Fact-Check: ISIS Hates Us Because We Don’t Embrace Islam, Not Because of Donald Trump

160527170101-donald-trump-isis-libya-oil-sot-00005007-full-169

Jihadists hate us with a passion anyway; people who are on the cusp of becoming jihadis do not need Trump to convince them.

CounterJihad, by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi, Sept. 27, 2016:

One frequently hears that people like Donald Trump are playing into the narrative of ISIS and other jihadist or Islamist groups by virtue of their rhetoric. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, Trump’s contender for the highest office in the world, is fond of making such accusations.

Clinton and others state that Trump’s rhetoric regarding Islam and Muslims will only result in his playing into the hands of jihadis, who want to  propagate the view that the West is in a vicious war with Islam. On September 19th, for example, Clinton told reporters that “we know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS.” She further elaborated that “we know that Donald Trump’s comments have been used online for recruitment of terrorists.”

In these statements Hillary Clinton echoed what others, like CIA director Michael Hayden, had  affirmed. In a POLITCO interview with journalist Glenn Thrush, Hayden commented that Trump’s call to temporarily put in place a tout court moratorium on Muslim immigration has “made the United States less safe than it would otherwise be.”

Now, Michael Hayden is probably technically correct in his judgment vis-a-vis U.S. security and Trump’s rhetoric on banning all Muslims from the country—i.e., his fiery rhetoric here has increased the probability that Jihadis will hate the West, and thus increase the probability that they will attack the territories of the United States, or U.S personnel abroad.

But this criticism of Trump is not worth mentioning because this increase in probability is insignificant, and has greatly been exaggerated by people like Hillary Clinton for political gain.

We can discern the insignificance of the evidence here by stopping to think about what Trump’s critics are implicitly presupposingwhen they state that Trump’s rhetoric makes the United States less secure than it would have otherwise been. The critics believe that Trump is making the United States less secure because his rhetoric is somehow increasing the probability  that there will be jihadi attacks against the United States. And they believe this because they implicitly presuppose that Trump’s rhetoric increases the probability that jihadis hate the United States.

Jihadists hate the United States with a passion anyway; people who are on the cusp of becoming jihadis do not need Trump to convince them that they should hate the United States.

Whether U.S. politicians say that ISIS or other Jihadi groups are Islamic or not is simply irrelevant to ISIS and like-minded extremist Islamic groups—they don’t really care. As Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi recently testified before Chairman Scott Perry for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency of the House Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, in a hearing entitled “Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror,”

We keep [asking] what ISIS will say. [But] ISIS isn’t sitting there wondering what Americans will say. ISIS is going to use whatever narrative [Americans] throw at them and twist it.

That Jihadis hate the United States regardless of what its officials or prospective officials say or do– short of reciting the shahada[1] and becoming Muslims– can be readily discerned by reading what ISIS, the leader of the jihadi front, has written in an article entitled, “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” in the 15th issue of their magazine, Dabiq.

In this article, they make explicit that their “primary reason” for hating the West will not cease to exist until the West embraces Islam. In this regard, it is lamentable that politicians who want to preserve their appeal by uttering the falsehood that ISIS members are not motivated by religion. The Dabiq article lists six reasons why ISIS militants hate the West and why they fight Westerners. The six reasons are listed here:

1 – “We hate you first and foremost, because you are disbelievers, you reject the oneness of Allah.”

2 – “We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted.”

3 – “In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.”

4 – “We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.”

5 – “We hate you for your crimes against Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bombs, kill, and maim our people around the world.”

6 – Sixth “We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out.”

The article goes on to importantly state that

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. [Emphasis added]

So the jihadists hate the United States and Americans, and indeed all Westerners, with a passion regardless of what they say or do, so long as they do not embrace the Islamic religion. The implicit assumption of the critics that Trump’s rhetoric is going tosignificantly increase the probability that Jihadists hate America, and therefore significantly decrease the security of the United States, is simply false.

It should be noted that one can believe that his critics are wrong to say that Trump is indirectly aiding Islamists here without endorsing Trump’s plan of temporarily banning all Muslim immigration into the country.

So the idea that people like Trump, who take a strong stance against Islamic terrorism, are somehow enabling terrorism through theirrhetoric is nothing but a talking point that is being used by Clinton and her cohorts for political expediency.

Indeed, if anyone is making it harder to fight against Islamic terrorism, it is the Obama administration. And Hillary Clinton, if she were to become President, would continue the same failed national security policy of the Obama administration with respect to the Middle East and Islamic terrorism.

While Donald Trump wants to curb immigration from places like Syria, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to continue the influx—despite the fact that the State Department has alreadyadmitted that jihadis have posed as refugees, in order to gain asylum in the United States. And Clinton and the Obama administration seem to be opposed to Ted Cruz’s commonsensical idea that we should give persecuted minorities in the Middle East priority in immigration.

Furthermore, if anyone is indeed enabling terrorism, it is none other than the Obama administration with its politically correct stance vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. As can be discerned from the “Willful Blindness” senate committee hearing on Islamic terrorism, the Obama administration’s policies, which Hillary Clinton would no doubt continue, have resulted in the dangerous interagency wiping of terminology that associates jihadi attacks with anything having to do with Islam.

This type of self-censorship and the refusal to call a spade a spade, not Trump’s rhetoric, is what is going to make it significantlyharder to fight Islamic terrorism. There is simply no significant sense in which Trump is indirectly supporting jihadis.


[1] The shahāda is the Muslim testimony of faith, which is as follows: “I testify that there is no God but God, and that Muhammad is the prophet of God.”

First Debate

ontheradio2

The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Sept. 27, 2016:

I discussed last night’s first presidential debate and the candidate’s coverage of national security with the hosts of AM560 Chicago’s Morning Answer.

In Debate, Hillary Dodges Blame for Libya, What Obama Called His “Greatest Mistake”

16live1

Trump still has a lot to learn, but Clinton can’t learn lessons because she wrongly thinks that she already has the answers.

CounterJihad, Sept. 27, 2016:

The first Presidential debate revealed a Democratic candidate who believes she has all the answers even though her failed performance as Secretary of State led directly to the formation of the Islamic State (ISIS), aided the rise of Iran, and furthered much of the chaos in the Middle East.  She cannot learn anything while she believes she already knows everything.  Electing her promises more of the same, and ‘the same’ has been a disaster.

The Republican challenger, meanwhile, has much still to learn about the security structure he would command as President.  Clinton’s strongest moment against him on foreign policy came as she chided him for appearing to suggest that America would not honor its mutual defense treaties with Japan or South Korea.  Nothing is more important to the world than the reliability of America’s word.  Clinton should know that:  it was her former boss, President Obama, who personally kicked off the refugee crisis bedeviling Europe by failing to enforce his red line against Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. His failure to keep his word on a security agreement gave the Syrian regime free rein to wage war on its own population, putting millions on the road to Europe.

Trump’s strongest moment against Clinton came when he accused her of bad judgment in the formation of ISIS.  She attempted to respond by saying that George W. Bush had negotiated the withdrawal from Iraq, and that “the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.”

That’s all true, but whose job was it to obtain such an agreement?  That was her job.  She was the one who was supposed to obtain that agreement, and she failed utterly.  As our earlier coverage states:

It was her job to negotiate an arrangement with the Iraqi government that would do two things:  allow a stabilizing US military presence to remain in Iraq, and allow the US Department of State the freedom of movement it would need to step up as guarantors of the peace.  The peace, you see, had been purchased not only by the US military’s victory on the battlefields, but also by its patient negotiation with militants formerly aligned with al Qaeda in Iraq.  These tribes, mostly but not exclusively Sunni, had rejected the terrorism of al Qaeda in Iraq in return for promises of fair treatment from the Iraqi central government.  This included jobs, assistance for communities recovering from the war, and many other things that the government promised to provide in return for the support of these former enemies.  The United States helped to negotiate all these agreements, and promised to see that they would be kept faithfully.

Instead, the Secretary of State failed to produce either a new Status of Forces agreement that would permit US troops to remain in Iraq, or an agreement that would allow State Department personnel to move about the country safely to observe whether agreements were being kept.  In the wake of the precipitous withdrawal of US forces, Prime Minister Maliki moved to arrest Sunni leaders in government, and broke all his promises to the tribes.

The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency.

Clinton was similarly unreflective when she argued that Trump had supported “the actions we took in Libya,” without pausing for a moment to acknowledge what a destabilizing mistake it was.  Effecting regime change with no capacity to control the outcome is what allowed radical groups, including ISIS, to expand into the vacuum.  That one is also her fault personally, as she pushed President Obama to take this action.  Her own President says that he considers taking her advice on Libya to be his “worst mistake.”  Yet again, she has learned nothing, and does not seem to be aware that there is even anything to learn.

A similar failure to understand the lessons of the recent past occurred in their exchange on NATO.  Trump is right to be critical of the institution’s continuing relevance, but he is criticizing it on the wrong grounds.  That the other nations do not pay their way is true, but it is not the problem with NATO.  That it does not focus on terrorism is partly true, but it does not render the organization obsolete because a resurgent Russia remains a security challenge for western Europe.

Nevertheless, Clinton’s smug response is un-reflective and wrong.

You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it’s ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.

What Clinton fails to mention here is that, like all of NATO’s decisions, invoking Article 5 must be done unanimously.  The reason to question NATO’s continued relevance is that the Turkish drift into Islamist politics makes it unlikely that a unanimous vote could still be reached.  Turkey has also shown signs recently of falling into Russia’s orbit.  If Turkey becomes a Russian ally in the way that China is, NATO may be rendered obsolete simply because it can never take a decision.  If Turkey becomes a Russian satellite, NATO will indeed have been rendered obsolete.  In either case, NATO’s continued relevance turns on figuring out how to swing Turkey away from Islamist thought and Russian influence, eliminating the unanimity requirement on NATO actions, or else developing a mechanism to expel the Turks from the alliance.   None of that exists, and since Turkey would have to agree to any of those changes, none of it is likely to come to exist.

Finally, on Iran, Clinton is wedded to a policy that Trump rightly describes as a disaster.

You look at the Middle East, it’s a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent.

But you look at the Middle East, you started the Iran deal, that’s another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they’re going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they’re going.

The horror show in Syria is linked to the Iran deal, as Obama decided to let Syria fester in order to pursue Iran’s approval of his deal.  Clinton’s role in this deal is something she herself has celebrated, so she cannot walk away from it.  Since then, Iran has developed new ballistic missiles that make sense only as a delivery mechanism for nuclear payloads.  It has bought advanced anti-aircraft missiles, and installed them around one of the nuclear sites allegedly to be made harmless by this wonderful “deal.”  Why is it hardening this site against air strikes if it intends to live by the deal?  Why develop a delivery mechanism for weapons you don’t intend to build?

Clinton cannot even ask these questions, because she is wedded to her failures.

Also  see:

First Presidential Debate: How to Fight Radical Islam?

Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the first debate. (Photo: video screenshot)

Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the first debate. (Photo: video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Sept. 27, 2016:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had their first presidential debate and early indications are that it was a big win for Clinton (although post-debate media coverage is equally as important in impacting polls). But where did the candidates stand on issues related to radical Islam?

The War on the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)

The major point of difference here was the wisdom of publicizing a plan, even a general one, against ISIS.

Clinton argued that she is the only one of the two who has proposed a plan, which she summarized as waging cyber warfare, closer partnerships with technology companies to stop radicalization, intensifying airstrikes and providing more support to Kurdish and Arab allies on the ground.

She said she believed ISIS could be expelled from Iraq within one year and “squeezed” in Syria in order to undermine their claims of having established a caliphate. Clinton also vowed to target the ISIS leadership like she did with Al-Qaeda and to “take out” the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

She criticized Trump for not publishing a plan beyond saying he’d pick the best generals and “knock the hell out of” ISIS with NATO support. She suggested that this means he has no plan and that his comments related to the Muslim world would alienate allies from working with us.

Trump argued that he has a secret plan and it is most responsible to not publicize it. He said that Clinton and the political class are unable to defeat ISIS, as evidenced by how “you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.” Clinton responded by telling the audience to fact-check him.

The U.S. campaign against ISIS began in September 2014 after the group became independent of Al-Qaeda and declared a caliphate. Technically, Trump could argue that it existed previously as an Al-Qaeda branch and took the name of “Islamic State of Iraq” in 2006 and, before that, was an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq birthed in 1999. The answer depends on when you consider ISIS’ existence to begin.

Trump blamed the rise of ISIS on the Obama Administration’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq (when Clinton was secretary of state), saying that at least 10,000 troops should have been left behind, and that the U.S. should have seized the oil in Iraq and Libya to prevent a group like ISIS from financing itself.

Clinton responded that the Obama Administration withdrew based on a timeline established by the Bush Administration and the elected Iraqi government. She says the only way troops could have been left behind would have been getting Iraq to agree to an adjustment that would grant immunity to U.S. troops in the country, which the Iraqis were unwilling to do at the time.

The two also argued over whether Trump is accurate in saying that he opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq before it began and the NATO military intervention to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Iran

The main point of contention between the two candidates was the nuclear deal with Iran.

Trump blasted the financial transfers to Iran and said the deal puts Iran on the path to become a “major power.” He said that the Israeli prime minister is “not a happy camper.” The deal, he said, rescued the Iranian regime when it could have fallen due to the sanctions. He also blasted the deal for not accounting for Iran’s weapons of mass destruction work with North Korea and support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Clinton argued that Iran was closer to developing a nuclear weapon before the deal and that an attempt at diplomacy is preferable to war. She took credit for implementing the tough sanctions that Trump praised.

She also chastised him for his reaction to the Iranian military taunting U.S. personnel at sea by saying he’d authorize our forces to “blow them out of the water.” She said that would start a new war, which he disagreed with.

Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the Homeland

Clinton proposed an “intelligence surge” to produce “every scrap of information” possible about terrorist groups and plots against the U.S. She described the Muslim-American community as the “front line” in fighting terrorism because they are most likely to develop the intelligence that law enforcement needs.

She argued that Trump’s comments alienate Muslims inside the U.S. and around the world and make it less likely they’ll work with law enforcement.

Trump responded by pointing to endorsements from generals, admirals and Customs and Border Protection agents as proof that he can be trusted to protect the homeland.

Blocking Gun Sales Based on Terror Watch Lists

Clinton proposed that individuals whose names appear on terrorist watch lists and the no-fly list should be barred from purchasing firearms. Trump surprisingly expressed agreement, with the caveat that any move must include a way for those incorrectly placed on the lists to appeal and get removed.

The proposal is a touchy subject. Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) accuses supporters of such proposals to be anti-Muslim and mislead audiences about the issue. Gun rights advocates understandably argue that the watch/no-fly lists are filled with errors and amount to a suspension of the Second Amendment without due process.

Nuclear Proliferation

Clinton emphasized her opposition to more countries like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons and claimed that Trump said he’d be willing to accept such scenarios so they are less reliant upon the U.S. She said that it shows his “cavalier attitude towards nuclear weapons.”

Trump denied that was his position and said he agreed with Clinton that nuclear proliferation is the number one security threat to the U.S.

Cyber Attacks

Both candidates agreed that the U.S. must remain or become the leader in cyber warfare and defense technology, but disagreed on how Russian cyber aggression fits into the equation.

Clinton argued that the U.S. needs to convince adversaries like Russia and Iran that state-sponsored cyber attacks will result in retaliation. She criticized Trump for his history of favorable comments towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. He protested her depiction of him as a supporter of Putin.

Also see:

Fact-Checking: Hillary’s’The FBI Has Exonerated Me’ Claim

clinton-email-photo_wide-9fd68d210255d74891d319485750b4b54178a9f9-s900-c85PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 26, 2016:

It’s amusing to listen to flacks for Hillary Clinton, a pathological liar, plead with Lester Holt that he must play activist debate moderator, ready to pounce on Donald Trump’s misstatements. The Clinton campaign, when not reviewing immunity agreements, has put out a “Seven Deadly Lies” script in hopes of enticing Mr. Holt to go all Candy Crowley this evening.

Personally, I’d far prefer no moderator to an activist one. Correcting the adversary’s misstatements and turning them to one’s advantage is the debater’s skill – you’re not supposed to need the moderator’s help, you’re supposed to show us you can handle it on your own.

When I was a prosecutor, it was par for the course for defense lawyers to misstate the record in closing arguments to the jury. To leap out of one’s chair and scream, “objection” when this happened was both unsatisfying and risky. Usually, the most you’d get would be a tepid admonition from the judge that “the jury’s recollection of the evidence” – not the lawyers’ – is what matters. But if the judge did try to correct the record, there was always the danger that the judge would either get it wrong (in which case the prosecutor is in the awkward position of having to correct the judge and thus make the defense lawyer look good), or appear to be bullying the defense lawyer – which could engender the jury’s sympathy.

I always preferred to let the lawyers say what they wanted to say. I knew I’d get my turn to rebut. In so doing, I’d not only be able to show the jury that the defense lawyers had made misleading arguments; it would also be the perfect opportunity to argue that people only try to spin you when they know the truth destroys them – which became the launch point for repeating my three or four best facts. That is, the adversary’s falsehoods didn’t hurt me; they were a chance for me to make them look bad while reinforcing my own case.

In any event, I don’t know how interested people are in Mrs. Clinton’s favorite “deadly lie,” the fact that Trump has been disingenuous in claiming he opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A number of us pointed this out during the GOP primary campaign (see, e.g., here), to no effect. Moreover, Clinton voted for the Iraq war and then became part of the withering Democratic campaign to undermine it. To me, that seems a lot more consequential than Trump’s comparatively uninformed and irrelevant meanderings on the subject. (By “comparatively uninformed and irrelevant,” I mean that Clinton, by comparison, (a) was a member of the Senate serving on the Armed Services Committee, who was thus keenly aware of the alarming intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein; and (b) famously accused General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker of lying about progress in Iraq after the surge.) It seems to me that Clinton’s harping about Trump’s stance on Iraq only calls attention to her own wavering – which even many Democrats have rebuked.

One lie I would like to see fact-checked, though, is Clinton’s repeated one – which she’s certain to rehash this evening, namely: The FBI’s year-long investigation “exonerated” her of wrongdoing in the email scandal.

In point of fact, the FBI merely drew the conclusion that Clinton should not becharged with a crime. Even if we assume for argument’s sake that this was a valid conclusion (in fact, it is hugely suspect), finding that someone should not be indicted is far from exoneration.

In Mrs. Clinton’s case, FBI Director James Comey expressly found that Mrs. Clinton and her underlings “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Comey also took pains to point out that, under Mrs. Clinton’s leadership, “the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”

Finally, Comey observed that, by recommending against the indictment of Mrs. Clinton, he did not mean:

to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity [i.e., being “extremely careless” with “very sensitive, highly classified information”] would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

“Security and administrative sanctions” in this context often means, at a minimum, the loss of one’s security clearance and, very likely, the loss of one’s job. A conclusion that one’s conduct would, under ordinary circumstances, render one unable to review classified information or work in a high-level government position is not exactly an “exoneration.”

Hillary Clinton’s inevitable “exoneration” claim should be fact-checked. It will be good for Donald Trump if he is up to the task, rather than waiting on help from Lester Holt.

Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted

pic_giant_096416_obama-hillary

Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 26, 2016:

‘How is this not classified?”

So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself  had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.

In fact, in any other case — i.e., in a case that involved any other unindicted co-conspirator — it would be the Justice Department itself introducing the Obama-Clinton e-mails into evidence.

As noted above, the FBI told Huma Abedin that the name she did not recognize in the e-mail with Clinton was an Obama alias. For the agents to do this ran afoul of investigative protocols. The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.

But of course, that’s only a problem if there is actually going to be a case.

In this instance, it was never going to happen. The president’s involvement guaranteed that . . . so why worry about letting Abedin in on the president’s involvement?

Abedin was startled by this revelation. No wonder: People in her lofty position know that direct presidential communications with high-ranking officials who have national-security and foreign-policy responsibilities are presumptively classified.

To convey this, and thus convey the legal significance of Obama’s involvement, I can’t much improve on what I told you back in February. When the Obama Justice Department prosecuted retired general David Petraeus, the former CIA director, for mishandling classified information, government attorneys emphasized that this top-secret intelligence included notes of Petraeus’s “discussions with the president of the United States of America.”

Petraeus pled guilty because he knew the case against him was a slam-dunk. He grasped that trying to defend himself by sputtering, Clinton-style, that “the notes were not marked classified” would not pass the laugh test. As I elaborated in the February column, when you’re a national-security official engaging in and making a written record of policy and strategy conversations with the president, the lack of classified markings on the documents you’ve created

[does] not alter the obvious fact that the information they contain [is] classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.

Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526. As I’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama issued this directive: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the damage to national security that disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.

Abedin knew, as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories. They were born classified. As I said in February, this fact would profoundly embarrass Obama if the e-mails were publicly disclosed.

Hundreds of times, despite Clinton’s indignant insistence that she never sent or received classified information, the State Department has had to concede that her e-mails must be redacted or withheld from public disclosure because they contain information that is patently classified. But this is not a concession the administration is willing to make regarding Obama’s e-mails.

That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton.

Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security. It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels.

This is also why the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton. In his public statements about Clinton, Obama has stressed that she is an exemplary public servant who would never intentionally harm the United States. In rationalizing their decision not to indict Clinton, Justice Department officials (in leaks to the Washington Post) and the FBI director (in his press conference and congressional testimony) similarly stressed the lack of proof that she intended to harm the United States.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, however, the operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States. It merely requires proof of gross negligence. This is entirely lawful and appropriate, since we’re talking about a law that can apply only to government officials who have a special duty to preserve secrecy and who have been schooled in the proper handling of classified information. Yet the Justice Department frivolously suggested that applying the law exactly the way it is written — something the Justice Department routinely tells judges they must do — would, in Clinton’s case, potentially raise constitutional problems.

Alas, the Justice Department and the FBI have to take that indefensible position here. Otherwise, Clinton would not be the only one in legal jeopardy.

I will end with what I said eight months ago:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham

FBI Director James Comey. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

FBI Director James Comey. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The Observer, by John R. Schindler

From the moment the EmailGate scandal went public more than a year ago, it was obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation never had much enthusiasm for prosecuting Hillary Clinton or her friends. Under President Obama, the FBI grew so politicized that it became impossible for the Bureau to do its job – at least where high-ranking Democrats are concerned.

As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.

This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary “unclassified” email server of bathroom infamy.

This week, however, we learned that there is actually no mystery at all here. The FBI was never able to get enough traction in its investigation of EmailGate to prosecute anybody since the Bureau had already granted immunity to key players in that scandal.

Granting immunity is a standard practice in investigations, and is sometimes unavoidable. Giving a pass to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary’s IT guru who set up her email and server, made some sense since he understands what happened here, technically speaking, and otherwise is a small fish. The wisdom of giving him a pass now seems debatable, though, since Pagliano has twice refused to testify before Congress about his part in EmailGate, blowing off subpoenas. Just this week the House Oversight Committee recommended that Pagliano be cited for contempt of Congress for his repeated no-shows. That vote was on strictly partisan lines, with not a single Democrat on the committee finding Pagliano’s ignoring of Congressional subpoenas to be worthy of censure.

Now it turns out the FBI granted immunity to much bigger fish in the Clinton political tank. Three more people got a pass from the Bureau in exchange for their cooperation: Hillary lawyer Heather Samuelson, State Department IT boss John Bental, and – by far the most consequential – Cheryl Mills, who has been a Clinton flunky-cum-factotum for decades.

Mills served as the State Department’s Chief of Staff and Counselor throughout Hillary’s tenure as our nation’s top diplomat. Granting her immunity in EmailGate, given her deep involvement in that scandal – including the destruction of tens of thousands of emails so they could not be handed over to the FBI – now seems curious, to say the least, particularly because Mills sat in on Hillary’s chat with the Bureau regarding EmailGate.

This was in fact so highly irregular that Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Oversight Committee, pronounced himself “absolutely stunned” by the FBI’s granting of immunity to Cheryl Mills – which he learned of only on Friday. “No wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case,” Rep. Chaffetz observed of Comey’s Bureau: “They were handing out immunity deals like candy.”

Not to mention that Mills has a longstanding and well-deserved reputation in Washington for helping the Clintons dodge investigation after investigation. When Bill and Hillary need a fixer to help them bury the bodies – as they say inside the Beltway – trusty Cheryl Mills has been on call for the last quarter-century.

She played a key role in the Whitewater scandal of the 1990s – and so did James Comey. Fully two decades ago, when Comey was a Senate investigator, he tried to get Mills, then deputy counsel to Bill Clinton’s White House, to hand over relevant documents. Mills went full dog-ate-my-homework, claiming that a burglar had taken the files, leading Comey to unavoidably conclude that she was obstructing his investigation. Mills’ cover-up, the Senate investigators assessed, encompassed “destruction of documents” and “highly improper” behavior.

Such misconduct is a career-ender for normal people in Washington, but not for Cheryl Mills, who over the last several decades has followed the Clintons everywhere they go. Mills has proven her loyalty to Clinton, Inc. time and again, and that loyalty has been rewarded with a pass on prosecution in EmailGate.

To say nothing of the fact that as chief of staff at Foggy Bottom, Mills was in no way functioning as Hillary’s personal lawyer, as Clinton advocates have contended. Even her other title, State Department Counselor, has nothing to do with legal matters, despite the name. That role is traditionally assigned to an esteemed foreign policy guru who is supposed to offer sage counsel to the secretary of state. Mills’ predecessor as Counselor was Eliot Cohen, one of the country’s preeminent scholars of international relations. Leave it to the Clintons to turn that job over to one of their trusted cabal, translating Counselor in mafia fashion as consigliere.

“The whole thing stinks,” explained a retired FBI senior official who professed dismay about the state of his former employer. “This was impossible in my time, unthinkable,” he rued, expressing shock that the Bureau allowed Mills to remain involved in the investigation, including acting as Hillary’s personal lawyer, despite her own immunity.

How exactly Cheryl Mills got immunity, and what its terms were, is the long-awaited “smoking gun” in EmailGate, the clear indication that, despite countless man-hours expended on the year-long investigation, James Comey and his FBI never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton – or anyone – for her mishandling of classified information as secretary of state.

Why Comey decided to give Mills a get-out-of-jail-free card is something that needs proper investigation. This is raw, naked politics in all its ugly and cynical glory. Corruption is the tamest word to describe this sort of dirty backroom deal which makes average Americans despise politics and politicians altogether.

How high in this administration EmailGate went is the key question, and it’s been reopened by the latest tranche of redacted documents that the FBI released – on Friday afternoon, as usual. There are lots of tantalizing tidbits here, including the fact that early in Hillary’s term at Foggy Bottom, State Department officials were raising awkward legal questions about her highly irregular email and server arrangements.

Most intriguing, however, is the revelation that Hillary was communicating with President Obama via personal email, and he was using an alias. The alias he used with Hillary, and apparently others, was withheld by the FBI, and let it be said the fact that the president wanted to disguise his identity in unclassified email is not all that odd.

What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from “news reports.” How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, clintonmail.com address, not a state.gov account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.

Indeed, when she was being interviewed by the Bureau, Hillary’s ever-faithful sidekick Huma Abedin, was asked about President Obama’s emailing to Hillary using an alias. “How is this not classified?” inquired the mystified Abedin.

How indeed?

The fact that the FBI redacted the contents of that email indicates that is wasclassified, although it was sent to Hillary’s personal email and transited her personal server.

This, like so many aspects of EmailGate, seems destined to remain a mystery, at least for now. The State Department won’t release the full collection of Clinton’s emails until after our November 8 election. Just this week a Federal judge blasted Foggy Bottom for its slow-rolling: “The State Department needs to start cooperating to the fullest extent possible. They are not perceived to be doing that.” Nevertheless, thepublic won’t get to see all of Hillary’s emails until after Americans decide who the next president will be.

For Hillary Clinton, winning that election may be a legal necessity to protect her from prosecution. Congress, animated by these latest revelations of illegality and corruption, will now pursue her with vigor, while an FBI in the hands of Donald Trump seems likely to show an interest in EmailGate which the Bureau never possessed under President Obama.

Regardless, this story has emerged yet again to tar Hillary Clinton’s reputation at the worst possible time, when her campaign is lagging in the polls. We can be sure that her Republican opponent will mention EmailGate in Monday’s inaugural presidential debate. The Democratic nominee should have coherent answers about her email and server at the ready if she wants to avoid a debacle before the cameras.

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.

Why did feds grant immunity to Hillary’s ‘highly improper’ aide?

Cheryl Mills and Hillary Clinton Photo: AP; Reuters

Cheryl Mills and Hillary Clinton Photo: AP; Reuters

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 24, 2016:

If anyone would know Hillary consigliere Cheryl Mills’ reputation for obstructing investigations, it’s FBI Director James Comey. He complained about her lack of cooperation while probing Clinton scandals in the 1990s. Yet he agreed to give Mills immunity from prosecution in his probe of Hillary’s illegal e-mails as secretary of state, where Mills was chief of staff.

As a Whitewater investigator for the Senate in the mid-1990s, Comey sought information from Mills; but wouldn’t you know, the then-deputy White House counsel claimed a burglar stole her notes.

Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton ordered Mills to block investigators. The obstruction, the Senate committee found, included the “destruction of documents” and other “highly improper . . . misconduct.”

Two years later, Mills was in the middle of another Hillary scandal, involving the then-first lady’s integration of White House and Democratic National Committee computer databases.

This time the House subpoenaed information from Mills, who not only withheld the documents but, a government committee said, “lied under oath” — prompting staff lawyers to send a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury.

In 2000, a Commerce Department official testified that Mills ordered her to “withhold” from investigators e-mails and other documents exposing yet another scandal involving the first lady — the selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign cash.

At the same time, a federal judge suggested Mills helped orchestrate a cover-up that blamed a technical “glitch” in the White House archiving system that conveniently resulted in the loss of 1.8 million e-mails under subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky, Filegate and other scandal investigations.

Fast-forward to Hillary’s tenure as secretary. In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which to withhold from a review board. She also leaned on witnesses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

The FBI chief was fully aware of Mills’ M.O. when he launched his investigation. Yet even after discovering she was in the middle of everything improper, if not illegal, he treated her with kid gloves.

Comey knew it was Mills who had Hillary’s e-mails moved off her private unsecured server and onto laptops, where she decided which ones were government-related and OK for public release and which were “personal.” He knew it was Mills who shredded the e-mails that were printed out and who had the rest of the 31,000 e-mails deleted, and then had the laptops bleached clean.

And he knew it was Mills who told the Denver tech who maintained the server to stop retaining her e-mails and to delete Hillary’s archived e-mails, all of which the tech dutifully performed after Congress subpoenaed them and ordered them preserved.

Even so, Comey agreed to grant Mills immunity in exchange for her cooperation in the investigation. He also agreed to ground rules that left some lines of inquiry off-limits. When agents in April tried to pin her down on the procedures she used to search for Hillary’s e-mails under order, she and her lawyer stormed out of the room. So much for Comey’s cooperative witness.

Mills claimed such information was protected under “attorney-client privilege,” which is ridiculous. Mills was chief of staff for Hillary, not her lawyer, at the time Hillary was bypassing government security and squirreling away state secrets in her basement.

And even though Mills deleted the records after she left State and was supposedly acting as Hillary’s attorney then, privilege does not apply when a client seeks advice on how to commit a crime and the crime is committed.

Yet Comey’s agents abided by her claim and never pursued the line of questioning again. In effect, they gave her a pass on the whole question of the criminal obstruction behind which she looks to be the mastermind. And then, three months later, they let her sit in on Hillary’s interview even though Hillary was represented by attorney David Kendall!

Mills should be dragged before Congress to publicly answer questions the FBI refused to ask her. But she would just lie with impunity like she did in her past testimony involving other Hillary scandals.

Rather, it would be more productive to grill Comey under the klieg lights. Why did he give a key suspect who orchestrated the destruction of government records immunity as a witness? Why didn’t he demand prosecutors convene a grand jury to question Mills under oath? Was he pressured by the attorney general?

Sweating Mills could have cracked the case wide open. No one would have ever let H.R. Haldeman get away with editing the Nixon tapes. Why would the FBI director let Hillary’s chief of staff get away with deleting her e-mails?

Paul Sperry is author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the role of race-based Clinton housing policies in the mortgage bust.

Also see:

Muslim Brotherhood’s ties to the Obama Administration

obama-egypt-450x338-1Family Security Matters, by Slater Bakhtavar, Sept. 23, 2016:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

The above is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, and organization founded in Egypt in 1928 for the express purpose of rebuilding human civilization in a form consistent with the customs of Shariah (Islamic) law and instituting a global Muslim paradise. The group’s own original bylaws leave little for interpretation, declaring: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.” As can be expected, then, the Brotherhood has been an enemy of the free world since its inception, engaging in such malignant acts as aligning itself with the National Socialist (Nazi) party in Germany during World War II, openly committing terrorist acts on its own, and more recently, supporting other terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

By any reasonable measure, the Muslim Brotherhood should be an unambiguous enemy of any American, regardless of political stripe. That is why it’s profoundly disturbing to consider that the group has steadily risen in influence within the United States, most particularly within the Democratic party. We see this broadly in the findings of a 2014 analysis that shows Islamist campaign donations overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since 9/11, but a specific and disturbing example can be found in the person of Huma Abedin, Vice Chairwoman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and reportedly longtime personal friend of Mrs. Clinton. Through her family, Abedin has a number of troubling ties to extremist Islam in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Her father is known to have founded the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an academic publication that has been called a “sharia newspaper” by some. Her mother currently runs it, and Huma herself has worked as an editor on it.

Her brother introduces further suspicions of extremist loyalties. Abedin’s shady connections to the Muslim Brotherhood – which the Democratic party never fails to frantically deny or simply ignore – run so deep that five members of Congress wrote a letter in 2012 to the State Department Inspector General, listing her suspicious associations and contending that her family affinity with Islamic extremism disqualifies her from the sort of high level security clearance that would grant her access to someone like Hillary Clinton – an important and powerful person, and possible future President of the United States.

Huma Abedin’s role in American politics first rose to prominence when she served as a top adviser to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (again, their friendship stretches back considerably). Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has vastly strengthened its position within the US. Within that time period, the US government has reversed a standing policy against formal contact with the Brotherhood, went on channeling funds into Egypt despite the Brotherhood’s victory in post-Mubarak elections there, and hosted official Brotherhood delegations in the United States. Abedin’s level of involvement in these actions can be debated, but whether she is personally responsible or not, what is beyond question is that the Democratic party should not be coddling a known terrorist organization like this.

One would think the Democrats had learned their lesson when it comes to backing Muslim extremists. After all, that was their strategy in and immediately leading up to 1979, when they forsook the United States’ “stalwart ally” (as Ronald Reagan put it) in the Shah of Iran, effectively allowing the Islamic Revolution and the brutal, theocratic dictatorship that has followed ever since. Today Iran, once a generally friendly nation toward the United States and potential ally in the crucial Middle East, is a bitter enemy, its people strongly sympathetic to American ideals while its fundamentalist government denounces the US, and its absolute religious “Supreme Leader” works feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons.

In case it was not obvious, all of the above obviates the fact that it is in the best interests of the United States (and, ultimately, the people of the Middle East) to support secular leaders and causes. Especially in countries such as Iran and the northern part of the African continent, there are many younger and well educated people who are far less indoctrinated in the uncompromising religious dogma of the past than their elders. These are the people whom the West should be supporting, both abroad and at home – while being exquisitely careful to avoid allowing individuals like Huma Abedin to reach powerful positions within the United States.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an unambiguously dangerous organization with a shady and bloody past. It is imperative that the United States awake to the reality that this organization must be combated and avoided, not embraced, and that secular segments should be encouraged to flourish around the world – especially at home, and in the Middle East.

Slater Bakhtavar is an attorney, journalist, author and political commentator. He is author of “Iran: The Green Movement”. He has appeared on hundreds of network radio shows, including G Gordon Liddy, Crosstalk America, Les in the Morning, NPR,  Jim Bohannon Show and VOA.

Egyptian Leaders Praise Donald Trump, Blast Hillary Clinton After President El-Sisi Meets with Both Candidates

trump-el-sisi-ap-640x480Breitbart, by JEN LAWRENCE & DUSTIN STOCKTON, Sept. 21, 2016:

NEW YORK CITY, New York — Members of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations blasted Hillary Clinton just a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi met with both Clinton and Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump. They also had high praise for Trump—and while not an official endorsement, it is a positive outcome for Trump’s first and only meeting with Muslim world leaders thus far.

Egyptian officials expressed frustration and outrage over the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and expressed concern that a Clinton administration would continue to undermine Egyptian efforts to dismantle Brotherhood terrorists attempting to destabilize the democratically elected Egyptian government.

Ahmed Gad, a member of the Egyptian Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, told Breitbart News Tuesday night:

I think 90 percent of Egyptians would prefer Trump because he will not cooperate with terrorists. He [Trump] will not cooperate with Muslim Brothers and our main concern in Egypt now is terrorist attacks as you saw two days ago in the United States. We saw it daily in Egypt on the hands of Muslim Brothers so we know very well that Muslim Brothers are a terrorist group and we want to build up our democratic regime.

Many members of the Egyptian delegation spoke on the record exclusively with Breitbart News at an event to promote communication and unity between the United States and Egypt on Tuesday night. The event was organized by popular Egyptian media personality and host of American Pulse Dr. Michael Morgan, and featured several American foreign policy experts including representatives from the London Center for Policy Research and more than a hundred prominent Egyptians including members of parliament, leading media figures, government officials, and businessmen.

The Egyptian delegation interviews came as El-Sisi, in an interview with CNN, said that he has “no doubt” that Donald Trump would make a strong leader. El-Sisi also responded to a clip of Hillary Clinton accusing the Egyptian government of being “basically an army dictatorship,” during a debate with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He said, in part, that “in Egypt there will not be a chance for any dictatorship because in Egypt there is a constitution, there is law, and there is the will of the people which will refuse to allow any leader to stay in his position for any period longer than his term which is four years.”

The fact that El-Sisi and those from the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly here in New York City this week would speak so openly and positively about Trump—and so openly and negatively about Clinton—may surprise some. They are Muslim leaders and Egypt is perhaps one of the biggest and longest-standing Muslim nations in world history. Many establishment media outlets have painted Trump’s relationship with all Muslims as toxic, since he has expressed plans to temporarily ban Islamic migration into the United States. But El-Sisi, when asked about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban during his CNN interview, defended Trump.

“The United States in general conducts very strict security measures for everyone who wishes to visit it, which has been in place for quite a few years,” El-Sisi, the first Muslim world leader to meet with Trump, told CNN. “It’s also important to know that during election campaigns many statements are made and many things are said, however afterwards governing the country would be something different.  And will be subject to many factors.”

El-Sisi expressed these same sentiments in other interviews with the Egyptian delegation to the U.N.G.A. this week. At Trump’s meeting with El-Sisi, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn—the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for two years during the Obama administration—and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) were also present.

The Trump campaign said in a readout of the meeting sent to press:

Mr. Trump thanked President el-Sisi and the Egyptian people for what they have done in defense of their country and for the betterment of the world over the last few years. He expressed great respect for Egypt’s history and the important leadership role it has played in the Middle East. Mr. Trump expressed to President el-Sisi his strong support for Egypt’s war on terrorism, and how under a Trump Administration, the United States of America will be a loyal friend, not simply an ally, that Egypt can count on in the days and years ahead. Mr. Trump emphasized the strong partnership that the United States and Egypt have shared for so many years and how this relationship is vital to help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, broader region and the world. Mr. Trump also expressed his recognition of Egypt’s close relationship with Israel on countering terrorism.Mr. Trump highlighted how Egypt and the U.S. share a common enemy and the importance of working together in defeating radical Islamic terrorism, not only politically and militarily, but also addressing the ideology. Mr. Trump emphasized to President el-Sisi his high regard for peace-loving Muslims and understands that every day there are people of goodwill that sacrifice their lives and fortunes to combat the growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism. Mr. Trump said that if he were fortunate enough to win the election in November, he would invite President el-Sisi on an official visit to the United States and would be honored to visit Egypt and the Egyptian people who he has a great fondness for.

Clinton’s campaign described her meeting with El-Sisi as being successful as well. According to a Clinton aide:

Secretary Clinton and President Sisi had a constructive discussion about bilateral ties and cooperation on a wide range of issues, including counterterrorism. They also discussed the importance of economic development and investment in Egypt. Secretary Clinton emphasized the importance of respect for rule of law and human rights to Egypt’s future progress. Secretary Clinton called for the release of U.S. citizen Aya Hijazi and raised concerns about prosecution of Egyptian human rights organizations and activists. Secretary Clinton discussed ways to deepen counterterrorism cooperation, particularly in the fight against ISIS. She and President Sisi exchanged views about the Middle East, and Secretary Clinton underscored the importance of the Egyptian cooperation with Israel on counterterrorism, and her commitment to defeating ISIS, to addressing foreign fighters, and to countering radicalization.

However, the Egyptian delegations’ respective statements to Breitbart News do not reveal a positive aftermath for Clinton’s meeting.

But clearly, based upon El-Sisi’s interview with CNN and comments that the various members of the Egyptian delegation here made to Breitbart News, it is Trump not Clinton whom the Egyptian leadership wants to win the election.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Egyptian Chamber of Media Industry, Amr Fathy, took issue with Hillary Clinton’s claims that President El-Sisi is a dictator. “The signs you take as dictatorship is not dictatorship,” Fathy told Breitbart News. Of El-Sisi, Fathy added: “This is our president and we are behind him.”

“The Egyptian authorities they have already dealt with Hillary before; we did not deal with Trump,” Fathy explained about the meetings between El-Sisi and the American presidential candidates. “So, maybe we know now much more and better idea about Mr. Trump in specific.”

When asked about the coziness between Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood, Fathy showed just how damaging the Obama foreign policy directed by Hillary Clinton and her successor at the State Department, John Kerry, has been to America’s standing in the eye’s of the Egyptians. He said:

They [Muslim Brotherhood] were supported by the Americans and the Western world. Why? I don’t know. They did not come by democracy, they were not the people who came out on the 25th of January. They were not, the youth were the people who came out. We have our own identity, we are not a theocratic nation we have never been a theocratic nation. The American policy is always pushing for theocratic regimes and then when you have a theocratic regime you start crying.

One consistent theme among the Egyptians who spoke with Breitbart News was the deep distrust of Hillary Clinton. Dr. Morgan said of Egyptian President El-Sisi’s meetings with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on Monday:

President El-Sisi wanted to meet up with both candidates because he did not want to give Hillary a chance to use and abuse an indirect endorsement from a meeting with a President like El-Sisi. As evil as she is, she was going to go out into the media and say, ‘oh I have a good relationship with this man, I know foreign policy’ so he made sure that he would meet Trump as well to make sure the America public doesn’t think he supports Hillary. We know he would never support Hillary because Hillary is another eight years of Obama and Obama has been really bad for Egypt.

The members of the Egyptian Parliament that Breitbart News spoke with Tuesday night showcased the inclusive nature of the new Egyptian government under President El-Sisi. Among the representatives were two women, a Coptic Christian, and a 31-year-old man. One of the female Parliament members pointed out that a third of the Egyptian parliament members are under the age of 35.

One of those women, Sahar Talaat Moustafa, is the head of the Tourism and Civil Aviation Committee. When asked by Breitbart News how the Egyptian people see Hillary Clinton, she responded: “A lot of people in Egypt feel she is in support of the Brotherhood. Actually, a majority of people think so.”

Moustafa invited Americans to come visit Egypt and see for themselves.

“I invite you to come and see how things are going on in Egypt,” she said. “Everything is so smooth we are walking normally in the streets and there is no terrorism. Egypt’s is one of the safest countries to go.”

Ahmed Gad is a member of the Egyptian Parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee and he echoed the desire of the Egyptian dignitaries who spoke with Breitbart News for a better relationship with the United States, but also concern that under the Obama administration the United States sided with the wrong side in the Muslim Brotherhood. Gad said:

For us, it’s a very important signal that we want to resume our good relations but in the same time, I am speaking as a political researcher, frankly speaking, we are very disappointed from Obama’s policy towards our country. Because, by the way, I am a Coptic in Egypt so we suffered a lot under the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Some sort of cooperation between the American administration, Obama Administration, and the Muslim Brothers. We know very well that they are terrorists, they burned and destroyed over 100 churches in Egypt, and they killed a lot of Christians. They killed and are still killing a lot of Egyptians priests men and soldiers. At the same time the Obama administration is refusing to deal with the Muslim Brothers as a terrorist group.

Gad said that El-Sisi’s background as a general should not be taken to mean he is somehow running a “military dictatorship” as Hillary Clinton claimed.

“Yes, El-Sisi has a military background but he saved Egypt,” Gad said. “He restored the Egyptian identity.”

That’s why they seem to really want Trump elected in the United States.

Some of the members of the Egyptian Parliament did express concern that Donald Trump might have trouble restoring the relationship with Egypt because of the institutional nature of the American system of government and foreign policy. Many of the American foreign policy experts explained that the American President sets foreign policy and that a President Trump would have the authority to change the diplomatic course between the two nations.

“That’s why we are ready to cooperate with anybody who can fight the Muslim Brothers and frankly speaking, we are fighting terrorism on behalf of the Modern World,” Gad said.

The Mulish Stupidity of Clinton-Obama Counterterrorism

trumphillary-treasonNational Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, September 19, 2016:

As Rich notes, Hillary Clinton is essentially accusing Donald Trump of treason on the theory that his rhetoric aids and abets ISIS in recruiting Muslims because it affirms their narrative a war between Islam and non-Muslims. This is as stupid as would be a claim that Mrs. Clinton is guilty of treason – as opposed to mere idiocy – because, by refusing to acknowledge the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror, she and her policymaking cohort blind us to the motivation, objectives, and strategies of our terrorist enemies.

As I have previously recounted, when I prosecuted the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist cell in the mid-Nineties, the defense lawyers for the jihadists – who sounded just like today’s anti-anti-terrorist progressives – claimed that their clients had been lured into terrorist activity by U.S. government policy and by the enticements of a government informant who spouted Islam-against-the-world rhetoric. In response to this fatuous contention, we put a very simple question to the jury: “What would it take to turn you into a mass-murderer?” What policy could be so bad, what rhetorical us-against-them flourishes so inspiring, that a person would join the terrorist cause and commit acts of barbarism?

When a person with a modicum of common sense considers such a question, he or she knows that there could be no such policy. There is no controversial policy or figure that could cause a person to become a terrorist – not Gitmo, not harsh interrogation tactics, not Bosnia, not Abu Ghaib, not torched Korans, not anti-Muslim videos, not Donald Trump … or George Bush … or Dick Cheney … or Bill Clinton … or Pope John Paul II (the latter two of whom jihadists plotted to kill in the mid-Nineties).

Of course, all of these policies and people are exploited pretextually by jihadists in order to justify themselves and to play the West like a fiddle. But it’s all a side show. A person joins the jihad only if the person adopts jihadist ideology. A person is moved to commit mass-murder – an act that requires depraved indifference to the lives and the humanity of his targets – because there is no ideology as powerful as religious ideology, as the notion that God Himself has commanded the aggression because the infidels offend Him by their infidelity.

As I argue in today’s column, the roots of this fervor are found in Islamic scripture, which Islamic supremacists construe literally. Jihadists and their recruits care no more about Donald Trump’s bluntness (including his occasional over-the-top offensiveness, like threatening to kill the families of terrorists) than they do about Hillary Clinton’s inane, self-congratulatory nuance. In fact, regardless of which of them wins the presidency, jihadists will want to kill him or her, as they have wanted to kill all American presidents regardless of party. No matter who wins the presidency, jihadists will target America for mass-murder attacks, and will pretextually blame their actions on either Trump policies or Clinton policies, just as they blamed Bill Clinton’s, George Bush’s, and – yes – Barack Obama’s policies.

Perhaps the only thing more sadly hilarious than watching the political class tie itself in knots over whether a bomb should be called a “bomb” and whether a terrorist attack should be called a “terrorist attack” is Clinton’s claim that ISIS is rooting for Trump to be elected president. Newsflash: Jihadists don’t give a flying fatwa who wins American elections, or even whether there are American elections.

Islamic supremacists and their jihadist front lines are in the business of killing Americans and supplanting our constitutional republic with sharia. To claim that they care about our elections is to exhibit ignorance about who they are, who they think we are, and what they seek to achieve.

This is obviously news to Mrs. Clinton, but there is no point in speculating about what causes jihadist terror. As I explain in today’s column, the cause is Islamic supremacist ideology rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islamic scripture. We know this not because I’ve figured it out and am letting you all in on the big secret. We know it because our enemies have explained themselves in the bluntest of terms.

In an essay called “The Caliphate’s Multi-pronged War” for the current (35th Anniversary) issue of The New Criterion, I described a recent edition of ISIS’s Dabiq magazine. The issue, called the “Break the Cross” edition, included a feature that should be required reading across the West. It is called, “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You.” It asserts, among other things:

Your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, as we have been commanded to hate the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah [the poll tax for dhimmis]—for those afforded this option—and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims.

Even if you were to stop bombing us . . . we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

That is what causes terrorism, and it will continue to cause terrorism until the animating ideology of Islamic supremacism has been acknowledged, confronted, and marginalized to the point that influential Islamic authorities universally teach that the call to jihad in Islamic scripture is no longer operative in the modern world. That’s got nothing to do with Donald Trump … or, for that matter, with Hillary Clinton.

WARNING: Twitter Warns Twitter World that My Post on Clinton-Obama Counterterrorism MAY BE UNSAFE!

‘Aid and Comfort’: Clinton Suggests Trump Committed Treason

hillary-sized-770x415xc

PJ Media, by  Robert Spencer, Sept. 19, 2016:

Jennifer Epstein, a reporter for Bloomberg and clearly the very model of a modern Leftist journalist, asked Hillary Clinton today:

Are you concerned that this weekend’s attacks or potential incidents in the coming weeks might be an attempt by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers, or really any other group, maybe the Russians, to influence the presidential race in some way, and presumably try to drive votes to Donald Trump?

In response, the former secretary of State for a president who has given billions to the Islamic Republic of Iran — a country which ordered its people to chant “Death to America” every Friday in their mosques — accused Trump of treason.

She said Trump was being used as a “recruiting sergeant for terrorists,” and that “the kinds of rhetoric and language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.”

Giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy is not a simple colloquialism. The phrase is part of the legal definition of treason.

Trump was a traitor, in Clinton’s view, because:

[W]e know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists, people who number maybe in the maybe tens of thousands, not the tens of millions, they want to use that to recruit more fighters to their cause, by turning it into a religious conflict. That’s why I’ve been very clear. We’re going after the bad guys and we’re going to get them, but we’re not going go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it’s wanting in order for them to enhance their position.

How she proposed to distinguish the “bad guys” from the larger population of Muslims, Clinton didn’t say.

Nor did Clinton mention that hardly any Muslim organizations or authorities around the world have declared that someone who believes in the Islam of ISIS or al-Qaeda is not welcome in their mosques and Islamic schools.

“We’re going after the bad guys,” she said, on the same day the following was revealed:

[The Obama administration] mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants from countries of concern to national security or with high rates of immigration fraud who had pending deportation orders.…

Mistakenly awarding citizenship to someone ordered deported can have serious consequences because U.S. citizens can typically apply for and receive security clearances or take security-sensitive jobs.

Hardly a promising indication of how effectively the Obama administration has been “going after the bad guys.”

Clinton likewise did not address the point of Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on immigration from countries with a high incidence of jihad terror. Trump has not looked to demonize all Muslims or Islam as a whole, or to blame all Muslims for the crime of a few. In reality, Trump’s proposal is a recognition that there is no other means of preventing jihadis from entering the U.S. among peaceful refugees. There is no way to distinguish one from the other.

Trump’s proposal is a difficult but necessary measure. Clinton, on the other hand, has determined that seeing Americans killed in jihad attacks is preferable to stalling potential Muslim migrants.

Clinton really does believe that global jihad will be weakened if the U.S. refuses to acknowledge the motivating ideology behind jihad terror. She really does believe that jihad will be strengthened if we do. Her claim — that the Islamic State recruits on the basis of alleged “anti-Muslim rhetoric” from Western politicians — is based on the fact that the Islamic State and al-Qaeda often recruit on the basis of grievance narratives against the West.

But Clinton ignores that the Islamic State’s promotional material is filled, issue after issue, with explanations of the Qur’an and Islam that make it clear this isn’t ultimately a conflict about those grievances. The Islamic State is going out of its way to clear this up, as per the following passage from the most recent issue of Dabiq, their online magazine:

Even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.

No doubt they will continue to hate Hillary Clinton for not embracing Islam, no matter how much she employs comforting euphemisms rather than dealing honestly with the jihad ideology.

Also see:

An Ongoing Affront to Freedom: UN Resolution 16/18 and the Assault on Free Speech

1618webThat Hillary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.

CounterJihad, Sept. 17, 2016:

Often the worst attacks on liberty are camouflaged with shining names.  United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, among international governments’ worst assaults on the freedom of speech, was formally titled “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”

Who could be against that?  Certainly not Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, who hosted the conference to help the UNHRC implement this resolution.  She said that the United States was hosting this conference because the resolution captured “our highest values… enshrined in our Constitution.”  In fact, what the Constitution protects is the freedom to criticize any idea – religious or otherwise.  In fact, the Constitution forbids laws that establish any religion as beyond criticism, or as being especially protected by law.

Of course it will be no surprise that the real authors of 16/18 were members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  Hillary Clinton was the Obama administration’s point-person in working with the OIC.  Of course it will come as no surprise that the real thrust of 16/18 is preventing criticism of Islam or Muhammad.  Obama himself said that the future must not belong to those “who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

In fact, 16/18’s original text simply said that it forbade “Defamation of Islam,” and made no mention of defending any other faith.  Following the adoption of the resolution by the High Commissioner of Human Rights, who expanded it to other faiths as well, there was an intense push by the OIC nations to include “Islamophobia” as especially forbidden.  The focus on Islam expanded throughout the period of the resolution’s negotiation.

The UN’s Secretary General went so far as to say that the freedom of speech and expression did not extend to “insulting others.”  He said this in 2012, after the high profile murders of cartoonists critical of Muhammed.   He later claimed that 16/18 limited freedom of speech, which he called a “twisted negative logic,” a logic belonging only to the West and hostile to Islam.

It is an open question whether UN Resolution 16/18 endorses anti-blasphemy laws, but the OIC nations clearly believe that it does.  The fact that Secretary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.

***

Mark Christian Moment: Hillary’s Islamization of America. Mark discussed Hillary’s Islamization of America, focusing on Huma Abedin, the Muslim Brotherhood and other threatening connections.

Also see:

Frank Gaffney: Obama Seeks to ‘Shred What Is Left of the Constitution’ by Nullifying Senate’s Role in Treaty-Making

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 14, 2016:

“I think we are at a turning point nationally, where a choice is going to be made to reject the course that we’ve been on,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily.

“It’s not entirely clear to me that we know what the other choice is going to be,” he said, continuing:

But we’re going to see, I think, the American people saying, “You know, another Obama term – or perhaps more, and worse, than what we’ve been served up over the past eight years – is unacceptable to us. We can’t, perhaps, even survive it, as a nation.”

Gaffney said this gave him hope, and made him “feel better than I have about our country for some time, in that the public seems to be getting that choice, and it seems to me – this is maybe anecdotal or just entirely subjective – but I think they’re beginning to say, ‘Enough; we don’t want more of the same.’”

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow built on Gaffney’s comment about how Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy could be even worse than Obama’s, saying the Clintons think about “what the Clintons want, and not what’s best for the American people.”

“Again, you have an agenda, of which the Clintons have been a part for a long time, whether it’s a sort of trans-nationalism, whether it’s leftism,” said Gaffney. He added:

As you know, I’ve been particularly concerned about, with respect to Hillary most especially, has been her deep sympathy for Islamic supremacism. I don’t know how else to describe it. What we’ve seen her do, reflexively, throughout her time as secretary of state and in the period since, has been to espouse, and embrace, and empower, to fund, and in some cases, even to arm people who seek to impose this doctrine they call sharia on the rest of us.

“This is the sort of thing I think the American people are going to choose to say, ‘No more. We can’t afford that. We don’t want any part of it,’” he predicted, drawing further encouragement from news Marlow broke during the show about Donald Trump gaining five points in two days on the L.A. Times tracking poll. Gaffney called that “a trend in the right direction for our country.”

Marlow asked Gaffney about reports that President Obama would veto the bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for damages – a bill which passed the House unanimously last week.

Gaffney replied:

The argument is being made, of course, is that you’ve got considerations that will extend beyond the immediate question of whether the Saudis deserve to be sued, for what, I think, is unmistakably the participation of, not just their nationals in actually causing the attacks of 9/11, but in helping arrange those attacks. By the way, the Iranians are also implicated in a similar way, and should be subject to a similar suit.

But you’ve got people making the argument, “Oh, my gosh, we’re going to be ending up opening a true Pandora’s box to Americans being sued for a host of other reasons.” I come down on taking the Saudis to court, myself. I have to tell you, and I think the American people are there, and that’s why you see this overwhelming, probably veto-overriding, majority in the Congress.

He noted President Obama’s stated reason for vetoing the bill is that “we’re going to be subjecting our own people, our government, our personnel, to similar kinds of actions by other governments.”

However, Gaffney thought “at some level, at least, this is about protecting the Saudis.”

“Successive presidents, let’s be honest, Republican as well as Democrats, have been doing it for decades,” he pointed out. Elaborating, he said:

And it has enabled the double game that is – well, unfortunately, really, 9/11 is a prime example of it. They were able to lend, at the level of the Saudi ambassador to the United States – a deep personal friend of the George W. and George H.W. families – to engage in active material support for terrorism, as did his wife. And on and on. These are the sorts of things that, I think, would out, if there were a proper litigation that held them accountable.

“I think they should be held accountable, but I think the U.S. government doesn’t want to go there, quite apart from this other pretext that they’re concerned about being sued ourselves,” Gaffney said.

Marlow also asked for Gaffney’s take on the situation in North Korea, which just conducted its fifth illegal nuclear bomb test. Gaffney said there were “two critically important points” to be made:

One is that the North Koreans are a threat to the United States not just to our friends, and allies, and forces in their immediate area, but now increasingly to the continental United States itself. And that’s because they have been allowed, in part, enabled by a deal that Bill Clinton signed with them, back in 1994 – which was a fraud, not as great a fraud as the one Obama signed with the Iranians, but basically of a piece with it, and it set the stage for what we’re seeing now.

Nuclear weapons? Yes. Miniaturizing of those nuclear weapons? Yes. And placing them on longer and longer-range ballistic missiles, including, it appears, quite possibly, on missiles that are now sending into orbit satellites – which are circling, among other places, the United States, and could be platforms for delivering those nuclear weapons.

And perhaps the most dangerous so far imaginable, and that is an electro-magnetic pulse attack. These weapons seem to be optimized for that purpose. We’ve learned that they have a super EMP design that they got from old Soviet Union.

So these are very serious problems. That’s Point One. Point Two is, Alex, as you know, the President of the United States is in his last days, and determined to shred what is left of the Constitution of the United States. In the foreign policy area, where that is manifesting itself is in connection with doing things that eliminate, essentially, one of the most important checks and balances in our government, and that is the role that the United States Senate plays as a quality-control mechanism on treaty-making arrangements that the Executive Branch might engage in.

We’ve seen this flouted with the Iran deal, we’ve seen it flouted most recently with this so-called Paris climate change accord. Next up is a treaty the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, that the president would like to get the United Nations Security Council to do some kind of blessing of, that would then supplant the rejection of that treaty by an actual majority of the United States Senate, back in 1999.

Gaffney concluded:

The reason all this matters is that you’ve got the North Koreans testing nuclear weapons at will. I believe the Russians and Chinese are doing the same, albeit in a less obvious way. Everybody on the planet, in other words, that threatens us is using this kind of capability to modernize the threat they pose to us. And it’s real, and it’s growing. And the President of the United States is hoping to bind his successor never to be able to modernize – or, I’m afraid, even maintain our nuclear deterrent.

LISTEN: