evidence to prosecute her.

Again, I don’t believe it will come to that. My sense is that President Obama will issue a pardon that covers not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations. That would make it case closed, sparing Obama embarrassment and Trump a political hot potato. If the current president does not act, though, the new president needs to be ready with a plan.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

The Question for Tuesday

gorka34The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, November 4, 2016:

Next Tuesday, Americans will elect the 45th President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States. One of the most important issues at stake this year is National Security.

As you prepare to vote, you need to answer for yourself which candidate will make America safer. Who will better protect us and safeguard our interests? Who has a better plan to defeat and destroy America’s enemies?

Below is a summary of each candidate’s platform to better help you to answer those critical questions.

THE THREATS TO AMERICA

  • U.S. security has drastically deteriorated in the last eight years as a direct result of President Obama’s avowed policy of “Leading from Behind.”
  • There has been a significant attack directed or inspired by ISIS every 83 hours, killing over 1,200 people in cities outside of Iraq and Syria.
  • The United States suffered the deadliest terror attack since 9/11 and the worst mass shooting in U.S. history at the hands of an ISIS sympathizer in Orlando.
  • Last December, a couple who swore allegiance to ISIS killed fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino.
  • Since 2014, U.S. Law Enforcement has interdicted 124 Islamic State sympathizers for attempting to support ISIS either by traveling to the Caliphate, aiding or encouraging fellow supporters, or launching attacks on U.S. soil. See current list.

But ISIS is not the only problem. 

  • Al-Qaida is resurgent under the leadership of Ayman al Zawahiri
  • The Taliban rules half of Afghanistan
  • Syria is in its fourth year of a civil war that has sparked the largest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, with 65 million refugees currently displaced around the world.
  • Libya and Yemen are failed states
  • The countries that experienced the so-called Arab Spring continue to face instability and multiple Islamic insurgencies.
  • The theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime feels confident enough not only to harass our military vessels in international waters, but to take our sailors prisoner and steal our technologically sensitive naval equipment —
    • At the same time they are playing Washington for a gullible mark by closing a deal which brings them closer to nuclear weapons acquisition than they have ever been, including access to more than $150 billion and hundreds of millions of dollars of additional ransom money.
  • In both the Western Hemisphere and Europe, Russia has likewise drawn the correct conclusion that in a world in which America is reactive, or even worse, is absent, there are advantages to be had and nefarious interests to be realized.
  • China, always calculating and patient, has accelerated its maneuvers to intimidate regional states and expand its sphere of military, political, and economic influence globally.

THE CANDIDATES

Donald Trump’s foreign policy platform is singularly focused on defeating these threats, indeed a key slogan of his campaign has been, “Make America Safe Again.” In order to do so, he has said he will work with Congress to:

  • fully repeal the defense sequester and rebuild our depleted military with smarter spending to cut out waste and redundancies;
  • de-politicize the conversation around national security issues in order to make an accurate and effective threat assessment;
  • utilize military, cyber, financial, and ideological warfare to dismantle the Islamic State;
  • establish new extreme vetting procedures to keep terrorists out of the U.S.;
  • cancel the nuclear deal with Iran; and,
  • shift the emphasis from broad programs on countering violent extremism back to vital counterterrorism programs that have been pushed defunded by the Obama Administration.

Donald Trump understands that we are at War and knows what it will take to win this War.

I have met Mr Trump, and call assure you he understands the existential threat that ISIS and the Global Jihadi Movement pose to the United States. He understands that we are at War. Not only does he understand it, but he knows what it will take to win this war: American strength and leadership, not isolationism. America does not have to be the world’s police to do so; rather, “America First will be the major and overriding theme” of a Trump administration.

He will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations with our Arab allies and friends in the Middle East to crush and destroy ISIS, call for international cooperation to cut off their funding, expand intelligence sharing, and dedicate much-needed resources and attention to cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.

Through these policies, Trump will work to not only defeat the forces of the Islamic State, but also to destroy the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism so that it is no longer a threat.

Hillary Clinton refuses to acknowledge the religious and ideological underpinnings of the Islamic State.

Across the aisle, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan that would leave the United States vulnerable to increased domestic terror attacks and magnify and prolong the global jihadi threat. Throughout this election, Clinton has enumerated a list of things that the U.S. will not do if she is elected president: “We are not going to put ground troops into Iraq ever again.”

We are not going to refer to ISIS or other terrorists as radical Islamic extremists. In her own words, “repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve.” By refusing to acknowledge the religious and ideological underpinnings of the Islamic State, Hillary Clinton is obscuring the true nature of the Enemy, which in turn leads to ineffective strategies to combat them.

She is a candidate who is more concerned with political correctness and convincing Americans that “leading from behind” will keep America safe than she is with true national security. Hilary Clinton will continue the politically correct policies of the Obama Administration which prohibit talking truthfully and accurately about our Enemy.

In order to defeat groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and radical Islamic extremism as a whole, we must first identify the Enemy. If Hillary refuses to do even that, then no amount of airstrikes will succeed. Dismantling and discrediting the ideology behind radical Islamic extremism is the first step in its defeat. However, there is zero mention of this on Clinton’s campaign website.

These policies have not worked for the Obama administration, and they will not work for a Hillary Clinton administration.

Hilary Clinton wants to continue and expand President Obama’s failing policies – increased coalition airstrikes, a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian civil war, ramped up efforts to support and equip questionable Syrian rebel groups, relying on the American Muslim community to police itself, and a domestic ban on assault weapons.

These policies have not worked for the Obama administration, and they will not work for a Hillary Clinton administration. They may allow for limited tactical gains, such as recent successes in Mosul and elsewhere, but these policies will not lead to long-term peace. In the Cold War, we did not defeat the Soviets with airstrikes and drones.

Rather, President Reagan’s strategy to utterly delegitimize the Communist ideology meant the Cold War ended without a single shot being fired.  

It is time for America to rise to that challenge once more. The first step is to cast your ballot for a safe America under the leadership of Donald J. Trump on November 8.

Sebastian Gorka, PhD

***

Dr. Sebastian Gorka spoke at Freedom Summit 2016 on October 29, 2016 in Itasca, IL, presented by AM 560 The Answer.

Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood — on The Glazov Gang

hj-1

By Jamie Glazov, November 4, 2016:

This new special edition of the Glazov Gang was joined by Trevor Loudon, the writer and director of the new documentary, The Enemies Withinan expose on the growing communist and Muslim Brotherhood influence on our government.

[Check out the trailer for The Enemies Within here, and order your copy of the DVD here.]

Mr. Loudon came on the show to discuss Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood, unveiling the frightening ties that bind.

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-anthony-weiner-sexting-1-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 4, 2016:

Blackwater founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his “well-placed sources” in the New York Police Department, “the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making” in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received “huge pushback” from the Justice Department.

Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I mean, it’s not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they’ve hacked and stolen your data,” Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

“There’s five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860,” Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

“NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop,” Prince elaborated. “Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton’s own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found.”

“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t,” Prince contended.

“There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs,” he stated.

“So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that’s the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue,” Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, “but they can’t convene a grand jury.They can’t file charges.”

“The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that,” he explained. “Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he’s a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing.”

Marlow agreed that Bharara’s “sterling reputation” as a determined prosecutor was “bad news for the Clintons.”

Prince agreed, but said, “If people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

“The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well,” Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has “exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department” against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to “keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed.”

“The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done,” he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that “de Blasio wants to stay away from this.”

“The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling,” he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case “have not been named yet,” and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

“I wish they’d do it today,” he said. “These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today, and shine the light of truth on this great evil.”

“From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down,” he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

“Sure, that’s it. That’s the argument for it,” Prince agreed. “But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they’d be talking about it. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops.”

“This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don’t have to make any judgments. Just release the emails,” he urged. “Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that “forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate.”

“This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser for the last 20 years,” he said of the new bombshells. “This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation.”

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

“There’s a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information,” he said. “Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That’s the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world.”

“That’s not who you want in the White House,” Prince declared.

Also see: